Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing local communities’ perceptions towards conservation of transboundary wildlife resources: the case of the Great Limpopo Trans-frontier Conservation Area

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Local communities’ perceptions of protected areas are important determinants of the success of conservation efforts in Southern Africa, as these perceptions affect people’s attitudes and behaviour with respect to conservation. As a result, the involvement of local communities in transboundary wildlife conservation is now viewed as an integral part of regional development initiatives. Building on unique survey data and applying regression analysis, this paper investigates the determinants of the perceptions of local communities around the Great Limpopo Trans-frontier Conservation Area in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Our results illustrate that people perceiving the park as well-managed tend to have more positive perceptions regarding the benefits from the park, rules governing the park, and wildlife conservation in general. Household expertise on resource extraction, in turn, tends to make people more likely to perceive environmental crime as morally acceptable. Furthermore, the results indicate that if people perceive the rules of the park in a negative way, then they are less likely to conserve wildlife. Receiving benefits from the park has a positive impact on people’s perceptions of the rules governing the park, as well as on their perception of wildlife conservation in general, but not on perceptions about environmental crime. Surprisingly, perceived high levels of corruption is positively associated with people’s perception of wildlife benefits and with perceptions of that environmental crime is morally justified. There is also evidence of the role of socioeconomic variables on people’s perceptions towards wildlife. However, unobservable contextual factors could be responsible for explaining part of the variation in people’s perceptions. Our results speak to the literature on large-scale collective action since perceptions of wildlife benefits, corruption, environmental crime, park management and rules governing the parks, all affect local communities’ ability and willingness to self organize. These variables are interesting because they can be influenced by policy through training and awareness campaigns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We employed instrumental variables estimation with heteroscedasticity-based instruments because of endogeneity issues. The endogeneity problem and this technique are discussed in more detail in the methodology section.

  2. Local communities around the Limpopo National Park (LNP) in Mozambique are also part of the GLTFCA, but they are not included in the study.

  3. Freeriding, in our case, means that some users tend to benefit on the conservation effort of others thereby generating the incentive in the group to overexploit the resource if they assume that everybody else is doing so.

  4. Environmental crime include all human activities that are classified as illegal, e.g., poaching, harvesting firewood in protected areas, gold panning.

  5. The CAMPFIRE project was established by the government of Zimbabwe with the aim of balancing both conservation and developing goals (Murombedzi 1999).

  6. The socio-economic variables included the respondent’s age, gender, level of education, employment status and household income.

  7. If we reached the end of the household list before collecting the required number of households, we restarted the sampling process selecting a different starting point at random on the list. The target sample was exceeded in all communities except in three, i.e. Dopi, Gondweni and Mugiviza.

  8. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to test for significance differences between two medians.

  9. This method estimates an instrumental variables regression model providing the option to generate instruments and allowing the identification of structural parameters in regression models with endogeneity in the absence of traditional identification information such as external instruments (Chao et al. 2012; Lewbel 2012; Rigobon 2003). Identification is in this context achieved by having explanatory variables that are uncorrelated with the product of heteroscedastic errors (Lewbel 2016; Baum et al. 2013). Instruments may be constructed as simple functions of the model’s data (Lewbel 2012). As a result, the approach can be applied in cases where no external instruments are available or be used to supplement weak external instruments in order to improve the efficiency of the instrumental variables estimator. Thus, Lewbel’s approach is a good substitute for the standard IV approach in terms of addressing the problem of endogeneity. The choice one uses depends on the availability of sound external instruments. If good external instruments are available, then the standard IV approach is superior. If external instruments are either weak or not available, then the method of heteroscedasticity-based instruments is superior to the conventional IV approach.

References

  • Adams W, Hutton J (2007) People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Soc 5(2):147–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 29(10):1649–1672

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal B (2009) Rule making in community forestry institutions: the difference women make. Ecol Econ 68:2296–2308

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2006) Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalayas. World Dev 34(1):149–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Hardin R (2008) Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science 320:1460–1462

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Akpalu W, Martinsson P (2011) Ostracism and common pool resource management in a developing country – young fishers in the laboratory. J Afr Econ 21(2):266–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf TD (2007) Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nepal. Biodivers Conserv 16:2087–2102

    Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf TD, Aung M, Songer M (2012) Using residents’ perceptions to improve park-people relationships in Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar. J Environ Manage 99:36–43

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alpert P (1996) Integrated conservation and development projects: examples from Africa. BioScience 46(11):845–855

    Google Scholar 

  • Arias A, Cinner JE, Jones RE, Pressey RL (2015) Levels and drivers of fishers’ compliance with marine protected areas. Ecol Soc 20(4):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07999-200419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashok K, Dillon W, Yuan S (2002) Extending discrete choice models to incorporate attitudinal and other latent variables. J Mark Res 39:31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Chatterji P, Lahiri K (2013) Effects of psychiatric disorders on labor market outcomes – a latent variable approach using multiple clinical indicators. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4260

  • Baland K, Platteau JP (1996) Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities?. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Balint PJ, Mashinya J (2006) The decline of a model community-based conservation project—governance, capacity, and devolution in Mahenye, Zimbabwe. Geoforum 37(5):805–815

    Google Scholar 

  • Baral N, Stern M, Heinen J (2006) Integrated conservation and development project life cycles in the annapurna conservation area, Nepal. Biodiversity Conservation. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum CF, Lewbel A, Schaffer ME, Talavera O (2013) Instrumental variables estimation using heteroskedasticity-based instruments. United Kingdom Stata User’s Group Meetings 2012 07, Stata Users Group

  • Becker CD, Ostrom E (1995) Human ecology and resource sustainability: the importance of institutional diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26(1):113–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Beedell J, Rehman T (2000) Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. J Rural Stud 16:117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett NJ, Dearden P (2014) Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar Policy 44:107–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, p 209

    Google Scholar 

  • Booysen F, Van der Berg S (2005) The role of social grants in mitigating against the socio-economic impact of HIV/AIDS in two Free State communities. S Afr J Econ 73:545–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Brest P (2010) “The Power of Theories of Change”. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Spring

  • Chao JC, Swanson NR, Hausman JA, Newey WK, Woutersen T (2012) Asymptotic distribution of JIVE in a heteroskedastic IV regression with many instruments. Econom Theory 28:42–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Child G, Child B (2015) The conservation movement in Zimbabwe: an early experiment in devolved community based regulation. Afr J Wildl Res 45:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciocăneaa CM, Sorescub C, Ianoși M, Bagrinovschia V (2016) Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park. Procedia Environ Sci 32:70–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark H, Taplin D (2012) Theory of change basics: a primer on theory of change. ActKnowledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox JC (2004) How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 46:260–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Crépin A-S, Biggs R, Polasky S, Troell M, de Zeeuw A (2012) Regime shifts and management. Ecol Econ 84:15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Death C (2016) Green states in Africa: beyond the usual suspects. Environ Politics 25(1):116–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Toit A, Neves D (2009) Trading on a grant: Integrating formal and informal social protection in post-apartheid migrant networks. Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute. (BWPI working paper; no. 75.)

  • Ebua VB, Agwafo TE, Fonkwo SN (2011) Attitudes and perceptions as threats to wildlife conservation in the Bakossi area, South West Cameroon. Int J Biodivers Conserv 3(12):631–636

    Google Scholar 

  • Emran MS, Robano V, Smith SC (2012) Assessing the frontiers of ultra-poverty reduction: evidence from targeting the ultra-poor (CFPR/TUP) program in Bangladesh. IIEP Working Paper IIEP-WP-2009-06

  • Fisbien M, Ajzen T (1985) Belief, attitudes, intension and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research reading. Addison Wesley Publishing Co, Phillippines

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer A, van der Wal R (2007) Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird—the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biol Cons 1(35):256–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R, Magginis S, Jackson W, Barrow E, Jeanrenaud S (2008) Linking conservation and poverty reduction: landscapes, people and power. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost PGH, Bond I (2008) The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services. Ecol Econ 65:776–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CC, Williams JT, Ostrom E (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev 33(2):273–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandiwa E, Kativu S (2009) Influence of fire frequency on colophospermum mopane and combretum apiculatum woodland structure and composition in northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Koedoe 51(1):685. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v51i1.685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandiwa E, Heitkönig IMA, Lokhorst AM, Prins HHT, Leeuwis C (2013) CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Ecol Soc 18(4):7

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman M (2011) Strangers in their own land: maasai and wildlife conservation in Northern Tanzania. Conserv Soc 9(1):65–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauck M, Kroese M (2006) Fisheries compliance in South Africa: a decade of challenges and reform 1994–2004. Marine Policy 30(1):74–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman JA, Newey WK, Woutersen T, Chao JC, Swanson R (2012) Instrumental variable estimation with heteroskedasticity and many instruments. Quant Econ 3:211–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes CM (2003) The influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes and resource use patterns: a case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37:305–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans George (1961) Social behavior: its elementary forms. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, p 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg A, Stolberg A (2006) Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a cognitive theory of stress. J Environ Psychol 26:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Hübschle AM (2016) The social economy of rhino poaching: of economic freedom fighters, professional hunters and marginalized local people. Curr Sociol. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116673210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huong PM, Lee JH (2017) Finding important factors affecting local residents’ support for tourism development in Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. For Sci Technol 13(3):126–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Infield M, Namara A (2001) Community attitudes and behaviour towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35:48–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold T (2000) The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Psychology Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jentoft S (1989) Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility to fishermen’s organizations. Mar Policy 13(2):137–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson ND, Mislin AA (2011) Trust games: a meta-analysis. J Econ Psychol 32(5):865–889

    Google Scholar 

  • Karanth KK, Kramer RA, Qian SS, Christensen NL (2008) Examining conservation attitudes, perspectives, and challenges in India. Biol Cons 141:2357–2367

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Lichtenfeld LL (2000) Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Soc Nat Resour 13(8):705–715

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly C (2001) Group identification, intergroup perceptions and collective action. University of London, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson R (2005) Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Int J Sustain Dev 8(1/2):12–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitthananan A (2006) Conceptualizing governance: a review. J Soc Soc Policy 5(3):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to proenvironmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8:239–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt M (2013) Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour. Life Sci Soc Policy 9:13

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lewbel A (2012) Using heteroskedasticity to identify and estimate mismeasured and endogenous regressor models. J Bus Econ Stat 30(1):67–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewbel A (2016) Identification and estimation using heteroscedasticity without instruments: the binary endogenous regressor case. Econ Lett 165:10–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Lia L, Wangb J, Shia J, Wangc Y, Liud W, Xu X (2010) Factors influencing local people’s attitudes towards wild boar in Taohongling National Nature Reserve of Jiangxi Province, China. Procedia Environ Sci 2:1846–1856

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl T, Crépin A-S, Schill C (2012) Managing resources with potential regime shifts: using experiments to explore social ecological linkages in common resource system. Beijer Discussion Paper Series No. 232

  • Lindahl T, Crépin A-S, Schill C (2016) Potential disasters can turn the tragedy into success. Environ Resour Econ 65(3):657–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Maganga FP (2002) The interplay between formal and informal systems of managing resource conflicts: some evidence from south western Tanzania. Eur J Dev Res 14(2):51–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitra P, Ray R (2003) The effect of transfers on household expenditure patterns and poverty in South Africa. J Dev Econ 71(1):23–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfeld Y, Ginosar O (1994) Determinants of locals’ perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development in their locality. Geoforum 25(2):227–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks SJJ, Davis J (2012) Does user participation lead to sense of ownership for rural water systems? Evidence from Kenya. World Dev 40(8):1569–1576

    Google Scholar 

  • Masclet D, Noussair C, Tucker S, Villeval MC (2003) Monetary and nonmonetary punishment in the voluntary contributions mechanism. Am Econ Rev 93(1):366–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra V, Smyth R (2015) Workplace policies and training in China: evidence from matched employee-employer data. Int J Manpow 36(7):986–1011

  • Muchapondwa E (2003) The economics of community-based wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe. PhD dissertation. Goteborg University, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukul SA, Herbohn J, Rashid AZMM, Uddin MB (2014) Comparing the effectiveness of forest law enforcement and economic incentives to prevent illegal logging in Bangladesh. Int For Rev 16(3):363–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Murombedzi JC (1999) Devolution and stewardship in Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme. J Int Dev 11:287–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphree M (2004) Communal approaches to natural resource management in Africa: from whence to where? J Int Wildl Law Policy 7:203–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JJ, Cardenas JC (2004) An experiment on enforcement strategies for managing a local environmental resource. J Econ Educ 31(1):47–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutanga CN, Muboko N, Gandiwa E (2017) Protected area staff and local community viewpoints: a qualitative assessment of conservation relationships in Zimbabwe. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0177153. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nazarea V, Rhodes R, Bontoyan E, Gabriela F (1998) Defining indicators which make sense to local people: intra-cultural variation in perceptions of natural resources. Hum Organ 57(2):159–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark WD, Leonard NL, Sariko HI, Gamassa DGM (1993) Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biol Cons 63(2):177–183

    Google Scholar 

  • North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntuli H, Muchapondwa E (2017) Effects of wildlife resources on community welfare in Southern Africa. Ecol Econ 131:572–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntuli H, Muchapondwa E (2018) The role of institutions in community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe. Int J Commons 12(1):134–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntuli H, Crépin AS, Muchapondwa E, Schill C (2019) Sanctioned quotas vs information provisioning for community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe: a framed field experiment approach. Environment for Development Initiative Discussion Paper, MS 724 DP 19–15

  • Olson M (1965) Logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1998) A behavioural approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential adress, American Political Science Association, 1997. Am Political Sci Rev 92(01):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and the evolution of norms. J Econ Perspect 14(3):137–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(39):15181–15187

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool-resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Overskeid G (2018) Do we need the environment to explain operant behavior? Front Psychol 9:373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Petursson JG, Vedeld P, Kaboggoza J (2011) Transboundary biodiversity management: institutions, local stakeholders, and protected areas: a case study from Mt. Elgon, Uganda and Kenya. Soc Nat Res 24(12):1304–1321

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard S, du Toit D (2011) Towards adaptive integrated water resources management in Southern Africa: the role of self-organisation and multi-scale feedbacks for learning and responsiveness in the Letaba and Crocodile Catchments. Water Resour Manage 25(15):4019–4035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9904-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollnac RB (2000) Villager’s perceptions of aspects of the natural and human environment of Balikpapn Bay, Indonesia. J Pesisir & Lautan: J Indonesian J Coast Mar Res 3(2):19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Prono T (2014) The role of conditional heteroskedasticity in identifying and estimating linear triangular systems, with applications to asset pricing models that include a mismeasured factor. J Appl Econom 29(5):800–824

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid H (2001) Contractual national parks and the Makuleke community. Hum Ecol 29(2):135–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigobon R (2003) Identification through heteroskedasticity. Rev Econ Stat 85(4):777–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero C, Athayde S, Collomb JE, DiGiano M, Schmink M, Schramski S, Seales L (2012) Conservation and development in Latin America and Southern Africa: setting the stage. Ecol Soc 17(2):17

    Google Scholar 

  • Samdahl DM, Robertson R (1989) Social determinants of environmental concern: specification and test of the model. Environ Behav 21(1):57–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandker M, Campbell BM, Nzooh Z, Sunderland T, Amougou V, Defo L, Sayer J (2009) Exploring the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development interventions in a Central African forest landscape. Biodivers Conserv 18:2875–2892

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawitria DR, Hadiyantob H, Hadi SP (2015) Pro-environmental behaviour from a social cognitive theory perspective. Procedia Environ Sci 23:27–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill C, Lindahl T, Crépin, A-S (2015) Collective action and the risk of ecosystem regime shifts: insights from a laboratory experiment. Ecol Soc 20(1):48

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE (2006) Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River Valley, South Africa. Ecol Econ 57(2):306–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RJ, Walpole MJ (2005) Should conservationists pay more attention to corruption? Oryx 39(03):251–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Songorwa AN, Buhrs T, Hughey KFD (2000) Community-based wildlife management in Africa: a critical assessment of the literature. Natl, Resour J 40(3):603–643

    Google Scholar 

  • South African National Parks (SANParks) (2018) Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Available from: https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/transfrontier/great_limpopo/. Accessed June 26, 2018

  • Spenceley A (2006) Tourism in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Dev South Afr 23(5):649–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern MJ (2008) Coercion, voluntary compliance and protest: the role of trust and legitimacy in combating local opposition to protected areas. Environ Conserv 35(3):200–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Teferra F, Beyene F (2014) Indigenous claims and conflicts in managing the Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park, Ethiopia. Int J Biodive Sci Ecosyst Serv Management 10(3):216–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.942372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thondhlana G, Muchapondwa E (2014) Dependence on environmental resources and implication for household welfare: evidence from the Kalahari drylands, South Africa. Ecol Econ 108:59–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Whande W, Suich H (2009) Transfrontier conservation initiatives in Southern Africa: observations from the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. In: Suich H, Child B, Spenceley A (eds) Evolution and Innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game ranches to Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Earthscan, London, pp 373–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolmer W (2003) Transboundary conservation: the politics of ecological integrity in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. J South Afr Stud 29(1):261–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods SR, Ruyle GB (2015) Informal rangeland monitoring and its importance to conservation in a U.S.Ranching community. Rangel Ecol Manag 68:390–401

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the communities around the Gonarezhou in Zimbabwe and Kruger National Park in South Africa for their willingness to participate in the surveys. Swedish Research Council (SRC) with Grant No. 2021005208 and the Centre for Collective Action Research (CeCAR) at the University of Gothenburg. Last but not least, we thank both friends and collegues for their useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondeboch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa

    Herbert Ntuli & Edwin Muchapondwa

  2. Environmental Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Herbert Ntuli & Edwin Muchapondwa

  3. Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Sverker C. Jagers, Amanda Linell & Martin Sjöstedt

  4. Centre for Collective Action Research, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Sverker C. Jagers, Amanda Linell & Martin Sjöstedt

  5. Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, 97187, Luleå, Sweden

    Edwin Muchapondwa

Authors
  1. Herbert Ntuli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sverker C. Jagers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda Linell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Sjöstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Edwin Muchapondwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herbert Ntuli.

Additional information

Communicated by David Hawksworth.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Biodiversity appreciation and engagement.

Annexes

Annexes

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Names of villages
Full size table
Table 5 Type of question asked by theme
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ntuli, H., Jagers, S.C., Linell, A. et al. Factors influencing local communities’ perceptions towards conservation of transboundary wildlife resources: the case of the Great Limpopo Trans-frontier Conservation Area. Biodivers Conserv 28, 2977–3003 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01809-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01809-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation