Cited by 161Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementWildlife Ecology and ConservationSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation

Underperformance of African protected area networks and the case for new conservation models: insights from Zambia

Open access
Lindsey, Peter A., Nyirenda, Vincent R., Barnes, Jonathan I., Becker, Matthew S., McRobb, Rachel, Tambling, Craig J., Taylor, W. Andrew, Watson, Frederick G. +1 more·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Many African protected areas (PAs) are not functioning effectively. We reviewed the performance of Zambia's PA network and provide insights into how their effectiveness might be improved. Zambia's PAs are under-performing in ecological, economic and social terms. Reasons include: a) rapidly expanding human populations, poverty and open-access systems in Game Management Areas (GMAs) resulting in widespread bushmeat poaching and habitat encroachment; b) underfunding of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) resulting in inadequate law enforcement; c) reliance of ZAWA on extracting revenues from GMAs to cover operational costs which has prevented proper devolution of user-rights over wildlife to communities; d) on-going marginalization of communities from legal benefits from wildlife; e) under-development of the photo-tourism industry with the effect that earnings are limited to a fraction of the PA network; f) unfavourable terms and corruption which discourage good practice and adequate investment by hunting operators in GMAs; g) blurred responsibilities regarding anti-poaching in GMAs resulting in under-investment by all stakeholders. The combined effect of these challenges has been a major reduction in wildlife densities in most PAs and the loss of habitat in GMAs. Wildlife fares better in areas with investment from the private and/or NGO sector and where human settlement is absent. There is a need for: elevated government funding for ZAWA; greater international donor investment in protected area management; a shift in the role of ZAWA such that they focus primarily on national parks while facilitating the development of wildlife-based land uses by other stakeholders elsewhere; and new models for the functioning of GMAs based on joint-ventures between communities and the private and/or NGO sector. Such joint-ventures should provide defined communities with ownership of land, user-rights over wildlife and aim to attract long-term private/donor investment. These recommendations are relevant for many of the under-funded PAs occurring in other African countries.

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.0094109

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • State-protected conservation areas are unlikely to be sufficient to protect viable populations of large carnivores.

    “It is increasingly recognised that state-protected conservation areas are unlikely to be sufficient to protect viable populations of large carnivores”

    From The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe (2016) · cites this paper as Lindsey et al., 2014

    The Results and Discussion section on ecological indicators reports that Zambian protected areas have depressed prey populations and infers that predator populations are well below historic densities. The Introduction also describes the protected-area network as underperforming. These passages support concern about state-protected areas, but they do not assess whether those areas can protect viable populations of large carnivores generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many protected areas have failed to sufficiently protect large mammals from anthropogenic threats.

    “Many protected areas have failed to sufficiently protect large mammals from anthropogenic threats (Craigie et al., 2010; Lindsey et al., 2014)”

    From The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe (2016) · cites this paper as Lindsey et al., 2014

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [22]Whyte I, van Aarde R, Pimm S (2003) Kruger’s elephant population: Its size and consequences for ecosystem heterogeneity. In: Du Toit J, Rogers K, Biggs H, editors. The Kruger experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Washington DC: Island Press. 332–348.
  2. [33]Manning I (2011) Wildlife conservation in Zambia and the landsafe customary commons. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, PhD thesis.
  3. [41]Lindsey P, Midlane N, Sayer E, van der Westhuizen H (2013) Kafue National Park resource protection strategy review. New York: Panthera/Frankfurt Zoological Society.
  4. [42]Lindsey P, Balme G, Funston P, Henschel P, Hunter L, et al (2013) The trophy hunting of African lions: Scale, current management practices and factors undermining sustainability. Plos One 8(9): e73808. 24058491 PMC3776777
  5. [59]Packer C, Canney S, Loveridge A, Garnett S, Zander K, et al (2013) Effective conservation of large carnivores. Ecological Letters 16: 635– 641.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindsey, P. A., Nyirenda, V. R., Barnes, J. I., Becker, M. S., McRobb, R., Tambling, C. J., Taylor, W. A., Watson, F. G., & t’Sas-Rolfes, M.
Affiliations
  • Panthera Corporation (US)
  • Montana State University (US)
  • Nelson Mandela University (ZA)
  • University of Pretoria (ZA)
  • California State University, Monterey Bay (US)
Corresponding author
Lindsey, Peter A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-05-21
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
e94109
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060451000
Cited by
161
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - CSUMB (California State University, Monterey Bay) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Nelson Mandela University Research Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Keywords
protected area effectiveness, conservation models, game management areas, poaching, anti-poaching, community-based conservation, wildlife tourism, conservation funding, corruption, habitat encroachment, private investment, donor funding, national parks, Zambia
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Wild, Conservation of Natural Resources, Crime, Financing, Government, Humans, Population Dynamics, Social Change, Zambia, Ecosystem

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