Cited by 38Socioeconomics of Resources and ConservationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementRangeland and Wildlife Management

The Zambian wildlife ranching industry: scale, associated benefits, and limitations affecting its development

Open access
Lindsey, Peter A., Barnes, Jonathan, Nyirenda, Vincent, Pumfrett, Belinda, Tambling, Craig J., Taylor, W. Andrew, Rolfes, Michael t’Sas·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The number and area of wildlife ranches in Zambia increased from 30 and 1,420 km(2) in 1997 to 177 and ∼6,000 km(2) by 2012. Wild ungulate populations on wildlife ranches increased from 21,000 individuals in 1997 to ∼91,000 in 2012, while those in state protected areas declined steeply. Wildlife ranching and crocodile farming have a turnover of ∼USD15.7 million per annum, compared to USD16 million from the public game management areas which encompass an area 29 times larger. The wildlife ranching industry employs 1,200 people (excluding jobs created in support industries), with a further ∼1,000 individuals employed through crocodile farming. Wildlife ranches generate significant quantities of meat (295,000 kg/annum), of which 30,000 kg of meat accrues to local communities and 36,000 kg to staff. Projected economic returns from wildlife ranching ventures are high, with an estimated 20-year economic rate of return of 28%, indicating a strong case for government support for the sector. There is enormous scope for wildlife ranching in Zambia due to the availability of land, high diversity of wildlife and low potential for commercial livestock production. However, the Zambian wildlife ranching industry is small and following completion of field work for this study, there was evidence of a significant proportion of ranchers dropping out. The industry is performing poorly, due to inter alia: rampant commercial bushmeat poaching; failure of government to allocate outright ownership of wildlife to landowners; bureaucratic hurdles; perceived historical lack of support from the Zambia Wildlife Authority and government; a lack of a clear policy on wildlife ranching; and a ban on hunting on unfenced lands including game ranches. For the wildlife ranching industry to develop, these limitations need to be addressed decisively. These findings are likely to apply to other savanna countries with large areas of marginal land potentially suited to wildlife ranching.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0081761

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large-scale privately owned land is often much more extensive than state protected areas and generally has a relatively low human population density.

    “Large-scale privately owned land is often much more extensive than state protected areas and generally has a relatively low human population density (de Villiers, 2003; du P. Bothma, Suich & Spenceley, 2009; Lindsey et al., 2013a; Lindsey et al., 2013b; Odendaal, 2006; Scoones et al., 2010)”

    From The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe (2016) · cites this paper as Lindsey et al., 2013a

    The Results (Industry Indicators; page unavailable) describe extensive Zambian wildlife ranches averaging 220 km², supporting the existence of large private ranches. But wildlife ranches account for only 2.7% of the area in the paper’s comparison with national parks and game management areas, not more area than those protected lands. The paper reports workers per km² on ranches, but does not establish that privately owned land generally has low human population density. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [46]du Toit R (2004) Review of wildlife issues associated with the land reform programme in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: WWF-SARPO. p 67.
  2. [61]Meissner H (1982) Theory and application of a method to calculate forage intake of wild southern african ungulates for purposes of estimating carrying capacity. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 12: 41– 47.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindsey, P. A., Barnes, J., Nyirenda, V., Pumfrett, B., Tambling, C. J., Taylor, W. A., & Rolfes, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Panthera Corporation (US)
  • Nelson Mandela University (ZA)
  • University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Lindsey, Peter A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-12-18
Volume
8
Issue
12
Pages
e81761
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001668044
Cited by
38
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Nelson Mandela University Research Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
wildlife ranching, game ranches, crocodile farming, wild ungulates, hunting regulation, wildlife policy, marginal land, Zambia
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animals, Wild, Conservation of Natural Resources, Zambia

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