Tourism and wildlife conservation: protected area-community relationships and nature tourism dynamics in Zimbabwe

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to analyse the interactions between protected area (PA)-community relationships and nature-based tourism using a case study of Zimbabwe. Three main theories formed the basis for the study, i.e., the theory of socio-ecological systems, the social exchange theory (SET), and the tourism system. The study sites included four PAs (Umfurudzi Park, Gonarezhou National Park, Matusadona National Park and Cawston Ranch) and their neighbouring communities. To achieve this, I used an interdisciplinary approach and adopted the pragmatic approach where both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using mixed methods, i.e., focus group discussions, in- depth interviews, questionnaire surveys and secondary data. Content analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data while statistical techniques including regression analyses, Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyse the quantitative data. The main findings of the study were, (i) communities mainly perceived the relationship they had with the PAs to be negative while PA staff mainly perceived a positive relationship with the communities and these relationships were determined by history of PA creation, communication, community perceptions of tourism, conservation and PA staff, PA staff perceptions on communities, benefit-sharing and community involvement in the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) or tourism. Moreover, internal and external environmental factors, as well as legal instruments and institutional frameworks also shaped the way PAs related with adjacent communities and vice versa, (ii) community perceptions of conservation were generally positive while perceptions of tourism were generally negative, (iii) tourists’ push factors for visiting national parks were ‘recreation and knowledge seeking’, ‘appreciating wildlife’ and ‘feeling close to nature’ while common pull factors between the two parks were abundance of wildlife, availability of different animal species, availability of different plant species, wilderness, beautiful landscape and peaceful/quiet environment. Tourists’ wildlife tourism experiences were generally good and were influenced by different motivation factors, (iv) the sustainability of wildlife tourism was greatly threatened, with the most perceived serious threats being illegal hunting, destruction of wildlife habitats and human-wildlife conflict, and (v) tourist arrivals were fluctuating and tourists were mainly local and were day visitors. The study concludes that PA-community relationships are dynamic, context specific and are complex in that they vary depending on whether it is the PA staff or community’ perspective. The study further concludes that PA-community relationships have a bearing on wildlife conservation and nature-based tourism. However, wildlife resources alone are not enough to pull tourists to Zimbabwe as there are other internal and external environmental factors at play, e.g., the political and economic environment