Towards co-viability: combining field approaches for understanding - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

9 th Savanna Science Network Meeting - 16th March 2011 Towards co-viability: combining field approaches for understanding coexistence between subsistence farmers and wildlife at the edge of Hwange National Park Chloé Guerbois, Eunice Chapanda, Marion Lombard & Hervé Fritz CNRS - HERD Programme - Hwange LTER CNRS LBBE - France Main Camp Research - Hwange NP - Zimbabwe

Rationale - Context New challenges for protected area management • Controversy on their efficiency to ensure sustainable African wildlife conservation (Johannesen 2007, Western et al 2009). • Losses inside protected areas point to the need to promote integrated landscape practices that combine parks with private and community based measures (Western et al 2009). • Expansion of Transfrontier Conservation Areas with the objectives to interconnect protected areas and promote local development (TFCA, Peace Park Foundation). • “Integrated protected area paradigm “

Conceptual Approach – Problem Statement • Mosaic of production systems .(i.e. livestock and crop production, natural resource harvesting, conservation, education, tourism, mining, ...) • Integrated landscape practices � Co-viability of production systems • A production system is sustainable when it can satisfy determined “ thresholds ” ( or constraints) over space and time ������������������������� ������������������������� ������������������������� ������������������������� �������������� �������������� �������������� �������������� ������������������������ ������������������������ ������������������������ ������������������������ �������������������� �������������������� �������������������� �������������������� Baumgärtner et al. 2008; Doyen & De Lara 2008

Study area : Hwange National Park – Communal Area Interface • Hwange National Park , Zimbabwe: ~ 15 000 km² . MAP= 606 mm . Unfenced landscape. Elephant population (~35 000) � 85% of the large herbivore biomass. • Hwange Rural District : Mixed ethnic composition. Main production systems: Subsistence crop and livestock farming . Low level of employment. r pop =4%, r hh =2%.

Problematic and method Wild animals ���������������������������� ���������������������������� ���������������������������� ���������������������������� ����������������������������� ����������������������������� ����������������������������� ����������������������������� Patterns of apparent coexistence ? Subsistence farmers

Problematic and method Wild animals � Interviews, questionnaires � Problem Animal Report � Field damage expertises Distance from hard � Resource mapping edge as an illustration of the role of heterogeneity Subsistence farmers

When wild animals become a problem... Interviews conducted in 28 villages (Ward 14,15,16,17) along a gradient of distance from the hard edge. - Which animal do you often see ? - Are they a problem for you ? (Y=1, N=0) Data analyzes: General Linear Model for binomial data

When wild animals become a problem Heterogeneity of wildlife occurrence in human dominated landscape (cover, human population densities, roads,...). Heterogeneity in village susceptibility to problem animal (animal behaviour and human practices). (*) ( NS ) ( NS ) ( NS ) (*) (*)

Crop raiders : study case at a village scale Magoli village: 195 households � No strong field protection, or obvious feature to protect the fields � 30 fields randomly selected in Magoli village � Field expertises (fixed interval line transect)

Crop raiders : study case at a village scale • Probability of being impacted by elephant correlated to distance from the hard edge (*)

Crop raiders : study case at a village scale • Probability of being impacted by elephant correlated to distance from the hard edge (*) • Cumulated livestock damages > elephant damages !! Tolerance to damages...

Elephant raids : study case at farmers scale � Participative experiment: control for distance to the hard edge and the field quality. � Interviews + Field damages expertises (N=21) Level of damage depends on the farmer + his neighbours effort to protect fields The indirect cost of spending time in the field exceeds the direct cost of crop loss. The presence of men in the household significantly improves the farmer effort

Cross scale discussion on problem animals � Logical hypothesis: Problem animals induce additive costs of living close � � � to a protected area, the perceived conflict between Human and Wildlife should be greater closer to the hard edge. HETEROGENEITY Wildlife occurrence Wildlife damages Farm susceptibility outside protected areas Defining thresholds for co-viability model might be more complex than a simple distance-gradient rule... ... need to increase the sampling effort...

Wildlife perception � Semi directed questionnaires (N=219) 1 0.9 0.8 (*) 0.7 Do you often Probability 0.6 Prob. wildlife sightings see wildlife ? 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge (km)

Wildlife perception � Semi directed questionnaires (N=219) 1 0.9 0.8 (*) 0.7 Do you often 0.6 Probability Prob. wildlife sightings see wildlife ? 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge (km) 1 0.9 (c**) 0.8 (b*) Do you think Prob. HW conflict 0.7 perception Previous hypothesis not supported. there is a HW Probability 0.6 (a) 0.5 conflict ? Indeed, significant positive trend 0.4 0.3 between the probability of 0.2 perception of conflict and 0.1 distance from the hard edge 0 1 2 3 5 7 9 Distance from hard edge (km)

Wildlife perception : A gradient of distance Perception � � � Cost – Benefits ? � Alternative hypothesis: The people perception is influenced by the 1 difference between the protected area 0.9 0.8 services and disservices ? Prob. wildlife sightings 0.7 Probability 0.6 Prob. HW conflict 0.5 perception 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge (km)

Wildlife perception : A gradient of distance Perception � � � � Cost – Benefits ? Alternative hypothesis: The people perception is influenced by the 1 difference between the protected area 0.9 0.8 services and disservices ? Prob. wildlife sightings 0.7 Probability 0.6 Prob. HW conflict 0.5 perception 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge (km) 1 0.9 0.8 Apparent perceived 0.7 "benefit" Probability 0.6 0.5 0.4 There should be a realized or 0.3 perceived benefit on a gradient of 0.2 distance from the protected areas ! 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge (km)

Benefits from protected areas � Participative Resource Mapping � N= 8 villages on a distance gradient � 54 village heads � Free listing of resources

Benefits from protected areas � What are the key resources of the system and their trends ?

Benefits from protected areas � What are the key resources of the system and their trends ? No significant effect of the distance on the “resource depletion stress”. 10 9 Negative trends index 8 7 6 5 4 (NS) 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge

Benefits from protected areas � Where do you get these resources ?

Benefits from protected areas � Where do you get these resources ? GRAZING AREAS

Benefits from protected areas Fire wood / Fruits / Medicinal plants/ Thatching Grass Provided by protected area Protected areas provide direct 1.2 (controlled or not) benefits to 1 0.8 the closest communities. 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge Poles / Grazing Area / Pan Mushrooms / Worms Provided by protected area Provided by protected area 1.2 1.2 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from hard edge Distance from hard edge