IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: Location matters


  • Mackenzie, Catrina A.


The spatial distribution of protected area direct benefits and losses were mapped for twenty-five villages around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Benefits included park-based employment, tourism revenue sharing, integrated conservation and development projects, and resource access agreements. Losses were caused by park-protected animals raiding crops and preying on livestock. Local perceptions of benefit and loss associated with the park were collected from focus groups and a household survey. Valuation data were derived from interviews, the survey, and measurement of crop losses. Eight villages accrued an annual net benefit as a result of the park, while 17 villages accrued a net loss. Net benefitting villages were located near park-based employment and resource access associations involved in beekeeping. Households within 0.5km of the park boundary accrued the highest losses, while benefits distributed up to 15km away. The Ugandan Wildlife Authority (UWA) needs to focus benefits closer to the park boundary to support those who lose most from park-protected animals, and away from areas with park-based employment to more evenly distribute benefits around the circumference of the park. Attitudes toward the park appear to be shaped by loss aversion, suggesting UWA and conservation agencies should focus on loss mitigation, rather than benefit provision.

Suggested Citation

  • Mackenzie, Catrina A., 2012. "Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: Location matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 119-129.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:76:y:2012:i:c:p:119-129
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.013

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    2. Samantha Jones, 2006. "A political ecology of wildlife conservation in Africa," Review of African Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(109), pages 483-495, September.
    3. Clement A. Tisdell, 2005. "Economics of Environmental Conservation, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3272, April.
    4. Ellis, Frank & Mdoe, Ntengua, 2003. "Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 1367-1384, August.
    5. Ferraro, Paul J., 2002. "The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 261-275, December.
    6. Mackenzie, Catrina A. & Ahabyona, Peter, 2012. "Elephants in the garden: Financial and social costs of crop raiding," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 72-82.
    7. Ellis, Frank & Kutengule, Milton & Nyasulu, Alfred, 2003. "Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction in Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 1495-1510, September.
    8. Ellis, Frank & Bahiigwa, Godfrey, 2003. "Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 997-1013, June.
    9. Barrett, Christopher B. & Arcese, Peter, 1995. "Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(7), pages 1073-1084, July.
    10. Cernea, Michael M. & Schmidt-Soltau, Kai, 2006. "Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1808-1830, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:forpol:v:84:y:2017:i:c:p:102-111 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:314-323 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:eee:ecoser:v:9:y:2014:i:c:p:170-179 is not listed on IDEAS


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:76:y:2012:i:c:p:119-129. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.