ArticlePDF Available

Trophy Hunting, Conservation, and Rural Development in Zimbabwe: Issues, Options, and Implications

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Trophy hunting has potential to support conservation financing and contribute towards rural development. We conducted a systematic review of the Zimbabwean trophy hunting perspective spanning from pre-1890 to 2015, by examining the following: (1) evolution of legal instruments, administration, and governance of trophy hunting, (2) significance of trophy hunting in conservation financing and rural development, and (3) key challenges, emerging issues in trophy hunting industry, and future interventions. Our review shows that (i) there has been a constant evolution in the policies related to trophy hunting and conservation in Zimbabwe as driven by local and international needs; (ii) trophy hunting providing incentives for wildlife conservation (e.g., law enforcement and habitat protection) and rural communities’ development. Emerging issues that may affect trophy hunting include illegal hunting, inadequate monitoring systems, and hunting bans. We conclude that trophy hunting is still relevant in wildlife conservation and rural communities’ development especially in developing economies where conservation financing is inadequate due to fiscal constraints. We recommend the promotion of net conservation benefits for positive conservation efforts and use of wildlife conservation credits for the opportunity costs associated with reducing trophy hunting off-take levels and promoting non-consumptive wildlife use options.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review Article
Trophy Hunting, Conservation, and Rural Development in
Zimbabwe: Issues, Options, and Implications
Victor K. Muposhi,1Edson Gandiwa,1Paul Bartels,2and Stanley M. Makuza3
1School of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
2Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
3School of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
Correspondence should be addressed to Victor K. Muposhi; vkmuposhi@gmail.com
Received  August ; Revised  November ; Accepted  November 
Academic Editor: Alexandre Sebbenn
Copyright ©  Victor K. Muposhi et al. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
Trophy hunting has potential to support conservation nancing and contribute towards rural development. We conducted a
systematic review of the Zimbabwean trophy hunting perspective spanning from pre- to , by examining the following: ()
evolution of legal instruments, administration,and governance of trophy hunting, () signicance of trophy hunting in conservation
nancing and rural development, and () key challenges, emerging issues in trophy hunting industry, and future interventions.
Our review shows that (i) there has been a constant evolution in the policies related to trophy hunting and conservation in
Zimbabwe as driven by local and international needs; (ii) trophy hunting providing incentives for wildlife conservation (e.g., law
enforcement and habitat protection) and rural communities’ development. Emerging issues that may aect trophy hunting include
illegal hunting, inadequate monitoring systems, and hunting bans. We conclude that trophy hunting is still relevant in wildlife
conservation and rural communities’ development especially in developing economies where conservation nancing is inadequate
due to scal constraints. We recommend the promotion of net conservation benets for positive conservation eorts and use
of wildlife conservation credits for the opportunity costs associated with reducing trophy hunting o-take levels and promoting
nonconsumptive wildlife use options.
1. Introduction
Paleontological evidence suggests that hunting has always
been part of the human societies since time immemorial [,
]. Hunting is considered as among other few human activi-
ties that show a more sustained link across human civilization
[]. However, unregulated hunting led to the extinction of
some wildlife species through what has been referred to as
the global blitzkrieg (overkill) hypothesis [, ] whilst the
African continent was to some extent spared from this unpre-
cedented loss of species []. is was possible because African
communities practiced indigenous hunting practices [],
using some form of customary regulatory framework sup-
ported through an indigenous conservation practices (e.g.,
totems and norms) to reduce species loss. e overwhelming
exploitation of wildlife species through hunting activities in
the th century prompted people to instigate the protection
of the remaining wildlife populations through various cons er-
vation initiatives []. is evolution resulted in the establish-
ment of protected areas in most countries and the subsequent
institutionalisation of trophy hunting as a conservation tool
supported by ecological theory and sustainable use principles
[–].
Trophy hunting refers to hunting by paying tourists, typi-
cally with the objective of selecting individuals with excep-
tional phenotypic traits (e.g., large horns, tusks, body size,
mane, or skull length) and usually in the company of a pro-
fessional hunting guide []. Trophy hunting uses a quota sys-
tem approach that promotes sustainable o-takes by remov-
ing a fraction of natural population growth rates, which argu-
ably falls within the compensatory mortality range and has
anegligibleimpactonoverallecologyofwildlifespecies[,
]. e quota system used in trophy hunting is based on eco-
logical theory, that is, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), set
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
International Journal of Biodiversity
Volume 2016, Article ID 8763980, 16 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8763980
International Journal of Biodiversity
in such a way that o-take levels are always below the growth
rate of the target species at any given time [, , ]. However,
there are concerns that over time trophy hunting may lead to
loss of species if not properly regulated []. Some researchers
argue that, by its nature, trophy hunting is meant to remove
only a few individuals, mostly those that have past their prime
reproductive time and as such should not compromise the
viability of wildlife species [–]. Trophy hunting may con-
tribute immensely to wildlife conservation and rural devel-
opment if proper institutional and governance structures are
in place to uphold the founding principles [].
Researchhasshownthattrophyhuntingisknownto
create incentives for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species as well as their habitats [–] and is
considered as a market-based intervention to conservation in
most countries endowed with diverse wildlife resources [,
]. e Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers
conservation to be largely characterized by sustainable uti-
lization of resources for rural development under which the
trophy hunting concept falls [, ]. Trophy hunting as a
form of sustainable use is a strong economic instrument that
not only incentivizes conservation but also contributes to
rural development through integrated conservation and
development projects (ICDP) in most tropical countries [,
, ]. For example, in Zimbabwe, the trophy hunting indus-
try grew rapidly upon its inception of in the s in mar-
ginalized and vulnerable communities in Communal Area
Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMP-
FIRE) areas as well as protected areas [–]. Nonetheless,
the trophy hunting industry took a massive slump aer the
year  due to the land acquisition and reform programme
which resulted in the loss of wildlife in most private land
where trophy hunting was previously practiced []. e
industry has somewhat recovered but is also being aected by
the restrictive policies by the United States of America and
some European countries limiting the importation of some
trophy specimens by hunters [].
ere is however perpetual debate, polarisation, and lack
of consensus among conservation nongovernmental organ-
izations, some African governments, and animal rights and
welfare groups over the acceptability and eectiveness of
trophy hunting as a conservation tool [, , ]. Arguments
broughtforwardagainsttrophyhuntingincludethecontinual
decline of key wildlife species due to illegal hunting [, ],
land reforms [, ], and negative media framing of wildlife
conservation and trophy hunting [–], as well as unethical
andimmoralpractices[,].Moreso,therehasbeenarise
in a globally polarised and emotive media discourse on ani-
mal welfare issues and the signicance of trophy hunting fol-
lowing the illegal killing of “Cecil” a radio-collared lion (Pan-
thera leo) by an American trophy hunting client in western
Zimbabwe in  [, ]. Similar responses from the inter-
national community occurred early  in response to a legal
huntofacriticallyendangeredmaleblackrhinoceros(Diceros
bicornis) in Namibia triggering motions for the outright ban
in trophy hunting throughout Africa [].
e United States Fish and Wildlife Service sanctioned a
temporal ban on the importation of trophy products of the
African elephant (Loxodonta africana),akeytrophyhunting
species from Zimbabwe, as of  into the United States of
America (https://www.fws.gov) []. Similarly, some com-
mercial airlines adopted policies that do not allow freight of
trophy products from certain species making it even more
dicult for potential tourist hunters to full their quest for
having trophies from Africa []. Such policies have reduced
the attractiveness of Zimbabwe as a trophy hunting destina-
tiongiventhatasubstantialnumberoftrophyhuntingclients
interested in big game are known to originate from the United
States of America. However, other researchers argue these
restrictive policies and proposed trophy hunting bans may
exacerbate the loss of wildlife species in most African coun-
tries due to the growing human population and compet-
ing priorities particularly on land use options [, ]. In
Zimbabwe, trophy hunting is believed to oer incentives for
conservation and habitat protection and rural development
through ICDPs, that is, CAMPFIRE []. Banning trophy
hunting may result in the demise of wildlife species as there
would be little incentives and motivation to protect and
conserve wildlife species and their habitats [, ].
Given the polarity and emotive nature of trophy hunting
issues in modern-day conservation, more research is needed
to inform policy at local, regional, and international levels.
Considering that most international policies are implemen-
ted by member countries, research on the sustainability of
trophy hunting as a conservation tool would aid in adaptive
management processes particularly in countries endowed
with diverse wildlife resources that are nancially constrained
to protect and conserve the vast wildlife habitats. is study
focuses on trophy hunting and conservation issues using
Zimbabweasacasestudy.Wespecicallyexploredthefollow-
ing: () evolution of policy and legal instruments governing
trophy hunting, () trophy hunting administration and gov-
ernance, () signicance of trophy hunting in conservation
nancing and rural development, and () emerging issues in
trophy hunting industry and future interventions.
2. Methods
2.1. Research Approach. In this study, we adopted a holistic
and historical perspective approach [], to understand the
linkages between trophy hunting, conservation, and rural
development. A holistic approach enabled us to explore the
issues emerging from trophy hunting as a conservation tool
and how it contributes to community development and rural
development. On the other hand, a historical perspective
allowed us to explore the evolution of wildlife conservation
and related institutional and policies frameworks that aect
trophy hunting as a practice in Zimbabwe. Most scientic
articles, reports, and written documents on trophy hunting
issuesinZimbabweareeitheroldoroutdatedforauidand
dynamic landscape of wildlife conservation. To ll this gap,
we incorporated stakeholders and expert opinion on trophy
hunting and wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe to disentan-
gle the policy and governance issues, emerging issues, and
challenges related to trophy hunting locally, regionally and
globally. For this, we adopted four forms of ecological know-
ledge as described by Fleischman and Briske [], that
is, Scientic Ecological Knowledge (SEC), Local Ecological
International Journal of Biodiversity
T : e four forms of knowledge used for the key informant interviews. Adopted from Fleischman and Briske [].
Scientic Ecological
Knowledge
Local
Ecological Knowledge
Administrative or
Bureaucratic Knowledge
Professional Ecological
Knowledge
Possessors of
knowledge
Research scientists,
educators, technical
specialists
Local resource users,
managers, service providers
Government ocials and
bureaucrats
Agency professionals at
multiple levels
Origin of
knowledge Systematic inquiry Experience with resource,
cultural tradition
Administrative procedure and
actions
Agency mission, regulation,
technical guides, procedures
Knowledge
content
Ecosystem variables,
parameters, responses
Ecosystem capacity to support
livelihoods
Decision making for public
interest
Best management practices,
resource use regulations
Sources of
feedback
Hypothesis testing, peer
review, conference and
public critique
Observation, human
well-being, cultural
persistence
Legal proceedings, public
hearings
Legal proceedings, public
critique
Knowledge (LEC), Administrative/Bureaucratic Knowledge
(BEK), and Professional Ecological Knowledge (PEK), to
select respondents for experts’ opinion (Table ).
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis. We u s ed a q u al i t at i v e o ri -
entation approach [] to conduct a meta-analysis of existing
literature from peer-reviewed journal articles, books, edited
book chapters, academic theses, and reports covering issues
on wildlife conservation policy, trophy hunting, conservation
nancing, and rural development. We searched for materials
from two main sources, namely, () internal and external
reports from stakeholders (Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife
Management Authority (ZPWMA)), CAMPFIRE, World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), African Wildlife Foundation
(AWF), and technical reports, () peer-reviewed journal arti-
cles, books, edited book chapters, and academic theses from
Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. e following
key words or phrases were used: “trophy hunting, sport
hunting, tourist hunting”; “wildlife conservation policy”;
“conservation nancing”; “CAMPFIRE”; “conservation and
rural development”; “trophy hunting bans”, and with a com-
bination of “AND” between the key words to retrieve the rel-
evant literature. From the articles gathered, we further mined
for old articles discussing trophy hunting, wildlife conserva-
tion, and rural development. We ensured the search was fairly
exhaustive though some studies may have fallen outside our
search parameters, those that are published in lesser known
volumes, or have not been cited in recent literature [].
Only articles with abstracts containing at least two of
the key words/phrases were selected. We later read docu-
ments to check if they discussed trophy hunting issues in
relation to conservation and rural development. Accordingly,
we reviewed a total of  articles including reports from
which  were used in this paper. We conducted a meta-
analysis using these publications and reports under the four
themes: () evolution of legal instruments governing trophy
hunting, () trophy hunting administration and governance,
() signicance of trophy hunting in conservation nancing
and rural development, and () emerging issues in trophy
hunting industry and future interventions. For triangulation
purposes and to augment literature sources, we conducted
interviews with key informants across the four forms of
ecological knowledge through snowball sampling. rough
thesnowballsamplingtechnique,wewereabletointerview
hard-to-reach subject experts on trophy hunting and wildlife
conservation issues in Zimbabwe across the four forms of
knowledge. In total,  interviews were conducted to gather
empirical expert opinion on trophy hunting issues, threats,
and future interventions between the period October 
andApril.endingsobtainedherecouldbegener-
alized to the regional context because the pool of data and
experiences spilled beyond national boundaries.
We also acquired data on () elephant population trends
for the period – [, ] and () CAMPFIRE revenue
data for the period – [, ] from published sources.
We performed simple linear regression analyses using IBM
SPSS  soware package (IMB, New York, USA) to deter-
mine trends in elephant population in Zimbabwe between
 and .
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Evolution of Policy and Legal Instruments Governing
Trophy Hunting in Zimbabwe. Like most African countries,
Zimbabwe’s conservation landscape has evolved following
three main phases, that is, precolonial (before ), colo-
nial (–), and postcolonial ( to date) [, ].
During the precolonial era, trophy hunting was nonexistent
as hunting was mainly for subsistence and was controlled
through traditional institutions with a collective access ideol-
ogy[].Althoughmeatconstitutedasignicantpartof
local diets, with wildlife products being essential commodi-
ties, technological limitations and unsophisticated weapons
ensured that indigenous hunter gatherers did not deplete
existing wildlife populations []. Generally, the precolonial
era was characterized by indigenous conservation laws, tote-
mism and sacred realm, and collective access ideologies as
governed by traditional institutions (Figure ).
e change in the political landscape through the colonial
era transformed the collective access of indigenous commu-
nities into a highly restrictive and segregatory policy pop-
ularly known as fortress conservation [, ]. e fortress
ideology resulted in the dispossession and displacement of
indigenous people from their ancestral land and alienated
them from the resources they were much dependent upon
[, ]. e colonial era led to the development of nature
International Journal of Biodiversity
Precolonial
<1890
Colonial
1890–1979
Postcolonial
1980
Period
Type of policy
Fortress conservation policies
Policy evolution trajectory
Royal game policies
(1) 1896: Game Law
(2) Game Preservation Ordinance
Number 6
(3) 1926: Game and Fish Act
(4) 1948: Forest Act of 1948
(5) 1949: National Parks Act
(6) 1960: Wildlife Conservation Act
(7) 1975: Parks and Wildlife Act
Inclusive policies and
participatory approaches
(1) 1982: amendments to Parks and
Wildlife Act of 1975
(2) 1992: Wildlife Policy
(3) 1996: revision of Parks and
Wildlife Act of 1975
(4) 2002: Environmental
Management Act
(5) 2002: Rural District Councils Act
(6) 2006: Wildlife-Based Land
Reform Policy
(7) 2007: Indigenisation and
Economic Empowerment Act
(1) Traditional institutions
(2) Indigenous conservation
laws
(3) Totemism and sacred
realm ideology
(4) Collective access ideology
F : Framework showing the evolution (precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial period) of wildlife conservation and related policies in
Zimbabwe.Sources:Murombedzi[],StJohnetal.[],Taylor[],andMubokoandMurindagomo[].
conservation areas devoid of human pressure and settlement,
with highly restricted access to resources [, ]. Using
controlled hunting areas, the colonial-era conservation policy
enforcedtheroyalgameprinciplethatfurtheralienated
indigenous people from the wildlife resource [, ]. During
this period, hunting was mainly the preserve of professional
hunter-traders, adventurers, and explorers equipped with
high precision ries, for trade in trophies in Europe [].
To some extent, there was some form of mass slaughter of
animals by European settlers and hunters as they displayed
a predatory attitude to African wildlife thus threatening the
viability of these species due to overexploitation []. As a
response to the depletion of the hitherto abundant wildlife
species, there was the promulgation of the Game Law in 
aimed at regulating wildlife utilization through a license and
permit system in order to reduce the growing export of game
and prevention of commercialization of game [, ].
To augment the Game Law, the Game Preservation Ordi-
nance “Number ” was enacted in . is ordinance had
provisions to () specify and protect certain birds and ani-
mals, () stipulate times and seasons within which it was pro-
hibited to kill, pursue, or shoot game without a license, and
()classifysomeanimalsasroyalgameandrestrictpeople
from hunting or capturing them, for example, elephant (Lox-
odonta africana), girae (Giraa camelopardalis),whiterhino
(Ceratotherium simum),kudu(Tragelaphus strepsiceros),and
ostrich (Struthio camelus) [, ]. To further strengthen the
philosophy of preservation of game and sh, the Game and
Fish Act of  was enacted. is act empowered governors
to form game reserves and establish necessary management
structures (game wardens and rangers) for the eective
management of these reserves []. e alienation of local
indigenous people resulted in more antagonism between the
colonial settlers and the local people which resulted in more
conicts, environmental degradation, and habitat loss [].
Owing to the need to conserve more land and wildlife
species, further sanctuary areas were proclaimed and culmi-
nated in the present Parks and Wildlife Estate, from which
the controlled hunting areas became safari areas []. Com-
mercial wildlife utilization under a permit issued by govern-
mentmainlyforcroppinganimalsforbushmeatwasmade
possible by the Wildlife Conservation Act of  []. How-
ever, viability of cropping practices in game farms was low
due to poor prices [, ]. Fortunately, in the mid-s,
there was a boom in the international safari industry and the
commercial activities of game ranches embraced safari hunt-
ing as the major form of wildlife exploitation [, ]. is
ledtotheestablishmentoftheParksandWildlifeActof
that conferred privileges on owners and occupiers of land as
custodians of wildlife and as such could utilize the resource
freely. is act provided land holders with an economic inc-
entive to reinforce the scientic, aesthetic, and moral justi-
cation for wildlife conservation [, ].
Postcolonial experienced rapid policy advances towards
inclusiveness in natural resources management by ensuring
that communities living with wildlife resources ought to ben-
et from managing such a resource. is resulted in amend-
mentsinontheParksandWildlifeActoftoensure
International Journal of Biodiversity
that there were provisions ceding appropriate authority to
Rural District Councils (RDCs) []. Appropriate Authority
ensuredthatcommunitieshaddefactoresponsibilityfor
wildlife, thus becoming beneciaries of sound wildlife con-
servation and sustainable use through trophy hunting [].
To date, trophy hunting activities in Zimbabwe are regulated
through the revised Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter :) of
, the Wildlife Policy of , and the Wildlife-Based Land
Reform Policy of  []. e Wildlife-Based Land Reform
Policy included provisions that promoted the participation of
indigenous Zimbabweans or local people in wildlife ranching
or game farms as well as conservancies [].
3.2. Institutional Arrangements and Governance of Trophy
Hunting Zimbabwe. e Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Man-
agement Authority (ZPWMA) is the administrative agency
and plays a regulatory role for all hunting activities in Zim-
babwe. e governance of trophy hunting activities through
ZPWMA is stipulated in trophy hunting in Zimbabwe and
mainly occurs in three dierent systems or categories [],
that is, concessions under () state land (Parks and Wildlife
Estates, Forestry Estates), () communal land (i.e., CAMP-
FIRE), and () private land (conservancies, game ranches,
or farms). For the eciency and proper management and
monitoring of hunting activities in Zimbabwe, four mecha-
nisms are in place: (a) system of protected areas (mostly safari
areas), (b) CAMPFIRE and its coordinating arm (CAMP-
FIRE Association), (c) a nancial facility (the Wildlife Con-
servation Fund), and (d) an administrative agency, ZPWMA
[].
3.3. Trophy Hunting Ethics and Policies in Zimbabwe. ere
are a set of ethical considerations that trophy hunters ought
to adhere to during their hunting expeditions in Zimbabwe.
Hunters are encouraged to ensure that they engage the
principles of fair chase by all means possible. Fair chase
principleentailsthefollowing:(a)thepursuitofafreeranging
animal that still possesses the natural behavioural inclination
to escape from the hunter and is fully free to do so, (b)
that hunters avoid using articial light source or a motorized
mode of transport in an area that does not, by human design,
concentrate animals for a specic purpose or at a specic time
through provisioning or attraction (i.e., waterholes, salt, and
mineral licks), (c) that no female animals with dependents or
young ones shall be hunted []. Moreover, trophy hunters
arenotallowedtoshootandkillananimalwithinmof
the park boundary []. Besides these, Canopy [] outlines
some of the hunters’ code of ethics as applied by ZPWMA:
() do not shoot animals from a vehicle, aircra, or boat,
() avoid hunting animals at night and hunting “caged” or
canned”orcaptivebredanimals,()avoidtheuseofspotting
agents to locate animals, () avoid hunting animals in an
inhumane way and leaving baits at the end of a hunt, () desist
from luring animals with electronic calling devices, () avoid
littering a hunting area, () desist from submitting falsied
trophy measurements, () avoid mishandling and behaving
irresponsiblywithrearms,and()ensurehuntersfollowup
on wounded animals.
3.4. Monitoring and Administration of Trophy Hunts in Zim-
babwe. ZPWMA has the mandate of governing and monitor-
ing all trophy hunting activities in the three land categories,
that is, safari areas, CAMPFIRE areas, and private areas to
safe guard its integrity and curb underhand dealings. As an
authority, ZPWMA ensures that () professional standards
and ethics are maintained, () quotas are set using sound eco-
logical and sustainable use principles as well as quota appro-
val, () only set trophies meeting the minimum sizes are
exported out of the country, () there is a centralized trophy
huntingmonitoringsystem,and()alltrophyhuntingactivi-
ties remain within bounds of the provisions under internatio-
nal conventions such as Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) [].
For these roles and many others that do not fall under trophy
hunting , ZPWMA spends a substantial amount of money
and resources each year in order to achieve its overarching
mandate of conserving wildlife in Zimbabwe.
However, ZPWMA retains direct management control of
hunting concessions in safari areas though much responsibil-
ity is shared with the safari operators. ZPWMA together with
the safari operators helps in antipoaching activities and habi-
tat protection of these conservation areas []. All the hunts
areconductedinthepresenceofaprofessionalhunterand
trophy hunt monitor (i.e., a designated park ranger). Pro-
fessional hunters are there to (a) supervise and oversee the
hunting by the client, (b) ensure that hunting clients adhere to
the laws and ethics regarding trophy hunting, and (c) record
and keep a register of the hunting expedition of every hunting
client []. Zimbabwe is able to maintain professional trophy
hunting standards through a setof systems through ZPWMA,
Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe (SOAZ), and
Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guide Association
(ZPHGA). ZPWMA in association with SOAZ and ZPHGA
conducts practical and written examinations for Learner
Professional Hunters and later certies one for Professional
Hunters License aer undertaking a two-year apprenticeship
with a reputable licensed professional hunter [].
ese institutional and administrative systems enable the
countrytohaveanecientmonitoringandadministration
system for adaptive management purposes by ZPWMA with
various stakeholders. To achieve this, there are a set of trophy
huntingdata forms for use in monitoring all hunting activities
occurring in Parks and Wildlife Estate, communal areas, and
private areas. Some of the forms are a legal requirement espe-
cially when processing CITES export permits for the trophies
by the hunting clients. is is important given that Zimbabwe
is a CITES signatory, thus making it mandatory to monitor
species which are under CITES quota system. As a regulator,
ZPWMA determines and ensures compliance regarding tro-
phy hunting fees as mandated by provisions of the Parks and
WildlifeAct(Chapter:)of,andStatutoryInstru-
mentofprovidesfortheZPWMA(Tarioffees)
by-laws, , on hunting trophy fees in concession areas.
However, there are some concerns that the ZPWMA seems to
be failing to full its mandate. ese concerns emanate from
theideathat,asaregulatoryauthority,ZPWMAwasprobably
International Journal of Biodiversity
notsupposedtoalsooperateasasafarioperatororconces-
sionaire as same institution cannot be a player and a regulator
at the same time.
3.5. Forms of Trophy Hunting in Zimbabwe. Two main ty p e s
of hunts occur in Zimbabwe; namely, (a) big game safaris can
only be oered by operators who lease hunting concessions
and are able to maintain elephant, lion, and bualo popula-
tions and (b) plains game safaris are conducted by operators
with concessions in ranches characterized by mixed wildlife
and livestock farms that maintain good numbers of plains
game. In each of these, hunting clients are able to choose
their form of hunting as determined by the type of weapon
during the hunt. e suitable and recommended rearms,
the loads, and reloads vary with the target species as well as
the hunting condition []. Although bow hunting used to be
popular in Zimbabwe, this form of hunting has since declined
as ZPWMA has strict requirements and is more expensive
compared to rie hunting. Nonetheless, bow hunting is
considered as more environmentally friendly and quieter and
causes less acoustic disturbance to wildlife than rie hunting
[]. However, a new concept, darting safaris, that is being
practiced in South Africa is yet to be practiced in Zimbabwe.
Darting safaris are a form of hunting where the projectile
(bullet or arrow) is replaced by a dart containing an immo-
bilizing drug; thus the hunter would be able to take temporal
possession of the immobilized animal []. is form of
hunting is some form of green hunting and may go a long
way in reducing loss of wildlife species as argued by many
antihunting lobby groups []. However, darting safaris may
somehowpromoteillegalharvestingbypoachingsyndicates
through overdosing animals with immobilizing drugs as has
been reported in rhinoceros poaching in South Africa [].
3.6. Trophy Hunting in Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Estate.
e Parks and Wildlife Estates support a network of safari
areas where most of the hunting occurs in Zimbabwe cov-
ering approximately , km2.Mostoftheseareasoccurin
remote and dry regions of the country (Figure ). ese areas
are leased to either individual or several hunting concessions
through ve-year lease arrangements with ZPWMA [].
ZPWMA generates revenue from trophy hunting through ()
trophy fees, () administrative fees (punching and stamping
fees), and () xed quotas (a predetermined, xed number
of animals expected to be harvested from a population per
hunting season [, ]). Until recently, ZPWMA has been
leasing all its concessions to private operators. As of ,
ZPWMA has been conducting trophy hunting through its
strategic business units for Matetsi Safari Area, concession
units,,andthusgeneratingmoreincomethroughtrophy
fees and daily rates from hunting clients. Daily rates refer to
thecombinedfeechargedtothetrophyhuntingclientsbythe
concession holder meant to cater for the professional hunters
own running costs such as leasing and maintaining conces-
sions, running vehicles, and hunting lodges, as well as the
prot margins [, ].
3.7. Trophy Hunting in CAMPFIRE Areas. ere are several
trophy hunting areas in Zimbabwe occurring mostly in rem-
ote and marginalized areas of the country, that is, CAMPFIRE
areas []. In CAMPFIRE areas, trophy hunting has been
observed to contribute enormously to the revenue accrued
to Rural District Councils (RDCs) with appropriate author-
ity (Figure (a)). In these areas, trophy hunting has been
observed to contribute approximately .% of the total
revenue generated compared to about .% by ecotourism
[], making trophy hunting the most viable land use option
in these areas []. Most CAMPFIRE areas have lease holders
who service these concessions for ve or more years depend-
ing on the agreements which vary from district to districts
[]. ese areas have personnel responsible for law enforce-
ment, problem animal control, and wildlife monitoring as
well as trophy hunts monitoring. e occurrence of partially
stable wildlife populations and availability of good trophy
species in these CAMPFIRE areas inuences the long-term
sustainability of trophy hunting. e population of one key
species in trophy hunting in Zimbabwe, African elephant,
hasbeenobservedtohavesteadilyincreasedandstabilized
during the period – (Figure (b)).
On the contrary, there has been a decline in the elephant
populations in other regions of Africa, for example, central,
eastern, and western Africa mostly due to overharvesting
through illegal hunting activities, habitat loss, and droughts
[,,].However,moreeortneedstobeputtowardslaw
enforcement as there has been a challenge of illegal hunting
activities in some parts of Zimbabwe which has triggered
much despondence and negative media framing [, , ].
A concerted eort towards monitoring animal populations,
illegal o-takes, and trophy quality is critical for the sustain-
ability of trophy hunting [–]. is information would
provide essential scientic information required for adaptive
management in lobbying and rebranding trophy hunting
activities in these areas for the good of conservation [].
In Zimbabwe, the – Elephant Management Plan
(Box ) specically prescribes trophy hunting to manage ele-
phant populations in a sustainable way (http://conservation-
action.co.za/resources/reports/zimbabwe-national-elephant-
management-plan--/).
3.8. Trophy Hunting in Private Areas. Most private areas con-
ducting trophy hunting in Zimbabwe are more specialized in
plains game and have properties with high densities of wild-
life species which attract trophy hunting clients []. In
Zimbabwe, though there are several private conservation
areas, the most prominent and key areas with high value tro-
phy species include Bubiana Conservancy, Bubye River Con-
servancy, Chiredzi River Conservancy, Malilangwe Wildlife
Reserve, and Save Valley Conservancy [, ] (Figure ).
ese areas benet from trophy hunting through the daily
rates and other hidden costs. Nonetheless, there is very little
information regarding returns from trophy hunting in these
private areas though their combined contribution is almost
% of the national trophy fees []. In some cases, the private
areas also take advantage of trophy hunting and create side
business such as bush meat sales [] and biltong manufac-
turing [, ]. Considering the lack of studies on trophy
International Journal of Biodiversity
F : Map showing the key trophy hunting areas (safari areas, CAMPFIRE areas, and private conservancies) in relation to national parks
in Zimbabwe. Source: data and information from the Surveyor General of Zimbabwe; WWF Programme Oce in Harare, Cartography: V.
K. Muposhi.
CAMPFIRE revenue (US$)
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
Ye a r
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
(a)
Ye a r
2015201020052000199519901985
Elephant population estimate
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
y = 1238.73x − 2E + 07
R2= 0.60, p = 0.04 1
(b)
F : Long-term trends for (a) annual CAMPFIRE revenue for the period – and (b) elephant population as observed over the
period – in Zimbabwe. Notes: there was no data for CAMPFIRE revenue for  and ; data presented on elephant estimates
were only for those years where national elephant aerial surveys were conducted. Data source: Gandiwa et al. [], Gandiwa et al. [], and
http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/.
International Journal of Biodiversity
hunting in Zimbabwe, it is dicult to ascertain the current
state of private hunting areas aer the land reform and distri-
bution. Stakeholder consultations as well as other researchers
show that there was loss of wildlife species through illegal
hunting and habitat destruction; for example, more than %
of Save Valley Conservancy was fragmented due to the land
redistribution program [, ]. Other private conservation
areassuchastheBubianaandChiredziRiverValleycon-
servancies were greatly aected, as these were almost totally
fragmented and converted into small scale farms [, ].
3.9. Signicance of Trophy Hunting in Conservation Financing.
Wildlife conservation and protection of habitats is a costly
undertaking as this land use option is constantly under threat
duetothecontinuedhumanpopulationincrease[].Tro-
phy hunting has been for a long time considered an integral
part of wildlife conservation and protection of habitats in
Sub-Saharan Africa [, ]. Due to the economic challen-
ges facing African countries, particularly Zimbabwe [],
nancial resources that may be channelled towards wildlife
conservationmaybelowandassuchbothconsumptiveand
nonconsumptive forms of wildlife utilization (i.e., trophy
hunting and ecotourism) are benecial [, , ]. Accord-
ingly, trophy hunting can be considered as one of the pay-
ments for ecosystem services (PES) towards its payments for
wildlife management initiatives from the trophy hunting
revenue [].
Wildlife management involves a lot of activities partic-
ularly law enforcement, re management, and water supply
over and above population monitoring activities []. ese
activities are therefore costly to undertake considering the
extent of the protected areas network in Zimbabwe and the
expected manpower levels required. As of , ZPWMA had
about  eective patrol men against a desired  patrol
men []. As such, ZPWMA tends to operate below optimal
eld sta levels for law enforcement due to low stang levels
as constrained by nancial resources []. e optimum
patrol eort per single eld ranger is supposed to be one ran-
ger per – km2[] which requires approximately about
US–/km2per annum for eective conservation of
a protected area depending on the level of threats or distur-
bances [, ]. To fund these operations requires large sums
of money which may not be available through government
support (i.e., through line ministry budgets from national
funds) as is the case with some developing countries [].
Trophy hunting is therefore a reliable source of revenue for
park and protected area nancing in most developing coun-
tries where little external support from donors and conserva-
tion agencies are supporting wildlife conservation.
Given that ZPWMA is now an autonomous authority,
most of the generated revenue is channelled towards wildlife
management and habitat protection as government does not
have control over the funds it generates from trophy hunting
as well as ecotourism other than taxes and some tourism
levies. Before the land reform, Zimbabwe used to generate
approximately US million annually from trophy hunting
[], from which a substantial amount of this was allocated
for wildlife conservation and habitat protection. is gure
has since declined due to the demise of some critical areas,
that is, private game farms and conservancies that used
to contribute annually and the current issues surrounding
elephantandlionhuntingfromtheinternationalcommunity.
In communal lands (CAMPFIRE areas), a considerable pro-
portion of the revenue generated through trophy hunting is
reserved for wildlife conservation through law enforcement
and problem animal control initiatives [].
Annually, trophy hunting contributes approximately %
of the total revenue in CAMPFIRE areas []. A total of
US million was generated by CAMPFIRE between 
and , of which US million was allocated to commu-
nities and used for resource management (%), household
benets (%), and community projects (%) []. It has
been observed that, in CAMPFIRE areas, trophy hunting
does provide incentives for local communities to conserve
wildlife species and their associated habitats particularly [,
]. Nonetheless, CAMPFIRE has also been aected by other
factors that are more related to governance and devolution
issues []. Despite the increase in poaching, unscrupulous
hunting safari operators, continued human-wildlife conicts,
reduced ow of nancial benets to producer communities,
and economic decline Zimbabwe has been experiencing aer
the year , CAMPFIRE still remains a resilient progra-
mme that incentivizes wildlife conservation []. Arguably,
without these incentives (i.e., loss of revenue through trophy
banning),mostofthewildlifehabitatsinthesevastareas
wouldbeconvertedintootherlanduseoptions(e.g.,livestock
rearing and land clearing for agriculture) and most of the
wildlife illegally hunted as a survival strategy by the marginal-
ized and vulnerable communities [, , ].
3.10. Emerging Issues in Trophy Hunting Industry and Future
Interventions. Based on the opinions from interviewed
experts, ve emerging issues that may aect the trophy hunt-
ing industry were identied and these were all commensurate
withtheliteraturereviewed.eidentiedcriticalemerging
issues arising from wildlife conservation that may aect the
sustainability of trophy hunting as a practice at national or
local level include () continuous population decline of key
species in their usual range [, , ], () illegal hunting
[, , ], habitat loss, and fragmentation [, ], ()
human population growth and encroachment into wildlife
habitats [, ], () redundant quota setting approaches,
wildlife-based land reform policies [, , , ], and ()
poor conservation nancing and reduced law enforcement
capacity [, ]. In Zimbabwe, at local or national scale,
these issues occur in three land tenure systems in various
forms and magnitude and do cascade to regional and global
scales (Figure ).
Illegal hunting through poisoning has been a serious
challengeinZimbabwe[,]asithasresultedinloss
of other species, for example, vultures [, ]. However,
illegal hunting benets accrue to only a few people whereas
those for sport hunting are broad-based benets that con-
tribute towards local community development, conservation
nancing, and the national economy at large. On the other
hand, hunting indirectly in the park triggers source and sink
International Journal of Biodiversity
Private land Communal land
National & local scale
Regional scale
Global scale
Land reform
Human encroachment (e.g., Chiredzi River Conservancy)
Illegal hunting
Policy constraints (e.g., state controlled o-take rates)
Human population growth-demand for land
Habitat loss and fragmentation
Access & benet sharing
Corruption and underhand dealings
Lack of scientic rigor in quota setting
Illegal hunting, droughts
Law enforcement
Park nancing
Source of wildlife species for
Disparity in policies on trophy hunting
Regional airlines embargos of trophy cargo
Global politics-historical perspectives
Trade bans and restrictive polices
Media framing
Declining wildlife populations
Illegal o-takes of key species
Trade & tracking of wildlife products
Global policy: green movements
International policy and conventions
(e.g., CITES, CBD, Nagoya Protocol, IPCC,
IPBES)
most community area
Bearing costs of conservation
State land
Local
challenges
F : Representation of scales (national and local, regional and global) inuencing trophy hunting as a conservation tool in Zimbabwe.
Local scales are inuenced by the three land tenure (i.e., state, community, and private land) systems in Zimbabwe. Existing feedbacks are
indicated by arrows where solid dark arrows show strong inuences (top down, global to local level) and broken lines show weak inuences
(bottom up, local to global level). Adapted from Giller et al. [].
dynamics of trophy individuals between the park and hunting
area and adverse eects on wildlife populations in protected
areas[].Incidenceswheretrophyhuntingisthoughtto
have been conducted along the boundaries of protected areas
have been reported for lions and other carnivores in western
Zimbabwe [] and northern Zimbabwe []. We argue
that there may be a lack of proper monitoring systems and
implementation of some policies in Zimbabwe that prohibits
trophy hunting within the stipulated  m of the park boun-
dary. To address this challenge, there is need to (i) revisit the
buer zone concept surrounding protected areas and evaluate
its applicability and usefulness in conservation eorts in line
with the land redistribution policies and (ii) develop and imp-
lement more rigorous policies near boundaries and within
buer zones to reduce encroachment into protected areas.
oughthequotasystemusedintrophyhuntingisbased
on ecological theory [], there are some cases where the
quota setting process does lack the scientic rigor due to
absence of empirical data requisite for such important deci-
sion making processes []. Most of the experts viewed the
quota setting process in Zimbabwe as overly relaying on opin-
ions of stakeholders and not based on the monitoring data
on population sizes thus compromising the sustainability of
the process. Similarly there have been reports on the decline
in trophy size of hunted species in some cases in Zimbabwe
[] as has also been the case with other regional countries,
thatis,SouthAfrica[,,],westernTanzania[],and
Zambia []. It is somehow believed that there seems to be
a lack of implementation of age based harvesting strategies
as required by the Zimbabwean policies on trophy hunting
[]. Nonetheless, we suggest that the use of the quota system
may be problematic as has also been observed in global sh
catch declines in aquatic ecosystems where the approach has
been widely used []. Due to these challenges, we question
the sustainability of quota system used for harvesting regimes
used in trophy hunting in Zimbabwe. e xed quota system
is unfortunately believed to cause catastrophic overharvesting
of wildlife species and can be a very risky harvesting strategy
[]. e quota setting process in Zimbabwe could be
strengthened by ensuring that () reliable ecological data (e.g.,
animal population estimates) is used for all the decisions
for allocating quota and not based on past experiences or
other motivations, () decisions on quotas are based on the
estimates of old or mature trophy individuals in a population
 International Journal of Biodiversity
instead of using the entire population estimate, and () the
xed quota policy is repealed and replaced with a exible and
sustainable approach that does not force safari operators to
hunt nontrophy individuals as a way of satisfying the xed
quota requirements.
At regional level, that is, Sub-Saharan Africa, the eec-
tiveness of trophy hunting as a tool that enhances wildlife
conservation incentives is hampered by the lack of adequate
political, legal, and governance instruments [, ]. We
consider the regional disparity in conservation policy related
to hunting to be attributed to lack of sucient scientic data
in decision and support tools. In wildlife conservation, weak
policy instruments, governance, and control systems may
result in a decline in wildlife species due to despondence
by local communities which triggers to some extent illegal
activities [].
On the other hand, global and regional issues that inu-
ence trophy hunting are mostly concerned about global poli-
tics, policy issues [, ], and illegal trade and tracking of
wildlife products [–]. Some key species especially ele-
phant and lions are governed internationally through a quota
system through CITES and tend to reduce impact on these
species. However, over the years, international pressures to
ban trophy hunting have been mounting to worrying levels
[] and have inuenced policies of many countries, for
example, Botswana, Kenya, United States of America, and
Zambia.esepolicychangesareworrisomeastheymay
compromise the suitability of wildlife conservation as a suit-
able land use option especially by local communities at local
level. Recently, the media framing of trophy hunting has been
negative and emotive following the killing of “Cecil” the lion
in Zimbabwe []. Morality and ethical issues are also becom-
ing more poised to inuence trophy hunting as a practice
given the hype and intensity of debates on social media plat-
forms at global level [, ]. Several nonhunting pressure
groups have since intensied the need to ban trophy hunting
completely as it is viewed as unethical and a practice that
may push key species to extinction if not stopped. How-
ever, such international pronouncements may seriously aect
wildlife conservation at local level and may lead to wildlife
declines through illegal hunting and habitat loss [, ].
3.11. Options and Implications for Conservation. Regionally,
conservationists have modied a program that was meant to
nance rhinoceros ear-notching, microchipping, and tissue
collection to create a new concept that embraces the principle
of trophy hunting, that is, darting safaris [] branded as the
“green bullet concept” []. ere exist such opportunities
for the trophy hunting industry in Zimbabwe particularly
in well-developed private concessions. However, this concept
requires strict policies and guidelines as it is prone to abuse
by corrupt and unethical hunters as observed in South Africa
[]. Although darting safaris may be considered as an
alternative to lethal trophy hunting practices for key wildlife
species [], the practice of repeated chemical immobilizers
onthesameanimalbyscrupulous“hunters”mayresultin
long-term physiological impacts on the targeted species [,
], and as such its applicability needs to be assessed over
time for sustainability.
However, there is an opportunity cost associated with
conserving wildlife and their habitats over other land use
options (e.g., livestock production and farming) and suitable
livelihoodsforms.Weproposetheneedforaregionaland
international wildlife conservation credit system similar to
thecarboncreditappliedunderclimatechange[,].e
wildlife conservation credit could be considered as part of
thepaymentsforecosystemservices[,],forthosewho
decide to avoid trophy hunting and support nonconsumptive
forms of wildlife utilization. Nonetheless, ecotourism on its
own may not be enough to support the conservation as
has been observed in some underperforming protected areas
[]. Currently, conservation nancing in protected areas is
done through revenue from ecotourism activities, trophy
hunting as well as live sales of wildlife species. ere is no
nancial support from government “treasury” as in other
countries thus making ecotourism and trophy hunting the
key sources of revenue for conservation in Zimbabwe. We
however argue that, in cases where diversication of park
nancing options exists, conservation nancing may not
necessarily need to depend on revenue from trophy hunting.
Examples of such diversication options may include public
private partnerships (e.g., Umfurudzi Park, Pioneer Africa
Corporation []) and international support from conser-
vation societies (e.g., Gonarezhou National Park, Frankfurt
Zoological Society []).
Similarly, Di Minin et al. [] suggest the use of net con-
servation benets which involves (a) imposing mandatory
levies on safari operators to generate funds that are further
invested directly into the wildlife conservation trust funds for
conservation and management and (b) use of eco-labelling
and certication schemes adopted for trophies originating
from areas that contribute to broader biodiversity conser-
vation and respect animal welfare concerns. More holistic
approaches that will promote wildlife and habitat conserva-
tion as well as empowering the local people in a sustainable
manner ought to be sought for in order to promote biodiver-
sity conservation. Here we present a conceptual framework
showing the signicance of trophy hunting to conservation
and rural development as well as alternative forms of revenue
generation through an alternative form and natural resources
product diversication (Figure ).
ere is need to strengthen the biological sustainability
and adaptive management involving planning, monitoring,
and reporting of trophy hunting related information in pri-
vate,community,andstateland.Inlightofthisview,thereis
need for mandatory () capacity building and population via-
bility analysis to ensure that trophy hunting o-takes will not
aect population growth of target species, () detailed pop-
ulation management plans submitted to the management
authority before extension of permits, and () scientic bio-
sampling of hunted animals, for molecular genetics, teeth
for age analysis, full morphometrics, and disease screening
[]. Some of the emerging local issues could be addressed by
ensuring that accountable and ecient governance systems
are enacted and implemented as well as introducing the inde-
pendent certication of hunting operators [, ]. Account-
ability from stakeholders would entail (a) full disclosure to
the public of all data collected and levied amounts (i.e., trophy
International Journal of Biodiversity 
Conservation
Habitat protection
Law enforcement
Population monitoring
Water provisioning
Fire management
Invasive species management
Diseases management
Research and development
Incentives
Revenue
Revenue Sustainable development
Rural livelihoods
Households dividends
Integrated rural development
projects
Conservation incentives
Reduced human-wildlife
conicts
Employment
Tro ph y
O-take
Monitoring
Reduced
pressure on
wildlife
hunting
Natural resource product diversication
Sustainable living by
local communities
Quality tourism
product
Enhanced ecosystem
integrity
Photographic safaris-ecotourism
Ecotourism facilities development
Private public partnerships (e.g., UP)
Shareholding & trusts arrangements (e.g., MT, BC)
Educational tourism & volunteer programs
Nontimber forest products (NTFP)
Mineral resources as streams of revenue
Revenue
$
$
Conservation
nancing
Community
empowerment &
development
Green hunting
(i.e., dart safaris)
(green bullet
movement)
$
$
$
F : Conceptual framework showing the signicance of trophy hunting to conservation and rural development as well as alternative
forms of revenue generation through natural resources product diversication. Notes: UP denotes Umfurudzi Safari Area, MT: Malilangwe
Trust, and BC: Bubiana Conservancy, in Zimbabwe.
fees, daily rates), although personal details of proponents may
be held by government legislators, (b) constituting indepen-
dent observers or monitors, placed randomly and without
forewarning on safari hunts as they occur, and (c) imposing
stier penalties (including withdrawal of operator’s license)
on perpetrators found engaging in unethical hunting activi-
ties and illegal practices [].
4. Conclusion
In this paper, we explored the Zimbabwean perspective of
trophy hunting by examining the following: () evolution
of trophy hunting and related policies, () trophy hunting
administration and governance, () signicance of trophy
hunting in conservation nancing, and () emerging chal-
lenges in trophy hunting industry and future interventions
for Zimbabwe. We found that the policies related to trophy
hunting and conservation in Zimbabwe constantly evolved
in response to local and international needs. Similarly, the
governance of trophy hunting has also evolved with time due
to local, regional, and international pressure though there is
still need to strengthen associated institutional frameworks to
retain the integrity of the industry and its sustainability. ere
is convincing evidence that trophy hunting plays a crucial
role in creating incentives for conservation for especially
rural communities sharing space with wildlife as well as
nancing wildlife conservation activities ranging from law
enforcement and habitat protection for community, private,
andstaterunconservationareasinZimbabwe.Wefoundthat
trophy hunting in Zimbabwe seems to be aected by weak
administrative and governance systems and lack of capacity
and nancing for planning, monitoring, and reporting for
adaptive management. We conclude that trophy hunting still
plays an important role in wildlife conservation in developing
economies where conservation nancing is limited due to
scal constraints. As such, we recommend (i) adapting some
innovative measures in harvesting strategies aimed at main-
taining viable wildlife populations (i.e., adoption of adaptive
harvesting management strategies), (ii) rebranding of trophy
hunting image and portrayal to reect its contribution to con-
servation and rural community development, (iii) the need to
promote net conservation benets for positive conservation
eorts, and (iv) promoting the use of wildlife conservation
credits for the opportunity costs associated with reducing o-
take levels through trophy hunting.
Competing Interests
e authors declare no conict of interests.
 International Journal of Biodiversity
Acknowledgments
is work was supported by Chinhoyi University of Tech-
nology, Grant no. PG. e authors are grateful to Mr.
CliveStockil,Dr.BruceClegg,Mr.CharlesJonga,Mr.George
Pangeti, Dr. Hillary Madzikanda, Mr. T. Gotosa, Mr. Tinaapi
H. Madiri, Mr. Exeverino Chinoitezvi, and Mr. Jan Stander
for the insightful discussions. ey extend their thanks to
Mellinda Rushinga, Admire Chanyandura, and Augustine
Jeke for their help in data collection. ey are also grateful to
ChidoMedafortheassistanceinmanuscriptpreparation.
References
[] N. Leader-Williams, “Conservation and hunting: friends or
foes,” in Recreational Hunting, Conservation, and Rural Liveli-
hoods,B.Dickson,J.Hutton,andB.Adams,Eds.,pp.,John
Wiley & Sons, London, UK, .
[] T. Ingold, D. Riches, and J. Woodburn, Hunters and Gatherers:
Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change; Volume 2:
Property, Power and Ideology, Berg Publishers, .
[] G. R. Damm, “Branding hunting,African Indaba e-Newsletter,
vol. , pp. –, .
[] M. J. Westgate, D. A. Driscoll, and D. B. Lindenmayer, “Can
the intermediate disturbance hypothesis and information on
species traits predict anuran responses to re?” Oikos,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] P. S. Martin, “Africa and pleistocene overkill,Nature,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] E. Gandiwa, “Top-down and bottom-up control of large her-
bivore populations: a review of natural and human-induced
inuences,Tropical Conservation Science,vol.,no.,pp.
, .
[] J. Murombedzi, Pre-Colonial and Colonial Conservation Prac-
tices in Southern Africa and their Legacy Today,WorldConser-
vation Union (IUCN), Washington, DC, USA, .
[] W.M.Adams,Against Extinction: e Story of Conservation,
Earthscan, London, UK, .
[] S. P. Mahoney and J. J. Jackson III, “Enshrining hunting as
a foundation for conservation—the North American model,
International Journal of Environmental Studies,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] S. P. Mahoney, “Recreational hunting and sustainable wildlife
use in North America,” in Recreational Hunting, Conservation
and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice, pp. –, Black-
well Publishing, .
[] E. J. Milner-Gulland, N. Bunnefeld, and G. Proaktor, “e scie-
nce of sustainable hunting,” in Recreational Hunting, Conserva-
tion and Rural Livelihoods,B.Dickson,J.Hutton,andB.Adams,
Eds., pp. –, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, UK, .
[] P. A. Lindsey, L. G. Frank, R. Alexander, A. Mathieson, and
S. S. Roma˜
nach, “Trophy hunting and conservation in africa:
problems and one potential solution,” Conservation Biology,vol.
,no.,pp.,.
[] W. I. Morrill, e Tourist Safari Hunter’s Role in Conservation,
Safari Club International, Herndon, Va, USA, .
[] H.S.Cooley,R.B.Wielgus,G.M.Koehler,H.S.Robinson,and
B. T. Maletzke, “Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A
test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis,” Ecology,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] J.A.Jenks,W.P.Smith,andC.S.DePerno,“Maximumsustained
yield harvest versus trophy management,Journal of Wildlife
Management,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] W. J. Sutherland, “Sustainable exploitation: a review of princi-
ples and methods,Wildlife Biology ,vol.,no.,pp.,
.
[] K. Whitman, A. M. Stareld, H. S. Quadling, and C. Packer,
“Sustainable trophy hunting of African lions,Nature,vol.,
no.,pp.,.
[] R. Buckley and A. Mossaz, “Hunting tourism and animal con-
servation,Animal Conservation, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] G. R. Damm, “Recreational trophy hunting: ‘what do we know
andwhatshouldwedo?,”inBest Practices in Sustainable Hunt-
ing—A Guide to Best Practices from around the World,R.
D.Baldus,G.R.Damm,andK.Wollscheid,Eds.,pp.,
International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation,
.
[] V. K. Muposhi, E. Gandiwa, S. M. Makuza, and P. Bartels,
“Trophy hunting and perceived risk in closed ecosystems: ight
behaviour of three gregarious African ungulates in a semi-arid
tropical savanna,Austral Ecology,vol.,no.,pp.,
.
[] U. Grimm, “Trophy hunting for endangered species,” in Best
Practices in Sustainable Hunting-A Guide to Best Practices from
Around the World,R.D.Baldus,G.R.Damm,andK.Woll-
scheid,Eds.,pp.,InternationalConcilforGame&Wildlife
Conservation, Budakeszi, Hungary, .
[]W.J.Ripple,T.M.Newsome,C.Wolfetal.,“Collapseof
the World’s largest herbivores,Science Advances,vol.,no.,
Article ID e, .
[] P. A. Lindsey, R. Alexander, L. G. Frank, A. Mathieson, and S. S.
Roma˜
nach, “Potential of trophy hunting to create incentives for
wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlife-based
land uses may not be viable,Animal Conservation,vol.,no.,
pp.,.
[] R. Naidoo, L. C. Weaver, R. W. Diggle, G. Matongo, G. Stuart-
Hill, and C. ouless, “Complementary benets of tourism and
hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia,Conservation
Biology,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] K. I. MacDonald, “Global hunting grounds: power, scale and
ecology in the negotiation of conservation,Cultural Geogra-
phies,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[]A.Ochieng,W.M.Ahebwa,andI.J.Visseren-Hamakers,
“e re-introduction of sport hunting in Uganda examined,” in
Institutional Arrangements for Conservation, Development and
TourisminEasternandSouthernAfrica, pp. –, Springer,
Berlin, Germany, .
[] A. M. Rosser, N. Tareen, and N. Leader-Williams, “e precau-
tionary principle, uncertainty and trophy hunting: a review of
the torghar population of central Asian markhor Capra fal-
coneri,” in Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk,
UncertaintyinConservationandSustainableUse,R.Cooneyand
B. Dickson, Eds., pp. –, Earthscan, London, UK, .
[] N.Leader-Williams,S.Milledge,K.Adcocketal.,“Trophyhunt-
ing of black rhino Diceros bicornis: proposals to ensure its future
sustainability,Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy,
vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] E. Gandiwa, I. M. A. Heitk¨
onig, A. M. Lokhorst, H. H. T. Prins,
and C. Leeuwis, “CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conicts in
local communities bordering northern Gonarezhou National
Park, Zimbabwe,Ecology and Society,vol.,no.,article,
.
International Journal of Biodiversity 
[] P. G. H. Frost and I. Bond, “e CAMPFIRE programme
in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services,Ecological Eco-
nomics,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] P. A. Lindsey, P. A. Roulet, and S. S. Roma˜
nach, “Economic and
conservation signicance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-
Saharan Africa,Biological Conser vation,vol.,no.,pp.
, .
[] B. Child, “Making wildlife pay: converting wildlife’s compara-
tive advantage into real incentives for having wildlife in african
savannas, case studies from Zimbabwe and Zambia,” in Wildlife
Conservation by Sustainable Use,H.H.T.Prins,J.G.Grooten-
huis, and T. T. Dolan, Eds., pp. –, Kluwer Academic,
Boston, Mass, USA, .
[] R. B. Martin, Communal areas management programme for
indigenous resources (campre), Revised version, Campre
working document no. /, Branch of terrestrial ecology,
department of national parks and wild life management,
Harare, Zimbabwe, .
[] W. Wolmer, J. Chaumba, and I. Scoones, “Wildlife management
andlandreforminsoutheasternZimbabwe:acompatible
pairing or a contradiction in terms?” Geoforum,vol.,no.,
pp. –, .
[ ] P. A . L in d se y, G . A. B al m e, P. J. F u ns to n, P. H . H e ns c he l, a n d L.
T. B. Hunter, “Life aer Cecil: channelling global outrage into
funding for conservation in Africa,Conservation Letters,vol.
, no. , pp. –, .
[] A. J. Lover id ge, J. C. Reynolds, and E. J. Milner-Gulland, “Is
sport hunting part of conservation?” in Key Topics in Conser-
vation,D.W.MacdonaldandK.Service,Eds.,pp.,
Blackwell, Oxford, UK, .
[] I. D. Craigie, J. E. M. Baillie, A. Balmford et al., “Large mammal
population declines in Africa’s protected areas,Biological Con-
servation, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] N.Muboko,V.Muposhi,T.Tarakini,E.Gandiwa,S.Vengesayi,
and E. Makuwe, “Cyanide poisoning and African elephant
mortality in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe: a preliminary
assessment,Pachyderm,vol.,pp.,.
[] C. Kiner, C. Wenner, A. Laviolet, K. Yeh, and J. Kioko,
“From savannah to farmland: eects of land-use on mammal
communities in the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem, Tanzania,
African Journal of Ecology,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] K. H. Fitzgerald, “e silent killer: habitat loss and the role of
African protected areas to conserve biodiversity,” in Protecting
the Wild, pp. –, Springer, .
[] E. Gandiwa, S. Sprangers, S. van Bommel, I. M. A. Heitk¨
onig, C.
Leeuwis, and H. H. T. Prins, “Spill-over eect in media framing:
representations of wildlife conservation in Zimbabwean and
international media, –,Journal for Nature Conserva-
tion, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] C. A. E. Sorensen, Trophy Hu nti ng in t h e Us M edi a : A Mac r o-
and Micro-Level Frame Analysis, Central European University,
Budapest,Hungary,.
[] D. W. Macdonald, K. S. Jacobsen, D. Burnham, P. J. Johnson,
and A. J. Loveridge, “Cecil: a moment or a movement? Analysis
of media coverage of the death of a lion, Panthera leo,” Animals,
vol. , article , .
[] R. F. Renter´
ıa-Valencia, “Ethics, hunting tales, and the multi-
species debate: the entextualization of nonhuman narratives,
Visual Anthropology R evi ew,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] M. Gross, “Can we change our predatory ways?” Current Bio-
logy,vol.,no.,pp.RR,.
[] E. Di Minin, N. Leader-Williams, and C. J. Bradshaw, “Banning
trophy hunting will exacerbate biodiversity loss,Tre n ds in
Ecology & Evolution,vol.,pp.,.
[] F. Fleischman and D. Briske, “Professional ecological knowl-
edge: an unrecognized knowledge domain within natural resou-
rce management,Ecology and Society,vol.,no.,p.,.
[] Friends-of-Animals, Mail, via certied: Notice of petition for
rule making notice, Washington, DC, USA, .
[] K. Conrad, “Trade bans: a perfect storm for poaching?” Tropic al
Conservation Science,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] F. A. St John, A. M. Keane, G. Edwards-Jones, L. Jones, R. W.
Yarnell,andJ.P.Jones,“Identifyingindicatorsofillegalbeha-
viour: carnivore killing in human-managed landscapes,Pro-
ceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondonB:Biological,vol.,
no. , .
[] R. Taylor, “e performance of campre in Zimbabwe: –
,” in Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Conservation:
Parks and Game Ranches to Transfrontier Conservation Areas,H.
Suich, B. Child, and A. Spenceley, Eds., pp. –, Earthscan,
London, UK, .
[] N. Muboko and F. Murindagomo, “Wildlife control, access and
utilisation: lessons from legislation, policy evolution and imple-
mentation in Zimbabwe,Journal for Nature Conservation,vol.
,no.,pp.,.
[] E. Gandiwa, C. Jonga, and O. Mufute, Proceedings of the
CAMPFIRE stakeholders’ workshop: Towards the development
of a new Elephant Management Plan and Policy, Harare, Zim-
babwe, - November .
[] K. E. Giller, C. Leeuwis, J. A. Andersson et al., “Competing
claims on natural resources: what role for science?” Ecology and
Society,vol.,no.,articleno.,.
[] S. Atkins, S. Lewin, H. Smith, M. Engel, A. Fretheim, and J.
Volmink, “Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative liter-
ature: lessons learnt,BMC Medical Research Methodology,vol.
, article , .
[] T. Stankowich, “Ungulate ight responses to human distur-
bance: a review and meta-analysis,Biological Conservation,vol.
,no.,pp.,.
[]K.M.Dunham,C.S.Mackie,G.Nyaguse,andC.Zhuwau,
Aerial Survey of Elephants and Other Large Herbivores in North-
West Matebeleland (Zimbabwe): 2014, Great Elephant Census
Project, Harare, Zimbabwe, .
[] R. Barnett and C. Patterson, Sport Hunting in the Southern
African Development Community (Sadc) Region: An Overview,
TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa,
.
[] A. Chigwenya and D. Manatsa, “e history of natural resource
management in Zimbabwe: a chronicle of how sustainable
resource management has remained anelusive concept,Journal
of Sustainable Development in Africa,vol.,no.,pp.,
.
[] J. Z. Z. Matowanyika, Indigenous resource management and sus-
tainability in rural Zimbabwe: an exploration of practices and
concepts in common lands [Ph.D. thesis],UniversityofWaterloo,
Waterloo, Canada, .
[] A. Newsham, Participation: Processes, Problematic and Camp-
re. A Centre of African Studies Occasional Paper, University of
Edinburgh, .
[] V. C. Kwashirai, Environmental History of Africa, Encyclopedia
of Life Support Systems, .
 International Journal of Biodiversity
[] H. Siurua, “Nature above people: rolston and ‘fortress’ conser-
vation in the south,Ethics & the Environment,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] K. B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert, Social Change and Conserva-
tion: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and
Protected Areas, Earthscan, London, UK, .
[] B. B¨
uscher and T. Dietz, “Conjunctions of governance: the state
and the conservation-development nexus in Southern Africa,
Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies,vol.,pp.
, .
[] W. Adams, “Nature and the colonial mind,” in Decolonizing
Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-Colonial Era,W.
Adams and M. Mulligan, Eds., pp. –, Earthscan, London,
UK, .
[] S. Jones, “A political ecology of wildlife conservation in Africa,
Review of African Political Economy,vol.,no.,pp.
, .
[] G. F. T. Child, “Problems and progress in nature conser vation
in rhodesia,Koedoe,vol.,pp.,.
[] R. Mutwira, “Southern Rhodesian wildlife policy (–):
a question of condoning game slaughter?” Journal of Southern
African Studies, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] T. Masona, Colonial game policy : a study of the origin and admin-
istrationofgamepolicyinsouthernrhodesia-18901945[Ph.D.
dissertation], University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, .
[] D. Hulme and M. Murphree, African Wildlife and Livelihoods:
e Promise and Performance of Community Conservation,
James Currey, Oxford, UK, .
[] J. M. MacKenzie, e Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation
and British Imperialism,ManchesterUniversityPress,Manch-
ester, UK, .
[] B. A. Child, J. Musengezi, G. D. Parent, and G. F. Child, “e
economics and institutional economics of wildlife on private
land in Africa,Pastoralism,vol.,pp.,.
[] I. Bond, “e economics of wildife and landuse in Zimbabwe:
an examination of current knowledge and issues,” in WWF
Multiplespecies Animal Productions Systems Project,Project
Paper no. , .
[] B. A. Child, e Role of Wildlife Utilization in the Sustainable
Economic Development of Semi-Arid Rangelands in Zimbabwe,
Oxford University, Oxford, UK, .
[]D.Jansen,I.Bond,andB.Child,“Cattle,wildlife,bothor
neither. Results of a nancial and economic survey of commer-
cial ranches in Southern Zimbabwe,” Project Paper , WWF
Multiplespecies Animal Productions Systems Project, Harare,
Zimbabwe, .
[] R. D. Z. Taylor, “ZImbabwe,” in International Handbook of
National Parks and Nature Reserves,C.W.Allin,Ed.,pp.
, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn, USA, .
[] B. Child, Parks in Transition: “Biodiversity, Rural Development
and the Bottom Line”,Routledge,.
[] G. Child, “Growth of modern nature conservation in Southern
Africa,” in Parks in Transition: Biodiversity, Rural Development
and the Bottom Line,B.A.Child,Ed.,pp.,Routledge,
London, UK, .
[] D. K. Nyahunzvi, “e resurgence in resource nationalism
and private protected areas: through the lens of Save Valley
Conservancy’s indigenisation,Journal for Nature Conservation,
vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] N. Leader-Williams, J. A. Kayera, and G. L. Overton, Touri s t
Hunting in Tanzania, IUCN Gland, Cambridge, UK, .
[]A.J.DuToit,J.V.Rooyen,andJ.D.P.Bothma,“Trophy
hunting,” in Game Ranch Management ,J.D.P.BothmaandJ.
G.D.Toit,Eds.,pp.,VanSchaik,Pretoria,SouthAfrica,
th edition, .
[] Canopy, Code of ethics to be observed by professional hunters
in Zimbabwe, In: Canopy, Issue no. , e house Journal of
the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management,
Harare, Zimbabwe, .
[] E. Gandiwa, I. M. A. Heitk¨
onig, A. M. Lokhorst, H. H. T. Prins,
and C. Leeuwis, “Illegal hunting and law enforcement during a
period of economic decline in Zimbabwe: a case study of nor-
thern Gonarezhou National Park and adjacent areas,Journal
for Nature Conservation, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] N. V. Rooyen and J. D. P. Bothma, “Rie hunting,” in Game
Ranch Management,J.D.P.BothmaandJ.G.D.Toit,Eds.,pp.
–, Van Schaik, Pretoria South Africa, th edition, .
[] J. D. P. Bothma, “Bow hunting,” in Game Ranch Management,J.
D.P.BothmaandJ.G.D.Toit,Eds.,pp.,VanSchaik,
Pretoria, South Africa, th edition, .
[] P. Bartels, “Darting safaris,” in Game Ranch Management,J.D.P.
BothmaandJ.G.D.Toit,Eds.,vol.,pp.,VanSchaik,
Pretoria,SouthAfrica,.
[] M. Greyling, M. McCay, and I. Douglas-Hamilton, “Green hun-
tingasanalternativetolethalhunting,”inProceedings of the
Symposium on Human-Elephant Relationships and Conicts,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, .
[] G. Child, “e emergency of modern nature conservation in
Zimbabwe,” in Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Conserva-
tion: Parks and Game Ranches to Transfrontier Conservation
Areas,H.Suich,B.Child,andA.Spenceley,Eds.,pp.,
Earthscan, London, UK, .
[] M. Stokes, “Population ecology at work: managing game popu-
lations,Nature Education Knowledge,vol.,article,.
[] C. Fischer, E. Muchapondwa, and T. Sterner, “A bio-economic
model of community incentives for wildlife management under
CAMPFIRE,Environmental and Resource Economics,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] M. A. Khumalo, Campre Monitoring and Evaluation Data,
Wwf-Sarpo and the Campre Association, Harare, Zimbabwe,
.
[] J. O. Ogutu, N. Owen-Smith, H.-P. Piepho, and M. Y. Said,
“Continuing wildlife population declines and range contraction
in the Mara region of Kenya during –,Journal of Zoo-
logy,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] P. Bouch´
e, I. Douglas-Hamilton, G. Wittemyer et al., “Will
elephants soon disappear from West African Savannahs?” PLoS
ONE,vol.,no.,ArticleIDe,.
[] N.Muboko,E.Gandiwa,V.Muposhi,andT.Tarakini,“Illegal
hunting and protected areas: tourist perceptions on wild animal
poisoning in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe,To u r i s m
Management,vol.,pp.,.
[] E. Gandiwa, P. Zisadza-Gandiwa, L. Mango, and J. Jakarasi,
“Law enforcement sta perceptions of illegal hunting and wild-
life conservation in the Gonarezhou National Park, southeast
Zimbabwe,Tr opi c al Eco l og y,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] W.-G. Crosmary, A. J. Loveridge, H. Ndaimani et al., “Trophy
hunting in Africa: long-term trends in antelope horn size,
Animal Conservation, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] R.G.vonBrandisandB.K.Reilly,“Atemporalanalysisoftrophy
quality in South Africa: has trophy quality changed over time?”
South African Journal of Wildlife Research,vol.,no.,pp.
, .
International Journal of Biodiversity 
[] R. G. von Brandis and B. K. Reilly, “Spatial variation in trophy
quality of popular hunted ungulate species in South Africa,
SouthAfricanJournalofWildlifeResearch,vol.,no.,pp.
, .
[] I. Bond, B. Child, D. D. l. Harpe, B. Jones, J. Barnes, and H.
Anderson, “Private land contribution to conservation in South
Africa,” in Parks in Transition,B.Child,Ed.,pp.,Earth-
scan, London, UK, .
[] M. De Alessi, Private Conservation and Black Rhinos in Zim-
babwe: e Save Valley and Bubiana Conservancies,Centerfor
Private Conservation, , https://cei.org/.
[] P.Lindsey,R.duToit,A.Pole,andS.Roma
˜
nach, “Sav´
eValley
conservancy: a large scale african experiment in cooperative
wildlife management,” in Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife
Conservation: Parks and Game Ranches to Transfrontier Conser-
vation Areas, pp. –, .
[] S.LeBel,F.Stanseld,M.LaGrange,andR.Taylor,“Managing
local overabundance of elephants through the supply of game
meat: the case of Sav´
e Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe,South
African Journal of Wildlife Research,vol.,no.,pp.,
.
[] P. Rosa and P. Joubert, “Entrepreneurial wildlife exploitation in
sub-Saharan Africa: an overview,” in Tourism and Entrepreneur-
ship: International Perspectives,S.PageandJ.Ateljevic,Eds.,pp.
–, Elsevier, London, UK, .
[] R. Duy, Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe,
James Currey, .
[] S.T.Williams,K.S.Williams,C.J.Joubert,andR.A.Hill,“e
impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zim-
babwe,PeerJ, vol. , Article ID e, .
[] P. Chibisa, A. Ruzive, and T. Mandipa, “e – fast
track land reform program and biodiversity issues in the middle
save conservancy,Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa,
vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] W. Wolmer, “Wilderness gained, wilderness lost: wildlife man-
agement and land occupations in Zimbabwe’s southeast low-
veld,JournalofHistoricalGeography,vol.,no.,pp.,
.
[] C. M. Hamilton, W. E. ogmartin, V. C. Radelo et al., “Change
in agricultural land use constrains adaptation of national wild-
life refuges to climate change,Environmental Conservation,vol.
,no.,pp.,.
[] E. Di Minin, N. Leader-Williams, and C. J. Bradshaw, “Banning
trophy hunting will exacerbate biodiversity loss,Tre nds in
Ecology & Evolution,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] R. D. Baldus, “Wildlife: can pay its way or must be subsidized?”
in Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting-A Guide to Best Practices
from Around the World,R.D.Baldus,G.R.Damm,andK.
Wollscheid, Eds., pp. –, International Council for Game &
Wildlife Conservation, Budakeszi, Hungary, .
[] J. D. P. Bothma and A. J. Du-Toit, Game Ranch Management,
Van Schaik, Pretoria, South Africa, th edition, .
[] ZPWMA, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority
2014 Annual Report, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Manage-
ment Authority, Harare, Zimbabwe, .
[] H. Jachmann, “Monitoring law-enforcement performance in
nine protected areas in Ghana,Biological Conservation,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] C. Packer, A. Loveridge, S. Canney et al., “Conserving large car-
nivores: dollars and fence,Ecology Letters,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] P.A.Lindsey,V.R.Nyirenda,J.I.Barnesetal.,“Underperfor-
mance of African protected area networks and the case for new
conservation models: insights from Zambia,PLoS ONE,vol.,
no.,ArticleIDe,.
[] P. A. Lindsey, “Trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa: economic
scale and conservation signicance,” in Best Practices in Sustain-
able Hunting-A Guide to Best Practices from Around the World,
R.D.Baldus,G.R.Damm,andK.Wollscheid,Eds.,pp.
, International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation,
Budakeszi, Hungary, .
[] P. J. Balint and J. Mashinya, “CAMPFIRE during Zimbabwes
national crisis: local impacts and broader implications for
community-based wildlife management,Society and Natural
Resources,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] S. B. Manyena, A. E. Collins, F. Mudimba, and D. Mudimba,
“‘Are you serious to ask me about who owns wildlife?’ Politics
of autonomy over wildlife resources in the Zambezi Valley,
Zimbabwe,Forum for Development Studies,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] E. Di Minin, D. C. Macmillan, P. S. Goodman, B. Escott, R.
Slotow, and A. Moilanen, “Conservation businesses and conser-
vation planning in a biological diversity hotspot,Conservation
Biology,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] D. W. Macdonald, P. J. Johnson, A. J. Loveridge, D. Burnham,
and A. J. Dickman, “Conservation or the moral high ground:
siding with bentham or kant,Conservation Letters,vol.,no.,
pp. –, .
[] K. M. Dunham, “Trends in populations of elephant and other
large herbivores in Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe, as
revealed by sample aerial surveys,African Journal of Ecology,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] K. M. Dunham and A. J. du Toit, “Using citizen-based survey
data to determine densities of large mammals: a case study from
Mana Pools National Park, Zimbabwe,African Journal of Eco-
logy,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] P.A.Lindsey,S.S.Roma
˜
nach, C. J. Tambling, K. Chartier, and
R. Groom, “Ecological and nancial impacts of illegal bushmeat
trade in Zimbabwe,Oryx, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] V.K.Muposhi,T.C.Chademana,E.Gandiwa,andN.Muboko,
“Edge eects: impact of anthropogenic activities on vegetation
structure and diversity in western Umfurudzi Park, Zimbabwe,
African Journal of Ecology,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] C. Mora and P. F. Sale, “Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the
need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical
and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea,
Marine Ecology Progress Series,vol.,pp.,.
[] M.R.W.Rands,W.M.Adams,L.Bennunetal.,“Biodiversity
conservation: challenges beyond ,Science,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] M. Rukuni, Re-framing the wildlife based land reform pro-
grammes in zimbabwe, october, Zimbabwe land series, sok-
wanele, .
[]T.Kepe,R.Wynberg,andW.Ellis,“Landreformandbio-
diversity conservation in South Africa: complementary or in
conict?” International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Man-
agement,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] R. J. Groom, E. Gandiwa, P. Gandiwa, and H. F. Van Der West-
huizen, “A mass poisoning of white-backed and lappet-faced
vultures in Gonarezhou National Park,Honeyguide,vol.,no.
,pp.,.
 International Journal of Biodiversity
[] D. L. Ogada, F. Keesing, and M. Z. Virani, “Dropping dead:
causes and consequences of vulture population declines world-
wide,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,vol.,no.
,pp.,.
[] B. M. Croes, P. J. Funston, G. Rasmussen et al., “e impact of
trophy hunting on lions (Panthera leo) and other large carni-
vores in the B´
enou´
e Complex, northern Cameroon,Biological
Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] A. J. Loveridge, A. W. Searle, F. Murindagomo, and D. W.
Macdonald, “e impact of sport-hunting on the population
dynamics of an African lion population in a protected area,
Biological Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] R. J. Groom, P. J. Funston, and R. Mandisodza, “Surveys of lions
Panthera leo in protected areas in Zimbabwe yield disturbing
results: what is driving the population collapse?” ORYX,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] P. J. N. De Bruyn, M. Landman, C. J. Tambling, and L. Verburgt,
“Does science serve the wildlife industry? A critique of von
brandis & Reilly (): commentary,South African Journal of
Wildlife R esearch,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] P. Wilfred, “Trophy hunting and trophy size in ugulla game
reserve, western Tanzania,Ta n z a n i a J o u r n a l o f S c ience ,vol.,
pp. –, .
[] C. Chomba, R. Senzota, H. Chabwela, and V. Nyirenda, “Lion
hunting and trophy quality records in Zambia for the period
–: wil l the trends in trophy size drop as lion population
declines?” OJE,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] J.R.Post,M.Sullivan,S.Coxetal.,“Canadasrecreationalsher-
ies: the invisible collapse?” Fisheries,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] E. Gandiwa, enumbersgameinwildlifeconservation:change-
ability and framing of large mammal numbers in Zimbabwe
[Ph.D. thesis], Wageningen University, Wageningen, e Neth-
erlands, .
[] P. S. Chasek, D. L. Downie, and J. Brown, Global Environmental
Politics,WestviewPress,.
[] S. Sarkar and M. Montoya, “Beyond parks and reserves: the
ethics and politics of conservation with a case study from Per´
u,
Biological Conservation, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[]L.S.WylerandP.A.Sheikh,Inter national Illegal Trade in
Wildlife: reats and US Policy,BiblioGov,.
[] A. Lavorgna, “Wildlife tracking in the Internet age,Crime
Science,vol.,article,pp.,.
[] L. Wilson-Wilde, “Wildlife crime: a global problem,Forensic
Science, Medicine, and Pathology,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] M.P.Nelson,J.T.Bruskotter,J.A.Vucetich,andG.Chapron,
“Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation
decisions: lessons from cecil the lion,Conservation Letters,vol.
, no. , pp. –, .
[] P. J. de Beer, e Trophy Hunting Industry of South Africa:
A Proposed Model to Ensure its Viable Future, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, .
[] W.Neumann,G.Ericsson,H.Dettki,andJ.M.Arnemo,“Eect
of immobilizations on the activity and space use of female
moose (Alces alces),Canadian Journal of Zoology,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] G. W. iemann, A. E. Derocher, S. G. Cherry, N. J. Lunn, E.
Peacock, and V. Sahanatien, “Eects of chemical immobiliza-
tion on the movement rates of free-ranging polar bears,Journal
of Mammalogy,vol.,no.,pp.,.
[] C. Gollier and J. Tirole, “Negotiating eective institutions
against climate change,Economics of Energy and Environmental
Policy,vol.,pp.,.
[] B. Buchner and J. Wilkinson, “ pros and cons of alternative
sources of climate change nancing and prospects for ‘uncon-
ventional nance’,” in Tow a r d s a Wo r k a b l e a n d E e c t i v e C l i m a t e
Regime,vol.,.
[] J. C. Ingram, D. Wilkie, T. Clements et al., “Evidence of Pay-
ments for Ecosystem Services as a mechanism for supporting
biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods,Ecosystem
Services,vol.,pp.,.
[] V. K. Muposhi, A. Chanyandura, E. Gandiwa et al., “Post-release
monitoring of diet prole and diet quality of reintroduced
African bualo (Syncerus caer) in Umfurudzi Park, Zim-
babwe,Tropical Conservation Science,vol.,no.,pp.,
.
[] R. Baldus and A. E. Cauldwell, “Tourist hunting and it’s role in
development of wildlife management areas in Tanzania,” in
Proceedings of the 6th International Game Ranching Symposium,
Paris, France, July .
... There is also need for the Mahenye community ecotourism in collaborative efforts with other interested regional and international players to rebrand the trophy hunting image and portrayal to reflect its contribution to biodiversity conservation and marginalised rural community development (Muposhi et al., 2016a;Machena et al., 2017). There is also need for the implementation of adaptive trophy harvesting management strategies (Muposhi et al., 2016a;Muposhi et al., 2016b;Muposhi et al., 2017). ...
... There is also need for the Mahenye community ecotourism in collaborative efforts with other interested regional and international players to rebrand the trophy hunting image and portrayal to reflect its contribution to biodiversity conservation and marginalised rural community development (Muposhi et al., 2016a;Machena et al., 2017). There is also need for the implementation of adaptive trophy harvesting management strategies (Muposhi et al., 2016a;Muposhi et al., 2016b;Muposhi et al., 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
The sustainability of community ecotourism under the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe is under stress due to shocks including the new coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The pandemic has potential to impede the efforts the community ecotourism sector has been making towards the attainment of the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The specific objectives of the research were to: (i) document the shocks emanating from the COVID-19 pandemic on the Mahenye community ecotourism project and (ii) suggest possible coping and recovery strategies to the COVID-19 pandemic shocks at the Mahenye community ecotourism project. Qualitative methods were adopted encompassing data mining, expert opinion and key informant interviews. The overall impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Mahenye ecotourism elements have been negative. The present research results could enable ecotourism to be sustainable in the face of shocks emanating from infectious pandemics like COVID-19 and future others.
... Trophy hunting in Africa dates to the era of the arrival of European explorers, traders and hunters and the colonial administration of the African continent around the 1800s (Mbaiwa, 2002;Ochieng, 2019;Ochieng et al., 2020). Trophy hunting Muposhi et al., 2016;Sorensen, 2015) also known as a form of consumptive tourism (Mwakiwa et al., 2016;Novelli et al., 2006;Tremblay, 2001), sustainable hunting (Damm, 2008;Fa et al., 2014;Forstner et al., 2006;Wilkie et al., 2019), conservation hunting or hunting (Rogan et al., 2017) is a term used interchangeably with "safari' or 'sport' hunting (McNamara et al., 2020). It refers to tourists who pay to engage in hunting, usually in the company of a professional guide, to obtain a "trophy" (i.e. ...
... Opponents of hunting argue that the killing of animals is immoral and abhorrent, unsustainable and unethical, results in the extinction of animal species and wreaks havoc amongst big cat populations, elephants, and endangered species such as black rhino (Baker, 1997;Gunn, 2001;Knezevic, 2009;Vitali, 1990). Conversely, proponents of hunting argue that hunting is controlled, has more financial benefits than photo-tourism, is selective and promotes biodiversity conservation (Baker, 1997;Lindsey et al 2017;Muposhi et al., 2016;Sorensen, 2015) and rural livelihoods (Mbaiwa, 2018;McNamara et al., 2020). hey argue that if well-regulated, hunting plays an important role in wildlife conservation and guarantees immediate and long-term economic benefits for communities and nation-states . ...
Article
Botswana re-introduced trophy hunting in 2019. This generated a debate about the relevance of trophy hunting in achieving wildlife conservation and human well-being among wildlife stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Government of Botswana, local agro-pastoralists, photographic and trophy hunting tourism operators and anti-hunting groups that differ in opinion on the acceptability of trophy hunting as socio-economic development and conservation tool. This paper, therefore, adopts the socio-ecological framework and uses Spivak’s rhetoric question: “Can the Subaltern Speak”, to analyse contradictions of trophy hunting, human well-being and wildlife conservation trajectory in Botswana. The study is qualitative and makes use of interviews and secondary data sources. The results indicate that the Government of Botswana and communities (agro-pastoralists) especially those residing in wildlife areas prefer both trophy hunting and photo-tourism as a strategy to derive tourism benefits and achieve wildlife conservation. Conversely, animal rights groups reject trophy hunting noting its failure to promote conservation. The paper concludes the socio-ecological framework is the ideal guide for wildlife conservation and human well-being in wildlife areas. Both photographic tourism and trophy hunting are sustainable land use options with the potential to achieve wildlife conservation and human well-being in Botswana.
... Although studies suggest that trophy hunting can benefit biodiversity ( Baker 1997 ;B. Khan, et al., 2014 ;Naidoo et al., 2016 ;Nawaz et al., 2016 ) but hunting of fellow sentient beings for pleasure and trophies is often questioned, which limits its usefulness as an effective conservation tool ( Costanza et al., 2016 ;Crosmary et al., 2015 ;Di Minin et al., 2016b ;Muposhi et al., 2016 ;Rashid et al., 2020a ). Apart from ethical obligations of trophy huntig to human communities and wildlife populations, the flaws in wildlife use regulations, revenue generation from TH programs, and its distribution are amongst the main debates about reforming the trophy hunting industry ( Muposhi et al., 2016 ). ...
... Khan, et al., 2014 ;Naidoo et al., 2016 ;Nawaz et al., 2016 ) but hunting of fellow sentient beings for pleasure and trophies is often questioned, which limits its usefulness as an effective conservation tool ( Costanza et al., 2016 ;Crosmary et al., 2015 ;Di Minin et al., 2016b ;Muposhi et al., 2016 ;Rashid et al., 2020a ). Apart from ethical obligations of trophy huntig to human communities and wildlife populations, the flaws in wildlife use regulations, revenue generation from TH programs, and its distribution are amongst the main debates about reforming the trophy hunting industry ( Muposhi et al., 2016 ). Studies indicate that in hunted populations, animals showed clear signs of disturbance i.e., smaller group sizes, lower calf recruitment rates, and high nervousness than conspecifics in the absence of trophy hunting ( Hariohay et al., 2018 ;Khan et al., 2019 ;Rashid et al., 2020 ). ...