14 research outputs found
Integrating biodiversity conservation and agriculture in a landscape: a developing country perspective
No full textBalancing agricultural productivity and biodiversity conservation is a major global challenge. Addressing this dilemma requires a nuanced understanding of the social-ecological systems linking agriculture and conservation. This thesis investigates how both goals can be achieved within shared landscapes, using Kasungu, Malawi, as a case study. Like many African countries, Malawi’s Agenda 2063 promotes agricultural expansion for poverty reduction and economic growth. However, this puts pressure on biodiversity, particularly around protected and conserved areas. Using an interdisciplinary approach, this thesis explores the agriculture-biodiversity nexus by examining human-nature relationships, gendered land tenure systems, and local priorities for trade-offs and potential synergies. I first sought to understand the implications of human-nature relationships for livelihoods and conservation. I then assessed how gendered kinship systems of land tenure influence resource use. Next, I used hypothetical scenarios of change to investigate how communities prioritise agriculture and biodiversity conservation under different possible futures. Finally, I used a spatial modelling approach to predict biodiversity outcomes under the current and projected agricultural trends in the landscape. Findings show that social and ecological factors shape people’s perceptions and behaviours, which influence how trade-offs are experienced and managed. The research highlights that single approaches are unlikely to reconcile biodiversity conservation and agriculture, hence the need for integrated approaches that work simultaneously. I emphasise the importance of inclusive, context-sensitive strategies that reflect local realities and call for reframing the agriculture-biodiversity relationship as interconnected rather than conflicting. This research provides a snapshot of broader agriculture-biodiversity debates by highlighting the importance of locally grounded, interdisciplinary approaches. Given that agriculture remains the dominant land use in sub-Saharan Africa, achieving global conservation targets will depend on integrating land tenure and food system considerations to ensure sustainable and equitable outcomes for both people and nature
Testing the Ecosystem Productivity- Diversity Hypothesis in a Grassland
No full textGlobally, the academic debate about the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem productivity has been widely contested. While some researchers support the positive relationship between ecosystem productivity and diversity, others propose the reverse. However, mechanisms that play a role in this relationship remain unclear. As such a study was conducted in Lilongwe plain, in Malawi to test the theory of ecosystem productivity and diversity in a grassland ecosystem to make a humble contribution to this debate. Methodologically, five transects of 25metres each, were systematically drawn across the area. Each transect had 14 quadrats that were randomly placed at a distance of 10 meters apart. The data sets (moisture content, distribution and composition of plant species were collected in 5 transects located in two contrasting areas of dry and waterlogging conditions. Alpha diversity was computed to determine variations in species diversity between dry and the water logged areas. The results show that moisture content and species composition were the main productivity influencing factors with P-values <0.05. Results further show that there is indeed a relationship between productivity and diversity which was affected by variations in the availability of water, legume species that initiates nitrogen fixation, and nature of the mixture of the grass stands within the study area. Despite few numbers of species in areas of high water concentration, the results show that the biomass production was considerably high. The higher diversity in the upper and middle areas of the land indicates more species that survive as well as facilitate and complement each other. Such areas support the concept of complementarity which result from interspecific differences in resource requirements and that of facilitation which result from certain species helping or allowing other species to grow by modifying the environment in a way that is favorable to co-occurring species. The findings suggest that the correlation between productivity and diversity cannot be disputed. But the specifics as to when and how this relationship exhibits need to be clearly understood since this relationship is influenced by factors such as species composition as well as conditions in that particular area where the species exist, (in this case the grassland). Perhaps in this study the relationship was influenced by the presence of water in some areas which exhibited higher biomass but little diversity, as well as the presence of leguminous grasses that fix nitrogen and benefits surrounding species hence increasing the biomass as well
Implications of human-nature interactions for livelihoods and conservation in Kasungu, Malawi
No full textEffective conservation strategies require a comprehensive understanding of human nature relationships, including the factors driving these interactions. Without this context, interventions risk being impractical or ineffective, potentially leaving both people and nature worse off. We used mixed methods to understand human-nature interactions in Kasungu, Malawi. We specifically examined people's use of natural resources and perceptions of wildlife conservation and their implications for livelihoods and conservation. Over 90% of participants reported collecting natural resources such as firewood, grass, medicinal plants, and fruits to support their livelihoods. While most resources were collected for household use, some served both income generation and domestic purposes. Kasungu National Park plays a critical role in providing these resources, although harvesting is illegal, alongside neighbouring farms and community forests. Households near the park, women, and those of lower economic status were more likely to rely on the park for resources. Additionally, crop and livestock loss experiences were linked to higher resource collection rates. Participants generally expressed positive attitudes toward wildlife and conservation. However, certain factors including proximity to the park, women, food insecurity, and crop and livestock loss were linked to negative attitudes. Our findings offer valuable insights for the design and implementation of conservation initiatives and policies, particularly in communities heavily dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. Conservation programs and policies around protected areas should capitalize on the existing positive attitudes toward nature by fostering better community engagement. Locally led, inclusive, and nature-positive programs could simultaneously benefit conservation efforts and improve livelihoods
Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic
No full text<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>Fierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><p>R statistical software. Required packages called at the top of the accompanying R script.</p><p>Funding provided by: Jamma International*<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: <br>Award Number: ATR04380</p><p>Funding provided by: World Wide Fund for Nature<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/05067ar32<br>Award Number: ATR04380</p><p>Funding provided by: Luc Hoffmann Institute<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/01054tt62<br>Award Number: ATR04380</p><p>Data collected from an online vignette experiment hosted on the Qualtrics platform. Data analysed in R statistical software.</p>
Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic
No full text<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>Fierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><p>R statistical software. Required packages called at the top of the accompanying R script.</p><p>Funding provided by: Jamma International*<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: <br>Award Number: ATR04380</p><p>Funding provided by: World Wide Fund for Nature<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/05067ar32<br>Award Number: ATR04380</p><p>Funding provided by: Luc Hoffmann Institute<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/01054tt62<br>Award Number: ATR04380</p><p>Data collected from an online vignette experiment hosted on the Qualtrics platform. Data analysed in R statistical software.</p>
Investigating the risks of removing wild meat from global food systems
No full textThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought humanity's strained relationship with nature into sharp focus, with calls for cessation of wild meat trade and consumption, to protect public health and biodiversity.1,2 However, the importance of wild meat for human nutrition, and its tele-couplings to other food production systems, mean that the complete removal of wild meat from diets and markets would represent a shock to global food systems.3-6 The negative consequences of this shock deserve consideration in policy responses to COVID-19. We demonstrate that the sudden policy-induced loss of wild meat from food systems could have negative consequences for people and nature. Loss of wild meat from diets could lead to food insecurity, due to reduced protein and nutrition, and/or drive land-use change to replace lost nutrients with animal agriculture, which could increase biodiversity loss and emerging infectious disease risk. We estimate the magnitude of these consequences for 83 countries, and qualitatively explore how prohibitions might play out in 10 case study places. Results indicate that risks are greatest for food-insecure developing nations, where feasible, sustainable, and socially desirable wild meat alternatives are limited. Some developed nations would also face shocks, and while high-capacity food systems could more easily adapt, certain places and people would be disproportionately impacted. We urge decision-makers to consider potential unintended consequences of policy-induced shocks amidst COVID-19; and take holistic approach to wildlife trade interventions, which acknowledge the interconnectivity of global food systems and nature, and include safeguards for vulnerable people.Full Tex
International differences in conservation priorities are more complicated than Global North-Global South divisions
No full textTwo enduring ideological divisions in biodiversity conservation concern whether conservation should prioritize (i) the interests of people or wild animals and (ii) the interests of individual animals or groups of animals. Public debates suggest that people living in the Global North more strongly prioritize the interests of wild animals over people and the interests of individual animals over groups of animals. To examine this possibility, we measured and compared conservation priorities across 10 international publics living in rural and urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa, the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK). Overall, distant respondents (i.e. living in the UK, USA and urban sub-Saharan Africa) more strongly prioritized the interests of wild animals over people and the interests of individual animals over groups of animals. Moreover, variation among local publics (i.e. living in high-biodiversity areas of rural sub-Saharan Africa) was greater than among distant publics. Our findings illuminate how ideological divisions may complicate international biodiversity conservation, especially around controversial topics such as culling, hunting, transloaction and protected-areas management. Policies and programmes more acceptable to distant people may be less acceptable to local people, creating difficulties for decision-makers charged with balancing biodiversity conservation alongside the values, needs, interests and concerns of multiple publics
Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic
No full textFierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates
International Perspectives on the Acceptability of Rangers Shooting at Suspected Criminals Inside Protected and Conserved Areas in Sub‐Saharan Africa
No full textUsing military‐type strategies and equipment to conserve wildlife, also known as militarized conservation, is highly contested. In sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), one acutely controversial aspect of militarized conservation is when armed rangers shoot at suspected criminals inside protected and conserved areas (PCAs). We quantified perceptions among members of eight international publics on the acceptability of this particularly contentious aspect of militarized conservation, testing whether acceptability depended on the specific crime rangers suspect people of committing. Overall, acceptability of rangers shooting at suspected criminals inside PCAs in SSA was low across all eight publics, but acceptability was generally higher among participants living further away from PCAs in SSA than those living closer to PCAs in SSA. Shooting in self‐defense and to prevent poaching were consistently most acceptable across all eight publics. Our findings contribute new comparative evidence about international public perceptions of a very sensitive aspect of PCA management in SSA. This evidence may be useful to decision‐makers balancing competing pressures to protect biodiversity, respect local values, and operate with legitimacy in an international context. Our findings are especially relevant in light of international aspirations to simultaneously increase PCAs while respecting the rights and interests of people living in high‐biodiversity areas
International Perspectives on the Acceptability of Rangers Shooting at Suspected Criminals Inside Protected and Conserved Areas in Sub‐Saharan Africa
No full textUsing military‐type strategies and equipment to conserve wildlife, also known as militarized conservation, is highly contested. In sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), one acutely controversial aspect of militarized conservation is when armed rangers shoot at suspected criminals inside protected and conserved areas (PCAs). We quantified perceptions among members of eight international publics on the acceptability of this particularly contentious aspect of militarized conservation, testing whether acceptability depended on the specific crime rangers suspect people of committing. Overall, acceptability of rangers shooting at suspected criminals inside PCAs in SSA was low across all eight publics, but acceptability was generally higher among participants living further away from PCAs in SSA than those living closer to PCAs in SSA. Shooting in self‐defense and to prevent poaching were consistently most acceptable across all eight publics. Our findings contribute new comparative evidence about international public perceptions of a very sensitive aspect of PCA management in SSA. This evidence may be useful to decision‐makers balancing competing pressures to protect biodiversity, respect local values, and operate with legitimacy in an international context. Our findings are especially relevant in light of international aspirations to simultaneously increase PCAs while respecting the rights and interests of people living in high‐biodiversity areas
