LOCAL COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS TO THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY CONSERVATION

AREA IN USUTHU GORGE, SOUTH AFRICA

Dissertation submitted for the degree of

M.Sc in Conservation Biology

Durrell Institute of Conservation & Ecology

University of Kent, UK

NERISSA CHAO
September 2004
 CONTENTS

Contents i
List of Figures iii
List of Tables iv
Acknowledgements v
Abstract vi

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Historical Conservation Policy in Africa 1
1.2. Conservation in South Africa 2
1.3. Community-Based Conservation 3
1.4. Attitudes and Perceptions of Local People to Wildlife and Conservation 6
1.5. Background of Study 8
1.6. Aims and Objectives of the Study 11

Chapter 2: Study Area and Methods

2.1. Study Area 12
2.2. Scope and Limitations 14
2.3. Questionnaire Design 14
2.4. Data Collection 15
2.4.1. Questionnaires 15
2.4.2. Natural resource use workshops 17
2.4.3. Mapping 18
2.5. Data Analysis 18

Chapter 3: Results
3.1. Respondents Background 21
3.2. Area 22
3.3. Knowledge of UG CCA 23
3.3.1. Perceived reason for the establishment of UG CCA 23
3.3.2. Association with UG CCA 24
3.4. Support for UG CCA 24
3.4.1. Reason for support of UG CCA 25
3.4.2. Reason for not supporting UG CCA 26
3.5. Perceived Benefits from Establishing UG CCA 26
3.5.1. Perceived benefits to the individual from UG CCA 26
3.5.2. Perceived benefits to the community from UG CCA 27
3.6. Perceived Problems from Establishing UG CCA 28
3.7. Perceived Community Changes from UG CCA 29

i
3.8. Introduction of Wildlife to UG CCA 30
3.8.1. Support for the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA 30
3.8.2. Reasons for and against the introduction of wildlife 30
3.8.3. Perceived benefits from wildlife in UG CCA 31
3.8.4. Perceived types of benefit from wildlife 32
3.8.5. Perceived problems from wildlife in UG CCA 33
3.8.6. Perceived types of problems from wildlife 33
3.9. Natural Resource Use 34
3.9.1. Questionnaire results 34
3.9.2. Workshop results 35

Chapter 4: Discussion
4.1. Knowledge of the CCA 44
4.2. Support for the CCA 45
4.3. Perceived Benefits and Problems from the CCA 47
4.4. Support for the Introduction of Wildlife 48
4.5. Perceived Benefits and Problems from Introducing Wildlife 49
4.6. Natural Resource Use 50
4.7. Further Research 52
4.8. Conclusions and Recommendations 53

References 55

Appendices
Appendix 1: English Questionnaire 61
Appendix 2: Zulu Questionnaire 63
Appendix 3: Pre-Questionnaire Statement 65
Appendix 4: Natural Resource Use Workshop Map 66

ii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Photograph of UG CCA fence line 9
Figure 1.2: Map of the area under the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority 10
Figure 1.3: Photograph of distribution of homesteads in eKuhlehleni 10
Figure 2.1: Map of South Africa showing KwaZulu-Natal and Maputaland 12
Figure 2.2: Map of sub-places under Electoral Ward 15 13
Figure 2.3: Photograph of traditional kraal in eKuhlehleni 16
Figure 2.4: Photograph of questionnaire administration in eKuhlehleni 16
Figure 2.5: Photograph of female participants in natural resource workshop 17
Figure 2.6: Photograph of participants in Nkonjane workshop 17
Figure 2.7: Photograph of natural resource workshop in Nkonjane 17
Figure 3.1: Graph showing percentage of male and female respondents 21
Figure 3.2: Graph showing percentage age distribution of respondents 21
Figure 3.3: Graph showing percentage employment of respondents 22
Figure 3.4: Graph showing percentage wealth distribution of respondents 22
Figure 3.5: Graph showing percentage distribution of young dependents 22
Figure 3.6: Graph showing percentage education levels of respondents 22
Figure 3.7: Graph showing education levels in each area 22
Figure 3.8: Graph showing wealth distribution in each area 22
Figure 3.9: Graph showing percentage knowledge of UG CCA in each area 23
Figure 3.10: Graph showing percentage support for UG CCA in each area 24
Figure 3.11: Graph showing levels of support of respondents with prior
knowledge of the CCA and those without 24
Figure 3.12: Graph showing levels of support to the introduction of wildlife
in each area 30
Figure 3.13: Graph showing perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to
UG CCA in each area 31
Figure 3.14: Graph showing perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to
UG CCA at each education level 31
Figure 3.15: Graph showing perceived problems from introducing wildlife to
UG CCA in each area 33
Figure 3.16: Map of resource collection from Nkonjane group 1 37
Figure 3.17: Map of resource collection from Nkonjane group 2 37
Figure 3.18: Map of resource collection from Nkonjane group 3 38
Figure 3.19: Map of resource collection from Mabona group 38
Figure 3.20: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni female group 1 39
Figure 3.21: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni female group 2 39
Figure 3.22: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni male group 1 40
Figure 3.23: Map of resource collection from eKuhlehleni male group 2 40
Figure 3.24: Map showing level of resource use in each sub-place 41

iii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Respondents perceived reasons for the establishment of
UG CCA in each area 23
Table 3.2: Respondents and family associated with UG CCA in each area 24
Table 3.3: Reasons for support of the UG CCA 25
Table 3.4: Reasons for not supporting the UG CCA 26
Table 3.5: Perceived benefits to the individual from the UG CCA 26
Table 3.6: Perceived community benefits from the UG CCA 27
Table 3.7: Perceived problems from establishing the UG CCA 28
Table 3.8: Perceived changes to the community from the UG CCA 29
Table 3.9: Reasons for supporting the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA 30
Table 3.10: Perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA 32
Table 3.11: Perceived problems from introducing wildlife to UG CCA 33
Table 3.12: Most important natural resources in each area 34
Table 3.13: Natural resource priority list from Nkonjane workshop 35
Table 3.14: Natural resource priority list from eKuhlehleni workshop 35
Table 3.15: Natural resources and areas of collection from Nkonjane
workshop 42
Table 3.16: Natural resources and collection areas from eKuhlehleni
Workshop 43

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank all the many people that have contributed to this project and made it
possible and apologies for not being able to thank everyone individually. I would first
like to thank all the residents of eKuhlehleni, Mabona and Nkonjane who gave up their
time and answered the questionnaire so willingly. I would like to thank the Mathenjwa
Traditional Authority and UG CCA Steering Committee for giving me permission to
carry out this research and I greatly appreciate the support that I received from them.
I would also like to thank all the Induna’s of the area, in particular the Chief Induna,
Mr Mathenjwa, for their help and support. A special thank you goes to my four
research assistants; Smangele Khumalo, Samual Mdlalose, Gloria Mngomezulu and
Nsikayezwe Zondo, who were invaluable to the project and a pleasure to work with.
Thank you to Ndoda Tembe for helping me organise and run the workshops and to
Sue McClintock from The Wildlands Trust. My gratitude to EKZN Wildlife, in particular
Katherine Hanekom, Wayne Matthews, Vusi Gumbe, Mandla Tembe and all the staff at
the Education Centre.

I would like to thank Dr Bob Smith for agreeing to supervise me, for giving me the
opportunity to carry out this project and being available for help and advise in South
Africa and Canterbury. Thank you to Paul Brookes who was a great companion in
South Africa and both of whom I will always remember for their culinary skills.

Thank you to Julia Baker for going through the statistics with me and all my fellow
DICE classmates who have made this past year so memorable and rewarding. Thank
you to Shelley and Nicola for all their assistance over the year.

Thank you especially to Julian Easton for patiently putting up with all my stress, for
being a calming influence and for always being there. Finally I would like to thank my
parents for supporting me through yet another year of education, of which I am
extremely grateful.

Thank you to DICE and the Darwin Initiative for helping to fund this project.

v
 ABSTRACT
The concept of Community-Based Conservation (CBC) was developed to address the
exclusionary policies of the Colonial era and to involve local communities in
conservation initiatives. It has been recognised that local community support plays an
important role in determining the success of conservation initiatives and it is hoped
that providing incentives for conservation will result in a positive change in attitudes
and behaviour towards conservation. Since the end of apartheid in South Africa,
Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) have been actively supporting CBC
initiatives. As a means of improving livelihoods and conserving biodiversity the
Mathenjwa Traditional Authority in KwaZulu-Natal have been working closely with
EKZNW and The Wildlands Trust, a South African NGO, to create a Community
Conservation Area (CCA) within their communal lands. This study examined the
perceptions of local community members to the development of this conservation
initiative and examined natural resource use in the area. Few studies have been
carried out to evaluate perceptions of local communities at the start of CBC
programmes yet understanding their attitudes and perceptions are essential for their
success. This study aimed to provide valuable information for management and
conservation strategies within the CCA.

A questionnaire survey was carried out in three areas bordering the conservation
area; eKuhlehleni, Nkonjane and Mabona. Two additional workshops were organised to
examine natural resource use in these areas. Results showed that very few
respondents knew about the development of the CCA although for the most part,
support was high. There was particular variation in responses between eKuhlehleni
and the other two areas. Respondents from eKuhlehleni were much more negative and
sceptical to the initiative whereas respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were
generally very positive and had high expectations, especially of employment
opportunities and development benefits. Support for the introduction of wildlife was
high although concern was expressed especially of potential human-wildlife conflict.
The workshops illustrated reliance on natural resources and that the CCA may contain
important areas for natural resource use. The results show that more effective
information dissemination is needed to occur and effort taken to ensure that
expectations can be fulfilled. Protocol should be developed to deal with potential
conflict between the CCA and local people e.g. human-wildlife conflict and access to
resources. Where the CCA may affect livelihoods especially in terms of resource use,
policies involving controlled access need to be developed or alternatives provided.

KEYWORDS: Community-Based Conservation, Attitudes, Perceptions, Natural Resource

Use, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

vi
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Competing land use options and a growing human population have had significant
impacts on biodiversity. Conservation goals often cannot be achieved purely within the
boundaries of protected areas and initiatives now include local communities in
conservation objectives, challenging top-down approaches characterised by state
ownership and control of wildlife and resources. This chapter looks at conservation
policy in Africa starting with pre-independence conservation policy and followed by
conservation policy in South Africa. The following section describes community-based
conservation and evaluates its potential for success. The attitudes and perceptions of
local people to conservation are examined with particular reference to community-
based conservation initiatives. A background to the study is presented and the final
section sets out the aims and objectives.

1.1. HISTORICAL CONSERVATION POLICY IN AFRICA

A low human population density combined with traditional customs limited the degree
of exploitation of wildlife and resources in pre-colonial Africa. Chiefs had control over
rights to fish, farm, hunt and exploit other natural resources (Simbotwe, 1993).
Traditional beliefs offered protection to some rare or endangered species and hunting
in certain areas e.g. sacrificial graveyards was strictly prohibited (Nsanjama, 1993).
However, a growing human population and the arrival of new ethnic groups often
degraded customary or traditional practices. The arrival of the ‘Nguni pastoralists
during the 1600s displaced the resident low population hunter-gatherer San people in
KwaZulu-Natal. This marked the initial and ongoing decline of wildlife, particularly
large mammals and threatened the survival of some rare species (Hughes, 2002).

The first Europeans in Africa hunted species regardless of biology, ecology or rarity
and disrupted many of the traditional practices held by the indigenous people
(Nsanjama, 1993). White settler farmers owned the wildlife on their property and
species incompatible with their farming practices were eradicated whilst those suitable
for sport hunting were protected (Owen-Smith, 1993). In response to the dramatic
decline in wildlife numbers, governments in Colonial Africa established the first game
reserves (Cumming, 1993) developing conservation policy based on practices
designed and implemented in North America and Europe (Nepal & Weber, 1995;
Nsanjama, 1993).

Generally these game reserves were established in remote areas, often infested with
tsetse fly or malaria (Cumming, 1993). Although the conversion of mostly uninhabited

-1-
marginal lands meant relatively few indigenous people significantly suffered loss from
the denied use of natural resources (Attwell & Cotterill, 2000), the methods of
establishment left local communities bitter and resentful. Some areas were part of
their hunting “common” and local Africans living within them were evicted with no
compensation. With the decline of large mammals threatening colonial sport hunting,
government regulation was introduced restricting indigenous people’s use of wildlife,
and control given to white government agencies (Owen-Smith, 1993).

The single-use system of agriculture and ranching brought to Africa by the Europeans
was also a major contributing factor for the general decline in large mammal
populations across sub-Saharan Africa during the colonial period. The introduced
domestic plants and animals and the mass game-annihilation campaign that
accompanied European agriculture and ranching became the single greatest cause of
demise of the big game herds. This led to deep seated resentment among black
Africans who heard about government sponsored slaughters of wild animals to
eradicate and contain diseases and open up land for crop farming yet were prohibited
themselves from hunting for subsistence needs. By the end of the colonial era,
poaching was a growing problem and seen as an honourable occupation among black
subsistence farmers (Owen-Smith, 1993).

1.2 CONSERVATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

Past colonial policies have had a major impact on shaping the protected area network
today, with protected area boundaries reinforcing the exclusion of Africans from
wildlife protection. The apartheid government in South Africa continued to follow a
strict preservationist approach and for the black South African the experience of
conservation was persecution for poaching, forced removal from traditional land and
denied access to resources and cultural sites (Wells, 1996). Consequently, wildlife
became viewed as exclusively for whites for sport hunting or game viewing, Africans
being barred both racially and economically (Owen-Smith, 1993).

Little had changed in the attitude of rural Africans toward wildlife and conservation by
the end of colonial rule (Owen-Smith, 1993). Protected areas had little support
amongst poor rural people and were virtually unknown to poor urban people (Wells,
1996) with few rural Africans in an economic position to visit national parks and game
reserves (Owen-Smith, 1993). By the end of apartheid most protected areas in South
Africa were still firmly associated with the former regime (Wells, 1996). The vast
majority still saw wildlife as belonging to the government or wealthy elite (Wells,
1996; Owen-Smith, 1993) and protected areas continued to put a militaristic
emphasis on wildlife preservation (Anderson & Grove, 1987).

-2-
Since the end of apartheid in South Africa, there have been high expectations amongst
the black population for a more equitable distribution of resources. Improving relations
between parks and surrounding communities is a high priority for South African
conservation agencies (Wells, 1996). The strictly preservationist approach to
conservation has been replaced by the recognition that conservation will not succeed
in the long-term unless it has the support of the local people (Boonzaier, 1996; Wells,
1996).

1.3 COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION

By the 1980s it was recognised that many conservation goals in Africa were not being
met. Fuelled by rapid population growth and poverty (Newmark & Hough, 2000),
illegal off-take was high and agriculture and grazing was encroaching on “wilderness”
areas (Hulme & Murphree, 2001). The exclusionary policies eventually eroded away
the value of wildlife and poachers became the sole suppliers of wildlife benefit to the
local people (Nsanjama, 1993). While rural communities paid the cost of conservation
they received little incentive to use wildlife and natural resources sustainably (Gibson
& Marks, 1995).

Although socially unjust, the preservationist approach to conservation has been

extremely successful in the recovery of some vertebrate species populations’ such as
elephants (Cumming, 1993) and is likely to be responsible for the wildlife resources
remaining today (Attwell & Cotterill, 2000). However, the effectiveness of protected
areas is strongly correlated with the level of law enforcement (Bruner et al, 2001) and
generally state departments have insufficient resources to ensure effective wildlife
conservation. Combined with the mounting pressure to recognise the needs and
perspectives of local people (Roe et al, 2000) Community-Based Conservation (CBC)
was developed.

CBC aims to make rural people central to the conservation effort, focusing on those
who pay the price of conservation (Hackel, 1999). By linking conservation and
development needs through community involvement, generating revenue and
improving quality of life through sustainable resource management, it is hoped that
conservation initiatives will receive greater support from communities in conserving
their natural resources (Larson et al, 1998). CBC aims to promote positive
conservation behaviours and practices with local communities being an integral part of
the planning and implementation of conservation programmes (Hackel, 1990). There
are three main emphases:

-3-
1. Economic incentives - Rural people will not manage their natural resources
sustainably and prioritise conservation unless there is a perceived greater yield of
returns than from other forms of land use.
2. Devolution of authority and responsibility to community - Communities will have a
stronger incentive to manage resources sustainably if they are the main
beneficiaries and have a sense of ownership and control over their resources.
3. Development of community institutions and structures for management -
Communities will be able to control use, distribute benefits and exploit
opportunities in the natural resource market with formal management structures
(Barrow & Murphree, 2001).

However, for rural people where wildlife has important economic implications,
willingness to support any conservation initiative will be closely tied to maintaining or
enhancing their present livelihood situation (Barrow & Murphree, 2001). CBC
developed alongside ideas about combining preservation goals with consumptive and
non-consumptive use of wildlife resources (Adams & Hulme, 2001a) and putting a
value on wildlife. Typical incentives offered to local communities in order to gain their
support include shared decision-making authority, employment, revenue sharing,
limited harvesting of plants and animal species, or provision of community facilities
(e.g. dispensaries, schools, bore holes and roads) (Newmark & Hough, 2000).

There is often an underlying assumption that the implementation of a CBC initiative

automatically guarantees the necessary protection of wildlife (Hackel, 1999) and that
clear property rights ensures conservation practices (Sanderson & Redford, 2003). The
devolution of control of national or international biodiversity heritage to local
communities could result in their demise if local authorities choose to exploit the
resources to meet local demands (Attwell & Cotterill, 2000). CBC is most likely to be
successful when:

• there are strong local systems in place which are effective in controlling and
enforcing restrictions of access to resources;
• there are incentives to use resources sustainably;
• there is the technical capacity to monitor ecological and social conditions;
• there are mechanisms to ensure the equitable flow of benefits compensating those
who pay the price of conservation; and
• management is flexible enough to change incentives and rules of access to adapt
to changes in the condition of the resource or its users (Barrett et al, 2001).

Advocates of CBC must be careful when promoting these projects and recognise the
potential problems with the concept of CBC (Barrett et al, 2001). In particular, basic
assumptions need to be dispelled, including the notion of a “community” to suggest a

-4-
relatively homogenous group of people with common goals (Schafer & Bell, 2002;
Barrett et al, 2001). Within a community multiple interests may exist (Barrow &
Murphree, 2001) and intra-community conflict can occur as different groups of people
distinguished by age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status etc, compete for rights,
revenue and resource availability (Jones, 2001). In addition, access to resources and
benefits is often inequitable with individual members of the community holding
variable degrees of power and influence (Barrow & Murphree, 2001).

The way that benefit sharing occurs in most CBC initiatives rarely counteracts the
negative impacts on wildlife or the environment caused by the range of economic
activities that are driven by the daily needs for income, consumption goods or
employment. Benefits are often in the form of social infrastructure which frequently
does not provide adequate incentives for CBC. A single set of development benefits
provided at the community level generally does not improve individual or household
economic welfare significantly and small amounts of wildlife revenue, once shared
amongst the community, is usually not of a sufficient value to enable rural
communities to be in an economic position to forgo wildlife damage or costs (Emerton,
2001). Many CBC initiatives rely on eco-tourism or safari hunting as a means to
generate revenue. This can be an unreliable source of income, prone to exchange rate
fluctuations and political turmoil (Hackel, 1999).

Moreover, success or perceived success of a project in generating revenue, providing

employment and improving the quality of life for those involved in the initiative can
induce migration to the area (Newmark & Hough, 2000). Several CAMPFIRE
programmes in Zimbabwe, well known CBC initiatives devolving wildlife management
to the community, are threatened by large scale immigration (Child, 1996). There is
likely to be an upper limit to the revenue that can be generated from wildlife
resources. This can be susceptible to declines in the relative size of the revenue as the
numbers needing to benefit from it increase (Adams & Hulme, 2001b). This ultimately
reduces the incentive for conservation at the community level (Attwell & Cotterill,
2000) and makes projects that rely on revenue sharing for support particularly
vulnerable (Adams & Hulme, 2001b).

Support for conservation initiatives is often enhanced by the promise of development

benefits. However, an emphasis on development can lead to the de-emphasis of
conservation goals and greater community empowerment can result in conservation
goals being challenged in favour of economic and development objectives (Adams &
Hulme, 2001a). Additionally, relying too heavily purely on economic incentives as a
mechanism for generating support can be risky. CBC restricts economic choices and
rural empowerment can lead to communities rejecting CBC projects and adopting
alternative land-use options through democratic means (Hackel, 1999).

-5-
Decentralisation and enhancing community control of natural resources will not
necessarily result in positive conservation action, especially where persistent economic
problems and weak support for wildlife conservation exists (Hackel, 1999). Community
development priorities often undermine conservation goals as illustrated by CAMPFIRE
where wildlife revenues have been invested in the expansion of agriculture and animal
husbandry (Murombedzi, 1999). Although achieving conservation and development
objectives simultaneously may seem an attractive solution to promoting support for
conservation in communities, it can be a difficult goal to accomplish without the
success of one being detrimental to the other.

However, CBC initiatives can avoid these pitfalls if well planned and objective. CBC can
be a powerful tool to promote greater acceptance of conservation. For CBC to be
successful, initiatives must measure and respond to the attitudes and perceptions of
the local communities.

1.4 ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF LOCAL PEOPLE TO WILDLIFE

AND CONSERVATION

Although attitudes are not always clearly linked to behaviour, CBC attempts to
influence attitudes and perceptions to conservation in the hope that this will lead to
behaviour change (Infield & Namara, 2001). Positive conservation attitudes have been
shown to reflect in more conservation-orientated behaviours (Holmes, 2003).

Varying levels of support for conservation areas have been demonstrated in

developing countries, many of which are determined by local communities’ perceptions
and attitudes to the conservation area and its management. Social, cultural, political
and economic factors play a role in determining attitudes (Ite, 1996). In particular
level of education and standard of living often seem to be important determinants of a
positive attitude to conservation by rural people living with wildlife (Nepal & Weber,
1995). These factors are influenced by perceived costs and benefits of the
conservation area to the community (Ite, 1996). Local support for conservation
remains weak in many countries. Rural African people often view conservation as
misguided with virtual exclusive preference to wildlife protection and a disregard to
their basic day-day needs, interests and values (Hackel, 1999; Nepal & Weber, 1995).
This has led to hostile attitudes towards wildlife conservation creating conflict between
local communities and conservation authorities (Nepal & Weber, 1995).

The involvement of local communities in management and decision-making processes

and the provision of benefits to offset opportunity costs are expected to result in a
more positive attitude to conservation (Nepal & Weber, 1995). The costs of living close

-6-
to a conservation area, including crop raiding, livestock predation and the loss of
access to resources, often result in negative local attitudes (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001;
Parry & Campbell, 1992). The provision of tangible benefits from wildlife conservation
(e.g. game meat) can foster positive attitudes to conservation initiatives (Walpole &
Goodwin, 2001) and can be used as a mechanism to reduce conflict (Fiallo &
Jacobson, 1995; Nepal & Weber, 1995).

It has been largely confirmed that factors besides income generation influence
attitudes and behaviour towards conservation (Stem et al, 2003). Local demise of
wildlife is usually regretted for educational, ethical and aesthetic reasons, although
due to economic pressures this may not seem apparent. In virtually all rural African
communities wildlife is strongly represented in their traditional knowledge and value
systems (Owen-Smith, 1993). As many rural livelihoods are not solely reliant on wage
employment, other factors such as access to resources can play an important role in
influencing attitudes.

To accomplish the goals of CBC, the opinions and attitudes of rural communities need
to be evaluated (Hackel, 1990) and their perceived needs and aspirations taken into
account (Infield, 1988). The acceptance and support of the local community is
important for the long term security of a conservation initiative and therefore an
understanding of factors leading to public support and the relationship between local
people and the conservation area is needed (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Newmark et al,
1994).

In order to improve attitudes of local people it is essential that costs are minimised
and benefits are distributed equitably and not perceived small in relation to losses
(Parry & Campbell, 1992). Additionally the expectations of local communities should
be realistic and the size of benefits not over-estimated. The future success of
conservation in Africa is largely dependent on the attitudes and activities of rural
populations which need to view wildlife and conservation as a tangible asset (Owen-
Smith, 1993). An understanding of conservation attitudes of local communities are
important for guiding policy and management decisions involved in design,
implementation and evaluation of CBC initiatives (Gillingham & Lee, 1999).

-7-
1.5. BACKGROUND OF STUDY
The Mathenjwa Traditional Authority covers an area of approximately 547km2 in
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Poverty is widespread in this region and there is little
economic development. Consequently employment opportunities are low and in an
attempt to improve their situation, create jobs and generate revenue, the Mathenjwa
community have spent several years working to establish a Community Conservation
Area (CCA) setting aside approximately 60km2 of communal land in Usuthu Gorge.

Usuthu Gorge lies between the Lebombo Mountain range to the West, dividing South
Africa from Swaziland, and the Usuthu River to the North, separating South Africa
from Mozambique. From a conservation perspective the Lebombo Mountains are
known to be important for a number of endemic plants, especially cycad species (van
Wyk & Smith, 2001). New initiatives attempting to adjoin existing protected areas
make the Usuthu Gorge CCA (UG CCA) a critical component of the proposed Lebombo
Trans-Frontier Conservation Area initiative between South Africa, Swaziland and
Mozambique. This aims to incorporate present protected areas into a larger
conservation area including Ndumu Game Reserve and Tembe Elephant Park in South
Africa.

The key stakeholders in this CBC initiative are the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority,
KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority, The Wildlands Conservation Trust and Ezemvelo
KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW). A steering committee has been established
consisting of members nominated from the Mathenjwa community, the local Indunas
and representatives from The Wildlands Trust and EKZNW. The traditional authority
and Indunas are well respected within the community and their influence remains
strong. They have shown commitment and cooperation to the initiative and play an
important role in disseminating information and generating local support for the
programme.

Presently approximately 10km of fencing has been constructed on the east side of the
CCA including a corridor which will eventually adjoin the nearby Ndumu Game Reserve
(fig. 1.1). A basic road network, two water points and the initial introduction of a small
number of game species; impala (Aepyceros melampus), nyala (Tragelaphus angasii)
and wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), has taken place. More animals will be
introduced on the completion of the fence line including kudu (Tragelaphus
strepsiceros) and white rhino (Ceratotherium simum) with the long term vision to
develop a good quality tourism product of both hunting and nature viewing,
generating jobs and revenue for the community (UG Business Plan Workshop, 2004).

-8-
Fig. 1.1: Fence line of the corridor which crosses Nkonjane and will eventually adjoin UG CCA to Ndumu
Game Reserve and showing the access point to UG CCA and Usuthu River from Nkonjane.

The economic value of wildlife has been recognised in South Africa since the 1960s
when hunters began to pay for the game that they killed (Scriven & Eloff, 2003). This
has led to the development of private game ranching as a profitable form of land use
generating revenue from the sale of hunts and venison, selling live animals at auction,
processing animal products and from game lodges and other related services (ABSA,
2002). Communities could develop game ranching on communal lands, a potentially
profitable enterprise as demonstrated by the sale of a white rhino (Certotherium
simium) by a Community Trust at the EKZNW auction raising 140 000 SA Rand
(approximately £12 389) (Easton, 2004).

Since the end of apartheid in 1994, conservation organisations within South Africa
have undergone reconstruction with the support and promotion of community
conservation initiatives. Within this context, the UG CCA has received the support and
technical input from EKZNW, including the donation of game species. The well
developed institutions and conservation success in South Africa, alongside the support
from The Wildlands Conservation Trust and EKZNW puts the UG CCA in a good
position for success.

This study focuses on three sites, Nkonjane, Mabona and eKuhlehleni which are under
the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority and lie adjacent to and within the Southern
border of the CCA (fig. 1.2). Homesteads within these areas are informally scattered
across the landscape with the majority of people living several hundred metres from
their neighbour (fig. 1.3). Basic infrastructure and amenities are available and a few
clinics have been opened. Transport is basic; gravel, dirt or sand roads exist but can
become impassable in the rainy season. Telephones and electricity are scarce and
although water points have been established throughout the area, many people still
collect water from the river to avoid paying for the use of the water pumps.

-9-
 Mathenjwa Traditional Authority
Ndumu Game Reserve
Inhabited areas
Nkonjane
eKuhlehleni
Mabona
UG CCA fence line
0 4 8 12 16 20 km
Prospective fence line

Fig. 1.2: Map of Mathenjwa Traditional Authority showing the UG CCA boundaries and the three study areas,
Nkonjane, Mabona and eKuhlehleni.

Fig. 1.3: Scattered distribution of homesteads in eKuhlehleni.

The population survives through migrant labour, subsistence farming, livestock and
government grants and are largely dependent on natural resource use. The extended
family structure is still very coherent and polygamy is still practiced. Many men may
work away from their homes for 11 months of the year and hence there are more
women and children in the region. The AIDS epidemic is having an increasingly
negative impact on society with a high rate of hospital deaths from AIDS in the 20-40
year age group. This has also led to a large number of orphans in the area (Barnard,
2001).

- 10 -
1.6. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This study examines the perceptions of local people in three villages under the
Mathenjwa Traditional Authority; eKuhlehleni, Nkonjane and Mabona, whose
communal land is being donated to establish a Community Conservation Area (CCA).
Very few studies have been carried out assessing opinions and perceptions of local
people who will be affected by the conservation initiative at the initial stages of its
establishment. It is crucial to evaluate and understand these in order to ensure its
success and minimise any potential conflicts. Assessing perceptions at the start of a
project is essential in making appropriate management decisions and designing
conservation strategy. It also provides a means of assessing the impact and success of
the CBC initiative.

This study is a preliminary look at perceptions and opinions of the local population of
the establishment of the UG CCA. The objective of this project is to provide
information which can be used to guide management and conservation strategy and
resource use within the protected area in relation to the local populations living around
it. This will be fulfilled by answering the following questions:

1. How aware are community members of what is being established in Usuthu

Gorge?
2. How supportive are community members of the CCA?
3. What are the perceived benefits and problems from establishing the CCA?
4. How supportive are community members of introducing wild animals to the
CCA?
5. What are the perceived benefits and problems from introducing wild animals to
the CCA?
6. What natural resources are most important for community members?
7. Where are these natural resources harvested in relation to the proposed CCA
boundary?

- 11 -
 CHAPTER 2: STUDY AREA AND METHODS
Questionnaire surveys are a useful method of collecting information on community
perceptions in a relatively short period of time and have been used widely in studies
examining local attitudes and perceptions to conservation initiatives. This chapter
describes the study area and methods used in data collection and analysis starting
with a description of the location of the study area and its main characteristics. The
next section examines the limitations to data collection and is followed by the design
of the questionnaire. The following section explains how the questionnaires were
administered, the layout of the natural resource workshops and details the GIS
mapping. Finally the analysis for the results from the questionnaires and workshops
are described.

2.1. STUDY AREA

This study was carried out in Maputaland in the South African province of KwaZulu-
Natal. The Mathenjwa Traditional Authority falls under this area (fig. 2.1.) which is
known for its high biodiversity and conservation importance. The Lebombo Mountain
Range rises to an even crest between 600-700m altitude and contains four large
inland rivers which flow to the Indian Ocean creating impressive gorges of which the
Usuthu River is one. Six major plant communities occur in this region: aquatic,
grassland, rockface communities, tree savanna, thicket and forest (Smith, 2001).

Botswana
Mozambique
Swazi-
land
Namibia

Mathenjwa
Traditional Authority
KwaZulu-Natal
Maputaland
Other Provinces
KwaZulu-Natal
0 200 400 600 800 km

Fig. 2.1: Map of South Africa and its provinces showing KwaZulu-Natal, Maputaland and the Mathenjwa
Traditional Authority.

- 12 -
Typical wildlife in the Usuthu Gorge includes klipspringer, mountain reedbuck and red
rock hare, other small mammals, birds, reptiles and freshwater fish of rocky waters
also exist (Tinley & van Riet, 1981). Large mammals and big game populations were
extirpated outside of protected areas by hunting and game elimination programmes to
control the tsetse fly (Bruton, 1980). Hunting using dogs and snares still occurs but is
mainly confined to small mammals and diminishing numbers of these have been
reported (Nkonjane Workshop, 2004). In a conservation and development effort, the
Mathenjwa Traditional Authority is establishing the UG CCA with the hope to generate
revenue through consumptive and non-consumptive tourism.

The traditional authority falls under the Ingwavuma District which is sub-divided into
electoral wards. The study site is within Electoral Ward 15 covering an area of
263km2. Official figures for this Ward show the population at 12 846 (54% female,
46% male) with 6093 under the age of 15 (Municipal Demarcation Board, 2004). 14
sub-places (official name for villages within tribal areas) fall under this Ward (fig 2.2).

Ndumu Game Reserve

Electoral Ward 15

Study area sub-places

Other sub-places
Nkonjane
eKuhlehleni
Mabona
UG CCA fence line
Prospective fence line

0 5 10 kilometres

Fig. 2.2: Map showing the sub-places within Electoral Ward 15 and the three study areas and the UG CCA
boundary.

Questionnaires were administered in three areas; Nkonjane, Mabona and eKuhlehleni.

Nkonjane falls under the sub-place of Mpolimpoli covering approximately 42km2 and is
the eastern most area situated closest to Ndumu Game Reserve and adjacent to the
initial construction of the fence line (fig. 2.2). The fenced corridor bisects a dirt road
which acts as a main access route to the Usuthu River and to Mozambique. Access
through the corridor is still permitted. Mabona lies west of Nkonjane covering an area
of approximately 21km2 and is the least populated study area. eKuhlehleni is the
furthest west of the three areas and is covers two official sub-places (eKuhlehleni and
Dubulwayo) covering approximately 22km2 and is the most densely populated area.

- 13 -
2.2. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The study set out to assess community perceptions of the CCA in the areas in closest
proximity to it and hence who are likely to be most affected by its establishment. Due
to a lack of information of the official boundaries between sub-places at the start of
the study, focal areas were identified through key local informants. The study areas
were based on local knowledge and population concentrations and are not consistent
with official sub-place boundaries. The area identified as Nkonjane falls under the sub-
place of Mpolimpoli and eKuhlehleni covers two official sub-places but at a local level
were both classified as eKuhlehleni.

The number of households and demographics within these areas were also not
available. The households were extremely dispersed and hence the questionnaire was
conducted at as many households permitted by time to give a broad assessment of
community perceptions. Logistical and time constraints limited the total number of
households visited and combined with the lack of information regarding number of
households and population size prevented a more stratified sampling method. The
three areas differ in population size reflected by the different sampling effort carried
out between the areas.

A language barrier between researcher and respondents along with the large area to
cover meant that questionnaires were carried out through trained research assistants.
This led to several limitations to the methodology in terms of different individuals
carrying out questionnaires, back-translation and cultural language discrepancies, and
these are described in the next section.

2.3. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

A comprehensive questionnaire was designed aiming to avoid ambiguity and
interviewer bias as the questionnaire would be administered by four different
interviewers. The questionnaire included a mixture of open and fixed response
questions covering personal details of the respondent (age, sex, ethnic origin, income
levels, education levels, occupation), household size and composition; knowledge and
support for UG CCA; perceived benefits, problems and changes from UG CCA; support
for the introduction of wildlife and their perceived benefits and problems; perceptions
to conservation and wildlife; and natural resource use in the area (Appendix 1).

Dichotomous (yes/no) questions were asked regarding knowledge of the CCA;

association with the CCA; support for the CCA; support for the introduction of wildlife;
and perceived benefits and costs to having wildlife. Open questions provided details of

- 14 -
individual perceptions ensuring respondents were not limited in their responses from
categorical answers and avoided bias by influencing responses. Response categories
were constructed from the replies to the open questions at the end of data collection
to allow for data analysis. Attitude statements were constructed to assess perceptions
to conservation and wildlife using opposite statement pairs to cross check responses
following Infield (1988).

The questionnaire was translated into Zulu by two of the research assistants. This was
back-translated to English by the other two research assistants and compared to the
original version to ensure the context of the questionnaire had not been “lost in
translation” and any discrepancies modified (Glewwe, 2003) (Appendix 2). A pilot
survey was carried out in a community outside the study area to test the suitability of
the questions and its structure. All researchers were accompanied on pilot interviews
to ensure the same standard methodology was being applied (Walpole & Goodwin,
2001). Any necessary modifications to questions were made before data collection
commenced.

2.4. DATA COLLECTION

2.4.1. QUESTIONNAIRES

Questionnaires were administered by 4 research assistants for 5 weeks in May and

June 2004. A pre-written standard statement regarding the project and questionnaire
was read out to ensure that the information given was systematic (Appendix 3). All
questionnaires and answers were written in Zulu and translated into English at the end
of data collection. As information was not available on population lists of adults in the
three study sites and due to logistical and time limitations, the sampling strategy used
was to visit as many households as possible in the three areas being sampled and
interview one adult (age over 20 years) at each household visited. Households were
defined as “all people normally resident within or making economic contributions to a
kraal, a group of huts traditionally fenced” (Infield, 1988) (fig. 2.3).

If respondents stated they were aware of what was being developed at Usuthu Gorge
(question 1), they were asked to explain what they knew. These responses were not
used in the analysis but as a means to ensure the accuracy of those responding “yes”.
If respondents did not know, a standard non-bias statement explaining the UG CCA
was read out to them and the questionnaire continued from question 5.

- 15 -
 Fig. 2.3: Typical traditional kraal in eKuhlehleni, with a modern house constructed behind.

A larger sampling effort occurred in eKuhlehleni with two research assistants based
there during the data collection period due to the larger population density (fig. 2.4).
Two other research assistants collected data in Nkonjane and Mabona with the aim to
have approximately equal proportions of the population at each area sampled. Same-
sex interviews were carried out if possible as respondents tended to be more
comfortable and open with interviewers of the same sex.

Fig. 2.4: Questionnaire being conducted in eKuhlehleni by female research assistant at respondents
household.

- 16 -
2.4.2. NATURAL RESOURCE USE WORKSHOPS

Workshops were organised as an exercise in community participatory mapping as the

questionnaire surveys were limited in gaining an understanding on which resources
are used and where they are collected. Two workshops were carried out; one at the
primary school at Nkonjane and the second at the community hall in eKuhlehleni for
both residents from eKuhlehleni and Mabona. Both workshops were carried out on a
Saturday when residents were least likely to have other commitments. Community
members were invited via the Induna of their area and everyone was welcome.

Fig. 2.5: A female group of participants at the natural resource workshop in eKuhlehleni.

Workshop participants were divided into groups of between 5 and 10 individuals and
when possible, divided into groups of men and women, which was only possible with
residents from eKuhlehleni (fig. 2.5). Each group made a list of natural resources that
they presently used (fig. 2.6) and then were asked to prioritise the top 10. A map of
the area (Appendix 4) was given to each group and areas where these resources were
collected were marked on the map (fig. 2.7).

Fig. 2.6: The three groups at the natural resource workshop Fig. 2.7: Participants at the natural resource
in Nkonjane. workshop in Nkonjane marking the 10 priority
resources onto a map.

- 17 -
2.4.3. MAPPING

All mapping was carried out using ArcView GIS 3.2 software. A map was created for
the natural resource use workshop so that participants could mark where they collect
their resources from. A high resolution ASTER image was digitised at 1:25 000 to
show subsistence and inhabited areas and prominent features including roads and
rivers. GPS points of key reference sites e.g. schools, clinics, shops, were taken in
eKuhlehleni, Nkonjane and Mabona using a hand held GPS (Garmin 12) which were
overlaid onto the map (Appendix 4).

2.5. DATA ANALYSIS

All data were analysed using SPSS for Windows Vers. 11.5. Data from the
questionnaire were analysed using logistic regression to identify demographic factors
(area, age, gender, education level, occupation, wealth and number of young
dependence) which were significant in predicting the responses of the dichotomous
questions and chi-square to demonstrate associations between demographic factors
and perceptions towards the UG CCA and introduction of wildlife. Responses from the
questionnaire were not analysed for each area separately due to the small sample
sizes especially for Mabona, and area was factored into the analysis as an independent
variable. However, area was found to be a statistically significant factor in all but two
of the tests and hence chi-square analysis was carried out between area and the other
independent variables to test for any significant differences in demographic data
between the areas. Data which was not analysed statistically were also examined with
respect to the area respondents were from.

Many of the original categories for the independent variables used on the
questionnaire sheet were modified for analysis and other categories grouped after
data collection. In some cases, the number of samples varied considerably between
categories and they were grouped such that sample size in each category was
approximately equal. Although this led to some uneven category scales, the more
equal numbers of responses in the categories made the data easier to interpret.

• Area was divided into the three areas being surveyed (eKuhlehleni, Nkonjane and
Mabona).
• Age was divided into four groups (20-29, 30-39, 40-49 and 50+). Wider age
categories were used for analysis so that categories were of similar sample sizes
and to account for variation between estimated age (a large proportion of
respondents did not know their exact age) and actual age.

- 18 -
• Education level was divided into four categories: those with no schooling, primary
schooling, secondary schooling and higher education. Secondary education was
combined with higher education later (secondary +) due to the very small number
of respondents who had higher education.
• Occupation was divided into two categories (employed or unemployed).
Respondents who were classed as employed were in a formal occupation. Most
respondents who are classed as unemployed had some level of subsistence
agriculture and livestock ownership.
• Wealth was divided into four categories (0-199, 200-599, 600-999, 1000+ SA Rand
per month). This accounted for all monetary monthly income coming into the
household and therefore includes salaries, grants etc of other members of the
household and money received from outside.
• Due to the custom of looking after children of other family members, it was more
suitable to look at number of young dependents in the household as opposed to
number of children of the respondent. These were classified as children (under 20
years of age) or young adults (under 25 years old) who were still in full time
education and hence reliant on the household. These were grouped into 5
categories: no young dependents, 1-3, 4-5, 6-8 or more than 9.

Open-ended questions were grouped into categories established from the responses.
In some situations where responses to one question more appropriately answered
another question, responses were shifted to the more appropriate question (Bossen,
1997). All responses were coded to run SPSS and descriptive statistics carried out to
calculate frequencies and allow cross-tabulations.

A forward wald binary logistic regression model was used to analyse data where the
dependent variable was a dichotomy (yes or no) in response to: knowledge of the
establishment of the CCA; support for the CCA; support for the introduction of wildlife
to the CCA; and potential wildlife benefits and problems from their introduction, to
assess which independent variables influenced the responses. When a third response
“don’t know” was possible, these were excluded from analysis. Due to the high
variation of responses to “yes” or “no” in all the questions except the potential
problems from the introduction of wildlife, the larger sample was reduced to ensure
equal numbers of respondents in each category was being tested. Although this led to
some information being lost, this was essential to ensure a more accurate regression
model as the large variation resulted in large discrepancies in the percentage of
correctly classified cases. This was carried out by using SPSS to randomly select a
fixed number of respondents from the full larger sample.

Chi-square tests were used on categorical data to determine the association between
the independent variables and reasons for supporting or not supporting the CCA;

- 19 -
perceived benefits from the CCA; perceived potential problems from the CCA; changes
to the community that the CCA may bring; reasons for the support or non-support for
the introduction of wildlife to the CCA; and potential benefits and problems from
introducing wildlife to the CCA. Some of the original categories established for the
responses had to be combined for the chi-square analysis to ensure that less than
25% of the expected cells contained counts less than 5.

No statistical analysis was carried out on respondents’ perceived reasons for the
establishment of the CCA or the natural resources used. Multiple responses were
possible for these questions and data was presented as percentage of respondents
giving each response and hence may sum to more than 100% (Gillingham & Lee,
1999). Responses to question 9 (position of fence line) was not used in the analysis as
there was no means of verifying responses and there were indications that these were
not always accurate. The attitude statements at the end of the questionnaire (question
15) were not used for analysis as cross-checking of responses showed a large degree
of inconsistency with many individuals responding “agree” to both statement pairs.
This is likely to be caused by respondents wishing to agree with the interviewer, or
thinking this was the “right” answer. Additionally the statements may not have been
phrased in a suitably understandable way to fit both their culture and language. The
use of open ended questions in the rest of the questionnaire avoided these issues.

A preliminary look at natural resource use in the area was examined through the
questionnaire and workshops. The results on resource use from the questionnaire can
be regarded as an initial investigation into resource use. It does not provide an
exhaustive list nor an accurate representation of what resources are used in each
area. No statistical analysis was carried out and the results from the questionnaire
were combined with that of the workshops to form an understanding on which
resources are most relied on and where they are collected from in relation to the
proposed CCA boundary. From the mapping exercise at the workshop the areas for
collection were categorised using the official sub-places. These were subsequently
divided where appropriate into northern sections which fall into the proposed CCA
boundary in order to determine areas of use within the CCA. Level of resource use in
each sub-place was calculated by the number of resources collected in the area
multiplied by the number of workshop groups stating the area for resource collection.

- 20 -
 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
The results from the data analysis are examined in this chapter. Firstly a more
detailed account of the respondents is examined to get an understanding of the
demographic and socio-economic factors of the study sample. The demographic and
socio-economic factors between the three study areas are also examined in closer
detail. This is followed by the results from the main questionnaire. Level of knowledge
and support of the CCA and the reasons for this support are presented. The next
section presents the perceived benefits and problems from establishing the CCA
followed by the support of the introduction of wildlife and the perceptions to this.
Finally the results from the natural resource workshops are presented.

3.1 RESPONDENTS’ BACKGROUND

A total of 340 questionnaires were carried out, 213 in eKuhlehleni (KL), 84 in
Nkonjane (NJ) and 43 in Mabona (MB). 98% of respondents were Zulu and 83% had
been born in the same area. The majority of the respondents were female (66%) (fig.
3.1) and within the 30-39 year age group (30%) (fig. 3.2).

40
70 N=225
Percentage of Respondents
Percentage of Respondents

60 N=59
30
50 N=55 N=47
N=46
40
N=115 20
30

20 10

10
0
0
20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
Male Female
Gender Age (years)

Fig. 3.1: Percentage of male and female respondents. Fig. 3.2: Percentage age distribution of respondents

Most respondents were unemployed (89%), relying on welfare grants from the
government, subsistence agriculture and livestock (fig. 3.3) with 36% receiving a
monthly monetary income between 0 and 199 SA Rand (approximately £17.60) (fig.
3.4). Most respondents interviewed (32%) had between 4 and 5 young dependents
living in their household which were defined as children or young adults (under 25) in
full-time education (fig. 3.5). Most respondents had no formal education (35%) and
less than 1% had received further education beyond completing high school (fig. 3.6).

- 21 -
 100 40
N=303 N=121

Percentage of Respondents
90

Percentage of Respondents
80
30 N=93
70
60 N=79
50 20
40 N=47
30
10
20
N=37
10
0 0
Employed Unemployed 0-199 200-599 600-999 1000+
Employment Income / month

Fig. 3.3: Percentage of employed and unemployed Fig. 3.4: Percentage wealth distribution of
respondents. respondents.

40 40 N=151
N=104 N=109 N=137

Percentage of Respondents
Percentage of Respondents

30 30
N=80
20 20
N=48
10
N=28 10
N=19
N=4
0
0
None Primary Secondary Higher
0 1-3 4-5 6-8 9+
Education
No of young dependents Education level

Fig. 3.5: Percentage distribution of number of young Fig. 3.6: Percentage distribution of education
dependents in respondents’ households. levels of respondents.

3.2 AREA
A significant difference was found in education levels between areas (χ2 = 47.302; df
= 4; p<0.001) and the level of wealth between areas (χ2 = 18.312; df = 6; p=0.005).
Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona had much lower education levels than
eKuhlehleni with more respondents not having attended school (fig. 3.7). Respondents
from Mabona were more likely to be in the lowest wealth bracket (fig. 3.8). No
significant difference was found between area and other demographic factors
(p>0.05).

100
60
None 0-199
Percentage of Respondents

80 Primary
Percentage of Respondents

50 200-599
Secondary +
600-999
60 40 1000+

30
40
20

20
10

0 0
KL NJ MB KL NJ MB
Area Area

Fig. 3.7: Level of education of respondents in each area. Fig. 3.8: Level of wealth of respondents in
each area.

- 22 -
3.3 KNOWLEDGE OF UG CCA
Only 26% of all respondents were aware of the CCA being developed at Usuthu Gorge.
Using logistic regression analysis, the final model correctly classified 78.3% of the
respondents knowledge of the CCA (χ2 = 66.931; df = 3; p<0.001). A good model is
considered if the Area under the Relative Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) is
greater than 0.7. Values less than this suggest that other factors not measured in the
analysis play a role in explaining the results. Area was found to be the only significant
factor in respondents prior knowledge of the establishment of the CCA (Wald =
48.797; df = 2; p<0.001) although this model did not explain most of the variation
(AUC = 0.183) so other unmeasured factors were likely to play a role. Respondents
from Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to know about the CCA (51% and 60%)
whereas most respondents in eKuhlehleni had no prior knowledge of it (90%) (fig.
3.9).

100
Percentage of Respondents

80

No
60 Yes

40

20

0
KL NJ MB
Area

Fig. 3.9: Percentage knowledge of respondents to UG CCA in each area.

3.3.1. PERCEIVED REASON FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UG CCA

Community Animal
Employment Don’t Know
Area Development Conservation
(%) (%)
(%) (%)
KL (n=21) 29 10 29 43
NJ (n=43) 51 49 16 0
MB (n=26) 46 62 8 0

Table 3.1: Percentage of respondents perceived reasons for the establishment for UG CCA in each area.
Data is presented as percentage of respondents giving each response and may sum greater than 100%.

The majority of respondents from eKuhlehleni who knew about the establishment of
the CCA did not know why it was being developed (table 3.1). Compared to Nkonjane
and Mabona a much larger percentage of respondents thought the development of the
CCA was for animal conservation reasons whereas in Nkonjane and Mabona large
proportions stated employment and community development purposes.

- 23 -
3.3.2. ASSOCIATION WITH UG CCA

Proportion No. Family Proportion with

Area No. Respondents
Respondents Members Family Members
KL (n=213) 1 0.5% 1 0.5%
NJ (n=84) 4 5% 2 2%
MB (n=43) 2 5% 1 2%

Table 3.2: Number and proportion of respondents or their family members associated with UG CCA in each
area.

Very few respondents or their family were associated with the UG CCA. Respondents
from Nkonjane and Mabona are 10 times more likely to be associated with the CCA
than eKuhlehleni and are more likely to have family members associated with the CCA
(table 3.2).

3.4. SUPPORT FOR UG CCA

A large percentage of all respondents supported the establishment of the CCA (71%)
compared to 15% who did not. Logistic regression analysis showed that area was
highly significant in determining the level of support (Wald = 13.331; df = 2;
p=0.001) and the final regression model correctly classified 67.6% of the respondents
support for the CCA (χ2 = 18.026; df = 2; p<0.001) (AUC= 0.315). A much higher
proportion of non-support was apparent in eKuhlehleni (21%) compared to only 5% in
Nkonjane and 7% in Mabona (fig. 3.10). However, respondents from Nkonjane and
Mabona who had a prior knowledge of the CCA showed 100% support compared to
93% and 77% for those without (fig. 12), support in eKuhlehleni remaining constant
in both groups.

100 100
Percentage of Respondents
Percentage of Respondents

Don't know
80 80 Don't Know
Don't Support
Support Don't Support

60 60 Support

40 40

20 20

0 0
KL Prior KL NJ Prior NJ MB Prior MB
KL NJ MB Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
Area Area

Fig. 3.10: Percentage support of respondents Fig. 3.11: Percentage support of respondents for UG
for UG CCA in each area. CCA in each area showing the difference in support
between respondents with prior knowledge of the CCA
compared to those without.

- 24 -
 3.4.1. REASON FOR SUPPORT OF UG CCA

Community Non- Nature-

Development Consumptive
Employment Empowerment Consumptive Conservation
of Area Use
(%) /Personal Dev Use Benefits
(%) (%)
(%) (%) (%)
Overall 57 11 18 2 3 9
Area
KL 50 6 21 4 6 13
NJ 71 14 12 0 0 3
MB 55 24 17 0 0 3
Age
20-29 56 6 11 0 11 16
30-39 64 10 19 0 0 7
40-49 50 13 22 4 2 9
50+ 55 17 21 5 0 2
Education
None 56 16 23 1 0 4
Primary 59 9 12 1 4 15
Secondary + 57 5 19 5 8 6

Table 3.3: Reasons for support of the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of statistically
significant factors area, age and education level.

The majority of all respondents who supported the CCA stated the future employment
opportunities as their reason for support (table 3.3), followed by community
empowerment and personal development opportunities. There was a highly significant
association between area and the reasons for support (χ2 = 26.837; df = 6; p<0.001)
and a significant association found for age (χ2 = 17.561; df = 9; p=0.041) and
education levels (χ2 = 14.082; df = 6; p=0.029).

Employment was the most important reason for support of the CCA in each category
of area, age and education level. This was stated most frequently by respondents in
Nkonjane. Development of the area was the second most stated reason for support in
Nkonjane and Mabona and more frequently stated by the three older age categories
and respondents with no education. In eKuhlehleni, respondents in age groups 30-39,
40-49 and 50+, and those with no education and secondary education and above,
community empowerment and personal development was a strong motivator for
support. eKuhlehleni respondents, those in the 20-29 year age group and respondents
with primary education were more likely to state conservation reasons for their
support; bequest and existence values (nature-conservation benefits) and non-
consumptive use.

- 25 -
 3.4.2. REASON FOR NOT SUPPORTING UG CCA

No Personal Reduced Community-

Uninformed of Don’t know
perceived Grazing Land CCA Conflict
CCA (%) (%)
benefit (%) (%) (%)
Overall 22 12 29 16 21
Area
KL 25 13 33 18 11
NJ 0 0 0 0 100
MB 0 0 0 0 100

Table 3.4: Reasons why respondents do not support the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and
of area.

Overall, reduced available grazing land was the most frequently stated reason for not
supporting the CCA (table 3.4). The second most frequently stated responses for not
supporting the CCA was that they were uninformed about the CCA and what was being
developed. No significant associations were found using chi-square analysis. However,
due to the high number of cells with counts less than 5 a chi-square test was not able
to be carried out against area. Respondents from Mabona and Nkonjane who said they
did not support the CCA could not give reasons for their view stating don’t know. A
third of respondents from eKuhlehleni who did not support the CCA said it was due to
reduced grazing land and a quarter that they had not been informed about it.

3.5. PERCEIVED BENEFITS FROM ESTABLISHING UG CCA

3.5.1. PERCEIVED BENEFITS TO THE INDIVIDUAL FROM UG CCA

Community Non-
Development Consumptive Don’t
Employment Empowerment Consumptive Nothing
of Area Use know
(%) /Personal Dev Use (%)
(%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)
Overall 60 2 1 3 3 11 20
Area
KL 45 1 0 5 4 17 28
NJ 85 2 5 0 1 2 5
MB 86 9 0 0 0 0 5
Gender
Female 58 1 1 3 4 12 21
Male 64 6 2 3 1 10 14

Table 3.5: Perceived benefits to the individual from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall
response and of statistically significant factors area and gender.

The large majority of respondents overall perceived employment as the most

important individual benefit from establishing the CCA (table 3.5). Other potential
benefits were each only stated by less than 3% of respondents. Although no perceived
individual benefits deriving from the CCA was stated more frequently. A highly

- 26 -
 significant association was found between area and perceived individual benefits from
the establishment of the CCA (χ2 = 80.8; df = 8; p<0.001) and a significant
association with gender (χ2 = 14.067; df = 4; p=0.007). Employment was stated most
frequently as a perceived benefit in each category of area and gender. However, this
was considerably higher for respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona than eKuhlehleni
and higher in males than females. A higher percentage of respondents in eKuhlehleni
did not perceive any individual benefits from establishing the CCA compared to none in
Mabona.

3.5.2. PERCEIVED BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY FROM UG CCA

Community
Develop- Tourist Consump- Non- Don’t
Employ- empowerment Nothing
ment of Revenue tive Use Consumptive know
ment (%) /Personal dev (%)
Area (%) (%) (%) Use (%) (%)
(%)
Overall 42 15 3 2 3 1 6 28
Area
KL 30 13 3 3 4 1 9 37
NJ 61 17 5 0 1 0 1 15
MB 67 19 0 0 0 0 0 14
Education
None 50 12 2 1 1 0 7 27
Primary 30 19 5 3 5 2 5 31
Secondary + 50 12 0 2 4 0 8 24
Occupation
Employed 35 30 3 8 5 0 5 14
Unemployed 43 13 3 1 3 1 7 29

Table 3.6: Perceived community benefits from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall
response and of statistically significant factors area, education and occupation.

Most respondents perceived employment opportunities (42%) as the primary

community benefit from establishing the CCA. A highly significant association with
perceived community benefits from the CCA was found with area (χ2 = 50.568; df =
8; p<0.001), and a significant association with education level (χ2 = 22.959; df = 8;
p=0.003) and employment (χ2 = 13.848; df = 4; p=0.008). Employment was stated
the most frequently by respondents in each category of area, education and
occupation as a perceived community benefit. However this was stated over twice as
frequently in Nkonjane and Mabona than in eKuhlehleni. Respondents who had no
education or secondary education and above and unemployed respondents were more
likely to state employment. Respondents from Mabona, respondents with primary
education and employed respondents were more likely to state development of the
area as a benefit. Respondents in eKuhlehleni were more likely to perceive no
community benefits.

- 27 -
 3.6. PERCEIVED PROBLEMS FROM ESTABLISHING UG CCA

Human- Reduced Wildlife Law

Access Forced Expectations Don’t
Wildlife Grazing Enforcement None
Denied Removal Unfulfilled know
Conflict Land Conflict (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(%) (%) (%)
Overall 30 19 7 6 5 1 20 12
Area
KL 22 30 5 10 3 2 12 16
NJ 45 0 17 0 8 0 25 5
MB 37 0 0 0 12 0 49 2
Education
None 29 11 5 6 7 1 27 14
Primary 27 28 9 7 4 1 14 10
Secondary + 40 15 10 6 2 6 13 8
Occupation
Employed 22 22 8 3 16 3 11 15
Unemployed 31 18 7 7 4 1 21 11

Table 3.7: Perceived problems from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall response and of
statistically significant factors area, education and occupation.

Most respondents perceived human-wildlife conflict issues as the primary potential

problem from establishing the CCA (table 3.7). A fifth of respondents perceived no
potential problem from establishing the CCA. A highly significant association was found
between perceived problems from establishing the CCA and area (χ2 = 99.303; df =
10; p<0.001) and education level (χ2 = 28.730; df = 10; p=0.001). Occupation was
found to be significantly associated with perceived problems (χ2 = 13.925; df = 5;
p=0.016).

Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona, respondents with secondary education and
above and respondents who were unemployed were more likely to state human-
wildlife conflict as a potential problem from establishing the CCA. Respondents from
eKuhlehleni were the only ones to state reduced grazing land, forced removal and
wildlife law enforcement conflict as a problem. They were most likely to state reduced
grazing land which was also stated most frequently by respondents with primary
education and those with employment. Respondents from Mabona and respondents
with no education are more likely to perceive unfulfilled expectations as a problem and
respondents from Nkonjane saw denied access to resources as a potential problem.
Nearly half of respondents from Mabona perceive no problems from the CCA, four
times higher than those from eKuhlehleni. Those with no education and those
unemployed were also more likely not to perceive any problems.

- 28 -
 3.7. PERCEIVED COMMUNITY CHANGES FROM UG CCA

Development Poverty Nature- Access Don’t

Employment None
of Area Alleviation Conservation Denied know
(%) (%)
(%) (%) Benefit (%) (%) (%)
Overall 16 31 7 4 5 11 26
Area
KL 17 13 8 6 9 9 38
NJ 15 60 5 2 0 11 7
MB 12 68 2 0 0 16 2
Education
None 17 38 1 1 3 14 26
Primary 14 27 11 7 5 8 28
Secondary + 21 21 10 10 12 10 17

Table 3.8: Perceived changes to the community from establishing the UG CCA against percentage of overall
response and of statistically significant factors area and education.

Overall, development of the area was the most frequently perceived change to the
community from establishing the CCA followed by employment opportunities (table
3.8). Most responses could be classified into positive changes (employment,
development of the area, alleviation of poverty, nature-conservation benefits). A
highly significant association was found between perceived changes to the community
from establishing the CCA and area (χ2 = 93.057; df = 10; p<0.001) and a significant
association found with education level (χ2 = 20.714; df = 10; p=0.023).

Over half of respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona stated that the CCA would
change the community through development, considerably higher than stated in
eKuhlehleni. Respondents with no education were also more likely to state
development as a change to the area. Respondents from eKuhlehleni and respondents
with secondary education and above are more likely to perceive a loss of access to the
area and resources within the CCA from its establishment but also are more likely to
state nature-conservation benefits as a change to the community. A greater
percentage of respondents with primary and secondary + education levels perceived
the CCA would alleviate poverty in the area.

- 29 -
 3.8. INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE TO UG CCA

3.8.1. SUPPORT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE TO UG CCA

Overall, most respondents supported the introduction of wildlife to the UG CCA (71%).
Using logistic regression analysis, the final regression model correctly classified 66.7%
of the respondents support for the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 14.694; df
= 2; p=0.001) (AUC = 0.326) and showed area to be the only significant variable
(Wald = 13.425; df = 2; p=0.001) in determining support for the introduction of
wildlife. Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to support the
introduction of wildlife (90% and 86%) than respondents from eKuhlehleni (60%) (fig.
3.12). 22% of respondents from eKuhlehleni said they did not support the introduction
of wildlife compared to 10% in Nkonjane and 14% in Mabona.

100
Don't know
Percentage of Respondents

80 No
Yes

60

40

20

0
KL NJ MB
Area

Fig. 3.12: Percentage support of respondents to the introduction of wildlife to the UG CCA in each area.

3.8.2. REASONS FOR AND AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE

Develop Tourist Non- Consumptive Nature- No Human- Don’t

CCA Revenue Consumptive Use Conservation Wildlife know
(%) (%) Use (%) (%) Benefit (%) Conflict (%) (%)
Overall 22 13 23 9 12 18 3
Area
KL 17 6 31 10 15 18 3
NJ 29 21 9 5 12 21 3
MB 22 24 24 11 3 11 5

Table 3.9: Reasons for supporting the introduction of wildlife to the UG CCA against percentage of overall
response and of statistically significant factor area.

Non-consumptive use benefits and development of the CCA were the most stated
reasons for support of the introduction of wildlife (table 3.9). A significant association
exists between area and reasons for supporting the introduction of wildlife to UG CCA
(χ2 = 32.057; df = 10; p<0.001). Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were more
likely to support the introduction of wildlife as it would develop the CCA and that it

- 30 -
would increase tourism revenue to the area. Respondents from eKuhlehleni were most
likely to state non-consumptive use benefits as reasons why they supported the
introduction of wildlife and they were also more likely to state nature-conservation
benefits.

The most stated reason for not supporting the introduction of wildlife to the CCA was
the potential human-wildlife conflict (32%). This was followed by nearly a quarter of
respondents who said they did not support the CCA at all. A fifth of respondents stated
wildlife–conservation has no value and reduced grazing land was also given as a
reason for not supporting the initiative. No statistically significant associations were
found. However, reduction in grazing land and wildlife - conservation holding no value
were only stated by respondents from eKuhlehleni.

3.8.3. PERCEIVED BENEFITS FROM WILDLIFE IN UG CCA

The majority of respondents’ perceived wildlife in the CCA would provide some
benefits (75%). Using logistic regression analysis, the final regression model correctly
classified 67.9% of the respondents perceived benefit from introducing wildlife to UG
CCA (χ2 = 19.672; df = 5; p=0.001) (AUC = 0.286) and showed area (Wald = 8.165;
df = 2; p<0.017) and education levels (Wald = 9.703; df = 3; p<0.021) to be
significant in determining perceived benefits from wildlife.

A greater proportion of respondents from Mabona and Nkonjane perceive that wildlife
in the CCA will bring them benefits (88% and 85% respectively) compared to 68% in
eKuhlehleni. 20% of respondents from eKuhlehleni perceive no benefits from wildlife
(fig. 3.13). Respondents who had received secondary education or above were most
likely to perceive benefits from having wildlife in the CCA (94%) compared to those
with no education (70%) and primary education (73%) (fig. 3.14). 18% of those with
no education and 20% of those with primary education perceived no benefits from
wildlife.

100 100
Percentage of Respondents

Don't know
Percentage of Respondents

Don't know
80 No 80 No
Yes Yes
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
KL NJ MB None Primary Secondary +
Area Education Level

Fig. 3.13: Percentage perceived benefit from introducing Fig. 3.14: Percentage perceived benefit from
wildlife to UG CCA by respondents in each area. introducing wildlife to UG CCA by respondents
at each level of education.

- 31 -
 3.8.4. PERCEIVED TYPES OF BENEFIT FROM WILDLIFE

Tourist Consumptive Non- Nature- Don’t

Employment None
Revenue Use Consumptive Conservation know
(%) (%)
(%) (%) Use (%) Benefit (%) (%)
Overall 3 20 43 5 2 17 10
Area
KL 3 19 36 6 3 20 13
NJ 4 24 51 6 0 9 6
MB 2 19 65 0 0 12 2
Education
None 3 19 65 0 0 12 2
Primary 2 19 47 4 1 20 8
Secondary + 4 29 50 6 4 4 4
Age
20-29 1 29 48 4 4 10 4
30-39 4 21 43 5 1 15 11
40-49 1 11 56 6 1 15 10
50+ 3 19 30 7 1 25 15

Table 3.10: Perceived benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA against percentage of overall response
and of statistically significant factors area, education level and age.

Overall, nearly half of respondents answered that introducing wildlife into the CCA
would benefit them through consumptive-use of wildlife (table 3.10), mostly stating
meat from culling. Area was highly significantly associated with perceived types of
benefits from introducing wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 24.834; df = 8; p< 0.002).
Significant associations were also found with education level (χ2 = 17.784; df = 8;
p<0.023) and age (χ2 = 23.669; df = 12; p<0.023).

Consumptive use was the most frequently stated perceived benefit from having
wildlife in the CCA in each category of area, age and education level. This was highest
in respondents from Mabona, respondents with no education and those in the 40-49
year age category. Nature-Conservation benefits were only stated by respondents in
eKuhlehleni and this was highest in those with secondary level education or above and
those in the 20-29 year age category. Respondents from eKuhlehleni, respondents
with primary education and those in the 50+ age category were most likely to
perceive no benefits from having wildlife. No respondents in Mabona or those with no
education stated non-consumptive use of wildlife as a perceived benefit.

- 32 -
3.8.5. PERCEIVED PROBLEMS FROM WILDLIFE IN UG CCA

Half of all respondents perceived problems from introducing wildlife to the CCA
compared to 44% who did not. Using logistic regression analysis, the final regression
model correctly classified 72.9% of the respondents perceived problems from
introducing wildlife to UG CCA (χ2 = 70.968; df = 2; p<0.001) (AUC = 0.286) and
showed area to be highly significant in determining perceived problems from wildlife
(Wald = 59.587; df = 2; p<0.001). Respondents in eKuhlehleni are much more likely
to perceive problems from introducing wildlife to the CCA (65%) than from Nkonjane
or Mabona (29% and 16%) and Mabona the least likely to perceive any problems
(84%).

100

Percentage of Respondents
Don't know
80 No
Yes
60

40

20

0
KL NJ MB
Area

Fig. 3.15: Percentage of respondents perceived problems from introducing wildlife to UG CCA in each area.

3.8.6. PERCEIVED TYPES OF PROBLEMS FROM WILDLIFE

Human- Wildlife Law Access Don’t

Poaching None
Wildlife Enforcement Denied Know
(%) (%)
Conflict (%) Conflict (%) (%) (%)
Overall 36 4 4 4 44 8
Area
KL 44 7 6 6 26 11
NJ 27 0 0 0 69 4
MB 16 0 0 0 84 0
Education
None 29 2 2 1 53 13
Primary 44 5 5 7 35 4
Secondary + 40 8 6 4 40 2

Table 3.11: Perceived problems from introducing wildlife to the UG CCA against percentage of overall
response and of statistically significant factors area and education level.

The most frequently stated perceived problem from introducing wildlife was human-
wildlife conflict (table 3.11). However, more respondents perceived no problems from
having wildlife in the CCA. A highly significant association was found between
perceived problems and area (χ2 = 85.251; df = 8; p<0.001) and with education level
(χ2 = 31.564; df = 8; p<0.001). No perceived problem was stated most frequently by

- 33 -
respondents in all categories of area and education level except for those from
eKuhlehleni and respondents with primary education. Both these groups of
respondents stated human-wildlife conflict the most frequently. Respondents from
eKuhlehleni are much more likely to perceive problems from introducing wildlife to the
CCA. Human-wildlife conflict was the only perceived problem from respondents in
Nkonjane and Mabona.

3.9. NATURAL RESOURCE USE

3.9.1. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

KL (%) NJ (%) MB (%)

Natural Resource
(n=213) (n=84) (n=43)
Wood for building construction 22 7 12
Bull Rush 1 0 0
Caterpillars 2 0 0
Fire Wood 23 0 0
Fish 16 26 44
Honey 10 5 5
Medicinal Plants 18 2 7
Poles 14 19 14
Reeds 1 24 0
Thatching Grass 49 87 79
Water 17 11 9
Wild Animals 34 2 5
Wild Fruits 47 44 58
Nothing 16 5 0

Table 3.12: Natural resources relied on by respondents from each area. Data is presented as percentage of
respondents giving each response and may sum greater than 100%.

Thatching grass was the most frequently listed natural resource by respondents from
each area (table 3.12). This was followed by wild fruits, marula fruits (Scelerocarya
birrea) being most frequently stated. A large proportion of respondents in eKuhlehleni
stated wild animals as an important resource, most commonly stating common duiker
(Sylvicapra grimmia) and bushpig (Portamochoerus porcus). Fish was also frequently
mentioned especially in Mabona.

- 34 -
3.9.2. WORKSHOP RESULTS

NJ1 (n=5) NJ2 (n=5) NJ3 (n=5)

Priority 4 males 4 males All males
1 female 1 female
1
Water Water Water

2 Thatching
Sand Clay Soil
grass
3 Cultivation Thatching
Poles
Land Grass
4 Building Building Medicinal
Stones Stones Plants
5 Thatching Cultivation
Wild Fruits
Grass Land
6
Poles Grazing Grazing
7
Reeds Sand Fire Wood

8 Medicinal Building
Firewood
Plants Wood
9 Cultivation
Grazing Reeds
Land
10 Wild Wild
Poles
Animals Animals

Table 3.13: Priority list of the ten most important resources selected by groups in Workshop 1. 1 is most
important.

KLF1 KLF2 KLM1 KLM2 MB (n=5)

Priority (n=8) (n=8) (n=9) (n=10) 4 males
All females All females All males All males 1 female
1 Water Water Water Reeds Water

2 Cultivation Thatching Thatching

Fire Wood Fire Wood
Land Grass grass

3 Thatching
Fire Wood Poles Grazing Poles
Grass

4 Thatching Cultivation Medicinal

Sand Fire Wood
Grass Land Plants

5 Medicinal Thatching Cultural

Bull Rush Wild Fruits
Plants Grass Sites

6 Building
Wild Fruits Poles Fire Wood Reeds
Stones

7 Medicinal
Bull Rush Bull Rush Poles Sand
Plants

8 Medicinal Cultural
Clay soil Starflower Fish
Plants Sites

9 Medicinal
Grazing Wild Fruits Fish Sand
Plants
10 Reeds Sand Wild Fruits Water Fish

Table 3.14: Priority list of the ten most important resources selected by groups in Workshop 2. 1 is most
important.

- 35 -
Seven out of the eight groups put water as the most important natural resource that
they rely on and thatching grass and water were the only natural resources listed by
each group (table 3.13, table 3.14). Fire wood, medicinal plants and poles were listed
by all groups except one. Maps (fig. 3.16 to fig. 3.23) show where each group collects
their priority resources. The two female groups from eKuhlehleni (KLF1, KLF2) use the
area surrounding eKuhlehleni to collect resources (fig. 3.20, fig. 3.21, table 3.16)
more than the two male groups who were more likely to collect resources further from
eKuhlehleni and within the proposed CCA boundary (fig. 3.22, fig. 3.23, table 3.16).
Groups from Nkonjane use the area within the CCA boundary north of Nkonjane to
collect many of the resources listed and also use areas for resource collection which
requires access through the corridor (fig 3.16, fig. 3.17, fig. 3.18, table 3.15)

In Nkonjane building stones, poles, reeds, sand and thatching grass were only
collected in areas within the proposed boundary of the CCA or through the corridor. In
eKuhlehleni fish and wild fruits were only collected in areas within the proposed
boundary of the CCA and the group from Mabona (MB) collect all the resources listed
within the proposed CCA boundary (fig. 3.19, table 3.16). The results show that the
greatest resource use occurs within the CCA (fig. 3.24). The level of resource use by
the groups from the workshop is highest within Mpolimpoli (N) (36). Mathenjwa North
(N) also has a high level of use (21), both within the CCA boundary.

- 36 -
 UG CCA fence line

Prospective fence line

Roads

Usuthu River Inhabited areas

Building Stones
Ndumu Cultivation Land

Game Grazing
Medicinal Plants
Reserve
Poles
Reeds
Sand
Thatching Grass
Water
Wild Animals

Fig. 3.16: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Nkonjane group 1 and where they collect these
resources from.

UG CCA fence line

Prospective fence line
Roads
Inhabited areas
Usuthu River

Building Stones
Ndumu
Game Cultivation Land

Reserve Fire Wood

Grazing
Poles
Reeds
Sand
Thatching Grass
Water
Wild Animals

Fig. 3.17: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Nkonjane group 2 and where they collect these
resources from.

- 37 -
 UG CCA fence line
Prospective fence line
Roads
Inhabited areas
Usuthu River

Building Wood
Ndumu
Clay Soil
Game
Cultivation Land
Reserve Fire Wood
Grazing
Medicinal Plants
Poles
Thatching Grass
Water
Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.18: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Nkonjane group 3 and where they collect these
resources from.

UG CCA fence line

Prospective fence line
Roads

Usuthu River Inhabited areas

Cultural Sites
Ndumu Fire Wood
Game Fish
Reserve Medicinal Plants
Poles
Reeds
Sand
Thatching Grass
Water
Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.19: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by Mabona group and where they collect these
resources from.

- 38 -
 UG CCA fence line
Prospective fence line
Roads

Usuthu River Inhabited areas

Bull Rush
Ndumu Clay Soil
Game Cultivation Land
Reserve Fire Wood
Grazing
Medicinal Plants
Reeds
Thatching Grass
Water
Wild Fruit

0 3 6 9 12 Kilometres

Fig. 3.20: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni female group 1 and where they
collect these resources from.

UG CCA fence line

Prospective fence line
Roads
Inhabited areas
Usuthu River

Ndumu Bull Rush

Game Cultivation Land
Reserve Fire Wood
Medicinal Plants
Poles
Sand
Starflower
Thatching Grass
Water
Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.21: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni female group 2 and where they
collect these resources from.

- 39 -
 UG CCA fence line
Prospective fence line
Roads
Usuthu River
Inhabited areas

Ndumu Building Stones

Game Bull Rush
Reserve Fire Wood
Fish
Medicinal Plants
Poles
Sand
Thatching Grass
Water
Wild Fruits

Fig. 3.22: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni male group 1 and where they
collect these resources from.

UG CCA fence line

Prospective fence line
Roads
Inhabited areas

Usuthu River

Ndumu Cultural Sites

Game Fire Wood
Reserve Fish
Grazing
Medicinal Plants
Poles
Reeds
Sand
Thatching Grass
Water

Fig. 3.23: Map showing the ten most relied upon resources by eKuhlehleni male group 2 and where they
collect these resources from.

- 40 -
 Mathenjwa
Mathenjwa eKuhlehleni (N) North (N)
West

Mathenjwa
North
Mathenjwa
South
UG fence line
Mabona (N)
Mpolimpoli (N)
Prospective
eKuhlehleni
Fence line

Ndumu Game Level of Use

0
Dubulwayo Mabona Reserve
1-5
Nhlabezinde
6-10
Mpolimpoli
11-15

16-20
Manyiseni
21-25

26-40

0 4 8 12 Kilometres

Fig. 3.24: Map showing the level of resource use in each sub-place as identified during workshops.

41
 Natural Resource NJ1 (n=5) NJ2 (n=5) NJ3 (n=5)

Building Stones Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli
Building Wood Mpolimpoli (N)

Bull Rush

Mpolimpoli (N)
Clay Soil
Mpolimpoli

Mpolimpoli (N)
Cultivation Land Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Mpolimpoli

Cultural Sites

Fire Wood Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli

Fish

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli
Grazing Mpolimpoli (N)
Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli
Medicinal Plants Mpolimpoli (N)
Mpolimpoli (N)
Poles Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Reeds Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Sand Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Starflower

Thatching Grass Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Mpolimpoli (N)
Water Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Mpolimpoli

Mpolimpoli Mpolimpoli
Wild Animals
Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Mpolimpoli
Wild Fruits
Mpolimpoli (N)

Table 3.15: Ten most relied on natural resources as selected by each group in Workshop 1 and where they
are collected from (refer to fig. 3.24 for area locations).
NJ1, NJ2 & NJ3: the three groups from Nkonjane (Workshop 1).

N shows number of people in each group.

natural resource not selected by the group;
red denotes area within proposed CCA boundary;
orange denotes area is accessed via the fenced corridor.

42
 Natural
KLF1 (n=8) KLF2 (n=8) KLM1 (n=9) KLM2 (n=10) MB (n=5)
Resource
Mathenjwa W
Building Stones
Mathenjwa N
Building Wood
Mabona
Bull Rush Mabona (N) Dubulwayo Dubulwayo
Dubulwayo
Clay Soil Dubulwayo
Nhlabenzinde
Cultivation Land Mabona Mabona
Dubulwayo
Mpolimpoli (N)
Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Cultural Sites
Mabona Mathenjwa N (N)
Mabona (N)
eKuhlehleni (N) Mathenjwa N (N)
Dubulwayo Dubulwayo eKuhlehleni
Fire Wood Mathenjwa N Mpolimpoli (N)
Mabona Mabona Dubulwayo
Mabona Mabona (N)
Mathenjwa N (N)
Fish Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N (N)
Mpolimpoli (N)
Dubulwayo eKuhlehleni (N)
Grazing Mabona Mathenjwa N (N)
Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Mabona
Mathenjwa N (N)
Medicinal PlantsMathenjwa N (N) Mabona (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mathenjwa N
Mpolimpoli (N)
Mpolimpoli (N)
Poles Mabona Mathenjwa N Mpolimpoli (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Mathenjwa N (N)
Reeds eKuhlehleni (N) Mpolimpoli (N)
Mathenjwa W
Mathenjwa N (N)
Mathenjwa N (N)
Sand Mathenjwa N (N) Mabona Mathenjwa N (N)
Mpolimpoli (N)
Manyiseni

Starflower Mabona
Dubulwayo Mathenjwa N (N)
Mathenjwa N (N) Mabona (N)
Thatching Grass Mabona Mabona (N) Mabona
Mabona Mpolimpoli (N)
Mabona (N) Dubulwayo
eKuhlehleni (N)
Dubulwayo Mathenjwa W eKuhlehleni
Dubulwayo Mabona (N)
Water eKuhlehleni Mathenjwa N (N) Mabona
Mabona Mpolimpoli (N)
Nhlabenzinde Dubulwayo Mathenjwa N (N)
Mpolimpoli (N)
Wild Animals

Wild Fruits Mabona (N) Mabona (N) Mathenjwa N (N) Mpolimpoli (N)

Table 3.16: Ten most relied on natural resources as selected by each group in workshop 2 and where they
are collected from (refer to fig. 3.24 for area locations).
KLF1 & KLF2: all female groups from eKuhlehleni (Workshop 2);
KLM1 & KLM2: all male groups from eKuhlehleni (Workshop 2);
MB: group from Mabona (Workshop 2).

N shows number of people in each group.

- natural resource not selected by the group,
red denotes area within proposed CCA boundary.

43
 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION
Understanding local communities’ perceptions to conservation initiatives are important
to ensure the continuing success of such programmes. Their expectations and
concerns can have real implications if not addressed and hence should play an
important part of developing conservation strategy. This section evaluates the results
from the questionnaire and looks at the possible implications they could have on the
development of the CCA. This is followed by a discussion on the results on natural
resource use in the area. The workshop results are examined in combination with the
responses from the questionnaire regarding resource use and discussed in terms of
the effects the CCA may have. The next section sets out further research that needs to
be carried out to expand on this study and to gain a better understanding on attitudes
and perceptions of the local people. Finally the conclusions and recommendations from
this study are presented.

4.1. KNOWLEDGE OF THE CCA

It was found that overall very few respondents knew that the CCA was being
established. Respondents at Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to be aware of
the CCA suggesting there has been greater effort in informing them. Informing
community members has been an ongoing process through community meetings
which are facilitated by household visits and passed on through conversation.
Nkonjane and Mabona are closest to the initial implementation of the fence line and
the visual aspect of the fence and its construction is also likely to have aided in
information dissemination within the community. Although small, a higher proportion
of respondents or their family relations from Nkonjane and Mabona were directly
associated with the CCA which may have contributed to an increased level of
awareness about it.

Although respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona were more likely to know about the
CCA, very few perceived animal conservation as a reason for its establishment with
employment and community development being stated most frequently. This could be
due to the lower level of infrastructure present; Mabona does not have a clinic or
school and Nkonjane only has a primary school. The need for the construction of
schools and clinics especially, were frequently stated. It is important that the local
people understand the aims and objectives of the project to ensure that they do not
develop mistrust towards the initiative when their expectations are not met. The lack
of a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of a community based wildlife
management programme in Tanzania found that many members of the community

44
believed it to be a rural development programme to provide aid resulting in increased
disinterest among community members (Songorwa, 1999).

The high belief that the CCA will bring development to the area could result in
conservation objectives being sidelined with the attempt to keep support amongst the
community. When CBC initiatives were introduced with the local community in
Richtersveld National Park, South Africa, development quickly dominated the
discussion with the belief that they would be better off economically with the Park.
This led to unrealistically raised expectations of the economic benefits they would
receive and resulted in the Park having to compete against other development
initiatives including mining, marginalising conservation objectives (Boonzaier, 1996).

4.2. SUPPORT FOR THE CCA

It was found that the majority of respondents supported the establishment of the CCA,
although support was much higher in Nkonjane and Mabona. In these areas, all
respondents who already were aware of the CCA proposal supported its
implementation. This clearly shows the positive aspects of informing community
members about what is being developed and a need for more explicit information
distribution regarding the CCA.

Overall employment was stated the most as the reason for support of the CCA
followed by development of the area by respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona
following their perceived reasons for its establishment. Development assistance
contributions from conservation initiatives can be effective ways to promote support
within the communities illustrated in Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, where the
most positively stated interaction with the Park was from improving schools (Hulme &
Infield, 2001). However, unrealistic expectations which cannot be met are likely to
lead to dissatisfaction and possible withdrawal of support (Ite, 1996).

It is clear that the present employment expectations amongst community members

are not going to be met. Initial employment in construction of the fence, roads and
buildings of approximately 120 people will only be temporary and estimates for
permanent staff is estimated at less than 25 (UG Business Plan Workshop, 2004).
Additionally sufficient revenue may not initially be generated to meet all the
development aspirations of the community which include construction of schools,
clinics, roads and amenities such as water and electricity. This can be compared with
initial support for a conservation project in Cross River National Park, Nigeria, which
was based mainly on the expectations that it would provide modern development
amenities, development infrastructure and other associated services including
45
transport and health. Community members perceived the programme to be run by a
development agency, making it unlikely that their expectations will be met (Ite,
1996).

Nature-conservation benefits were more likely to be stated as reasons for supporting

the CCA by respondents in eKuhlehleni, respondents in the 20-29 year old age
category and respondents with primary education. Respondents in eKuhlehleni and
those between 20-29, as well as respondents with secondary or above education were
also more likely to state non-consumptive use as the reason for support. Respondents
from eKuhlehleni have higher levels of education than in the other areas and the
younger age group are also likely to have higher education levels. A correlation
between education levels and a greater appreciation of conservation values and a
more positive attitude towards wildlife has been found in other studies (Fiallo &
Jacobson, 1995; Mkanda & Munthali, 1994; Infield, 1988). This is supported by Parry
& Campbell (1992) who found higher education levels made individuals more
conservation aware and less utilitarian in their attitude to wildlife.

Infield (1988) found that the concept of conserving wildlife and setting aside areas for
conservation purposes was well supported in KwaZulu-Natal. However, poverty often
prevented individuals who supported the basic concepts from actually supporting the
practice of conservation, especially when it may affect their livelihood. Often
conservation objectives are perceived as taking precedence over people’s economic
needs. Although they may see the value of nature conservation, they may not want it
near their community or to interfere with economic development (Hackel, 1990).

Respondents from eKuhlehleni were less supportive of the CCA stating reduced
grazing land the most frequently as the reason for the lack of support. It is possible
that residents in eKuhlehleni are more reliant on cattle for livelihood options or they
associate conservation with the loss of access to land. Care has been taken to ensure
that the boundary of the CCA avoids inhabited areas and that no forced removals will
occur. This needs to be re-iterated within the community and information on the plans
regarding resource use and access to the area made available. Respondents in
eKuhlehleni are generally less aware of the CCA illustrated by the second most stated
reason for not supporting it being uninformed about the CCA. This shows the need to
make sure everyone is aware of what is being developed and the need of greater
involvement in the initiative.

Infield (1988) showed that many people surrounding a local conservation area in
KwaZulu-Natal did not know its purpose or benefits and Songorwa (1999) showed that
communities involved in a CBC initiative in Tanzania were reluctant to accept the
programme as they did not understand its objectives. Protected areas in South Africa

46
are surrounded by rural communities who do not understand their function. This
combined with costs including human-wildlife conflict and loss of land, have resulted in
a general attitude of disagreement and lack of support for the existence of parks
(Wells, 1996). This could have negative implications on the success of the CCA and
related conservation objectives including hostility and conflict with the surrounding
communities and illustrates the need for accurate information dissemination.

4.3. PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS FROM THE CCA

The majority of respondents perceive employment opportunities as a potential benefit
from establishing the CCA. However, this is much more prominent in Nkonjane and
Mabona whereas respondents from eKuhlehleni were more likely to state no perceived
benefits. Respondents from eKuhlehleni are also much more negative in their
responses to the perceived problems. A high percentage of respondents from
Nkonjane and Mabona stated that they perceived no problems. It is possible that the
greater negativity from respondents in eKuhlehleni is due to the lack of knowledge
about the CCA and hence they perceive more problems.

Human-wildlife conflict was the most stated perceived problem from the CCA’s
establishment. Respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona, those with employment and
respondents with no education stated expectations being unfulfilled as a potential
problem. Respondents from eKuhlehleni are much more sceptical about the CCA and
what tangible benefits they will derive from it whereas those from Nkonjane and
Mabona have much higher expectations especially in terms of personal opportunities
and development. This could be a result of different information messages that have
been received. In Nkonjane and Mabona, it is possible that employment and
development opportunities were emphasised generating support for the project.

Positive attitudes at the start of projects with high expectations of benefits and
opportunities can lead to frustration when these are not met and a decrease in the
level of support by communities. The high expectations of local communities around
Machalilla National Park in Ecuador from promises made by the Park administration of
improved and new services within their communities, resulted in suspicion and
mistrust after these were largely unfulfilled 14 years later (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995).
Unfulfilled promises along with other factors including the costs associated with the
community based wildlife management programme in Tanzania forced those who
initially supported the programme to re-evaluate their position (Songorwa, 1999).

Respondents with secondary + education levels and also those who were employed,
state wildlife law enforcement conflict as a perceived problem from the CCA, with the
47
largest concern that poachers would be killed by game rangers. This may be due to
the very militaristic protectionist attitudes to conservation displayed by wildlife
authorities in South Africa. Hackel (1990) shows that communities surrounding
conservation areas in Swaziland and KwaZulu-Natal perceived visiting these areas as
possibly dangerous thinking game rangers will mistakenly arrest them as poachers.

Reduced grazing land, denied access and forced removals were all stated as potential
problems. This could be related to previous policy in protected areas including Ndumu
Game Reserve which involved the forced removal of local people and the consequent
exclusion from resource use and management decisions. During the early and mid
1990’s many communities began lobbying for land reform to claim back title to this
land (Roe et al, 2000) and currently Ndumu Game Reserve is in negotiation regarding
a land claim filed in 1998 (Jones, 2004).

Overall, respondents stated development of the area as a perceived change to the

community from the CCA. However, this was extremely high from respondents in
Nkonjane and Mabona compared to eKuhlehleni which is likely to be reflecting their
personal aspirations for the area. Respondents in eKuhlehleni were more likely to state
denied access to resources but also nature-conservation benefits. Nature-conservation
benefits were stated more frequently by respondents with primary education and even
higher by those with secondary education or above supporting a relationship between
education levels and a greater appreciation of nature and conservation. This attitude
should be fostered and conservation education programmes established to develop
positive nature-conservation attitudes.

4.4. SUPPORT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE

The majority of respondents supported the introduction of wildlife and this was much
higher amongst respondents from Nkonjane and Mabona. Non-consumptive use
benefits was the most stated reason for support of all respondents but is more
pronounced in eKuhlehleni along with nature-conservation benefits, often stating the
opportunity “for our children to see these animals” and “to see and get to know
animals we have never seen before”. This is supported by other studies who have
found strong non-utilitarian and non-consumptive use benefits as reasons for
supporting wildlife and conservation. Fiallo and Jacobson (1995) found considerable
support to protect the forests in Machalilla National Park for their children and in
Tarangire National Park, Tanzania, the most commonly stated benefit was that they
would be able to see and know different animals. Concern was expressed for the
children who had not seen certain animals such as rhino. In addition, there was a high
interest amongst community members in visiting the park for recreation (Kangwana &
48
Mako, 2001). Similarly the majority of those interviewed in Swaziland, expressed an
interest in visiting the conservation area to see the animals (Hackel, 1990).

Those who did not support the introduction of wildlife mainly stated human-wildlife
conflict as the reason for the lack of support. The large majority of the population are
reliant on subsistence agriculture and livestock for survival and therefore human-
wildlife conflict is a real threat and concern. Human-wildlife conflict can cause very
negative attitudes in rural communities towards conservation initiatives where they
are carrying the costs of crop raiding, livestock predation and even loss of human life.
Despite receiving some forms of benefit from a wildlife reserve in Nepal, the local
people mainly disliked it because of crop damage from wildlife. Costs were often over
estimated and usually included potential costs even if they were not directly affected
by it at present (Heinen, 1993).

4.5. PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS FROM INTRODUCTION OF

WILDLIFE
It was found that most respondents perceived benefits from introducing wildlife with
this higher in respondents from Mabona and Nkonjane and those with secondary
education or above. Consumptive use benefits was most frequently stated, although
respondents from eKuhlehleni, respondents with no education or primary education
and respondents 50 years and older, were more likely to perceive no benefit from
wildlife. The provision of meat to the community from culling was the most stated
consumptive use benefit and this expectation not being met could lead to potential
problems especially if human-wildlife conflict occurs. The initial proposal to generate
revenue within the CCA involves venison hunting which rarely leaves meat to be
distributed within the community. Additionally the opportunity for wildlife culling may
not be possible especially at the onset of the programme following the introduction of
small founder populations.

Overall it was found that most respondents did not perceive any problems from
introducing wildlife. The construction of the fence has meant that many people feel
reassured that they will be protected from dangerous animals and wildlife related
damage. However, respondents from eKuhlehleni, and those with primary and
secondary education or above, were more likely to perceive human-wildlife conflict as
a potential problem. The generally lower levels of awareness about the project in
eKuhlehleni may mean that the potential problems are more prominent. However,
much human-wildlife conflict will be minimised by the construction of the fence, and
hence these perceptions may be unrealistic and need to be addressed.

49
Even though many people mentioned nature-conservation or non-consumptive use
values as reasons for their support of introducing wildlife, very few people stated
these as benefits. A study in Botswana by Parry & Campbell (1992) found that wildlife
benefits were often undervalued, with high proportions stating they had no value and
stated benefits were mainly based on utilitarian aspects. Consumptive use benefits
from wildlife can be important in fostering positive attitudes in communities. Wildlife
culling was rated as the best form of wildlife utilisation in the Upper Lupande Game
Management Area in Zambia. Although safari hunting provided larger revenues,
negative attitudes were associated with it as it was perceived to be to the benefit of
outsiders (Balakrishnan & Ndhlovu, 1992). Songorwa (1999) found that communities
in Tanzania were more interested in being involved in community wildlife management
programmes to have legal access to game meat, natural resources and revenue from
wildlife and not for conservation purposes as believed.

4.6. NATURAL RESOURCE USE

The results from the questionnaire give a good list of resources used within the
communities although it does not give an accurate representation of levels of use.
Respondents are likely to have listed the resources that they could think of at that
time without real consideration to the ones which are most important to them as
illustrated by the low percentage of respondents listing water compared to the
workshops. The workshops were much more structured and provide a more
comprehensive list of priority resources combined with the areas of use.

Water was found to be the most prioritised natural resource by the majority of the
groups from the workshops. Even though some water points have been established
within the communities, members still rely heavily on natural water supplies. Many of
the resources mentioned are collected in the proposed CCA boundary. The Usuthu
River, making up the northern boundary is also an important area for natural resource
use. The local population is still reliant on a very traditional lifestyle illustrated by the
priority lists of resources from the workshops. The majority of the resources on the
lists are not for food but for essential material purposes; construction of their houses
and sleeping mats (building stones, building wood, bull rush, poles, reeds, thatching
grass, sand) and also fire wood. Restricting access to the customary right to use these
resources can cause conflict and resentment as well as raising the question of
humanity and survival (Nepal & Weber, 1995).

Grazing land was also frequently mentioned as a priority resource. Cattle are a
significant part of the Zulu culture and a critical part of many people’s livelihoods as
well as being used as a measure of wealth. Therefore the availability of grazing areas
50
is critical to many people and clear policy needs to be developed regarding this.
Alternative access to resources or provision of substitutes does not always respond to
the cultural aspects of resource use. Cultural sites including ancestral graves were
mentioned in the workshops which are situated within the CCA boundary. Water was
listed by all groups in the questionnaire and although some water points are available,
the workshop illustrated that natural water points are still heavily relied upon. The
collection of water by the river can have traditional significance especially for women
where it was a regular meeting point.

Hunting was mentioned within the workshops and through the questionnaires and
much of this was shown to occur within the boundary of the CCA. Potential negative
implications exist especially as wildlife is beginning to be introduced. The use of
unselective methods of hunting including the present use of snares could result in
unintended poaching of the newly introduced species. Poaching within the CCA could
result in negative attitudes within the community and the inability of the community to
control poaching could mean withdrawal of support from EKZNW, especially in
reference to donating wildlife.

The results from the workshop show there is a high level of resource use within some
areas of the CCA, higher than outside. This shows that this area is an important part
of resource use for the local population. Resources are used outside the CCA as well,
although some were only collected within its boundaries. On completion of the whole
fence line prohibition of access or use within the CCA could cause potential conflict and
animosity within the community as well as reduction in support to the initiative.
Resource use in the CCA needs to be dealt within formal management policy which is
explained to the population addressing their needs sensitively.

An increasing human population and the growing pressure to expand agricultural lands
and livestock has been a contributing factor to the loss of biodiversity. Wildlife and
people are sharing the same land to a greater extent and existing in ever-closer
proximity (Hackel, 1999). Access to land is a central issue to rural Africans and
conservation initiatives can represent lost opportunities (Holmes, 2003) and costs in
terms of crop damage, prohibited resource access and personal safety (Balakrishnan &
Ndhlovu, 1992). Much of the populations from these communities are dependent on
natural resources for their livelihoods; cultivation land, grazing land, wood for their
homesteads, fire wood etc. Any restriction on people’s natural resource use and
economic activity within the CCA boundary is likely to influence community
perceptions to the conservation area (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995).

51
4.7. FURTHER RESEARCH
This study provides the CCA Steering Committee with a preliminary analysis of
community perceptions to the UG CCA and natural resource use. For a more thorough
understanding of these issues, additional research is necessary.

• The findings showed that other variables not tested in the analysis play a role in
effecting the results. Further work should include more in depth analysis of
demographic factors such as wealth and occupation. The level of livestock
ownership and reliance on subsistence agriculture and natural resources will
determine the impact of the CCA on individuals and could significantly influence
support and perceptions towards the UG CCA. Sensitive issues such as prevalence
of AIDS were not examined and these may be important explanatory variables that
could be investigated further if done with sufficient care.

• A more in depth analysis needs to take place looking at different resource user
groups and in particular the role of migrant workers in affecting the decision-
making process on their annual return.

• With more time available it would be possible to map out households in the areas
and collect questionnaire data using a more stratified sampling method. This
information would also make it possible to analyse responses in relation to
household positions from the proposed fence line.

• A closer examination of attitudes to the CCA should be undertaken. This should also
be carried out after full implementation of the initiative to assess any change in
attitudes and perceptions of community members. This will provide important
information on whether effective information dissemination has occurred and if
expectations are realistic. It will also illustrate any change in support and issues
which could cause conflict.

• More detailed work needs to be carried out on natural resource use in the area to
obtain a more in depth understanding of resource use and community needs. A
combination of a series of workshops and key informants within the communities
can be used to map out natural resource use more accurately. A distribution
resource map needs to be produced incorporating the degree of use to assess
resource use more precisely within the CCA.

52
4.8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This work has examined the perceptions of local communities to the UG CCA and the
type of resource use in this area. The results show that, although in general
respondents are very positive and supportive, there is large variation in response
between different groups within the community. This is especially apparent in the
three areas. Community members from eKuhlehleni are much more negative and less
supportive towards the initiative than those from Mabona and Nkonjane who have
higher expectations, especially from an economic and development perspective
reflecting their need for infrastructure development.

Expectations are often high at the start of CBC programmes accompanied by a

positive attitude towards the initiative. Additionally, donor aid may artificially boost
economic returns at the beginning by covering certain costs. If these expectations are
not met, attitudes can become less favourable (Bergin, 2001). Opportunity costs are
often excluded from any cost analysis and costs often fall disproportionately amongst
the community (Roe et al, 2000). The nature of benefits over time is one of the most
critical factors determining the long term success of CBC ensuring the continued
incentive for wildlife management and the long term change in behaviour towards the
resource base:

• The real costs and benefits to CBC must be transparent, material benefits are often
overestimated and unrealistic expectations need to be addressed.
• A focus on non-financial benefits as well as financial can be beneficial emphasising
the cultural significance of wildlife.
• A clear and tangible link is needed between benefits and conservation outcomes
(Roe et al, 2000).

Strong positive conservation values were prevalent among community members. Non-
consumptive use benefit and nature-conservation benefits were apparent and should
be emphasised and built upon. Environmental education and raising awareness has
been considered as an effective tool in achieving conservation goals and improving
people’s attitudes to wildlife (Stem et al, 2003). Whereas economic profits can easily
decline or cease altogether, ethical reasons for conservation are more likely to last
(Harcourt et al, 1986).

Very few respondents were actually aware of the UG CCA. The results illustrate the
importance of informing the community about what is being developed demonstrated
by the greater support for the initiative by those who knew about it. More effort is
needed in informing the population about the CCA, its objectives and how the
community can benefit. The role of traditional leaders in information dissemination
53
within the Mathenjwa people is still strong. The present support and involvement of
the Indunas and especially the Chief Induna, has been vital for the CCA to reach its
present stage and their continued support needed to reduce conflict and ensure
community cohesion.

The success of communal enterprises largely depends on a sense of collective

communal interest and the containment of internal differences that exist within the
community (Murphree, 2001). The equitable distribution of benefits is particularly
important to avoid intra-community conflict (Jones, 2001) and these should represent
the varying levels of costs incurred by individuals (IIED, 1994). CBC has the ability to
reinforce a sense of cohesion amongst the community creating solidarity but also has
the potential to introduce internal conflict and power struggles between traditional
authority figures and individuals who have increased their relative power due to the
initiative. In addition, care is needed to avoid conflict developing over the distribution
of benefits.

The perceived benefits and problems from establishing the CCA should be taken into
account and effort made to reduce any negative impact the CCA might have on
livelihoods. This study showed that potential human-wildlife conflict in particular, was
a concern amongst many respondents. The construction of the fence will prevent
much of this but their perceptions need to be addressed. A compensation scheme or
methods to deal with human-wildlife conflict need to be evaluated and implemented to
provide reassurance to the community. Provision of alternatives or the replacement of
lost access to resources is needed taking into account cultural aspects of resource use.

Including local people in decision making regarding the ownership of resources and
aspects of planning and management can often dispel negative attitudes (Nepal &
Weber, 1995) and result in greater acceptance of conservation areas by poor rural
communities (Mkanda & Munthali, 1994). Local people should benefit from nature
conservation through their active participation in meeting its objectives. A balance
needs to be met between the protection of the conservation area and the livelihood
needs of the local communities above the poverty line (Nepal & Weber, 1995).

This work provides base line data at the initial stages of the CCA development which
the Steering Committee can use to guide strategy and improve support and
information dissemination within the community. It provides information regarding the
concerns and expectations of the community which need to be addressed. The
management of the CCA must be flexible and considerate to local people needs and
attitudes to ensure the longevity of the venture.

54
 REFERENCES

ABSA. (2002). Game Ranch Profitability in Southern Africa, The SA Financial Sector
Forum, Rivonia.

Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001a). Conservation and Communities: Changing

Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation. In: Hulme, D. &
Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and
Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001b). If Community Conservation is the Answer in

Africa, What is the Question? Oryx, 35, 193-200.

Anderson, D. & Grove, R. (Eds). (1987). Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and
Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Attwell, C.A.M. & Cotterill, F.P.D. (2000). Postmodernism and African Conservation
Science, Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 559-577.

Balakrishnan, M. & Ndhlovu, D.E. (1992). Wildlife Utilisation and Local People: A Case
Study in Upper Lupande Game Management Area, Zambia, Environmental
Conservation, 19, 135-144.

Barnard, A. (2001). Ingwavuma Health District: Situational Analysis. Unpublished

Report, Ingwavuma Orphan Care.

Barrett, C.B., Brandon, K., Gibson, C. & Gjertsen, H. (2001). Conserving Tropical
Biodiversity amid Weak Institutions, Bioscience, 51, 497-502.

Barrow, E. & Murphree, M. (2001). Community Conservation: From Concept to

Practice. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods:
The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd,
Oxford.

Bergin, P. (2001). Accommodating New Narratives in a Conservation Bureaucracy –

TANAPA and Community Conservation. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds).
African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community
Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

55
Boonzaier, E. (1996). Local Responses to Conservation in the Richterveld National
Park, South Africa, Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 307-314.

Bossen, B. (1997). Local People and Large Predators: A survey of perceived conflict
and attitude in the local community bordering Ruana National Park, Tanzania.
Unpublished MSc. thesis, DICE.

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. & da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001). Effectiveness of
Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity, Science, 291, 125-128.

Bruton, M.N. (1980). Conservation and Development in Maputaland. In: Bruton, M.N.
& Cooper, K.H. (Eds). Studies on the Ecology of Maputaland, Rhodes University
Press & the Wildlife Society of Southern Africa.

Child, B. (1996). The Practice and Principles of Community Based Wildlife Management
in Zimbabwe:The CAMPFIRE Programme, Biodiversity and Conservation, 5,
369-398.

Cumming, D.H.M. (1993). Conservation Issues and Problems in Africa. In: Lewis, D. &
Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, WWF,
Washington D.C.

Easton, J. (2004). Hunting for Conservation Targets: Designing a Community

Conservation Area Network for Maputaland, South Africa. Unpublished MSc.
Thesis, DICE.

Emerton, L. (2001). The Nature of Benefits and the Benefit of Nature: Why Wildlife
Conservation has not Economically Benefited Communities in Africa. In: Hulme,
D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and
Performance of Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

Fiallo, E.A. & Jacobson, S.K. (1995). Local Communities and Protected Areas:
Attitudes of Rural Residents towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park,
Ecuador, Environmental Conservation, 22, 241-249.

Gibson, C.C. & Marks, S.A. (1995). Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists:
An Assessment of Community-Based Wildlife Management Programmes in
Africa, World Development, 23, 941-957.

56
Gillingham, S. & Lee, P.C. (1999). The Impact of Wildlife-related Benefit on the
Conservation Attitude of Local People around the Selous Game Reserve,
Tanzania, Environmental Conservation, 26, 218-228.

Glewwe, P. (2003). An overview of questionnaire design for household surveys in

developing countries. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/HHsurveys.pdf.

Hackel, J.D. (1999). Community Conservation and the Future of Africa’s Wildlife,
Conservation Biology, 13, 726-734.

Hackel, J.D. (1990). Conservation Attitudes in Southern Africa: A Comparison between

KwaZulu and Swaziland, Human Ecology, 18, 203-209.

Harcourt, A.H., Pennington, H. & Weber, A.W. (1986). Public Attitudes to Wildlife and
Conservation in the Third World, Oryx, 20, 152-154.

Heinen, J.T. (1993). Park-People Relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: A
Socio-Economic Analysis, Environmental Conservation, 20, 25-34.

Holmes, C.M. (2003). The Influence of Protected Area Outreach on the Conservation
Attitudes and Resource Use Patterns: A Case Study from Western Tanzania,
Oryx, 37, 305-315.

Hughes, G.R. (2002). Democratisation: Biodiversity Conservation for all People – A

Case Study from KwaZulu-Natal. In: Pierce, S.M., Cowling, R.M., Sandwich, T.
& MacKinnon, K. (Eds). Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: Case
Studies from South Africa, The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Hulme, D. & Infield, M. (2001). Community Conservation, Reciprocity and Park-People

Relationships: Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree,
M. (Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of
Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (2001). Introduction. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds).
African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community
Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

IIED, (1994). Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife

Management, IIED, London.

57
Infield, M. & Namara, A. (2001). Community Attitudes and Behaviour towards
Conservation: An Assessment of a Community Conservation Programme
around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, Oryx, 35, 48-60.

Infield, M. (1988). Attitudes of a Rural Community towards Conservation and a Local

Conservation Area in Natal, South Africa, Biological Conservation, 45, 21-46.

Ite, U.E. (1996). Community Perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria,
Environmental Conservation, 23, 351-357.

Jones, J.L. (2004). Transboundary Conservation in Southern Africa: Exploring Conflict

between Local Resource Access and Conservation.
www.iapad.org.publications.ppgis/jones.jennifer.

Jones, B. (2001). The Evolution of a Community-Based Approach to Wildlife

Management at Kunene, Namibia. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds). African
Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community
Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

Kangwana, K. & Mako, R.O. (2001). Conservation, Livelihoods and the Intrinsic Value
of Wildlife: Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M.
(Eds). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of
Community Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

Larson, P., Freudenberger, M. & Wyckoff-Baird, B. (1998). WWF Integrated

Conservation and Development Projects: Ten Lessons from the Field 1985-
1996, WWF, Washington D.C.

Mkanda, F.X. & Munthali, S.M. (1994). Public Attitudes and Needs around Kasungu
National Park, Malawi, Biodiversity and Conservation, 3, 29-44.

Municipal Demarcation Board (2004). www.saexplorer.org.za. Accessed June 2004.

Murombedzi, J.C. (1999). Devolution and Stewardship in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE

Programme, Journal of International Development, 11, 287-294 (quoted by
Infield, M. & Namara, A. (2001). Community Attitudes and Behaviour towards
Conservation: An Assessment of a Community Conservation Programme
around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, Oryx, 35, 48-60)

58
Murphree, M. (2001). Community, Council and Client: A Case Study in Eco-tourism
Development from Mahenye, Zimbabwe. In: Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (Eds).
African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community
Conservation, James Currey Ltd, Oxford.

Nepal, S.K. & Weber, K.E. (1995). Managing Resources and Resolving Conflicts:
National Parks and Local People, International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, 2, 11-25.

Newmark, W.D. & Hough, J.L. (2000). Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated
Conservation and Development Projects and Beyond, BioScience, 50, 585-592.

Newmark, W. D., Manyanza, D. N., Gamassa, D. M. & Sariko, H. I. (1994). The

Conflict between Wildlife and Local People Living Adjacent to Protected Areas in
Tanzania: Human Density as a Predictor, Conservation Biology, 8, 249-255.

Nkonjane Workshop (2004). Nkonjane Primary School, 19/06/04.

Nsanjama, H. (1993). Introduction. In: Lewis, D. & Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from
Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, WWF, Washington D.C.

Owen-Smith, G. (1993). Wildlife Conservation in Africa: There is Another Way. In:

Lewis, D. & Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on
Conservation, WWF, Washington D.C.

Parry, D. & Campbell, B. (1992). Attitudes of Rural Communities to Animal Wildlife

and its Utilisation in Chobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana,
Environmental Conservation, 19, 245-252.

Roe, D., Mayers, J., Grieg-Gran, M., Kothari, A., Fabricius, C. & Hughes, R. (2000).
Evaluating Eden: Exploring the Myths and Realities of Community Based
Wildlife Management, IIED, London.

Sanderson, S.E. & Redford, K.H. (2003). Contested Relationships between Biodiversity
Conservation and Poverty Alleviation, Oryx, 37,389-390.

Schafer, J. & Bell, R. (2002). The State and Community Based Natural Resource
Management: The Case of the Moribane Forest Reserve, Mozambique, Journal
of Southern African Studies, 28, 401-420.

59
Scriven, L. & Eloff, T. (2003). Markets Derived from Nature Tourism in South Africa
and KwaZulu-Natal: A Survey of the Sale of Live Game. In: Aylward, B. & Lutz.
E. (Eds). Nature Tourism, Conservation, and Development in KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa, The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Simbotwe, M.P. (1993). African Realities and Western Expectations. In: Lewis, D. &
Carter, N. (Eds). Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation, WWF,
Washington D.C.

Smith, R.J. (2001). Designing and Integrated Protected Area Network for Maputaland,
South Africa, Unpublished PhD thesis, DICE.

Songorwa, A.N. (1999). Community Based Wildlife Management in Tanzania: Are the
Communities Interested? World Development, 27, 2061-2079.

Stem, C.J., Lassoie, J.P., Lee, D.R., Deshler, D.D. & Schelhas, J.W. (2003).
Community Participation in Eco-Tourism Benefits: The Link to Conservation
Practices and Perspectives, Society and Natural Resources, 16, 387-414.

Tinley, K.L. & van Riet, W.T. (1981). Proposals Towards an Environmental Plan for
KwaZulu, Nature Conservation Division, KwaZulu Department of Agriculture &
Forestry.

UG Business Plan Workshop (2004). Ndumu River Lodge, 22/06/04.

van Wyk, A.E. & Smith, G.F. (2001). Regions of Floristic Endemism in Southern Africa,
Umdaus Press, South Africa.

Walpole, M.J. & Goodwin, H.J. (2001). Local Attitudes towards Conservation and
Tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia, Environmental
Conservation, 28, 160-166.

Wells, M.P. (1996). The Social Role of Protected Areas in the New South Africa,
Environmental Conservation, 23, 322-331.

60
 APPENDIX 1 – ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE - MATHENJWA COMMUNITY

USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA
Area __________________________ Household No: _______ Date ____ / ____ / _______
HH Code: ______ / ___ - ___ / ___ / _____ (Area / date-month / interview no. of day / initials)
Way Point _____________ GPS Co-ordinates __________________ / _________________

PERSONAL DETAILS
1. Age: ‰ 20-24 ‰ 25-29 ‰ 30-34 ‰ 35-39 ‰ 40-44 ‰ 45-49 ‰ 50-54
‰ 55-59 ‰ 60-64 ‰ 65-69 ‰ 70-74 ‰ 75-79 ‰ 80+

2. Sex: ‰ M ‰ F

3. Where were you born? ____________________________________________________________________

Ethnic origin ______________________________________________________________________________

4. If this is not your birthplace, when did you move here and why? _________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Were your parents born in this area? ‰ Y ‰ N

6. Occupation: _____________________________________________________________________________
Main source of income _____________________________________________________________________

7. How many children do you have? _________________

8. How many people live in your household? ________________

Composition of household members: Adults _____ Adults >60 ______ Children _____

9. What grade did you reach at school?

‰ None Grade _______________________

USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA

1. Do you know what is being developed in Usuthu Gorge? ‰ Yes ‰ No

If yes, what is involved?_____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
[If no, explain UG CCA and go to question 5.]

2. How have you heard about it? ______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Why do you think the UG CCA is being established? __________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Are you associated with the Usuthu Gorge Community Conservation Area? ‰ Y ‰ N
If yes, in what capacity? ____________________________________________________________________
Is a family member associated with UG CCA? ‰ Y ‰ N Relative: _____________________
If yes, do they live in your household? ‰ Y ‰ N
If yes, in what capacity? ____________________________________________________________________

5. Do you support the UG CCA? ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Don’t know

Why ____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
61
6. How do you think the UG CCA will benefit you? _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

How do you think the UG CCA will benefit your community? ________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Can you think of any possible costs / problems? ______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

8. What changes do you think the UG CCA will bring to your community? ___________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Do you know the position of the fence line? ‰ Y ‰ N

10. Which natural resources do you most rely on? ________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________
Where is your main source for obtaining these resources? _________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

The UG CCA has introduced some impala, nyala, wildebeest and is planning to introduce more wild animals including
white rhino and giraffe once the fence has been completed.

11. Do you support the re-introduction of wildlife to UG CCA? ‰ Y ‰ N ‰Unaware

Why? _______________________________________________________________________________

12. How important is wildlife to you?

‰ Important ‰ Neutral ‰ Not important

13. Do you think wildlife in UG CCA could bring benefits to you / community? ‰ Y ‰ N
If yes, in what way? ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

14. Do you think wildlife in UG CCA could bring any problems? ‰ Y ‰ N

If yes, what? _____________________________________________________________________________

15. Perceptions to conservation and wildlife:

Attitude statements:

A: It is important to protect wild animals and plants for our children.

‰ Agree ‰ Disagree
B: The Conservation Area will provide an area of protection for wild plants and animals.
‰ Agree ‰ Disagree
C: The Conservation Area will only benefit outsiders and those directly involved.
‰ Agree ‰ Disagree
D: There are enough wild animals and plants, it is not necessary to provide special protection.
‰ Agree ‰ Disagree
E: The land for the Conservation Area would be better used by people.
‰ Agree ‰ Disagree
F: Creating the Conservation Area will improve life for me and my family.
‰ Agree ‰ Disagree

62
 APPENDIX 2 – ZULU QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE - MATHENJWA COMMUNITY

USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA
Area __________________________ Household No: _______ Date ____ / ____ / _______
HH Code: ______ / ___ - ___ / ___ / _____ (Area / date-month / interview no. of day / initials)
Way Point _____________ GPS Co-ordinates __________________ / _________________

PERSONAL DETAILS
1. Ubudala: ‰ 20-24 ‰ 25-29 ‰ 30-34 ‰ 35-39 ‰ 40-44 ‰ 45-49
‰ 50-54 ‰ 55-59 ‰ 60-64 ‰ 65-69 ‰ 70-74 ‰ 75-79 ‰ 80+

2. Ubulili: ‰ M ‰ F

3. Wazalelwaphi? ___________________________________________________________________________
Ubuzwe ________________________________________________________________________________

4. Uma ungazalelwanga lapha / kulendawo, wafika nini lapha futhi kungani? _________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Kungabe abazali bakho bazalelwa lapha? ‰ Y ‰ N

6. Yini umsebenzi owenzayo: _________________________________________________________________

Okuyinqikithi yomnotho: ____________________________________________________________________

7. Unabantwana abangaki? __________________________________________________________________

8. Bangaki abantu abahlala lapha ekhaya? ______________________________

Inani: Abadala >60 _____ Abadala ______ Izingane _____

9. Wagcina ebangeni lesingaki esikoleni?

‰ Baya/Abayanga ‰ Ibanga _______________________

USUTHU GORGE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA

1. Uyazi ukuthi yini eyenziwa Osuthu Gorge? ‰ Yes ‰ No
Uma kukhona, phakathi kwako yini? ___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
[If no, explain UG CCA and go to question 5.]

2. Wezwa kanjani ngalokho? _________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Ucabanga ukuthi lwakhiwelani Usuthu Gorge? ________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Uyambandakanyeka yini kulokhu okwenzeka osuthu gorge? ‰ Y ‰ N

Uma kunjalo, qhaza lini okewalenza? __________________________________________________________
Likhona yini ilunga lomndeni wakho elisebenza khona? ‰ Y ‰ N Isihlobo: _____________________
Uma kunjalo wenza msebenzi muni? ‰ Y ‰ N
Uma kunjalo bahlala lapha yini? ______________________________________________________________

5. Uyaseseka yini sona lesi siqiwi somphakathi? ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Awazi

Kungani? ________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

63
6. Ngokucabanga kwakho uzozuza ini ngoSuthu Gorge? __________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

Umphathi ke wona uzohlomula kanjani ngoSuthu Gorge? __________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Yiziphi izindleko noma izinkinga ezingalethwa wusuthu gorge? __________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Yiluphi ushintsho emphakathini wakho oluzolethwa wusuthu gorge ngokucabanga kwakho? _________
________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Uyayazi yini indawo lapho kuhambakhona ucingo lwesiqiwi? ‰ Y ‰ N

10. Yiziphi izinto eziyimvelo enizithola lapho? ____________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________
Lezi zinto nizithola kuphi nendawo? ___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

Izinyamazane esezifakiwe osuthu gorge yizimpala, izinyala, izinkonkoni futhi kuyahlelwa ukufakwa kwezinye izilwane
zasendle ezifaka phakathi imikhombe nezindlulamihthi uma sekuphethiwe ngokubiya.

11. Uyakweseka yini ukufakwa kwezilwane zasendle kuso lesi siqiwi somphakathi?
‰ Y ‰ N ‰ Unaware Kunjani? ________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

12. Zibaluleke ngani izilwane zasendle kulesiqiwu kuwe ?

‰ Zibalulekile ‰ Phakathi nendawo ‰ Azibalulekile

13. Ucabanga ukuthi izilwane zasendle zingayiletha inzuzo oSuthu Gorge?

‰ Y ‰ N Uma kunjalo,kuzokwenzeka kanjani? __________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

14. Uma ucabanga ukulondolozwa kwezilwane zasendle kungaletha izinkinga Osuthu Gorge?
‰ Y ‰ N Uma kunjalo, yiziphi? _______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

15. Perceptions to conservation and wildlife:

Attitude statements:
A: Kubalulekile yini ukugcina izilwane zasendle nezihlahla, sikugcinela abantwana bethu.
‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika
B: Le ndawo yezemvelo izokwenza ukuthi izilwane nezihlahla zasendle zivikeleke.
‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika
C: Le ndawo yezemvelo izozuzisa kuphela abokuhamba kanye nalabo abathintekayo.
‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika
D: Ziningi ngokwanele izilwane nezihlahla ngakho akudingeki nje ukuthi sezingaze zivikelwe.
‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika
E: Le ndawo esingeyezemvelo kungancono isetshenziswe ngabantu.
‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika
F: Ukwenza indawo yokongiwa kwemvelo kuzothuthukisa impilo yami kanye nomndeni wami.
‰ Uyavuma ‰ Uyaphika

64
 APPENDIX 3

PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT (ENGLISH)

A questionnaire survey is being carried out for a University research project in

England. Information is being collected on what the community thinks about the
Usuthu Gorge Community Conservation Area and how they feel it will affect their lives.
This is not part of the UG CCA project. Please answer the questions honestly; there is
no right or wrong answer.

The information is confidential and your names will not be used in any report. The
information collected is for University research and will not be used for management
decisions. Your answer will not lead to action on our part, however the final report
may be used to understand what the community thinks about this project. The report
will be available on completion to any interested parties.

Thank you for your help and time.

PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT (ZULU)

Ngibuza imibuzo Kwimizi ngemizi malunguna nocwaningo lweyuniversity yengilandi.

Ulwazi luqoqwa emphakathini owakhelene nalendawo. Sibuye siqoqe ulwazi
ngemibono yomphakathi ngaso lesi siqiwi-Usuthu Gorge Community Conservation
Area sibuye sithole imibono ngokuthinteka kwezimpilo zabo. Okubalulekile lokhu
akuthintani kabanzi ne-project Usuthu Gorge CCA. Sicela wethembeke ekuphenduleni
lemibuzo, ayikho impendulo okuzothiwa ayifanele noma ifanele malunguna
nocwaningo.

Ulwazi luyimfihlo futhi amagama enu awazuku setshenziswa kuyinoma yimiphi

imibiko. Ucwaningo oluqoqwayo ngolweyunivesithi aluthintani nokuphathwa kanye
nokuthathwa kwezinqumo zaso. Impendulo zenu azizukuholela ekwenziweni kwezinto
ngalokhu, kodwa umbiko obalulekile ngalolucwaningo luyosetshenziswa ukuze
kuqondakale ukuthi imiphi imibono yomphakathi okufanele kwenzeke ngayo. Imigomo
yesiqiwi ayizushintshwa ngenxa yalemibuzo. Abathanda imiphumela bangayithola uma
konke sekuphelile.

Ngiyabonga ngosizo lwenu kanjalo nesikhathi senu.

65
 MOZAMBIQUE UG CCA fence line

Prospective fence line

Usuthu River

Small rivers

Roads
Inhabited Areas
eKuhlehleni
Msumpe Clinics
Pool
KL Sports Field Meeting Schools
Mabona Tree
Mathapane Pan Dubulwayo
Pan Key features
Windmill
Ichibi
Lenyaka Shops
Pan
Tribal Authority
Nkonjane
Water points

Livestock dip

Manyiseni
Ndumu

Ingwavuma
Mbadleni

APPENDIX 4 – WORKSHOP MAP

66