One of the biggest challenges with today's conservation strategy has been the increase in human-wildlife conflicts in rural areas. Different strategies in conservation have been presented, such as mainstream conservation and convivial conservation, both with the same goal but different approaches when it comes to economic, social and environmental aspects. Conservation of species and mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts are complex, both in practice and in theory. This makes the subject important to study in order to improve conservation models which in turn improve livelihoods, attitudes and surroundings for villagers affected by the conflicts. In this paper, the authors performed interviews with representatives of two administrations working with conservation of elephants as well as interviews with villagers living in wildlife management areas (WMA), specifically Burunge Wildlife Management Area (BWMA) in Manyara region, Tanzania. This paper aims to examine villagers’ perception of the BWMA and if the wildlife management areas fulfil their purpose and live up to their expectations as well as examine the potential perks and risks for villagers that live near wildlife areas. The overall perception was that the villagers were satisfied with the BWMA and the organization seemed to be successful in fulfilling their purpose regarding conservation. The risks of living near wildlife areas does seem to surpass the perks, both when looking from an economic perspective and overall safety, which makes the solutions to the conflicts a subject of great importance. / En av de största utmaningarna med dagens bevarandestrategier har varit ökningen av konflikter mellan människor och vilda djur. De olika strategierna som presenterats inom bevarande, som mainstream conservation och convivial conservation, har samma mål men olika tillvägagångssätt när det kommer till ekonomiska, sociala och miljömässiga aspekter. Att bevara arter och mildra konflikterna mellan människor och vilda djur är komplext, både i praktiken och i teorin. Detta gör det till ett ämne värt att studera vidare för att förbättra modeller för bevarande, vilket i sin tur ämnar stärka områden som: försörjning, attityder och omgivningen för bybor som drabbats av dessa konflikter. I denna artikel genomförde författarna intervjuer med representanter från två administrationer som arbetar med bevarandet av elefanter samt intervjuer med bybor som bor nära viltförvaltningsområden, närmare bestämt Burunge Wildlife Management Area (BWMA) i Babati-distriktet, Tanzania. Den här artikeln syftar till att undersöka bybors uppfattning om BWMA och huruvida viltförvaltningsområden uppfyller sitt syfte och lever upp till dess förväntningar samt att undersöka de potentiella förmånerna och riskerna för bybor som bor nära dessa områden. Den övergripande uppfattningen var att majoriteten av byborna var nöjda med BWMA och att organisationen verkade ha lyckats med att uppfylla sitt syfte gällande bevarande. Riskerna med att bo nära viltområden tycks överträffa fördelarna, både från ett ekonomiskt- och trygghetsperspektiv vilket motiverar att lösningarna på konflikterna prioriteras.

<p>Approaches to conserving biodiversity have traditionally left humans out of the picture. However, to separate between humans and protected areas has become increasingly criticized for being ethically problematic and ineffective. As a result, the political landscape for how biodiversity should be conserved has changed during the last 30 years. Instead of exclusive conservation practices, there is a request for so-called people-centered practices that tackle development and conservation jointly. However, several studies show a gap between public policies with people-centered ambitions and what is happening on areas assigned for biodiversity conservation. This study aims to understand if people-centered ideas are converted into conservation practices at four nature reserves in Cape Town, South Africa. The study also hopes to explain if the public-civil partnership Cape Flats Nature (CFN) is a useful arrangement in order to convert people-centered ambitions into practices. Using an ideal type analysis, conducting informant interviews and gathering documents, the findings suggest that people-centered practices are found at all four nature reserves. However, there are significant differences and the two nature reserves partnering with CFN have the most people-centered practices. In these cases, human well being is, for example, viewed to be an integral part of the objectives at nature reserves and fences that tend to keep people out are focused on to a lesser extent than in the other nature reserves that are not partnering with CFN. Even though there are no blueprint solutions, instruments such as CFN can be a useful arrangement for narrowing the gap between people-centered ambitions and conservation practices. However, further studies on for example social network analysis focusing on the role of bridging organizations would perhaps strengthen such claims.</p>

Approaches to conserving biodiversity have traditionally left humans out of the picture. However, to separate between humans and protected areas has become increasingly criticized for being ethically problematic and ineffective. As a result, the political landscape for how biodiversity should be conserved has changed during the last 30 years. Instead of exclusive conservation practices, there is a request for so-called people-centered practices that tackle development and conservation jointly. However, several studies show a gap between public policies with people-centered ambitions and what is happening on areas assigned for biodiversity conservation. This study aims to understand if people-centered ideas are converted into conservation practices at four nature reserves in Cape Town, South Africa. The study also hopes to explain if the public-civil partnership Cape Flats Nature (CFN) is a useful arrangement in order to convert people-centered ambitions into practices. Using an ideal type analysis, conducting informant interviews and gathering documents, the findings suggest that people-centered practices are found at all four nature reserves. However, there are significant differences and the two nature reserves partnering with CFN have the most people-centered practices. In these cases, human well being is, for example, viewed to be an integral part of the objectives at nature reserves and fences that tend to keep people out are focused on to a lesser extent than in the other nature reserves that are not partnering with CFN. Even though there are no blueprint solutions, instruments such as CFN can be a useful arrangement for narrowing the gap between people-centered ambitions and conservation practices. However, further studies on for example social network analysis focusing on the role of bridging organizations would perhaps strengthen such claims.