Household Welfare and Natural Resource Management around National Parks in Zambia
Game management areas in Zambia aim to combine nature conservation with economic empowerment of rural households. By looking at households inside and outside game management areas, this study advances the knowledge of the impact of community based...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000158349_20090513170756 http://hdl.handle.net/10986/4126 |
| Summary: | Game management areas in Zambia aim to
combine nature conservation with economic empowerment of
rural households. By looking at households inside and
outside game management areas, this study advances the
knowledge of the impact of community based natural resource
management on household welfare. The paper focuses on the
economic welfare of households living inside game management
areas. It tries to answer the question: Do the households in
game management areas enjoy higher levels of welfare
relative to the conditions they would have been in had the
area not been designated as a game management area? Within
the game management area, the paper tries to determine the
factors that influence household participation in natural
resource management, and whether the participating
households get any extra benefits. Also of interest is
whether such benefits of living in a game management area,
and, once in such an area, those of participating accrue
more to the poorer segments of the communities. The study
finds that the gains from living in a game management area
and from active participation in natural resource management
are large but unevenly distributed. Only game management
areas near Kasanka, Lavushi, Isangano, and South Luangwa
national parks in the sample show significant benefits to
general and participating households. And in those areas,
the poor do not seem to gain even when they participate
actively. More even distribution of gains from game
management areas across households near different park
systems and across the poor and the non-poor should be a
continuing goal of national policy makers. |
|---|