lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

Research article

Exploring local people's views on the livelihood impacts of privatelyversus community managed conservation strategies in the Ruvumalandscape of North Mozambique-South Tanzania

Noelia Zafra-Calvo a, *, 1, Raquel Moreno-Pe~naranda b

a Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japanb College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 March 2017Received in revised form23 November 2017Accepted 24 November 2017Available online 1 December 2017

Keywords:Livelihood costs and benefitsLocal communitiesWildlife corridors

* Corresponding author. Institute for the Advanced SNations University, 5e53e70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku, T

E-mail addresses: zafra.calvo@unu.es (N. Zafra-Calvac.jp (R. Moreno-Pe~naranda).

1 Current address: Center for Macroecology, EvoHistory Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen University

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.0650301-4797/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

It is broadly acknowledged that natural resources conservation strategies affect the livelihoods of localcommunities. Moreover, evidence suggests that these livelihood impacts, in turn, can influence con-servation achievements. Yet, what constitutes a conservation strategy that communities perceive asacceptable and thus they would be willing to commit to over time remains poorly understood. This studyexplores the perceptions of communities regarding the effects of two different conservation strategies inthe Ruvuma landscape: governmental land concessions and licenses to private tourist operators in NorthMozambique, versus community-managed protected areas supported by NGOs in South Tanzania. Thestudy engages communities in a series of semi-structured discussions about natural resource use, impactof the conservation strategies on their livelihoods, pressures on natural resources, and ways to addresssuch pressures and reach an acceptable conservation strategy, from a community perspective. Ourfindings suggest that communities perceive as non-affordable current opportunity and damage costs insubsistence agriculture. A strategy integrating improved agricultural production, common use of theforest managed by communities, and joint ventures between communities and private companies forgetting more benefits from trophy hunting are identified as acceptable.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Overall, rural communities in developing countries dependessentially on agriculture, forest and wildlife resources for theirsubsistence and income generation activities (Persha et al., 2011).Conservation actions usually require changes in the access and useof natural resources by communities in the target areas. Suchchanges can negatively impact local livelihoods by imposing sig-nificant costs esuch as the opportunity cost of preserving a forestfrom agricultural production, or crop damage by wildlife. Manystudies have analyzed how do conservation strategies e especiallyprotected areas, and their subsequent restrictions in the use ofnatural resources, negatively impact communities' livelihoods (for

tudy of Sustainability, Unitedokyo 150-8925, Japan.o), rmoreno@aless.c.u-tokyo.

lution and Climate, Natural, Copenhagen, Denmark.

a review see Coad et al., 2008; de Lange et al., 2016), well-being(Pullin et al., 2013; Milner-Gulland et al., 2014; Franks and Small,2016), and poverty (Ferraro et al., 2011; Brockington and Wilkie,2015). Moreover, imposed costs on the livelihoods of commu-nities can in turn contribute to increase human pressures anddecrease outcomes in biodiversity or ecosystem services protection(Miller et al., 2012; Oldekop et al., 2015).

On the other hand, conservation actions can also provide ben-efits to communities, including, for instance, revenue fromwildlifetrophy hunting or recreational tourism, and the maintenance ofecosystem services such as watershed or biodiversity protection(Cardinale et al., 2012). Although the net livelihood impacts ofconservation are not easy to discern, one of the biggest challengesof conservation is to identify strategies that preserve ecologicalfunction and biodiversity, while minimizing limitations on naturalresources use and negative impacts on local livelihoods.

An important tool to minimize negative impacts of conservationon local livelihoods is the participation of the target communities inthe design and implementation of conservation strategies (Bennett,2016). Approaches engaging local people are able to integrate

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862854

scientific information with communities' perspectives on naturalresource use, and thus can be used to design potential successfulconservation strategies that minimize negative livelihoods impacts(McShane et al., 2011; de Lange et al., 2016). Besides, there is agrowing acknowledgment that it is necessary to understand peo-ple's relations with nature, and incorporate this knowledge, expe-riences and attitudes into conservation decision-making, planningand implementation processes to increase conservation outcomes(Chan et al., 2015). Most of the methodologies employed to date toassess socio-economic impacts of conservation actions on thelivelihoods of communities engage with local people in processesto identify indicators through group discussions and semi-structured interviews (Schreckenberg et al., 2010).

However, studies engaging with communities in approaches toassess both the socio-economic impacts of conservation actions onlocal livelihoods, and further to ascertain what constitutes a con-servation strategy that communities perceive as acceptable, arescarce (Andrade and Rhodes, 2012). This study contributes to theliterature by exploring the socio-economic impacts of existingconservation strategies on the livelihoods of local people and whatthey perceive as an acceptable conservation strategy, in selectedcommunities in the Ruvuma landscape, in northern Mozambiqueand southern Tanzania. The study generates insights to overcome aparticularly important gap in conservation science and practice,because it is unlikely that communities commit to imposed con-servation strategies that they perceive as negatively impacting theirlivelihoods and conflicting with their views of management andgovernance systems of decision making (Bennett and Dearden,2014).

The Ruvuma landscape, extending over South Tanzania andNorth Mozambique is well known for its top-down conservationstrategies providing few benefits for local people (Jones, 2005;Bluwstein and Lund, 2016). The Landscape faces serious conserva-tion challenges, especially regarding agricultural intensificationand expansion, commercial timber overexploitation and elephantpoaching (Reyes, 2003; Mackenzie, 2006;Wasser et al., 2008, 2015;WWF, 2014). Prior to our study, Landry and Chirwa (2011) andBleyer et al. (2016) analyzed the perception of communities on theimpacts of forest plantations in their livelihoods in northernMozambique. According to these studies, forest plantations providepositive impacts in terms of employment and trading opportu-nities; however other studies contrastingly reported conflicts overavailable land caused mainly due to the weak implementation ofdevolution of land use rights and lack of adequate training for localpeople (Sitoe and Guedes, 2015). Jorge et al. (2012) provides a cost-benefit analysis of leopard hunting, concluding that sport-huntingrevenues do not compensate for the economic losses of livestock atthe household level in communities in Niassa Reserve, in northernMozambique. Studies analyzing the impacts of southern TanzanianWildlife Management Areas on livelihoods of communities havefound mainly little positive impacts of WMAs in terms of empow-erment or poverty alleviation of communities (Kangalawe and Noe2012; Noe and Kangalawe, 2015).

To the best of our knowledge, an approach that moves fromsocio-economic impact assessment to include the point of view ofcommunities about conservation strategies -particularly withrespect to designing actions attuned to the local realities thatcommunities can commit to- has not been developed in theRuvuma landscape.

Multi-criteria evaluation can be an effective tool for integratinglivelihoods impacts and pressures on natural resources, in discus-sions exploring acceptable natural resource use and management(Christie et al., 2012; Vaidya and Mayer, 2014). Although notexempt from challenges, multi-criteria evaluations contribute toseek compromised solutions in complex scenarios, where

conservation goals and local development aspirations often clash(Munda, 2004). This paper presents amulti-criteria socio-economicassessment of impacts of conservation strategies on communitiesin two wildlife corridors in the Ruvuma landscape. In our study weexamine communities' perceptions of the overall impacts of thecurrent conservation strategies on their livelihoods. We furtherexplore what could constitute an acceptable conservation strategyfor this area from their perspective. The aim of this study is toidentify a strategy that achieves sufficient levels of nature protec-tion while being perceived as acceptable by the communities interms of livelihoods costs and benefits, and thus a strategy thatcommunities would be willing to commit to.

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

The Ruvuma landscape expands over and area of approximately280,000 km2 in the frontier between Southern Tanzania (Ruvuma,Mtwara, Lindi and Morogoro regions) and North Mozambique(Niassa and Cabo Delgado provinces) (Fig. 1). There are three pro-tected areas within the Ruvuma landscape, namely the SelousGame Reserve (SGR), the Niassa Reserve (NR) and the QuirimbasNational Park (QNP). There are two wildlife corridors connectingthese protected areas. The Selous Niassa Wildlife ProtectionCorridor (SNWPC) extends for 6000 km2 connecting the NiassaReserve and the Selous Game Reserve, in Tanzania. A secondcorridor, the Quirimbas Niassa Corridor (QNC) expands 7246 km2

and it connects the Quirimbas National Park and the Niassa Reservein Mozambique.

Two different conservation strategies are currently in place inthese two wildlife corridors. In the QNC, natural resources aremainly managed by communities for subsistence purposes undercustomary regulations (forest and wildlife are considered commonproperty), together with governmental land concessions andlicenses (DUATs) to international and national private operators forcommercial purposes (logging or trophy hunting companies). If theareas granted to the investors, which allows them to occupy anduse a certain area for 50 years (Bleyer et al., 2016), overlays com-munity land, the companies are required to hold consultations tonegotiate with communities on areas to be allocated to the privateinvestment and on compensation. Legally, 20% of the revenues fromlogging forest and trophy hunting concession fees must accrue tocommunities (DNFFB, 1999). According to the conservation relatedlegal framework in the country (Lei da Conservaç~ao 16/2014), pri-vate investors should engage in partnerships with communities todevelop profitable and sustainable economic activities in conser-vation areas (German et al., 2016). In the SNWPC the use of naturalresources is regulated at village level for subsistence activities(Village Land Act 5/1999), while the national government regulatescommercial purposes. In both cases the land is not officiallyinvolved in any transaction and the use of natural resources isregulated by licenses to communities' members or national andinternational private companies. Tanzania has a long history inCommunity-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM), andthe SNWPC is created on the base of five Wildlife ManagementAreas (WMAs): Mbaragandu, Kimbanda, Kisungule, Nalikka andChingoli (for a detailed review of the historical, legal and institu-tional framework that leaded to the establishment of the currentconservation strategies implemented in the Ruvuma landscape seeNoe 2015).

There are 35 communities in both corridors; 29 in SNWPC(102,675 inhabitants) and 6 in QNC (9,656 inhabitants) (INE, 2007;NBS, 2012). Communities can be defined in multiples waysemphasizing the different concepts that create the idea of a

Fig. 1. The Ruvuma landscape, which spans North Mozambique and South Tanzania. It has three protected areas (in black) and two wildlife corridors (WMAs, logging and huntingreserves within the corridors are showed in white). Villages where the study was carried out are showed as black spots: (1) Mchomoro, (2) Mbatamila, (3) Ndenyende, (4) Ligunga,(5) Lusewa, (6) Amani, (7) Magazini, (8) Ntele, (9) Nairoto, (10) Nacololo, and (11) Ntola.

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862 855

community such as a defined spatial unit, a homogeneous socialstructure and norm-sharing (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). In ourstudy, a community is considered a spatially defined group of localresource users who can share the same interest, customs andnorms on the use of a natural resource, but can or cannot reflect acohesive social entity (Miller et al., 2012). We recognize that theimpacts on livelihoods could not be the same to different groupswithin communities (such as the poor, women, etc). However, thedisaggregate analysis of impacts on livelihoods within commu-nities groups is not a central aim in our analysis.

2.2. Methodological approach

The assessment was carried out between February and July of2013. Expert-assisted group discussions, attended voluntarily byparticipants, and supported by local facilitators, were conductedwith communities in 7 villages in the SNWPC (Mchomoro inMbaraganduWMA, Ligunga and Lusewa in KimbandaWMA, Amani

and Magazini in Kisungule WMA, Ndenyende in Nalikka WMA andMbatamila in Chingoli WMA), with approximately 30e40 peopleattending per village; as well as with representatives of the villagegovernment and Authorized Associations managing each WMA,1e2 traditional leaders attending per meeting. Similarly, groupdiscussions were conducted with communities in 4 villages in theQNC in Mozambique (Ntola, Nacololo, Ntele and Nairoto), approx-imately 15e20 people attending per village; as well as with tradi-tional leaderships and the Natural Resource ManagementCommittee of each village, 2e3 traditional leaders attending permeeting (see Fig. 1). The villages were selected on the basis of beinglocated within the geographical area of the wildlife corridors. Thesecond selection criterionwas to include in our analysis at least onevillage located in each WMA in the case of Tanzania and closest to/within trophy hunting reserves (e.g. Ntola village) and loggingconcessions (e.g. Nacololo village) in Mozambique.

To cross-validate the information received during the groupdiscussions, as well as to fill the information gaps with missing or

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862856

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862 857

unclear data, semi-structured interviews were carried out with keyinformants in Mozambique and Tanzania (19 and 16 respectively)belonging to conservation and farmers' organizations, governmentand managers of commercial companies and activities. Yet, dataprovided during the group discussions prevail in the analyses;when contradictions arose, they are noted in the discussion.

2.2.1. Phase 1: Identifying communities' perceived impacts ofconservation strategies

2.2.1.1. Characterizing the natural resources management system.Participants described the most relevant natural resources usedand the main sources of income without taking into account theconservation actions implemented in each strategy. Participantsprovided information to authors, who estimated a baseline of in-come and the amount of natural resources that communitiesextracted from the Landscape, in terms of agricultural production,forest resources and wildlife use.

2.2.1.2. Defining indicators for measuring costs and benefits.Once the baseline system without conservation actions wasestablished, participants' perceived impacts on their incomeresulting from conservation actions were identified in terms ofcosts and benefits. Conservation actions in the Landscape aremainly actions that government, NGOs, or logging and trophyhunting companies developed in the corridors (e.g. improvedagriculture, beekeeping, fish-farming, logging and trophy hunting).The categorization of costs explored in the group discussions byparticipants and the authors, was fitted to an existing categoriza-tion of costs of conservation actions in the academic literature forfurther analysis. Costs follow the categorization of Naidoo et al.(2006), namely: “acquisition cost” for acquiring some right overnatural resources; “management cost” for developing managementactions; “opportunity cost” for lost opportunities in the use ofnatural resource for other purposes; “damage cost” for damage tocrops and other economic activities; and “transaction cost” for thetime spent attending meetings or trainings that communities couldhave spent in productive activities, e.g. agriculture. This categori-zation includes the three main costs of conservation strategies tolocal people in relation to their rights to access and use of naturalresources (opportunity, damage and transaction); and the costs tolocal people' further bundles of management or ownership ar-rangements rights over natural resources (management andacquisition costs). Participants identified the benefits according tothe stakeholder involved in the conservation action providing tocommunities these benefits, which included the government at alllevels, NGOs, and private national and international companies.Participants then established the indicators that best fit the localreality to assess monetarily the costs and benefits that they haveidentified. In order to produce a comparable set of indicators forSNWPC and QNC, costs and benefits identified by participants inone or in both corridors, were considered and assessed in bothcorridors.

2.2.2. Phase 2: Measuring impacts and exploring an acceptablestrategy

2.2.2.1. Assigning monetary values to costs and benefits.Whenever possible, market values stated by the participants in thegroup discussions were used by the authors to calculate the

Fig. 2. A and B. Results from the first phase of the participatory assessment in Selous Niassabelow (B). The figures show the functioning of the natural resource management systemcomponents in terms of conservation actions' costs and benefits and natural resources useoutputs to the systems and subsystems. Black lines indicate the systems without conservat

monetary value of the baseline, costs and benefits for both corri-dors. When market values were not available, the monetary valueof the time spent in the activity was estimated. Such monetaryvalue was calculated based on the standard compensation in agiven corridor for one day of work in each different activity. On thecosts' side, current expenses add to investment expenditurescalculated in our case without applying discount rate (i.e., marketvalue of the asset divided by the number of years e lifetime e thatthe asset is expected to last before being substituted). All costs andbenefits were later calculated by the authors in purchasing powerparity dollars per year per capita.

2.2.2.2. Exploring an acceptable strategy. Participants wereinformed about the results regarding the identified cost and ben-efits. They were subsequently asked to further discuss whetherthey perceived that the identified costs and benefits, entailed somepressure and/or over-exploitation of the natural resources; andthen how much they were willing to reduce this perceived over-exploitation in the Landscape in the next 5 years. Their use andpressure over natural resources was estimated in the group dis-cussions by using the amounts about the use of natural resourcesthat they stated. For instance in the case of forest, participantsstated that they illegally cut a number of trees every year. With thisamount of trees cut individually per year, participants and authorsestimated an overall amount of trees cut in the region per year.Using this overall amount of trees cut in the region per year, plusinformation about the amount of timber participants knew com-panies were extracting, participants were invited to discuss if theyconsidered this full amount of trees cut abusive or sustainable overtime. Participants were encouraged to construct a plausible sce-nario that they may actually compromise with.

Graphical representations have been proven useful to commu-nicate findings in group discussions to a diverse range of stake-holders in a more operational and appropriate way than aggregatedindices (Astier et al., 2012; Miettinen, 2014). In order to translatethe information about costs and benefits in relation to pressuresobtained to graphical representations, authors calculated scoresshowing how different or “distant” the current situation is to theacceptable situation in terms of costs and benefits to communitiesin a dimensionless scale. Scores (S) were calculated as

S ¼ (d/n)*100, whereS ¼ scored ¼ difference between the estimated current value (n) and theacceptable value as defined by the communities (a); d ¼ n-an ¼ estimated current value of an indicator for a corridor

3. Results

3.1. Phase 1: Communities' perceived impacts of conservationstrategies

3.1.1. The natural resource management systemThe results of the first phase of the assessment, describing the

natural resource management systems of SNWPC and QNC, areshowed in Fig. 2 as black lines and arrows. Communities living inthe Landscape are mainly subsistence or small-scale farmers who,to a varying degree, also engage in livestock rearing. Agriculture is

Wildlife Protection Corridor (SNWPC) above (A) and Quirimbas Niassa Corridor (QNC)s and subsystems, stakeholders involved, and interactions between these different. The arrows indicate the directionality of these relationships in terms of inputs andion actions; and dotted lines indicate costs and benefits of conservation actions.

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862858

critical for subsistence and one of the main sources of income. Theagricultural production involves shifting cultivation in both corri-dors, although it is most common in Mozambique. Communitiesuse the forest mainly for firewood extraction for cooking (and, inthe case of Tanzania, also for drying tobacco); bamboos and polesare obtained for construction, as well as non-timber products asmushrooms, fruits and medicinal plants. It is important to notethat, as they practice shifting cultivation, the forest also constitutesthe reserve of future land for subsistence agriculture and othereconomic activities (such as timber extraction or subsistencehunting). They hunt small mammals for subsistence purposes(meat) or bigger animals (for example elephants) for income gen-eration or traditional events (such as providing meat in weddingsor funerals for a large number of people).

3.1.2. Indicators for measuring costs and benefitsThe established indicators for measuring the identified costs

and benefits are shown aswhite lines and arrows in Fig. 2 and listedin Table 1. In SNWPC, participants identified the land lost for agri-culture (costAO). In the case of QNC, they explained that when theland and the use of the natural resources is allocate to privatecompanies, they continue to cultivate and use the forest for sub-sistence purposes but most of the times they have to change thelocation to a remoter place (costFO). The lost opportunity of sub-sistence hunting is also a cost for them due to the establishment ofprivate game reserves (costWO). The damage to crops resultingfrom human-wildlife conflicts is another cost identified by partic-ipants in both corridors (costAD). In QNC also transaction cost wasidentified (costFTM, costFTT, costWTM, costWTT). In SNWPC, par-ticipants recognized that they are called to attend meetings withprivate companies or government, or trainings by conservationistorganizations related to WMAs; which entail a burden for them interms of wasted time in providing livelihoods activities, e.g.agriculture.

In terms of benefits, participants referred mainly to employ-ment opportunities related to commercial logging in QNC (in bothformal and informal activities) (benfFL, benfFLI) and related totrophy hunting (benfWL, benfWI) in both corridors. There werealso benefits coming from activities of conservationists organiza-tions (NGOs), mainly per diems that communities received intrainings (benfFT, benfWT) but also agro forestry activities asbeekeeping in the case of SNWPC (benfAA, benfAL, benfAF, benfAX,benfFB). It is interesting to notice that participants in SNWPCdescribedWMAs as a benefit provided by NGOs and in some extentgovernment, but not as an own initiative despite it is a community-based management activity.

3.2. Phase 2: Conservation impacts and an acceptable strategy

3.2.1. Monetary value of costs and benefitsTable 1 provides in full detail the monetary value of the baseline

without conservation actions and each cost and benefit indicatorsestimated in both corridors. Using those values, the value of theimpact of conservation actions in the average income per personper year (2012) in both corridors was estimated by the authors. Itwas a positive impact of PPP$82 per person in QNC; and a negativeimpact of PPP$10 per person in SNWPC. Agricultural opportunitycost was the highest cost for communities in SNWPC (PPP$66 perperson); while opportunity cost for subsistence hunting and cropsdamage was in QNC (PPP$22 per person). In both corridors,employment related to hunting activities was the highest source ofbenefits (PPP$40 per person in SNWPC and PPP$66 per person inQNC). Fish farming and per diems for meetings related to WMAwere also significant sources of benefits for communities in SNWPC(PPP$5 per person). In QNC, the main source of benefits after

employment in hunting activities was employment in loggingcompanies (PPP$27 per person).

3.2.2. Acceptable strategyIn the last part of the assessment, participants discussed about

whether these positive or negative impacts of conservation actionson their livelihoods also entailed some pressure and over-exploitation of the natural resources, and what would be anacceptable value of such for them. Results suggested that partici-pants in both corridors did not consider acceptable a situationwhen agriculture, or the use of the forest and wildlife for subsis-tence in the case of QNC, bear costs. In fact, they claimed moresupport to strategies that allow agricultural production to increaseuntil 4.5 T/ha (more than 100% in QNC) without bearing additionalcosts. In the case of forest and wildlife, participants perceived themas over-exploited by commercial activities, especially wildlife. Theyhad the willingness to accept other proposals to increase theirlivelihoods that substitute over-exploitation of forest and wildlifeby commercial activities. For instance, they agreed as acceptable,dramatically reducing trophy hunting and poaching until 5e15 el-ephants in QNC and SNWPC respectively (about 95% of the currentnumber of hunted elephants). However, logging fell until 7000 m3

and 500 m3 respectively (50% of the current extraction in bothformal and informal use in QNC and 70% in SNWPC). These valuesare graphically aggregated to discuss about the results obtained inboth corridors (see Fig. 3).

4. Discussion

4.1. The methodological approach

Although the assessment has been valuable to assess costs,benefits and explore what participants think would be an accept-able conservation strategy in the Ruvuma landscape, the study haslimitations and therefore it should only be taken as a firstapproximation. First, the analysis is just a small snapshot in acomplex and changing scenario. It does not include a detailed studyof all the stakeholders but just the communities. However, it couldbe the base to develop scenarios to help policy decisions in theLandscape, by exploring how different conservation strategiesimpact on communities' livelihoods and are accepted or rejected bythem. Scenarios could be discussed with communities in a furtherparticipatory and iterative process. We suggest this exercise beinserted in an adaptive management approach including allstakeholders, adaptation of policies on the base of research resultsand coordination of implementation actions in a continuouslearning process (Gunderson and Light, 2006).

Second, we have not quantified in detail all economic costs orbenefits but monetary costs and benefits. We have also not quan-tified essential social value or non-use value of the natural re-sources, neither social equity concerns. In QNC, eroded traditionaland customary institutions for managing natural resources wereone of the main negative impacts perceived by participants. In thegroup discussions performed, the totality of the participants in allthe villages, reported a general dissatisfaction with the restrictionsin access to natural resources and the lost capacity to managenatural resources that they perceive as critical for their subsistence,e.g. land for agriculture and subsistence use of the forest. They alsoreported their strong disagreement with the extent they have beeninvolved in high-profit activities, such as commercial logging ortrophy hunting, where they are allowed to participate just as em-ployees. In Tanzania, issues of elite capture arose in the groupdiscussions performed in the totality of the villages in SNWPC. Ithas been reported in the literature that the fact of the benefits forall members of a given community are usurped by a few individuals

Table 1The table shows the costs, benefits and natural resources use, as identified (phase 1; first to third columns started by the left) and estimated (phase 2; fourth and firth columnsstarted by the left) in Selous Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor (SNWPC) and Quirimbas Niassa Corridor (QNC).

CONSERVATIONIMPACTS

Type INDICATORS and their units SNWPC QNC

BASELINE (Monetary value in $PPP per capita per year for 2012) 640.38 366.58

Agro Harvest of one hectare of maize and one hectare of rice per household 498.26 187.03Forest Grass, firewood, pools, bamboos and timber collected for subsistence purposes 121.57 114.09Wildlife Animals hunted: meat, trophies 20.55 65.46

COSTS (cost) (Monetary value in $PPP per capita per year for 2012) 66.92 28.55

Agro (costA) Opportunity Agricultural opportunity lost (costAO) Harvest of rice in the Wildlife Management Areas; that local communitieshave not taken

66.43 0.00

Damage Agricultural damage (costAD) Crops and livestock that local communities have not gained by damagefrom wildlife: maize, gardening, goats

0.49 11.23

Forest (costF) Opportunity Forestry opportunity lost (costFO) Number of hours of travelling to reach a new location to take productsfrom the forest

0.00 3.37

Transaction Time spent in meetings (costFTM) Number of hours spending in meetings 0.00 0.91Transaction Time spent in trainings (costFTT) Number of hours spending in trainings 0.00 1.26

Wildlife(costW)

Opportunity Hunting opportunity lost (costWO) Number of hours of travelling to reach a new location to hunt 0.00 10.42Transaction Time spent in meetings (costWTM) Number of hours spending in meetings 0.00 0.10Transaction Time spent in trainings (costWTT) Number of hours spending in trainings 6.80 1.26

BENEFITS (benf) (Monetary value in $PPP per capita per year for 2012) 56.65 110.54

Agro (benfA) NGOs Agro actions (benfAA) Agricultural activities: gardening, cashew nut trees, pineapples 0.00 0.17NGOs Livestock actions (benfAL) Livestock activities: goats 0.00 1.16NGOs Fish-farming actions (benfAF) Fish-farming activities 4.97 0.00NGOs Other NGOs actions (benfAX) Other activities related to WMAs e.g. building chilli fences 0.13 0.00

Forest (benfF) Government Fees and compensation (benfFF) Fees related to logging activities 0.04 1.35NGOs Beekeeping actions (benfFB) Beekeeping activities 0.77 0.00NGOs Trainings (benfFT) Forest governance trainings: per diems 0.00 1.50Companies andprivates

Formal employment in logging companies(benfFL)

Salaries that local communities earn from employment in loggingcompanies

0.00 26.69

Companies andprivates

Informal employment in loggingcompanies (benfFI)

Timber sold from illegal logging to companies and privates 1.19 7.75

Wildlife(benfW)

Government Fees and compensation (benfWF) Fees related to all hunting activities: resident hunting, trophy hunting inWMAs

2.96 0.31

NGOs - WMAs Trainings (benfWT) WMAs related trainings: per diems 6.80 0.00Companies andprivate

Formal employment in hunting companiesand WMAs (benfWL)

Salaries from employment in hunting companies, including themaintenance and opening of roads

0.20 4.95

Companies andprivates

Informal employment in hunting (benfWI) Ivory from elephant poaching that local communities sold to privates 39.60 66.67

USE of NATURAL RESOURCES (eco)

Agro (ecoA) Agricultural productivity (ecoAPS) Tons of maize produced (per hectare) 2.5 2Forest (ecoF) Legal and illegal timber harvested (ecoFSR) m3 of timber extracted (per full corridor) 780 13.735Wildlife (ecoW) Legal and illegal elephants hunted

(ecoWRSE)Number of hunted elephants (per full corridor) 265 107

Fig. 3. Scores representing in percentage the difference (S) between the current costsand benefits and those of the acceptable conservation strategy for agro (black), forest(grey) and wildlife (white) systems in both corridors.

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862 859

of superior status eelite capturee undermines participatory ini-tiatives (Lund and Saito-Jensen, 2013). A further analysis of costsand benefits disaggregated by social groups within communitiescould help to deeper understand a diversity of viewpoints and avariety of possible acceptable community-based conservation

strategies in this corridor. All these limitations should be carefullyaddressed and incorporated in future assessments. In the currentone, although they are not included in the monetary analysis, webelieve these findings are critical to understand the results and theyare incorporated to the discussion in section 4.2.

Although our study is inspired by methodological approachesthat aggregate economic, social and ecological community-selectedindicators to assess the sustainability of natural resource manage-ment in complex social-ecological systems (see L�opez-Ridauraet al., 2002), we have focus on this first step in an analysis ofcosts and benefits. A further social-ecological approach includingthe analysis of institutional and legal frameworks, power relations,legitimacy of conservation strategies and historical perspectives,traditional management systems and knowledge could help tobetter understand the feedbacks between conservation strategiesand social-ecological dynamics in the Ruvuma landscape (Milleret al., 2012). However, understanding the communities' naturalresourcemanagement system, perceived changes occurring in theirlivelihoods when different conservation actions are implemented,and their perception of an acceptable conservation strategy, pro-vides useful knowledge to further explore an acceptable

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862860

conservation strategy in the Ruvuma landscape.

4.2. Towards an acceptable conservation strategy in the Ruvumalandscape

As the main source of income and mainly because of its sub-sistence component, agriculture is a very sensitive issue to com-munities in the Landscape as in other near places reported in theliterature (Ashley et al., 2002; Vedeld et al., 2012). Independently ofthe conservation strategy considered, agriculture is bearing most ofthe costs from the conservation strategies implemented in SNWPCand QNC; and communities consider this situation unacceptable.Communities in SNWPC perceived the opportunity cost of the landthat they devote to WMAs as high and growing, which is of specialconcern for poorest people due to their strong dependence ofagriculture for subsistence (Kangalawe and Noe 2012). In QNC,where communities moved to remote places to practice shiftingcultivation, there was less opportunity cost but higher damage costdue to wildlife conflicts; which have also the potential to under-mine conservation success (O'Connell-Rodwell, 2000). It is neces-sary to rethink how conservation considers agriculture in theirstrategies and, especially, how to integrate agriculture into theconservation strategies. In the case of the Ruvuma landscape, themost productive farming system requires integration of miomboforest into the farming landscape in a fractured mosaic, rather thantotal land clearance. Some well developed approaches dealing withthis issue, as systematic conservation planning (Margules andPressey, 2000), could offer an opportunity to develop strategiesthat integrate agriculture and livelihoods of communities intoconservation planning and management. Opportunity cost hasbeen more incorporated in conservation planning and decisionmaking (Adams et al., 2010). However, damage cost and especiallytransaction cost have received less attention; partially due beingmore difficult to measure and integrate into common conservationplanning exercises (Blore et al., 2013; Jorge et al., 2012). In our case,transaction cost is not negligible in both strategies, although theyare higher in SNWPC, where conservation is based mainly incommunity-based management programs. Some studies havehighlighted the importance of taking into account transaction costsbecause they are normally mostly beard by the poorest members ofthe communities (Meshack et al., 2006).

In QNC it is noticeable that communities perceived the com-mercial use of forest and wildlife as excessive and theywerewillingto reduce them, even if this is also their main source of benefits.Some studies have emphasized that reductions on the use of thenatural resources are accepted by communities only if those arecompatible with their livelihoods strategies (Milner-Gulland andLeader-Williams, 1992). It is likely that the results in QNC reflectthe high dependence of households of forest resources for subsis-tence (Faße and Grote, 2013), since it is also generally perceived bycommunities that subsistence activities do not have easy sub-stitutes in terms of alternative livelihoods proposals, even if thesealternative livelihoods provide high monetary benefits to them. Ithas been found by our study and others previous studies in forestplantations in northern Mozambique (Landry and Chirwa, 2011;Bleyer et al., 2016). Communities perceived forest and wildlife asover-exploited by private commercial activities and they werewillingness to significantly decrease for instance the amount oftrees logged if its management could transfer to them. The man-agement of the forest by communities, when well organized andadequate enforcement is in place, appears as an opportunity tosustainable conservation strategies. However, some studies havehighlighted the importance of governance systems (Kenward et al.,2011; Persha et al., 2011) and the fact that communities still retain astrong leadership and customary management to avoid over-

exploitation of common natural resources (Persha and Blomley,2009; Persha et al., 2010). Mechanisms to secure that manage-ment of forest by communities do not mean transferring control toa local elite who may use them just for immediate personal eco-nomic gain instead of providing direct benefits to households andcredible alternative sources of income (Gibson and Marks, 1995;Songorwa, 1999), may also be in place (Platteau, 2004; Deweeset al., 2011). Elite capture has also been identified previously as aconstraint to effective and sustainable forest management in othercase studies in the Landscape (Virtanen, 2005; Blomley et al., 2008).

Hunting activities provided communities most of the benefits;but they perceived them as unsustainable and highly unsafe, andthen they were willing to reduce by 95% if other options compen-sating their potential loss of benefits were presented. The estab-lishment of privately-managed trophy hunting reserves has beensuggested in the literature as a mechanism able to provide benefitsto communities, such as employment or monetary benefits fromfees (Lindsey et al., 2007). WMAs including agreements with pri-vate companies bring to communities in SNWPC more than fiftytimes the benefits that they earn just by resident hunting in termsof fees. Trophy hunting initiatives by privates usually employ stafffrom communities, who runs frequently patrols against illegalhunting damaging the benefits of their business (Lindsey andBento, 2012). In addition to a source of employment and incomefor communities, patrolling has been described in the literature asan effective anti-poaching action (Milner-Gulland and Leader-Williams, 1992; Dobson and Lynes, 2008; Jachmann, 2008). How-ever, privately-managed trophy hunting reserves also impose re-strictions that affect the subsistence use of the animals bycommunities (Kangalawe and Noe 2012) and the capture of themain monetary benefits coming from hunting by privates; whichcommunities considered far from acceptable in both corridors. Italso generates damage to crops or livestock (Jorge et al., 2012) andespecially, concerns about local participation in decisions about theuse of wildlife resources and its institutional, socio-economic andrights-related issues (Carter et al., 2008; Pasquini et al., 2011).Trophy hunting when managed by communities in joint ventureswith privates could bring benefits both for communities and foranti-poaching efforts while other substitute options to huntingarise and they are established in both corridors.

5. Conclusions

Our findings suggest that what would be an acceptable con-servation strategy in the Landscape include improved agriculture,WMAs in a joint venture with private companies to get most of thecurrent benefits from wildlife hunting; and community-based for-est management to capture commercial benefits from timber log-ging but under an exploitation rate smaller than that of companies.The approach helped to understand how communities perceivedthe impacts of different conservation strategies in the Landscape.More importantly, it has identified what the communities considercould agree to be an acceptable strategy. It has also the potential tobe an initial step contributing to establish a bottom-up conserva-tion approach, in this and in further landscapes in African countries.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants from thelocal communities in Mozambique and Tanzania, government of-fices, NGOs, civil society organizations, private companies, and twolocal facilitators; who have contributed to the application of theapproach to the Ruvuma landscape. N.Z-C was supported by theJapan Society for the Promotion of Science under Grant numberP12777. The authors would like to thank the support on the United

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862 861

Nations University-Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustain-ability (UNU-IAS) in Tokyo, Japan, for its support to the project. Theviews expressed in this paper are purely those of the authors andshould not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an officialposition of the organizations involved. All errors and omissionsremain those of the authors.

References

Adams, V.M., Pressey, R.L., Naidoo, R., 2010. Opportunity costs: who really pays forconservation? Biol. Conserv. 143, 439e448.

Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role ofcommunity in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 27, 629e649.

Andrade, G.S.M., Rhodes, J.R., 2012. Protected areas and local communities: aninevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecol. Soc. 17(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414.

Astier, M., et al., 2012. Assessing the sustainability of small farmer natural resourcemanagement systems. A critical analysis of the MESMIS program (1995e2010).Ecol. Soc. 17, 25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04910-170325.

Ashley, C., Mdoe, N., Reynolds, L., 2002. Rethinking Wildlife for Livelihoods andDiversification in Rural Tanzania: a Case Study from Northern Selous. LADDERWorking Paper No.15.

Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation:community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, gover-nance and management in Thailand. Mar. Pol. 44, 107e116.

Bennett, N.J., 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation andenvironmental management. Conserv. Biol. 30 (3), 582e592.

Blomley, T., et al., 2008. Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impactof participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42,380e391.

Blore, M.L., Cundill, G., Mkhulisi, M., 2013. Towards measuring the transaction costsof co-management in Mkambati Nature Reserve, Eastern Cape, South Africa.J. Environ. Manag. 129, 444e455.

Brockington, D., Wilkie, D., 2015. Protected areas and poverty. Phil T Roy Soc B,20140271. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0271.

Bleyer, M., et al., 2016. Socio-economic impacts of private land use investment onrural communities: industrial forest plantations in Niassa, Mozambique. LandUse Pol. 51, 281e289.

Bluwstein, J., Lund, J.F., 2016. Territoriality by conservation in the SelouseNiassaCorridor in Tanzania. World Dev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.09.010.

Cardinale, B.J., et al., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401), 59e67.

Carter, E., Adams, W.M., Hutton, J., 2008. Private protected areas: managementregimes, tenure arrangements and protected area categorization in East Africa.Oryx 42 (2), 177e186.

Chan, K.M.A., et al., 2015. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the envi-ronment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462e1465.

Christie, M., et al., 2012. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniquesfor assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people incountries with developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 83, 67e78.

Coad, L., et al., 2008. The Costs and Benefits of Protected Areas for Local Livelihoods:a Review of the Current Literature. Working Paper. UNEP World ConservationMonitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K.

de Lange, E., Woodhouse, E., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2016. Approaches used to evaluatethe social impacts of protected areas. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12223.

Dewees, P., et al., 2011. Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa:Policies, Incentives, and Options for the Rural Poor. Program on Forests (PRO-FOR), Washington DC.

DNFFB (Direcç~ao Nacional de Florestas e Fauna Bravia), 1999. Regulamento defloresta e fauna bravia. Direcç~ao Nacional de Florestas e Fauna Bravia, Maputo,Mozambique.

Dobson, A., Lynes, L., 2008. How does poaching affect the size of national parks?Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 177e180.

Faße, A., Grote, U., 2013. The economic relevance of sustainable agroforestry prac-tices d an empirical analysis from Tanzania. Ecol. Econ. 94, 86e96.

Franks, P., Small, R., 2016. Understanding the Social Impacts of Protected Areas: aCommunity Perspective. IIED Research Report. IIED, London.

Ferraro, P., Hanauer, M.M., Sims, K., 2011. Conditions associated with protected areasuccess in conservation and poverty reduction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108,13913e13918.

German, L., et al., 2016. Private investment as an engine of rural development:aconfrontation of theory and practice for the case of Mozambique. Land Use Pol.52, 1e14.

Gibson, C.C., Marks, S.A., 1995. Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: anassessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa.World Dev. 23, 941e957.

Gunderson, L., Light, S.S., 2006. Adaptive management and adaptive governance inthe everglades ecosystem. Pol. Sci. 39, 323e334.

INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica), 2007. Recenseamento Geral da Populaç~ao eHabitaç~ao. Maputo: Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Mozambique.

Jachmann, H., 2008. Illegal wildlife use and protected area management in Ghana.Biol. Conserv. 141, 1906e1918.

Jones, B.T.B., 2005. Niassa Reserve Community-based Natural Resource Manage-ment (CBNRM) Project. End of First Phase Project Evaluation. Final Report.Funded by NORAD and WWF Norway; Contract MZ 000091. PROJECT No.: GLO-02/467e3 through WWF Southern African Regional Office (SARPO) and WWFMozambique Country Office (MCO).

Jorge, A.A., et al., 2012. Costs and benefits of the presence of leopards to the sport-hunting industry and local communities in Niassa National Reserve,Mozambique. Conserv. Biol. 27, 832e843.

Kangalawe, R.Y.M., Noe, C., 2012. Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviationin Namtumbo District, Tanzania. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 162, 90e100.

Kenward, R.E., et al., 2011. Identifying governance strategies that effectively supportecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA 1081, 5308e5312.

Landry, J., Chirwa, P.W., 2011. Analysis of the potential socio-economic impact ofestablishing plantation forestry on rural communities in Sanga district, Niassaprovince, Mozambique. Land Use Pol. 28, 542e551.

Lindsey, P., Bento, C., 2012. Illegal Hunting and the Bushmeat Trade in CentralMozambique: a Case-Study from Coutada 9, Manica Province. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P.A., Roma~nach, S.S., 2007. Economic and conservation sig-nificance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biol. Conserv.134, 455e469.

L�opez-Ridaura, S., Masera, O., Astier, M., 2002. Evaluating the sustainability ofcomplex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecol. Indicat. 2,135e148.

Lund, J.F., Saito-Jensen, M., 2013. Revisiting the issue of elite capture in participatoryinitiatives. World Dev. 46, 104e112.

Mackenzie, C., 2006. Forest governance in Zamb�ezia, Mozambique. Final Report forFONGZA. http://www.illegal-logging.info/sites/default/files/uploads/Mozambique_China.pdf.

McShane, T.O., et al., 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversityconservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144, 966e972.

Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405,243e253.

Meshack, C.K., et al., 2006. Transaction costs of community-based forest manage-ment: empirical evidence from Tanzania. Afr. J. Ecol. 44, 468e477.

Miettinen, K., 2014. Survey of methods to visualize alternatives in multiple criteriadecision making problems. OR Spectr. 36, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-012-0297-0.

Miller, B.W., Caplow, S.C., Leslie, P.W., 2012. Feedbacks between conservation andsocial-ecological systems. Conserv. Biol. 26 (2), 218e227.

Milner-Gulland, E.J., Leader-Williams, N., 1992. A model of incentives for the illegalexploitation of black rhinos and elephants: poaching pays in Luangwa Valley,Zambia. J. Appl. Ecol. 29, 388e401.

Milner-Gulland, E.J., et al., 2014. Accounting for the impact of conservation onhuman well-being. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1160e1166.

Munda, G., 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations andoperational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158, 662e677.

Naidoo, R., et al., 2006. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning.Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 681e687.

NBS (National Bureau of Statistics - Ministry of Finance), 2012. Tanzania populationand Housing Census. Office of Chief Government Statistician President's Office -Finance, Economy and Development Planning, Tanzania.

Noe, C., 2015. The Selous-Niassa transfrontier conservation area and tourism:evolution, benefits and challenges. In: van der Duim, Ren�e, Lamers, Machiel, vanWijk, Jakomijn (Eds.), Institutional Arrangements for Conservation, Develop-ment and Tourism in Eastern Africa: a Dynamic Perspectiva.

Noe, C., Kangalawe, R.Y., 2015. Wildlife protection, community participation inconservation, and (Dis) empowerment in Southern Tanzania. Conserv. Soc. 13,244e253.

O'Connell-Rodwell, C.E., 2000. Living with the modern conservation paradigm: canagricultural communities co-exist with elephants? A five-year case study inEast Caprivi, Namibia. Biol. Conserv. 93, 381e391.

Oldekop, J.A., et al., 2015. A global assessment of the social and conservation out-comes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30 (1), 133e141.

Pasquini, L., et al., 2011. The establishment of large private nature reserves byconservation NGOs: key factors for successful implementation. Oryx 45 (3),373e380.

Platteau, J.P., 2004. Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development.Dev. Change 35, 223e246.

Persha, L., Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., 2011. Social and ecological synergy: local rule-making, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331,1606e1608.

Persha, L., Blomley, T., 2009. Management decentralization and montane forestconditions in Tanzania. Conserv. Biol. 23, 1485e1496.

Persha, L., et al., 2010. Biodiversity conservation and livelihoods in human-edominated landscapes: forest commons in South Asia. Biol. Conserv. 143,2918e2925.

Pullin, A.S., et al., 2013. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas.Environ. Evid. 2, 19 available from:http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/19.

Reyes, D., 2003. An Evaluation of Commercial Logging in Mozambique for theCorporate Engagement Project. http://cda.scandi.co/publications/corporate-

N. Zafra-Calvo, R. Moreno-Pe~naranda / Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018) 853e862862

engagement/cep-case-studies/an-evaluation-of-commercial-logging-in-mozambique/.

Schreckenberg, K., et al., 2010. Social Assessment of Conservation Initiatives: aReview of Rapid Methodologies. Natural Resource Issues No. 22. IIED, London.

Sitoe, A.A., Guedes, B.S., 2015. Community forestry incentives and challenges inMozambique. Forests 6, 4558e4572. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6124388.

Songorwa, A.N., 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania:are the communities interested? World Dev. 27, 2061e2079.

Vaidya, A., Mayer, A.L., 2014. Use of the participatory approach to develop sus-tainability assessments for natural resource management. Int. J. Sust. Dev.World 21 (4), 369e379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.868376.

Vedeld, P., et al., 2012. Protected areas, poverty and conflicts: a livelihood case studyof Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. For. Pol. Econ. 21, 20e31.

Virtanen, P., 2005. Community-based natural resource management inMozambique: a critical review of the concept's applicability at local level.Sustain. Dev. 13, 1e12.

Wasser, S.K., et al., 2008. Combating the illegal trade in African elephant ivory withDNA forensics. Conserv. Biol. 22 (4), 1071.

Wasser, S.K., et al., 2015. Genetic assignment of large seizures of elephant ivoryreveals Africa's major poaching hotspots. Science 349 (6243). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa2457.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2014. The Ruvuma Landscape Scenarios:Strategy towards Integrated Planning to Secure a Future for theRapidly Changing Ruvuma Landscape. World Wildlife Fund-WWF, Dar esSalaam.

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具