Naidoo Robin, Weaver L Chris, Diggle Richard W, Matongo Greenwell, Stuart-Hill Greg, Thouless Chris
WWF-US, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, D.C., 20037, U.S.A..
WWF in Namibia, P.O. Box 9681, Windhoek, Namibia.
Conserv Biol. 2016 Jun;30(3):628-38. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12643. Epub 2016 Jan 8.
Tourism and hunting both generate substantial revenues for communities and private operators in Africa, but few studies have quantitatively examined the trade-offs and synergies that may result from these two activities. We evaluated financial and in-kind benefit streams from tourism and hunting on 77 communal conservancies in Namibia from 1998 to 2013, where community-based wildlife conservation has been promoted as a land-use that complements traditional subsistence agriculture. We used data collected annually for all communal conservancies to characterize whether benefits were derived from hunting or tourism. We classified these benefits into 3 broad classes and examined how benefits flowed to stakeholders within communities under the status quo and under a simulated ban on hunting. Across all conservancies, total benefits from hunting and tourism increased at roughly the same rate, although conservancies typically started generating benefits from hunting within 3 years of formation as opposed to after 6 years for tourism. Disaggregation of data revealed that the main benefits from hunting were income for conservancy management and food in the form of meat for the community at large. The majority of tourism benefits were salaried jobs at lodges. A simulated ban on trophy hunting significantly reduced the number of conservancies that could cover their operating costs, whereas eliminating income from tourism did not have as severe an effect. Given that the benefits generated from hunting and tourism typically begin at different times in a conservancy's life-span (earlier vs. later, respectively) and flow to different segments of local communities, these 2 activities together may provide the greatest incentives for conservation on communal lands in Namibia. A singular focus on either hunting or tourism would reduce the value of wildlife as a competitive land-use option and have grave repercussions for the viability of community-based conservation efforts in Namibia, and possibly other parts of Africa.
旅游业和狩猎业都为非洲的社区和私人经营者带来了可观的收入，但很少有研究定量考察这两项活动可能产生的权衡与协同效应。我们评估了1998年至2013年纳米比亚77个社区保护区内旅游业和狩猎业带来的资金及实物收益流，在这些地区，基于社区的野生动物保护被作为一种补充传统自给农业的土地利用方式加以推广。我们使用每年为所有社区保护区收集的数据来确定收益是来自狩猎还是旅游业。我们将这些收益分为三大类，并考察了在现状以及模拟狩猎禁令的情况下，收益是如何流向社区内各利益相关者的。在所有保护区中，狩猎和旅游业的总收益增长速度大致相同，不过保护区通常在成立后的3年内就开始从狩猎中获得收益，而旅游业则是在6年后。数据细分显示，狩猎的主要收益是保护区管理的收入以及为整个社区提供的肉类形式的食物。旅游业的大部分收益是旅馆的带薪工作。模拟的战利品狩猎禁令显著减少了能够覆盖运营成本的保护区数量，而消除旅游业收入的影响则没有那么严重。鉴于狩猎和旅游业产生的收益通常在保护区的生命周期内开始的时间不同（分别是早期和后期），并且流向当地社区的不同部分，这两项活动共同作用可能为纳米比亚社区土地上的保护工作提供最大的激励。只专注于狩猎或旅游业中的某一项，会降低野生动物作为一种有竞争力的土地利用选择的价值，并对纳米比亚以及可能非洲其他地区基于社区的保护工作的可行性产生严重影响。
