Attitudes of local communities to wildlife conservation and non-consumptive, alternative income sources, near Kruger National Park, South Africa

Public pressure could end trophy hunting of wildlife, potentially negatively affecting species conservation and the human communities that depend upon the revenue hunting generates. Comparable revenue could be generated through other means (e.g. levies on tourists) and this money granted as subsidies to conserve wildlife and promote non-consumptive income streams. It is uncertain, however, whether communities near protected areas would accept such initiatives. We conducted face-to-face surveys in communities adjacent to Kruger National Park, South Africa, to examine attitudes towards, and perceptions of, wildlife conservation and levels of support for non-consumptive income sources. We interviewed 1551 households across 12 communities. The vast majority of respondents supported protecting wildlife and non-consumptive wildlife use, and opposed consumptive uses of wildlife. We tested ten non-consumptive income alternatives, which were supported by >80.1 % of respondents. Where four of these had previously been implemented, 77.7–81.6 % of respondents rated their experience of them as “very good” or “good”. Respondents who were happier and had smaller households were more pro-conservation than those who were unhappier, with larger households. Household income and size may correlate with poverty levels, and therefore happiness, and serve as indices of respondents' capacity to support pro-conservation attitudes. Attitudes to wildlife and willingness to accept novel income sources among communities adjacent to Kruger were sufficient to enact animal welfare and species conservation goals, were subsidies to be provided. We recommend further work implementing non-consumptive income streams in these communities to study how they influence people's happiness levels and wildlife conservation goals.