| Summary: | Thesis (M. Sc. (Agricultural Economics)) -- University of Limpopo, 2016 === Livestock production in communal areas is faced by a myriad of challenges such as environmental degradation, poor markets, stock theft and disease. This has drawn interest towards wildlife-based land-use practices as an alternative or complement to livestock production. Wildlife-based land-uses have potential to generate incomes and create employment in wildlife rich areas. On the other hand, several problems such as human-wildlife conflict have been identified in wildlife rich areas. This study investigated perceptions of rural households in areas adjacent to the Kruger National Park (KNP) regarding integrated wildlife/livestock land-use practices. Data were collected from 130 households in nine villages alongside KNP in Giyani. Respondents were stratified into cattle owning households and non-cattle owning households, to determine differences in perception towards wildlife.
Chi-square and Cramer`s V tests were used to test if there is an association and relationship between the households` opinion and cattle ownership. For empirical analysis, factor analysis and multinomial logistic regression models were run with SPSS. Attitudes and perceptions were analysed by the Likert-scale numbered from 1 to 4. High scores (i.e. 3 and 4) indicated negative attitudes and low scores (i.e. 1 and 2) indicated positive attitudes. The factor analysis managed to reduce the number of attitude variables fitted into the model from 29 to 9 factors (components), that were used in the multinomial logit model analysis. Results from the multinomial regression indicated that demographic factors such as age, gender, education, occupation, marital status, monthly income and cattle ownership had a significant impact in distinguishing between pairs of groups and the contribution which they make to change the odds of being in one dependent variable group rather than the other. Results from factor analysis (component variables or factors) also had a significant impact on the dependent variables when applied to multinomial logit regression.
About 59% of the sampled households showed positive attitudes towards integrated wildlife-based land-use practices, and indicated willingness to participate in it. Those who had negative attitudes and were not likely to participate were 13%; and those who were uncertain on whether or not to participate were 28%. Looking at the results of the empirical analysis derived from regression analysis through multinomial logit, several factors were found to have influenced whether or not households were likely
to participate in the integrated wildlife/livestock land-uses. Variables: damages caused by wild animals on crops and vegetables; giving land and stopping farming to allow for wildlife conservation; roles and opportunities of wildlife in the community; roles and opportunities of livestock in the community; age of household head; occupation of household head; gender of household head; cattle ownership; Access to market, income earned from sale of livestock, and state of grazing area, were found to be significant (at different significant levels 1%, 5% and 10%) in determining whether or not households were likely to participate in the integrated wildlife/livestock land-uses. However, variables: Government support and the number of people benefiting from livestock, Interest in wildlife protection, Relationship between wildlife, human and domestic animals and land ownership were found to be insignificant in determining whether or not households were likely to participate in the integrated wildlife/livestock land-uses. Most of the households showed interest in participating in wildlife-based land-uses irrespective of whether or not they own cattle. Some households indicated dislike of the proposed land-use practice, mainly those who practiced cattle and crop production, as they perceived wild animals as a high risk to their stock. However, this negative attitude can be managed if benefits to households and community are clearly defined and compensation for loses from wildlife are made a priority. Cooperation of all stakeholders (for example, community, government, conservationists and foreign donor’ agencies) is recommended for implementation of wildlife-based land-uses.
|
|---|
