Private management of parks saves wildlife but can also raise risks for civilians in war-torn areas

What is it about?

To protect threatened wildlife, the management of protected areas (areas set aside for nature conservation) in Africa are increasingly being transferred from governments to private, nongovernmental organizations. While there are reasons to suspect these changes could be highly beneficial for wildlife, their effects have yet to be evaluated. Moreover, such changes could affect people that live near protected area edges; these effects, too, have yet to be tested for. This study uses a quasi-experimental design to test how the transference of protected area management from governments to private managers affects a range of wildlife and socioeconomic variables, including elephant poaching, bird abundances, tourism, wealth, and the physical security of communities living at protected area edges.

Featured Image

Photo by Casey Allen on Unsplash

Photo by Casey Allen on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Private management of protected areas in Africa offers a potential solution to funding and capacity shortfalls that have hindered protected area management in many parts of Africa. Whether private management is viable though depends on its impacts on humans in addition to those on wildlife. We find that private management improves outcomes for wildlife, but its impacts on humans are less clear. Moreover, we find that in areas experiencing armed conflict, private management can increase the chance that rebel groups target civilians. This may occur when private management prevents rebel groups from accessing park resources, leading them to exploit civilians instead. Thus, we identify important tradeoffs of private management, particularly in war-torn areas.

Perspectives