Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia

Open access
Naidoo, Robin, Weaver, L. Chris, Diggle, Richard W., Matongo, Greenwell, Stuart‐Hill, Greg, Thouless, Chris·2016·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Tourism and hunting both generate substantial revenues for communities and private operators in Africa, but few studies have quantitatively examined the trade‐offs and synergies that may result from these two activities. We evaluated financial and in‐kind benefit streams from tourism and hunting on 77 communal conservancies in Namibia from 1998 to 2013, where community‐based wildlife conservation has been promoted as a land‐use that complements traditional subsistence agriculture. We used data collected annually for all communal conservancies to characterize whether benefits were derived from hunting or tourism. We classified these benefits into 3 broad classes and examined how benefits flowed to stakeholders within communities under the status quo and under a simulated ban on hunting. Across all conservancies, total benefits from hunting and tourism increased at roughly the same rate, although conservancies typically started generating benefits from hunting within 3 years of formation as opposed to after 6 years for tourism. Disaggregation of data revealed that the main benefits from hunting were income for conservancy management and food in the form of meat for the community at large. The majority of tourism benefits were salaried jobs at lodges. A simulated ban on trophy hunting significantly reduced the number of conservancies that could cover their operating costs, whereas eliminating income from tourism did not have as severe an effect. Given that the benefits generated from hunting and tourism typically begin at different times in a conservancy's life‐span (earlier vs. later, respectively) and flow to different segments of local communities, these 2 activities together may provide the greatest incentives for conservation on communal lands in Namibia. A singular focus on either hunting or tourism would reduce the value of wildlife as a competitive land‐use option and have grave repercussions for the viability of community‐based conservation efforts in Namibia, and possibly other parts of Africa.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cobi.12643

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Naidoo, R., Weaver, L. C., Diggle, R. W., Matongo, G., Stuart‐Hill, G., & Thouless, C.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-08
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
628-638
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2138433633
Cited by
331
References
33
FWCI
14.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.12643
The paper
Naidoo, R., Weaver, L. C., Diggle, R. W., Matongo, G., Stuart‐Hill, G., & Thouless, C. (2016). Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12643

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.