Citation
Attitudes Toward Wildlife and the Kruger National Park in the Makuleke Villages, South Africa

Material Information

Title:
Attitudes Toward Wildlife and the Kruger National Park in the Makuleke Villages, South Africa
Creator:
Eguren, Antonieta
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
Project in lieu of thesis

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Biodiversity conservation ( jstor )
Communities ( jstor )
Crops ( jstor )
Economic benefits ( jstor )
Environmental conservation ( jstor )
Villages ( jstor )
Wildlife ( jstor )
Wildlife conservation ( jstor )
Wildlife damage management ( jstor )
Wildlife management ( jstor )

Notes

Abstract:
After they suffered removal from the Kruger National Park (KNP) in 1969, and later gained ownership of the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP) within KNP, the Makuleke community became an example of a CBNRM program; however the socioeconomic impacts of these events as well as the attitudes of the villagers toward wildlife and KNP have yet to be explored. After being forcibly removed from KNP during apartheid, the Makuleke community recovered their land in 1996 under the condition that it be used for conservation purposes and that it remain protected within the KNP. Currently the community owns approximately 24,000 ha of KNP, managed through a Communal Property Association (CPA) that seeks to realize the benefits from this land (tourism, jobs, game meat, etc). In the context of this CBNRM program 141 surveys were conducted in order to identify the attitudes of people toward wildlife and the KNP, and to explore the underlying factors that might influence these attitudes. ( ,, )
Abstract:
The results reveal that economic incentives resulting from the CPA are not perceived by the whole community. Only eight of 141 respondents have received some type of benefit from the CPA in the last year. Nevertheless, the respondents have positive attitudes toward both wildlife and the KNP. The most common reasons given by the respondents for their positive attitudes toward wildlife were non-economic motives, such as aesthetic and religious reasons. Half of the respondents reported that conflicts with wildlife had decreased in the last five years, but another 40% believed the level had stayed the same or increased. Virtually all respondents favored protection of wildlife, although their reasons focused on social, not biological reasons. Age, residency status (relocated from Old Makuleke, born in New Makuleke or migrant), and village of residency were shown to have significant influence in people's attitudes toward wildlife. Finally, more than half of the respondents perceived the KNP as valuable for their community, and 2 agreed that park managers treat them with respect, although more contact with park managers would be desirable.
Abstract:
Low levels of benefits and participation highlight the need for improvement in the governance structure and decision making process of the CPA, permitting local communities to have more voice in decisions about the park and distribution of its benefits. While park managers and conservation biologists have emphasized goals of conserving biodiversity, and promised economic benefits to local communities, residents interviewed reported receiving few tangible benefits but nevertheless held highly positive values of wildlife protection efforts due to their potentially positive social benefits.
General Note:
Sustainable Development Practice (MDP) Program final field practicum report
General Note:
The MDP Program is administered jointly by the Center for Latin American Studies and the Center for African Studies.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Antonieta Eguren. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
1039729344 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EEUC4FLRC_BSI5SI INGEST_TIME 2016-04-19T22:49:53Z PACKAGE AA00031690_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

ATTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE AND THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK IN THE MAKULEKE VILLAGES, SOUTH AFRICA Antonieta Eguren A Field Report Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For A Master Of Sustainable Development Practice Degree At The Unive rsity Of Florida, FL USA April 2015 Supervisory Committee: Brian Child, Chair Marianne Schmink, Member

PAGE 2

ii A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to ex press m y gratitude to my committee chair Professor Dr. Brian Child , who has been supportive and encou raging bef ore, during and after my field practicum . I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to explore new places and for allowing me to grow as a practitioner during that experience. I would also like to thank my committee member Professor Dr. Marianne Schimink, whose work showed to me other ways to appro ach conservation and development issues. Thank you for encourage me to look a little further and for motivate me to challenge my own knowledge. Special thanks to the team that accompanied me in the field. Thank you Nico Makhubele and Lisbeth Ramothwala fo r your invaluable help in Makuleke. I also want to thank my colleague Alex Sprague, whose professionalism and support were essential to develop our work in South Africa. In addition, I would like to thank the MDP program for its financial support during my years of stud y through the Latin American and Caribbean Book Scholarship, and in the field through the Field Practicum Funding Grant. Special thanks to their Director Dr. Glenn Galloway for his advice on both practicum and career. I also want to thank the National Comm ission for Scientific and Technological Research of Chile (CONICYT) for their financial support during these two years of study. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unconditional support. All that I am today is because of you Toño and Carola, you are my inspiration and my personal heroes. At the end I would like express appreciation to my beloved husband Felipe, words cannot express how grateful I am for your support and love at all times.

PAGE 3

iii T ABLE OF C ONTENT Acknowledgements ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ ii List of tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... iv List of figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... iv Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3 2. Literature review ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5 2.1. Wildlife, parks and people in South Africa ................................ ................................ ................. 5 2.3. Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) ................................ .................. 7 2.4. Kruger National Park and Makuleke Contractual Park ................................ ............................. 8 3. Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 11 3.1. Study area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11 3.2. Household livelihood surveys ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 3.3. ODK tool ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 15 3.4. Data analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 4. Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 4.1. General results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 17 4.2. Benefits and opinions of the CPA ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 4.3. Attitudes toward wildlife ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18 4.4. Human wildlife conflict ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 21 4.5. Wildlife protection ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 4.6. Attitudes toward Kruger National Park ................................ ................................ ..................... 24 4.7. Underlying factors ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 5. Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 30 5.1. Limitations of the instrum ent ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 30 5.2. Attitudes toward wildlife and knp ................................ ................................ .............................. 31 1. Conclusions and recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 32 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 35 Appendix I ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 40

PAGE 4

iv L IST OF TABLES Table 1. Surveyed households by village and estim ated percentage of the total number of households per village ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 Table 2. Categorization of qualitative answers to the question: why do you like wildlife? ............ 19 Table 3. Categorization of qualitative answers to the question: why don't you like wildlife? ........ 20 Table 4. Opinions questions regarding the management of KNP and its relatio nship with the Makuleke community. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 25 L IST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Makuleke community and Makuleke Contractual Park (Old Makuleke). ............. 11 Figure 2. Polygon of Makahlule village with randomized points. ................................ ......................... 13 Figure 3. Translators conducting household surveys in Makahlule (left) and Makuleke (right) (Sourc e: Antonieta Eguren). ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 Figure 4. Reasons for positive attitudes toward wildlife. Percentage of respondent by category. 20 Figure 5. Reasons for negative attitudes toward wildlife. Percentage of respondent by category. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21 Figure 6. Changes in the frequency of domestic animals attacked or eaten by wildlife in the last five year s. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Figure 7. Changes in the frequency crops eaten or damaged by wildlife in the last five years. ... 22 Figure 8. Reasons given by the respondents to the question: Why do you think wildlife protection is a good thing?. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 23 Figure 9. Valuation of KNP by respondents of the Makuleke community. ................................ ........... 25 Figure 10. Percentage of responses for each of the six categories of reasons for positive attitudes toward wildlife by five influencing factors. ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 Figure 11. Percentage of responses for the two categories of reasons for negative attitudes toward wildlife by five influencing factors. ................................ ................................ ............................... 28 Figure 12. Valuation of KNP by the three Makuleke villages (Makuleke, Mabilig we and Makahulele). ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 29 Figure 13. Valuation of KNP by residency. ................................ ................................ ............................... 30

PAGE 5

1 A BSTRACT After they suffered removal from the Kruger National Park (KNP) in 1969 , and later g ained ownership of the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP) within KNP, the Makuleke community became an example of a CBNRM program ; however the socioeconomic impacts of these events as well as the attitudes of the villagers toward wildlife and KNP have yet to be explored. After being forcibly removed from KNP during apartheid , the Makuleke community recovered their land in 1996 under the condition that it be used for conservation purposes and that it remain protected within the KNP. Currently the community own s approximately 24,000 ha of KNP , managed through a Communal Property Association (CPA) that seeks to realize the benefits from this land (tourism, jobs, game meat, etc). In the context of this CBNRM program 141 surveys were conducted in order to identify the attitudes of people toward wildlife and the KNP , and to explore the underlying factors that might influence these attitudes. The results reveal that economic incentives resulting from the CPA are not perceived by the whole community . O nly eight of 14 1 respondents have received some type of benefit from the CPA in the last year. Nevertheless, the respondents have positive attitudes toward both wildlife and the KNP. The most common reasons given by the respondents for their positive attitudes toward wildl ife were non economic motives , such as aesthetic and religious reasons. Half of the respondents reported that conflicts with wildlife ha d decreased in the last five years, but another 40% believed the level had stayed the same or increased. Virtually all r espondents favored protection of wildlife, although their reasons focused on social, not biological reasons. A ge , residency status (relocated from Old Makuleke, born in New Makuleke or migrant), and village of residency were show n to have significant infl uence in people's attitudes toward wildlife . Finally, m ore than half of the respondents perceived the KNP as valuable for their community, and

PAGE 6

2 agreed that park managers treat them with respect, although more contact with park managers would be desirable. L ow levels of benefits and participation highlight the need for improvement in the governance structure and decision making process of the CPA, permitting local communities to have more voice in decisions about the park and distribution of its benefits . Whi le park managers and conservation biologists have emphasized goals of conserving biodiversity, and promised economic benefits to local communities, residents interviewed reported receiving few tangible benefits but nevertheless held highly positive values of wildlife protection efforts due to their potentially positive social benefits .

PAGE 7

3 1. I NTRODUCTION Protected area (PA) creation is often critiqued for its negative socioeconomic impacts on local communities who often have pre existing claims, histo rical settlements, and strong cultural ties to traditional territories later converted to formal PAs through state action (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Brockington, Igoe, & Schmidt Soltau, 2006 ¸ Wilkie, et al., 2006). Such problems are especially acute among trad itional populations forcibly resettled from their traditional territories to make way for a PA, who may suddenly lose access to the resources on which their traditional livelihoods are based, with little input into decisions about their fate (Colchester, 2 000; Fabricius & de Wet, 2002; West, Igoe, & Brockington, 2006) . Despite the ecological benefits of the establishment of the KNP , this is embedded in a s ocio ecological context that has been frequently omitted or looked at from a narrowed scientific perspe ctive . The South African community of Makuleke represents a particular case study to evaluate perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife and parks due to its history of displacement and current ownership of the MCP within KNP. Established in the Pafuri Tria ngle since the 1830s (Ramutsindela, 2002) the Makuleke community was formed by a pproximately 2,000 people before the expansion of KNP and their eventual displacement (Steenkamp & Uhr, 2000) . The c ommunity was forcibly removed from KNP in 1969 during apart heid. The v illage s were burned and people were transported in trucks to their new home 32 miles to the south. The new settlement formed by three villages was less than 25% of the size of Old Makule ke with different conditions to their previous territory, one of the most biodiverse areas of KNP (Tapela & Omara Ojungu, 1999) . In 1996, after return to democracy, the community claimed their land back supporte d by the restitution of the Land Rights Act. After two years of negotiations with the government, the community recovered their land under one main condition: that the land must be used for conservation purposes and remain protected within KNP. Currently, the Makuleke

PAGE 8

4 Community owns approximately 24 ,000 ha of KNP under the management of the Communal Property Association (CPA). Facing the impossibility of returning to their lands, the CPA sold rights for the construction of three luxury tourist lodges and cu rrently leases them to external companies. The rental revenues from the lodges are managed by the CPA and meant for community development projects and/or individual benefits for the Makuleke inhabitants , representing a Community Based Natural Resource Mana gement (CBNRM) program . Historicall y, Makuleke has been seen as an example of success in Southern Africa (Dressler, et al., 2010 ; Fabricius & Collins, 2007; Steenkamp & Uhr, 2000 ). The devolution of t he land and establishment of a C BNRM project were two f undamental steps that placed Makuleke in a privileged place in comparison with other communities. Still, a potential gap existed between the biodiversity conservation objectives of the KNP park managers and creators, and the goals and needs of the neighbo ring rural communities in terms of poverty alleviation, property rights, access to natural resources, and economic benefits distribution from the KNP. Under these conditions, this study explored to what extent restoration of lands and establishment of a C BNRM were perceived by local residents to have improved their conditions, provided benefits, and led to favorable local attitudes towards the park, the CBNRM, and wildlife. Data regarding the attitudes of local people toward wildlife and parks have been ef fective in a ssessing the success of policy implementation (e.g. damage compensation; park employment quotas for locals) and as a guide for management actions and decisions by park managers and other stakeholders (Browne Nu ñez & Jonker, 2008) , particularly in cases where conservation objectives are mixed with development projects . With this goal in mind , the author worked under the umbrella of a USAID RESILIM (Resilience in the Limpopo River Basin Program) program in partn ership with the Southern Afric an Wildlife College (SAWC). This program aims to develop proactive and novel training approaches to increase the resilience of villages in the Limpopo

PAGE 9

5 Basin. A team of local translators and two UF master students carried out l ivelihood surveys in the three villages that form t he Makuleke community i n order to asses s the socio economic status of the community and people's percep tions of wildlife , the CBNRM and the KNP . This study aims to explore and understand the attitudes of t he Makuleke inh abitants toward wildlife and KNP and their perceptions of benefits from the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP) . Additionally, it aims to identify some underlying factors that might be influencing these attitudes, such as education le vel, level of income , gender, and age. This knowledge will help to inform park managers, researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and the CPA about the Makuleke villagers current opi nions regarding wildlife and KNP. This information might also be used to prioritiz e avenues for future actions and gain a better understanding among stakeholders . 2. L ITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. W ILDLIFE , PARKS AND PEOPLE IN S OUTH A FRICA The socio economic impacts of PAs have gained an important place in the discussion regarding the establishment of PAs (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Brockington, Igoe, & Schmidt Soltau, 2006¸ Wilkie, et al., 2006). Nonetheless, these impacts have been historically overlooked by conservation biologists and park creators and managers when designing and creating PAs . In this co ntext, the relationship between local people and nature becomes a political issue involving local rural communities facing conflicts over their traditional rights and access to land and resources (Adams & Hutton, 2007) . Theref ore , the social dimension of the creation and maintenance of PA s must be analyzed and incorporated to the discussion in order to ensure successful biodiversity conservation (Wilkie, et al. , 2006).

PAGE 10

6 In the particular case o f South Africa and the KNP , there i s a history of conflict dating from the days of colonialism. Many black families were re moved from their lands for the creation of game reserves in the 1900 1920 period, to later co nvert them to a National Park ( KNP ) (Ramutsinde la, 2002) . Later in the 30's, and under the claim of sanitary protection of the valuable wildlife against the foot and mouth epidemic, hundreds of livestock heads were sacrificed around the park, increasing the negative perceptions of the locals toward t he park (Mabunda, Pienaar, & Verhoef, 2003) . A partheid policies increased the segregation of black people from the PAs in South Africa, prohibiting the recruitment of black people (except as laborers) to work in the park, desi gnating inferior nature reserves for black tourists , and marginalizing blacks from any kind of benefit from the PAs (Mabunda, Pienaar, & Verhoef, 2003) . As a result, local communities historically have paid a high cost for wi ldlife protection, with little to no influence in the decision making process, limited benefits from tourism, and restricted access to natural resources. Nevertheless Brandon Anthony (2007) described how attitudes toward the KNP are not completely negativ e. In fact, from the surveyed population around the KNP he found that 88.7% of people had po sitive perceptions of the park. Negative attitudes were mostly related with the lack of benefits from the park, and the lack of interest by park officials in the we ll being of neighboring communities , a pattern found in other parts of Africa (Newmark, et al., 1993) . C ertain features of the surveyed household s such as wealth, education level, and presence of a member currently employed in a PA seem ed to positively inf luence people 's attitudes toward PA s across different countries and regions ( Anthony, 2007; Infie ld, 1988; Newmark, et al., 1993 ). Human wildlife conflict , on the other hand , also has shaped the attitudes of local communities toward wildlife across Africa (Anthony, Scott, & Antypas, 2010) . The KNP is no exception ; an important number of household s in surrounding communities (12% between 2002 and 2004) suffered damage from wildlife incursions in their crops and homesteads every year (Anthony,

PAGE 11

7 Scott, & Antypas, 2010) . The lack of capacity to solve these types of conflict by park officials results not only in negative attitudes toward wildlife, but also toward the park. In the particular case of Makule ke, by 1997 half of the respondents reported having experience d serious incidents with wildlife during the last five years, including losses of crops, livestock and damage to their properties (Tapela & Omara Ojungu, 1999) . 2.3. C OMMUNITY B ASED N ATURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT (CBNRM) In the past, conservation was seen as an effort to protect biodiversity from negative human interference, and development was seen one of the main causes of biodiversity loss (Brown, 2002) . Nevertheless, the linkage between promoting conservation and sustainable livelihoods has been widely developed over the past decades in an effort to reconcile conservation and development goals, in addition to recognizing the need for i nvolvement of local people in conservation efforts (Kremen, Merenlender, & Murphy, 1994; Salafsky & W ollenberg, 2000). The most appealing feature of this strategy lies in the prospect of preserving biodiversity while simultaneously reducing rural poverty (Kiss, 2004) , w hich makes th ese approaches m ore politically and economically acceptable for both communities and governments (Newmark & Hough, 2000) . CBNRM represents one model of linking conservat ion and development. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF, 2014) , defines CBNRM as recognizes the rights of local people to manage and benefit from the management and use of natural resources. It entails transferring natural resource access and use rights back to communities, empowering them with legislation and devolved management responsibility, and building their capacity by creating partnerships with the public and privat e sector actors to develop programs for the sustainable use of the resources . " In other words, CBNRM not only involves a devolution and definition of property rights ove r natural resources, but also collective action carried out by the community itself (Child & Barnes, 2010) . Additionally, due to the benefits resulting from

PAGE 12

8 CBNRM projects (e.g. cash transfers, game meat, job), these projects have been shown to have the potential to shape people's attitudes toward wildlife and parks in positive way (Mehta & Heinen, 2001) . CBNRM has a long history of success and failures. The CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe was one of the first programs in Southern Africa to view wildlife as a renewable natural res ource with value. This, and its emphasis on involving local people livi ng in and around P A s , led to its initial success as a pioneer in CBNRM under a highly uncertain political situation (Child, 1996) , a lthough the susta inability of the program has been questioned. The criticisms and failures faced by CBNRM programs have included its top down implementation in some cases, the dependency on external interventions, its lack of sustainability, problems with benefit sharing, and its lack of capacity to tackle problems such as the weakness of the institutional structure in communities , so necessary to reach the goals of CBNRM programs (Dressler, et al., 2010) . An additional critic ism of CBNRM prog rams is their tendency to commodify natural resources such as wildlife. One of the main foci of CBRNM is to provide economic benefits to local communities through an utilitarian approach which gives economic value to resources that might not have be en seen as profitable goods before (Dressler, et al., 2010) . In this way it is thought communities will gain interest in conservation efforts , assuming that other non economic benefits from nature are not enough motivation for locals to conserve biodiversity in the way that is expected by park managers and conservationists . This goes in line with new conservationist policies in industrialized an d developing countries that aim to use economic rationality as the basis for conservation e fforts (Virtanen, 2003) . 2.4. K RUGER N ATIONAL P ARK AND M AKULEKE C ONTRACTUAL P ARK During what was called the game preservation era from 1900 1925 several games reserves were created in the middle region of what it is today the KNP. The main objective of these efforts

PAGE 13

9 was rebuild the game populations for the entertainment of wealthy white game hunters. In 1926 all these small reserves previously created were merged to form the KNP . A year later , the first tourists entered the par k , starting a new era for this now famous national park (Mabunda, Pienaar, & Verhoef, 2003) . Later in 1957 the Secretary of Native affairs declare d that all inhabitants of the Pafuri Triangle where the Makuleke Community was l ocated were hunters and illegal occupants, and therefore should evacuate the land as soon as possible (Ramutsindela, 2002) . The community relied mainly o n the abundant natural resources of the area to survive, including grassl ands and wildlife (Tapela & Omara Ojungu, 1999) . The Makuleke inhabitants were consider ed to be hunters by the white people in power , which in their vision not only threatened the wildlife, but also allowed the "natives" to li ve in their territories without contributing labor to the South African society (Ramutsindela, 2002) . During this same period the KNP started to be fenced and expanded , which put more pressure on the occupation of the park by indigenous groups. Finally in 1969 the Makuleke Community was displaced from the Pafuri Triangle to their new home 32 miles to the south and outside of the park limit s. It is thought that Chief Minga who was in control of the area where the Makuleke Commu nity was moved had some influence in the relocation , and claimed to be in control of the three villages that formed the Makuleke Community , dismissing the authority of Chief Makuleke (Ramutsindela, 2002) ; this conflict is curr ently still ongoing. After the return to democracy in 1996 the Makuleke Community formed the Makuleke Communal Property Association (CPA) in order to claim their land back supported by the restitution of the Land Rights Act. A ccording to the directive boar d, the CPA consists of all people who used to live in Old Makuleke and currently live in one of the three villages of the Makuleke community, as well as residents who later came to live in the community. The governmental land restitution programme aimed to address issues related with land rights of communities that were dispossessed during the

PAGE 14

10 apartheid regime. After years of negotiation s the CPA regained the title of their old land (24 ,000 of the Pafuri Triangle) under the condition that it be used for con servation purpose and remain protected within KNP. During the negotiations to recover their land the CPA acted as the legal representative of the communities, and when the land claim was resolved, the CPA became the owner of the Pafuri Triangle in KNP (Steenkamp & Uhr, 2000) , now called the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP). The MCP wa s leased for use as part of KNP and managed through a Joint Management Board (JMB) which is formed by three representatives of the South African Na tional Park ( SANParks ) agency and three elected representatives of the Makuleke CPA. The JMB aims to conserve and manage the MCP in a way that generates socio economic benefits for the CPA members. During the years after the successful restitution of th e l and to the Makuleke CPA, the community was able to negotiate with the private sector and establish a Built Operate Transfer (BOT) agreement with two different private partners. Today the MCP boast s two world class lodges (The Outpost and Pafuri Camp) and a n international accredited wildlife college (The Eco Training Initiative). These ecotourism entities not only generate rental revenues, but also provide job op portunities for the CPA members. Originally it was expected to generate 150 full time jobs for th e community and about a million Rands per year in revenues. The revenues obtained are managed by the Makuleke CPA and are meant for community development proj ects and/or individual benefits. Projects that has been developed in the past include t he electrif ication of two of three villages, school and clinic improvements, and training opportunities for community members. Nevertheless, is not well describe d in the literature what are the current levels of benefits, transparency, and participation of CPA member s (ordinary CPA members, non representatives in the JMB) in the management of the MCP.

PAGE 15

11 3. M ETHODS 3.1. S TUDY AREA The Makuleke community, located in the northeast region of Limpopo Province, South Africa, is comprised of three villages: Makuleke, Mabiligwe and Makahlule. The Makuleke community was originally located in the northernmost corner of KNP (Figure 1 ) close to the border with Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Nowadays, the Makuleke Community is located 32 miles to the south in the west border of KNP. Figure 1 . Map of Makuleke community and Makuleke Contractual Park (Old Makuleke). 3.2. H OUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD S URVEYS Over a period o f 45 days 1 7 1 livelihood surveys were conducted in three villages of the Makuleke Community . In order to assess the welfare of the families living in these three villages, we evaluated several attributes including wealth, income, consumption/spending, use of natural resources and social capital through a comprehensive survey. The questionnaire used was developed fol lowing the guidelines given by CIFOR (Liswanti, et al. , 2012) and several

PAGE 16

12 questionnaires previously used in the region. Additionally, specific questions regarding people's attitudes toward wildlife and parks were included in the general questionnaire . 3.2.1. S urv ey design During the months preceding the field practicum the objectives and purpose of the survey were established. Once the scope and focus were clear, a revision of multiple surveys administered in similar places to our study area was conducted in order to cho o se the relevant questions for both sets of objectives , those of the overall USAID RESILIM project (livelihoods assessment) and my personal research ( attitudes toward wildlife and parks) . Previous experiences in Africa ( Anthony B. , 2007; Browne Nuñ ez & Jonker, 2008; Infield, 1988; Newmark, Leonard, Sariko, & Gamassa, 1993; Newmark & Hough, 2000) were important resources to adapt the questions and make them simple and understandable for the respondents. Once in South Africa the survey was enriche d u sing information collected in a focus group conducted in the village of Utah, Mpumalanga, that represented a similar context to our final study area in Limpopo. A group of 10 people including men and women discussed different topics such as the natural res ources used in the area, the local names for those resources, crops grown in the area, conflictive wildlife, and existing community organizations. With a final draft , the survey was programmed for its use in the ODK application for Android tablets. Details of the tool and its use are described in a later section. During the first weeks of field work the survey was piloted in 30 households including the specific questions to assess people's perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife and parks (Appendix I ) . Du ring this stage it became clear that Likert scale questions and close d questions were not totally appropriate for the context. Likert scale questions were narrowed from 5 to 3 choices, while some close d questions were enriched with a qualitative component following the close d question. For example the

PAGE 17

13 question Do you like wildlife? was completed with a following question of Why? . The first thirty surveys lack ed this qualitative component that became essential for the interpretation of the results, and ther efore were taken out from the 171 surveys, given a total of 141 final surveys for this particular study. The three villages, Makuleke, Mabiligwe, and Makahlule have an approximate number of households of 1,000, 650, and 450 respectively. Initially the samp le size we established was 10% of each village. Due to logistical and time constraints this initial goal was not accomplished . R andom sampling was used to ensure that the sample was representative of the study area. In the absence of formal data on the num ber of households and their locations, a randomization method using GIS was created . Using Google Earth, a polygon was drawn surrounding each village. Thereafter, using the software QGIS a number of points (10% of each village) were randomly generated and numbered inside of each polygon (Figure 2 ). Figure 2 . Polygon of Makahlule village with randomized points. GPS units were programmed with all the points and each team of field researchers was given a list of points to use for th e day. The house located closest to the point was chosen to conduct a

PAGE 18

14 survey. If no one was available to do the survey in the closest house, the next closest house was chosen and the GPS point was taken at that house. 3.2.2. Planning and training of the team Dur ing the first days in Makuleke three local translators (two males and one female) were trained . Additionally, two more people from the SAWC were trained during week 3 of the survey's implementation (one male and one female). The main objective of the train ing was to generate a thorough understanding of the pur pose of the work, the survey and the meaning of every question. The translators also learned about the ethical considerations of conducting a household survey and the importance of follow ing the survey exactly as it was written. The training was a mix between short lecturing and participatory a ctivities such as role playing. During this phase the timeli ne and logistics for the implementation stage were planned. Additionally, a meeting with the chief of the communities was arranged in order to obtain his permission to conduct the survey. The purpo se of the study and the timeline of the field work were clearly explained to the chief receiving a positive response from him . 3.2.3. Implementation of the survey The f inal version of questionnaire was develop ed in English ; nevertheless, an important part was its translation to Shangaan , especially those questions that involved opinions of the respondents . In the households, the survey was conducted completely in Shangaa n (Figure 3 ). Each household was approached by a team of one person in charge of entering the data on the tablet, and a second person (the translator) in charge of asking the questions. The criteria used to sel ect respondents included that was a person old er than 18 years, a permanent resident of the households, and had enough knowledge about the functioning of the household.

PAGE 19

15 Figure 3 . Translators conducting household surveys in Makahlule (left) and Makuleke (right) (Source: Anto nieta Eguren). 3.3. ODK TOOL Open Data Kit (ODK) is a free and open source set of tools designed to help organizations collect and manage data through mobile devices . The use of the ODK tool required three steps: translating the survey from the paper form t o a code readable by the program (ODK Build) , collecting the data in the field (ODK Collect) , and aggregating the data on a server and exporting it to an Excel file for further analysis (ODK Aggregate) (ODK, n.d) . The ODK webs ite (opendatakit.org) provide d a good amount of information to translate the paper survey into the coded version needed for the program. The survey questions previously chosen were coded in an excel sheet following th e guidelines , and then uploaded i nto th e ODK Collect tool which is an app for android devices. Four tablet devices (Samsung Galaxy 3, Model SM T210) were used during the collection stage in order to simultaneously collect and enter the information from the surveys. The translators were trained in the use of the devices ; nevertheless, their knowledge regarding mobile devices was already advanced.

PAGE 20

16 3.4. D ATA ANALYSIS Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in order to assess the attitudes of people toward wildlife and KNP . Details of the an alysis of each type of data are given in the following sections. 3.4.1. Analysis of quantitative data Quantitative data obtained from dichotomous ( yes /no ) questions, multiple choice questions, and L ikert scale questions were analyzed using descriptive measures s uch as proportions and percentages. Additionally, statistical analysis (logistic regression) was conducted to evaluate the presence of significant relationships between the answers and specific attributes of the respondents, such as lev el of education, inc ome quartile , and gender. 3.4.2. Analysis of qualitative data Ope n ended questions were conducted following several yes/no question s in order to encourage people to explain their opinions , and obtain the "why" behind their answers. The responses were usually brie f (no more than two sentences), which greatly simplified their coding. The coding was mainly descriptive due to the simplicity of the answers and it was reviewed several times during the a nalysis in order to avoid assumptions and misinterpretations (Miles & Huberman, 1994) .

PAGE 21

17 4. R ESULTS 4.1. G ENERAL RESULTS In total, 14 1 household surveys were conducted between June 3 rd 2014 and July 11 th 2014 in the three villages that form the Makuleke community in Limpopo province, South Africa (Ta ble 1). Table 1 . Surveyed households by village and estimated percentage of the total number of households per village Village Number of HH surveyed Estimated number of HH % of total HH Makuleke 42 1,000 4.2 Mabiligwe 56 600 9. 3 Makahlule 43 450 9.6 Total 14 1 2,050 68.8 The questionnaire sample consisted of 112 females (79.4) and 29 males (20.6%), ranging from 18 to 83 years old (mean=39, SD=15.4). Factors such as HIV incidence (22.1% ) and migration to urban areas in search for jobs might be the underlying factors that are contributing to th is unbalance (Gia nnecchini, Twine, & Vogel, 2007 ; Twine, 2013) . The mean years of residency in the community for the surveyed population was 25 years (SD: 13.9 ) ; 26 respondents (18.6 %) were residents of the Old Makuleke and moved to the New Makuleke in 1969, 48 were born in the community ( 34.3 % ), and 66 (47.1 %) moved to the community in recent years . Most ( 61.7% ) of the respondents were liv ing below the poverty line established by the South African government in 52 4 R per person per month (± $45 USD) , and 54% were unemployed at the moment of the survey. More information regarding the livelihood strateg ies of the Makuleke villages is analyzed

PAGE 22

18 in the report "Baseline Livelihood Report for Makuleke Community, South Africa" developed by Alex Sprague and the author for the Southern African Wildlife College. 4.2. B ENEFITS AND OPINIONS OF THE CPA Of the 14 1 respondents , o nly eight reported receiving some t ype of benefit fr om th e CPA during the last year. These benefits were in the form of game meat ( n= 2), training ( n= 4), 50kg of maize ( n= 1), and travel to KNP ( n= 1). N o respondent reported receiving cash benefits from the CPA during the last year. Moreover , only 10% of the respondents were able to name a project developed by the CPA during the last two years. Examples of those projects are the creation of a chicken farm, the construction of toilets, and an e ducational program where they took the children to the old Makuleke and KNP. When people were asked about what should be the priorities for future projects developed by the CPA the most common responses were the creation of jobs and an improvement of education . O n the other hand, cash benefit s were mentioned by less than 20 people (14%) . Overall there was little awareness of the main role s and responsibilities of the CPA, particularly by the youngest respondents . 4.3. A TTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE A simpl e question was used to identif y the attitudes of people to ward wildlife : Do you like wildlife? Followed by the question: W hy?. Three quarters ( 76% ) of the respondents answered affirmative ly to the first question. T he answers to the second question of "W hy? " in both cases, affirmative and negative, were diverse. Positive answers were coded and categorized in 7 different categories (Table 2 ). These were not interpretative, but rather descriptive due to the length of the answers (short answers).

PAGE 23

19 Table 2 . Categorization of qualitative answe rs to the question: why do you like wildlife? C ategory Description Part of Nature Wildlife is part of nature/ Is a natural thing Aesthetic Wildlife is beautiful and nice to see For future generations I t i s important that future generations be able to see a nd know the local wildlife Religious Wild animals are G od's creatures Provides meat Wildlife sometimes provides meat Tourism and KNP Wildlife lives in the park and attracts tourists Other Answer did not match in any other category The following senten ces represent some examples of the answers given by the respondents to the question Why do you like wildlife?: "Because it makes our country more beautiful" "Because the giraffe is be autiful ; I like its appearance" "Because they are creatures of God" "Because they [wildlife] live nearby in KNP and we don't have problems with them" Figure 4 shows the percentage of people by each category of responses. T he sum of all categories is highe r than 100% due to the fact that some respondents were classified in more than one category (e.g. "I like it because I want future generations to be able to know the animals , and also it generates benefits from tourism . " It is clear that non economic reaso ns for positive attitudes toward wildlife are more frequent than reasons based on economic benefits such as meat , or benefits derived from touristic activities.

PAGE 24

20 Figure 4 . Reasons for pos i tive attitudes toward wildlife . P ercentage of respondent by category. The same process was conducted for the negative attitudes toward wildlife. Table 3 sho w s the descriptive categories for the reasons of negative responses to the question Do you like wildlife?. The following sentences represent so me examples of negative responses given by the surveyed people to the previous question: "Because wild animals are very dangerous. All big five are very dangerous" "They [wild animals] damaged the fence that used to protect my small farm. Elephants in part icular are very bad" "Because they are going to kill us if they come" Table 3 . Categorization of qualitative answers to the question: why don't you like wildlife? Category Description Wildlife is dangerous Wildlife is dangerous bec ause it can kill people Generates damage Wildlife destroy s fences and crops and eats livestock Other Answer did not match in any other category 21.5 20.6 19.6 15.9 11.2 12.1 8.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 Part of nature Aesthetic For future generations Religious Provides meat Other Tourism and KNP Percentage Reasons for positive attitudes toward wildlife (n=107)

PAGE 25

21 Three quarters ( 7 6 .5 % ) of the respon ses for negative attitudes toward wildlife were supported by statements that wildlife is dangerous and can kill people and children. On the other hand, 29 .4 % of the responses were based on the capacity of wildlife to damage people's property, such as destroy ing fences and crops , and eat ing livestock and poultry (Figure 5 ). Figure 5 . Reasons for negative attitudes toward wildlife. Percentage of respondent by category. 4.4. H UMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT According to the respondents the degree of human wildlife conflict in the Makuleke villages is low , and mainly affects people who raise livestock and grow crops close to the KNP fence . Over half ( 53% ) of the respondents reporte d a decrease in the number of domestic animals (livestock, poultry, goats, etc) killed by wildlife during the last five years (Figure 6 ). L ikewise, 51% reported a decrease in the number of crops eaten and/or damaged by wildlife during the last five years ( Figure 7 ). Yet , 40% of the respondents believe d that there had been an increase or no change in the level of conflict with wild animals. Moreover, nine respondents reported wildlife destroying or eating their crops, and four reported wildlife killing their livestock or poultry during the last year, which gives 7% of the respondents experiencing some type of conflict during the last year. I n addition, in Mabiligwe a respondent mentioned that two months before the survey a buffalo 76.5 29.4 2.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wildlife is dangerous Generates damage Other Percentage Reasons for negative attitudes toward wildlife (n=34)

PAGE 26

22 escaped from KNP and came close to the village , where the neighbors decided to kill it and divide the meat among the group . Figure 6 . Changes i n the frequency of domestic animals attacked or eaten by wildlife in the last five years. Figure 7 . Changes in the frequency crops eaten or damaged by wildlife in the last five years. 4.5. W ILDLIFE PROTECTION The respondent s were as ked their opinion regarding wildlife protection. Virtually all ( 97% ; n=137) of the respondents agreed that wildlife protection is a goo d thing . Nevertheless the reasons why they think wildlife protection is a good thing are diverse and not really related w ith Decreased 53% Increased 11% Not changed 19% Don't know 17% Frequecy of attacks to domestic animals (n=141) Decreased 51% Increased 9% Not changed 19% Don't know 21% Frequency of damage to crops (n=141)

PAGE 27

23 the biological goals of wildlife protection (Figure 8 ). Only 6% (n=7) of the respondents mentioned a reason that matches with conventional wildlife protection goals, such as the decrease of poaching events. Wildlife protection as understood by conserva tion biologists and park managers is a concept that may be too narrowly technical for the respondents, or might not have translated well in to the T shangaan language (perhaps misinterpretation as protection from wildlife) . In any case results showed clearly that community members surveyed value wildlife protection in very different ways from these outside actors. People relate wildlife protection with park fences, which translates in to less encounters with wild life, and therefore less damage to people. This p oint is clear in the following responses to the question why do you think wildlife protection is a good thing? : " "Because we are afraid of the animals , so it is good tha t they are far ; elephants are very big " "If they come out here they can kill livestock and are dangerous for people" Figure 8 . Reasons given by the respondents to the question: Why do you think wildlife protection is a good thing ?. 57 22 10 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Makes people be safe Less damage For future generations Conservation Percentage Why do you think wildlife protection is a good thing? (n=115)

PAGE 28

24 4.6. A TTITUDES TOWARD K RUGER N ATIONAL P ARK The respondents were asked about the value (in terms of benefits) of KNP. The majority of the respondents ( 68.1 %) agreed that the park is valuable in some way ; 38.3% said the park was valuable particularly for thei r communit ies ; while 29.8% said it was valuable for everybody (community, international tourists, park workers , etc) (Figure 9 ) . On the other hand , 16.3% of the respondents said the park was valuable for others but not for their communit y. For example some peo ple from Mabiligwe said that the park was valuable for the Makuleke vi llage but not for their village because Makuleke was the only village receiving benefits from the CPA and KNP , even when the data do not reflect this uneven distribution of benefits . The following sentences represent some examples of answers given by the respondents to the question Do you think the KNP is valuable for your community and/or others people? : t i s valuable for the community because if there is a problem they [KNP st aff] co me and "[KNP] is valuable for others , not the community , because predators from Kruger attack livestock and there is no compensation" "All people are allowed to visit the park, so it is valuable for everyone" "International people are all owed to visit KNP so the park is valuable for other people , but not for this community"

PAGE 29

25 Figure 9 . Valuation of KNP by respondents of the Makuleke community. Additionally, three questions assessed the opinion of the respondents re garding the management of KNP (Table 4 ). In general , people agreed that KNP staff care s about the communities and treat them with respect, but they would be more satisfied if park managers had more frequent contact with the community . One particular respondent mentioned that she would like to meet with people from the park to talk about possible conflicts with wildlife. Table 4 . Opinions questions regarding the management of KNP and its relationship with the Makuleke community. Opinions r egarding KNP Responses People from the Kruger park care about us 66% Agree Parks managers treat us with respect 68% Agree More frequent contact between the community and park managers would be desirable 74% Agree 38.3 29.8 16.3 13.5 2.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Our community Everyone Others Don't know Not valuable Percentage The KNP is valuable for... (n=141)

PAGE 30

26 4.7. U NDERLYING FACTORS The attitudes towa rds wildlife and parks are shaped by several factors such as history, culture, gender and livelihood strategies, among others (Browne Nuñez & Jonker, 2008) . In order to assess these factors, a series of logistic regressio ns were conducted for each category of response (aesthetic, religious, dangerous, etc) for both positive and negative answers to the question Do you like wildlife?. Figure 10 shows the percentage of responses for each of the six categories of reasons for positive attitudes toward wildlife by five main influencing factors: education level, income quartile (1= poore st , 4=riche st ), age range, residency status (relocated from Old Makuleke, born in the New Makuleke or migrant from other places), and by village. Gender was left out of the analysis due to the unbalanced number of females compared with males (112 and 29 respectively). Income quartile, age range, village of residency , and residency status showed a significant influence in the reasons for po sitive attitudes toward wildlife. Main findi ngs of this analysis suggest that respondents from middle and higher income quartiles are more likely to indicate the importance of wildlife for future g enerations over other reasons for positive attitudes toward wildlife. On the other hand aesthetic reasons for positive attitudes toward wildlife were more likely to be named by younger respondents, respondents from Mabiligwe, and respondents born in one of the Makuleke villages. Regarding the influencing factors for the reasons for negative attitudes toward wildlife there is no statistical significan ce, although there are marginally significant relationships (Figure 11) . For example respondents with higher levels of education are more likely to associate wildlife with danger compared with conflict. The same relationships is observed for migrant people , which might be related to the fact that migrant people have been less exposed to conflict with wildlife during their life compared with relocated respondents or respo ndents born in the villages.

PAGE 31

27 Figure 10 . Percentage of responses for each of the six categories of reasons for positive attitudes toward wildlife by five influencing factors: education l evel, income quartile (1= poorest , 4=riche st ), age range, residency status (relocated from Old Makuleke, born in the New Makuleke or migrant from other places), and village. Red starts indicate significant differences (<0.05), green starts indicate marginally significant differences ( < 0.08 ).

PAGE 32

28 Figure 11 . Percentage of responses for the two categories of reasons for negative attitudes toward wildlife by five influencing factors: education level, income quartile (1= poorest, 4=richest), age range, residency stat us (relocated from Old Makuleke, born in the New Makuleke or migrant from other places), and village. G reen starts indicate marginally significant differences ( < 0.08).

PAGE 33

29 T he question use to assess the valuation of KNP by the respondents was a multiple option question thus was not possible to apply a logistic regression and assess the level of importance of the influencing factors for this answers, nevertheless, some tendencies are observed in the graphical representation of the responses. Particularly in the case of the valuation of KNP by village (Figure 12), around 37 % (±4) of the respondent s from the three villages found the park to be valuable especially for their community. On th e other hand respondents from Mabiligwe were more likely to say that the park was valuable for everyone (their community and others), while a 29% of respondents from Makuleke perceive d the park as valuable only for others (e.g. international touri sts). This last observation is interesting considering that Makuleke holds the office of the CPA ; thus it is thought by the other communities that they have more contact w ith th e CPA board and KNP staff . Figure 12 . Valuation of KNP by the three Makuleke villages (Makuleke, Mabiligwe and Makahulele). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Our community Everyone Others Don't know Not valuable Valuation of KNP by village (n=141) Makuleke Mabiligwe Makahlule

PAGE 34

30 Regarding the valuation of KNP by residency (Figure 13), respondents that were born in any of the three villages of Makuleke were more likely to consider the park valuable f or everyone (community and others) compared with rel ocated and migrant respondents . Figure 13 . Valuation of KNP by residency. Relocated=resident of Old Makuleke relocated to the New Makuleke, Born=person born in the New Makuleke , Migrant=person from outside the Makuleke villages but current inhabitant of one of the three villages. 5. D IS CUSSION 5.1. L IMITATIONS OF THE IN STRUMENT The study was not free from the usual limitations that arise in the field. On e the main limitations of the inst rument (survey) was its translation from English to Tshangaan by local field assistants. Due to the fact that one of the goals of the study was to actively involve local people in th e development of the study, field assistants were expert in the context ; n onetheless their level of education was limited , which slowed down the process of translation and full understanding of the instrument. Additionally, some English word s do not have an exact translation to Tshangaan , changing the whole meaning of the questi on ; therefore, the questions had to be adapted several times during the piloting stage. These limitations were addressed in part by the incorporation of 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Our community Everyone Others Don't know Not valuable Valuation of KNP by residency (n=141) Relocated Born Migrant

PAGE 35

31 qualitative questions ; however it was not possible to include a qualitative component in each of the sections (e.g. human wildlife conflict, park perceptions). Future research should incorporate additional open ended questions and other qualitative components in the form of personal interviews to key informants , and participatory methodologies such as par ticipatory timelines and discussion groups . 5.2. A TTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE AND KNP The commodification of natural resources has been a common approach for projects that aim to merge conservation goals with development initiatives, such as CBNRM projects. This has been particularly the case in Africa where wildlife is highly valuable for trophy hunting and tourism . H owever , this approach has been questioned by some authors due to the consequences that a utilitarian framework for conservation may have ov er human s perceptio ns and relationship with nature, especially in the long term (Gómez Baggethun, et al. 2010; Rees, 1998 ). For the surveyed population in the Makuleke Community , wildlife is important mainly for non economic reasons such a s aesthetic and religious concerns and its importance for future generations. Despite the fact that the community owns a piece of KNP and has the potential to make profits from it , non economic benefits prevailed in the perceptions of the respo ndents. Economic ben efits can shape positive attitudes toward wildlife (Infield, 1988; Lewis, Kaweche, & Mwenya, 1990), and CBNRM project s in particular have been found to have the potential to positively influence these attitudes mainly due to the delivery of economic benef its (Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Mehta and Heinen, 2001). However, non economic benefi ts are equally valid motives for conservation not only in Makuleke but in many other regions and cultures around the world (Rozzi, 2013) . Non e conomic benefits at the same time can be more sustainable over time and might be already embedded in the culture, and future economic benefits from the MCP may actually help to reinforce this non economic value of wildlife for the Makuleke inhabitants.

PAGE 36

32 On the other hand, the majority of the respondents ( 68%) recognize some value from the KNP either for their co mmunity in particular or for everyone. The fact that the community was displaced from the park might represent a bias in the sense that the community has deep roots and attachment to the land and therefore consider s it valuable even in the pre sence of few economic benefits. Nonetheles s, 74% of the respondents reported that more frequent contact between the community and park managers would be desirable. Consider ing that participation in decision making processes by community members constitute s a critical factor to maintain positive attitudes toward PAs (Infield, 1988) th e s e results should not be overlooked. 1. C ONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND ATIONS Historically , the Makuleke community has been seen as an example of success in Southern Africa (Dressler, et al., 2010; Fabricius & Collins, 2007; Steenkamp & Uhr, 2000 ) , and apparently it was during the first decade. The devolution of the land and establishment of a CB NR M project were two fundamental steps that placed Makuleke in a privileged place in comparison with othe r communities, b ut this was not enough to enhance t he livelihoods of the community . The data obtained from the survey and observa tion al data collected by the author show few benefits generated for local communities, and a general unawareness regarding the CPA and the potential benefits from it. Several factors may be playing a role in the deterioration of this CBRNM project . I t is n ot a coincidence that some CBNRM projects do better than others , and the socio historical context of the se communit ies is a key point (Armitage, 2005) . When the Makuleke community was removed from KNP the traditional authorit y of the new area (chief Minga) came in to conflict with the authorit y of the just arrived (chief Makuleke). This conflict over who should be in control of the Makuleke villages is still ongo ing and weakens the governance structure of the community. In additi on, r espondents named problems such as the lack of representation and transparency in the

PAGE 37

33 CPA management, which is related with the high level of centralization that the CPA governance currently has. I t seems to be a lack of collective action in the commun ity that might help to improve the capacity and functioning of existing institutions (CPA and JMB), not only to be more accountable with the inhabitants of the villages but also to increase the potential benefits from the park. Fabricius & Collins ( 2007) propose seven strategies to promote good governance in CBNRM, including develop ing knowledge netw orks, establish ing form aliz ed decision making structures, defin ing conflict resolution procedures, and develop ing the capacity for facilitation to promote communication. Develop ing strategies such the ones named above seems to be critical for the future d evelopment of the Makuleke Community through their CBNRM initiative. Even so, in general terms the respondents showed positive attitudes toward wildlife and the KNP. There are little or no economic incentives for these positive attitudes, but non economic benefits from wildlife and parks (e.g. aesthetic) seem to be important for the respondents. In addition, the respondents reasons for valuation of wildlife protection did not match with the conventional biological reasons managed by conservation biologist s and park managers. The main goal of wildlife protection according to the conventional view is to ensure the maintenance of viable wildlife populations. For community members , on the other hand , wildlife protection is important to mai ntain their own prote ction, which is associated with the existence of the fence that sep arate s the KNP from the villages , and reduces human wildlife conflict events that nevertheless still take place , according to the respondents. Both views are equally valid and not excl usive ; moreover these results help to inform outsiders (e.g. park managers and conservationists ) in how to frame wildlife protection in a way that is relevant for the Makuleke Community. Overall the results of this study show that economic benefits from t he CPA, especially in the form of d evelopment projects, are desired by the Makuleke Community members but are not essential to maintain positive attitude s toward wildlife and KNP. While park managers and conservation

PAGE 38

34 biologists have emphasized goals of conserving biodiversity, and promised economic benefits to local communities, residents interviewed reported receiving few tangible benefits but neverthe less held highly positive attitudes toward wildlife and the park . These results should be taken as an opportunity to inform different stakeholders (e.g. park managers, researchers, practitioners, CPA, etc.) and to prioritiz e avenues for future actions based on the vision of the community. More qualitative studies regarding the changes experienced by the community in terms of socio cultural aspects and livelihood strategies may help to plan these future venues with the community itself . The community already recovered their land, now they must reap the benefits while recover ing their voice and con trol over their own future.

PAGE 39

35 R EFERENCES Adams, W. M., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation and Society , 147 183. Anthony, B. P., Scott, P., & Antypas, A. (2010). Sitting on the fence? Policies and practices in managing human wildlife conflict in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Conservation and Society , 8 (3), 225. Anthony, B. (2007). The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger Na tional Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation , 34 (3), 236 245. Armitage, D. (2005). Adaptive capacity and community based natural resource management. Environmental management , 35 (6), 703 715. Brockington, D., Igoe, J., & Schmidt Soltau, K. A. (2006). Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology , 20 (1), 250 252. Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal , 168 , 6 17. Browne Nuñez, C., & Jonker, S. A. (2008). Attitudes tow ard wildlife and conservation across Africa: a review of survey research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 13 (1), 47 70. Browne Nuñez, C., & Jonker, S. A. (2008). Attitudes toward wildlife and conservation across Africa: a review of survey research. Human D imensions of Wildlife , 13 (1), 47 70. Child, B. (1996). The practice and principles of community based wildlife management in Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE programme. Biodiversity & Conservation , 5 (3), 369 398. Child, B., & Barnes, G. (2010). The conceptual ev olution and practice of community based natural resource management in southern Africa: past, present and future. Environmental Conservation , 37 (3), 283 295. Colchester, M. (2000). Self determination or environmental determinism for indigenous peoples in tropical forest conservation. Conservation Biology , 1365 1367.

PAGE 40

36 Dressler, W., Büscher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C. A., et al. (2010). From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmen tal conservation , 37 (1), 5 15. Fabricius, C., & Collins, S. (2007). Community based natural resource management: governing the commons. Water Policy , 9 , 83 97. Fabricius, C., & de Wet, C. (2002). Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement, and Sustainable Development. In D. Chatty, & M. Colchester, The influence of forced removals and land restitution on conservation in South Africa (pp. 142 157). United Kingdom: Berghahn Books. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object ev aluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E.Petty, & J. A. Krosnick, Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247 282). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Giannecchini, M., Twine, W., & Voge l, C. (2007). Land cover change and human environment interactions in a rural cultural landscape in South Africa. The Geographical Journal , 173 (1), 26 42. Gillingham, S., & Lee, P. C. (1999). The impact of wildlife related benefits on the conservation at titudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation , 26 (03), 218 228. Gómez Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from e arly notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics , 69 (6), 1209 1218. Infield, M. (1988). Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation , 45 (1), 21 46. Ka iser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the Theory of Planned Behavior With the Value Belief Norm Model in Explaining Conservation Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 35 (10), 2150 2170. Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (198 7). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 363 371.

PAGE 41

37 Kiss, A. (2004). Is community based ecotourism a good use of funds? Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 19 (5), 232 237. Kremen, C., Merenlender , A. M., & Murphy, D. D. (1994). Ecological Monitoring: A Vital Need for Integrated Conservation and Development Programs in the Tropics. Conservation Biology , 8 (2), 388 397. Lewis, D., Kaweche, G. B., & Mwenya, A. (1990). Wildlife conservation outside p rotected areas lessons from an experiment in Zambia. Conservation Biology , 4 (2), 171 180. Liswanti, N., Shantiko, B., Fripp, E., Mwangi, E., & Laumonier, Y. (2012). Practical guide for socio economic livelihood, land tenure and rights surveys for use in collaborative ecosystem based land use planning. Borgor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. Mabunda, D., Pienaar, D. J., & Verhoef, J. (2003). The Kruger National Park: A century of Management and Research. In J. d. Toit, H. Biggs, & K. Rogers, The Kruger Experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity (p. 519). Washington DC: Island Press. Mehta, J. N., & Heinen, J. T. (2001). Does community based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from N epal. Environmental management , 28 (2), 165 177. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Early Steps in Analysis. In M. B. Miles, & A. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook (pp. 50 88). London: SAGE Publications. Newmark, W. .., & Hough , J. L. (2000). Conserving wildlife in Africa: integrated conservation and development projects and beyond. BioScience , 50 (7), 585 592. Newmark, W. D., Leonard, N. L., Sariko, H. I., & Gamassa, D. G. (1993). Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation , 63 (2), 177 183. ODK. (n.d). Home: Open Data Kit . Retrieved March 10, 2014, from Open Data Kit: http://opendatakit.org/ Pickens, J. (2005). Attitudes and perceptions. In N. Borkowski, Organizational Behavior in Health Care (pp. 43 75). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

PAGE 42

38 Pollard, S., Schackleton, C., & Carruthers, J. (2003). Beyond the Fence: People and the Lowveld Landscape. I n J. d. Toit, H. Biggs, & K. Rogers, The Kruger Experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity (p. 519). Washington DC: Island Press. Ramutsindela, M. F. (2002). The perfect way to ending a painful past? Makuleke land deal in South Africa. Geo forum , 33 (1), 15 24. Rees, W. E. (1998). How should a parasite value its host? Ecological Economics , 25 (1), 49 52. Reid, H. (2001). Contractual national parks and the Makuleke community. Human Ecology , 29 (2), 135 155. Rozzi, R. (2013). Biocultural Et hics: From Biocultural Homogenization Toward Biocultural Conservation. In R. Rozzi, S. Pickett, C. Palmer, J. J. Armesto, & J. B. Callicott, Linking ecology and ethics in a changing world (pp. 9 33). Netherlands: Springer. Salafsky, N., & Wollenberg, E. (2 000). Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity. World Development , 28 (8), 1421 1438. Steenkamp, C., & Uhr, J. (2000). The Makuleke Land Claim: Power relations and community based natural resource management. IIED. Tapela, B. N., & Omara Ojungu, P. (1999). Towards bridging the gap between wildlife conservation and rural development in post apartheid South Africa: the case of the Makuleke community and the Kruger Nat ional Park. South African geographical journal , 81 (3), 148 155. Twine, W. (2013). Multiple strategies for resilient livelihoods in communal areas of South Africa. African Journal of Range & Forage Science , 30 (1 2), 39 43. Vining, J., Ebreo, A., Bechtel , R. B., & Churchman, A. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behaviour. Urbana , 51 , 61801. Virtanen, P. (2003). Local management of global values: Community based wildlife management in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Society & Natural Resource , 16 (3), 179 190. West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. , 35 , 251 277.

PAGE 43

39 Wilkie, D. s., Morelli, G. A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M., Telfer, P., & Steil, M. (2006). Parks and People: Assessing the Human Welfare Effects of Establishing Protected Areas for Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology , 247 249. WWF. (2014). Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) for Capacity Building in Southe rn Africa . Retrieved February 2, 2014, from World Wildlife Fund for Nature: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/project/projects_in_depth/cbnrm/

PAGE 44

40 A PPENDIX I Questions from livelihood s survey related with the study presented in this report and adapted from an ODK to a paper format . Crops a nd damage 1) Please describe/provide information about how much of your crop did you lost last year due to the following reasons: a) Poor rainfall : 1. None 2. A little 3. Some 4. Most 5. All 6. Don't know b) Crop pest (mice or insects) 1. None 2. A little 3. Som e 4. Most 5. All 6. Don't know c) Crop disease 1. None 2. A little 3. Some 4. Most 5. All 6. Don't know d) Hail or strong wind 1. None 2. A little 3. Some 4. Most 5. All 6. Don't know e) Livestock eating and trampling 1. None 2. A little 3. Some 4. Most 5. Al l 6. Don't know f) Theft 1. None 2. A little 3. Some 4. Most 5. All 6. Don't know g) Wildlife 1. None 2. A little 3. Some 4. Most 5. All 6. Don't know h) In case g) was 2, 3, 4 or 5. Which wildlife damaged the crops? 1. Elephants 2. Birds 3. Antelope

PAGE 45

41 4. Monkeys 5. Other :__ _________ Livestock and poultry losses 2) How many cattle/chicken/goats/donkey/pigs/ducks died in the last 12 months? (each question separate and included in the section for each animal) 3) What was the cause of death? a) Disease b) Predator c) Injury d) Theft/escape e) Not enough food f) Not enough water 4) If previous answer was b) Which animal killed your cattle and how many? (write the name of the predator and number of animals killed) CPA benefits The next section refers to the benefits to your household received from the C PA in the last year 1) Did your household receive meat from the CPA during the last year? YES/NO 2) What is the estimated value of this benefit? ____________ 3) Did your household receive money from the CPA during the last year? YES/NO 4) How much money did you receiv e? Or what is the estimated value of this benefit? _______________ 5) Did your household receive training or education from the CPA during the last year? YES/NO 6) Did your household receive any other benefit from the CPA not mentioned before? YES/NO a) In case YES in previous question. Which benefit? __________ b) How much money did you receive? Or what is the estimated value of this benefit? ___________ 7) Do you know about any projects from the CPA in 2013 and 2014? YES/NO 8) What projects from t he CPA do you know about? __ _______________________________ 9) In what ways do you think the CPA could help your village in the future? (all that apply) a) Education b) Health c) Cattle d) Crops e) Jobs

PAGE 46

42 f) Community fund g) Cash benefits to households or individuals h) Other Human Wildlife Conflict 1) In your vi ew the number of livestock killed by predators (like lions, snakes, civets, etc) has: a) Increased b) Not change c) Decreased d) Don't know 2) In your view the amount of crops eaten or damaged by wild animals has: a) Increased b) Not change c) Decreased d) Don't know Attitudes T oward Wildlife 1) Do you like wild animals (wildlife)? YES/NO 2) Why? _________________________ 3) Do you think the protection of wild animals is a: a) Good thing b) Bad thing c) Not important d) Don't know 4) Why? _________________________ Attitudes Toward KNP 1) Do you think The Kruger National Park is: a) Valuable for your community b) Valuable for other people not your community c) Valuable for everyone d) Not valuable e) Don't know f) Other 2) Do you agree or disagree with the following statements: a) People from the Kruger park care about us 1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

PAGE 47

43 4. Don't Know b) Parks managers treat us with respect 1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree 4. Don't Know c) More frequent contact between the community and park managers would be desirable 1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree 4. Don't Know


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EO0HLC2PC_PDC3R0 INGEST_TIME 2016-04-21T20:51:35Z PACKAGE AA00031690_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES