National parks can potentially play an important role in rural community development. This sentiment is shared by researchers from all over the world, including Africa (Newmark & Hough 2000; Petursson & Vedeld 2017), the Americas (Machlis & Field 2000; Nelson & Serafin 2013), Europe (Barrow 2015; Lundmark, Fredman & Sandell 2010), Asia (Kusters et al. 2006; Tisdell 1999) and Australia (Stolton & Dunley 2015). This notion is also supported by a recent report by the Global Environmental Fund’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (Pullin 2014), which outlines the impacts that protected areas (e.g. national parks) can have on rural communities, especially with regard to environmental capital (e.g. resource use and access to land), economic and social capital, health and inequality.

The idea of national parks adopting a developmental agenda stems from a paradigm shift away from traditional forms of conservation (preservation) to more contemporary forms that encompass both conservation and development objectives (Anthony 2007). This led to what is widely known today as community-based conservation (CBC) (Berkes 2007). The underlying principle of this combined approach is that poor rural communities should benefit directly from conservation (Cock & Fig 2000).

Several variations of the approach developed over the years, including (1) that communities should develop their own traditional or cultural land into conservation areas (IUCN 2010; Stevens 2014); (2) that communities should support protected areas and, in return, that they ought to benefit from job creation, skills development and other types of development in their communities (Bennet 2014; Pelser, Redelinghuis & Velelo 2013); (3) that communities should be allowed to harvest grass, wood, medicinal plants and other natural resources from parks (Cock & Fig 2000; SANParks 2016); and (4) the use of ‘trade-offs’, where certain areas (and the biodiversity contained therein) are protected whilst other parts of the park are made available for development (Rights & Resource Initiative 2015). Mokala National Park (MNP), which serves as a case study in this article, is a good example of a trade-off approach being applied within a South African context, as it is basically a ‘trade-off park’¹ in the place of the former Vaalbos National Park that was handed back to a local community as part of a land restitution case (SANParks 2017).

Elements of these variations to CBC can also be found in the latest version of SANParks’ 5-year strategic management plan (2015/2016–2019/2020) and, more specifically, in its strategic outcome-orientated Goal 3, in terms of which SANParks’ goal is (SANParks 2016):

As outlined in the document, this plan is underpinned by the current national government’s ‘five key pillars’, which include job creation, rural development, education and health, as well as a reduction in the levels of crime in society.

SANParks adopted a vision ‘Connecting to Society’ (SANParks 2012), created a Social Ecology Unit (Swemmer & Taljaard 2011), expanded the scope of its people and conservation programme and added several programmes aimed at promoting access and benefit-sharing, socio-economic development and improved living conditions for local communities adjacent to national parks. This encompasses the implementation of national government’s expanded public works programmes (EPWP) (e.g. working for water, land, wetlands, the coast, fire, etc.), value-adding industries, wildlife economy, the development of small, medium and micro-sized enterprises (SMMEs) and a number of social investment programmes at almost all of the national parks (SANParks 2012).

It is not difficult to justify national parks in South Africa endorsing a development agenda. From a conservation perspective, an interdependence between biodiversity and sustainable rural development is needed (Faasen 2006), and much has been written about the threat of unsustainable land-use practices as well as the impact that resource-poor, hunger-stricken rural communities may have on biodiversity and wildlife (Vira & Kontoleon 2010). From a development perspective, this approach also makes sense as parks are scattered throughout South Africa, often in deep rural areas where government cannot always address all the needs in these communities, which are often resource-poor and desperate for help and support from others (Flora, Flora & Gasteyer 2015; Mohan 2009).

The benefits of a CBC approach, as well as the costs thereof and the challenges it poses, have been widely reported (Botha, Witkofski & Cock 2007; Murphee & Hulme 2001; Western, Wright & Strum 2013). Most authors seem to concur that CBC, at best, has only achieved mixed results (Berkes 2004; Conley & Moote 2003; Mansuri & Rao 2004). Many reasons for this have been given (Cox, Arnold & Villamayor-Tomas 2010), which centre mainly around the fact that community development objectives and conservation objectives are often incompatible and that the benefits derived from community-conservation partnerships are often one-sided, primarily benefitting a conservation rather than a community development agenda (Emerton 2001).

One possible strategy to investigate and address these concerns further is to assess the actual needs of communities adjacent to national parks empirically (Wells & McShane 2004) in light of existing literature as well as on the basis of a qualitative exploration pertaining to national parks’ current and proposed community development strategies as well as their pool of available resources, skills et cetera. This would enable the feasibility of various development initiatives to be assessed in the light of empirical evidence about what specific communities identify as their particular needs, which, in turn, will allow for distinctions to be made in terms of the viability of specific strategies as outlined in existing SANParks documentation. Furthermore, this approach could potentially address the one-sidedness of the relationship between parks and communities by ensuring that the development side of CBC initiatives articulates self-identified community needs.

Although SANParks has already adopted a developmental approach, given limitations such as restrictions on specific development-related skills and expertise (Berkes 2007; Biggs et al. 2014; Pelser et al. 2013) that fall outside the typical skills required for park personnel, capacity and resources, the extent to which national parks can play a substantive role in community development needs to be investigated. To address these questions, a sequential exploratory, mixed-methods study was conducted in two rural communities (Ritchie and Ratanang) near MNP in order to explore what the typical developmental needs within communities situated near a national park are. This was followed by an additional qualitative study (with a minor quantitative component) aimed at exploring MNP’s available capacity, skills and expertise and current CBC initiatives. Following this, the identified community needs were evaluated in the light of a theoretical and empirical investigation of SANParks’ CBC initiatives as well as the organisation’s capacity, resources and expertise with the intention to assess the feasibility of such needs being addressed by parks such as MNP.

This study investigated the feasibility of national parks in South Africa endorsing a community development agenda, using MNP and two neighbouring communities as case study. A sequential mixed-methods approach was followed, comprising three phases that spanned a 3-year period.

In relation to the first two phases of the study, which aimed to investigate community needs both qualitatively and quantitatively, findings revealed that the communities’ most significant needs centre around employment opportunities; improved healthcare, service delivery and waste management; an improvement in the quality of and access to primary and secondary education opportunities (i.e. schools); and more opportunities for local residents to afford and access tertiary education opportunities. Community members also expressed the need for improved community policing, safety and security; social services and agricultural support and training as well as general skills development and training, local leadership, recreational facilities, local economic development and conservation initiatives.

As will be outlined in the section to follow, the results from the third phase of the study suggest that MNP (and SANParks in general) could realistically only address some of the identified community needs to a significant degree.

The need for employment opportunities as well as the need for skills development and training ranked tops among those identified by the communities targeted in this study. Given that studies by Tepela and Omara-Ojungu (2012) in communities near KNP and by Pelser et al. (2013) near the Golden Gate Highlands National Park revealed similar results, it should come as no surprise that addressing the high unemployment rate in South Africa – identified as one of the ‘five key pillars’ of national government – has been adopted as a key element in SANParks’ vision. In reaction to national government’s call to address the unemployment rate, MNP/SANParks indicated that their biggest potential contribution would be in the form of temporary job creation, mainly via the EPWP/BSP programmes. In 2015–2016, three EPWP/BSPs were in operation at Mokala (Spies 2015). Since then, this number has increased to nine – which shows that there is still potential for growth.

Findings derived from the semi-structured interviews in this study confirmed that members of the Ritchie community did indeed benefit from the EPWP/BSP initiative and that over 100 local community members are currently benefitting from these programmes initiated by MNP, but the findings also revealed that several challenges are being experienced in as far as job allocation and the timely settlement of payments are concerned. From the park’s perspective, Spies (2015) found the initiatives to be fairly successful, despite some challenges.

According to SANPark’s 2015–2016 annual report, EPWP/BSP programmes are on offer in all 19 South African national parks, and 23  298 local community members are being employed on a semi-permanent basis (given that projects typically span 2 to 3 years and are often renewed).

These projects simultaneously also address the community need for skills development and training, as all temporary employees are being trained in a whole array of skills ranging from first aid to construction, some of which might increase their future employability and/or their ability to support local economic or infrastructure development in their own communities by, for example, making use of the skills they have acquired in the construction industry to erect structures in their own communities.

The creation of permanent jobs, though, seems to be a totally different matter that depends on the size of a particular park, its potential for expansion and the turnover of existing staff members. However, given that SANParks employs only around 4000 people countrywide (SANParks 2016) and that funds allocated to national parks are limited (SANParks 2016), the number of people that can be employed by the organisation on a permanent basis is clearly limited.

Two potential avenues for job creation that have probably hitherto been underutilised are to make private concessions available to private investors and to create more opportunities for self-employment. In case of the former, it is likely that private investors will have the capital to grow SANParks’ facilities such as restaurants and accommodation and, in the process, to create more job opportunities.

Given that MNP and other parks are already engaging in the practice of sourcing supplies locally, another feasible strategy that could be investigated would be to establish and develop vetted local supply chains with communities adjoining national parks. Given that they are mostly rural (i.e. agricultural), residents could be afforded the opportunity to provide parks with an array of fresh vegetables, fruit and meat or an assortment of arts and crafts. Such a practice is also likely to make a meaningful contribution to local economic development.

The capacity to address the need for local conservation initiatives was ranked second highest. Given that environmental conservation is one of its core mandates, national parks can definitely play a significant role in this regard. Not only would such initiatives fall within SANParks’ expertise, but the organisation also has the capacity to address these needs via its People and Conservation division (a programme by SANParks that is used to drive the dual agenda of conservation and development) and the various extension programmes it has on offer. Furthermore, SANParks can also play a role in the development of new conservation areas in traditional and cultural land via collaborative engagement with local communities.

A very pertinent need that was identified in the communities was for recreational facilities and activities. Whilst participants felt that direct involvement in the establishment of recreational facilities generally falls outside the scope of SANParks’ mandate, the results of this study do suggest a couple of strategies that could be assessed for feasibility. These include sponsoring recreational facilities (e.g. participants in both communities expressed the need for a skateboard park), sponsoring local residents’ participation in the annual park mountain bike race or promoting the park itself as recreational facility, perhaps via sponsoring occasional transport and entry into the park as is currently the case with the free-entrance week that usually occurs in September of each year. The latter strategy would represent a synergistic approach as it combines the park’s core asset with a community need, which, as repeatedly revealed in the qualitative interviews, is likely to make a significant positive difference in the lives of residents of impoverished communities.

The findings suggest that MNP and other parks can play a significant role in agricultural support and training. In this regard, parks can partner with external service providers and provide wildlife to emerging farmers. Agricultural support and development is an international priority (linked to sustainable development goals) simply because it has a bearing on food security (FAO 2018). It also forms an integral part of South Africa’s national development plan, given that it is part of government’s efforts to stimulate integrated and inclusive rural economies in South Africa (The Conversation 2017).

A shared need that was identified by the communities and MNP was for improved waste management. Whilst direct involvement in refuse removal falls outside the auspices of SANParks’ community development mandate and CBC initiatives, in this case, it could potentially play a role in terms of promoting environmental awareness and education. This would also be in the interest of national parks, given that refuse and pollution generated by local communities adjacent to national parks have the potential to impact the park and visitors’ perceptions and experiences of the park adversely. In partnership with local authorities, the barriers that prevent people from keeping their communities clean can be identified and addressed. For example, MacAllister (2015) found that there were instances where managing farm waste as a health problem served as a means to help address this issue in communities and to prevent concomitant health issues.

Although MNP indicated that it cannot directly contribute to infrastructure development in local communities (e.g. roads, buildings, sanitation, etc.), it can play a role through its socio-economic development initiatives by supporting local supply-chain development and providing skills (such as construction skills) and opportunities to local community members. The beneficiaries of these initiatives can then, in turn, use the skills they have acquired to benefit their communities.

A huge need that was identified by the communities was to improve education. Whilst the findings clearly reveal that SANParks can only play a limited role in the context of formal education and cannot do much to increase the quantity and quality of schools in the region, it can nevertheless play a meaningful educational role by providing new learning opportunities and contexts for children. A number of parks already have some very good educational programmes and projects in place. Included among these are the heritage project Imbewu (developed to promote the transference of traditional cultural knowledge from older to younger people), the junior rangers programme (aimed at promoting civil service and volunteerism in parks), the Kids in Parks programme (aimed at exposing youngsters to parks and pristine natural environments) and the Koedoe Green Schools Programme (an EE programme focusing on, among others, climate change) (SANParks 2017). The potential value of projects such as these were underscored in the present study, where several participants reported that their children showed a marked change in their attitudes and enthusiasm towards the natural environment after a visit to MNP. Findings from the interviews revealed that whilst children would often kill animals such as snakes on sight, those who experienced a guided visit to MNP not only ceased this practice but actively encouraged others in the community to refrain from doing so.

Nevertheless, whilst valuable in itself, exposure to parks and EE will likely not promote the educational agenda necessary for people to matriculate with flying colours or to find gainful employment. This notion is supported by Van der Berg et al. (2011), who found that the level of education in rural communities bordering national parks is typically insufficient for learners to further their tertiary education at a university or college. Limited access to tertiary educational institutions (which was also found in the survey to be a significant community concern and need) and lack of funding, as well as lack of awareness of funding opportunities, conspire to exacerbate this problem. Even though both government and universities are currently doing a lot to assist communities in this regard (DHET 2017), national parks could also potentially play a significant role by, for example, offering bursaries to communities for those who wish to study science or conservation. In the long run, this will enhance the probability that residents originating from these communities may well end up finding permanent employment within a park structure.

Finally, the results indicate that there is very little that MNP and SANParks can feasibly do to directly address needs related to healthcare services (even though they share the need), community safety and security, community policing, social services (e.g. social workers), local leadership and the establishment and erection of more schools, as these needs generally fall outside the auspices and capacity of national parks in South Africa.

Elsewhere, Naughton-Treves, Buck Holland and Brando (2005) came to the same conclusion, whilst Andam et al. (2010) also questioned the actual impact national parks could have on poverty.

In light of the above, it seems necessary to rethink and possibly reconceptualise the developmental agenda that national parks are expected to drive so that these aims are more in line with (1) what parks can reasonably achieve based on resources, capacity and expertise and (2) what communities surrounding national parks need according to their own articulation. Failure to do so could invite the risk of creating unrealistic expectations among communities, resulting in an increased likelihood of general resentment and negative attitudes towards conservation among communities when such expectations are not fulfilled (Anthony 2007). Furthermore, though well-intentioned, community development initiatives that are not aligned with community needs or the capacity, resources and expertise of national parks are likely to either result in costly failures or might fail to truly have a meaningful impact on communities.

It is hoped that the findings of this study will be of use in informing SANParks’ community development initiatives and ensuring that those initiatives are optimally aligned with actual community needs.

Using a sequential mixed-methods design, this study set out to investigate the feasibility of national parks in South Africa endorsing a community development agenda based on an exploration of community needs using MNP and two neighbouring rural communities as a case study. Based on the results, the feasibility of national parks substantively addressing all community needs is questioned as many of these needs fall outside the scope, capacity, skills and resource capability of the organisation.

Nevertheless, as was revealed in this study, national parks have the ability to directly or indirectly support several pressing community needs by creating jobs (especially by means of temporary projects and, to a far lesser extent, by means of direct employment) and by enabling those who partake in such employment opportunities to be trained and to develop specific skills. Furthermore, initiatives aimed at promoting awareness and education around waste management and local environmental conservation, supporting local economic development, sponsoring recreational facilities and/or access to parks as well as offering agricultural support and training have been identified as means whereby Mokala can respond to the needs experienced by its surrounding communities. Such initiatives would not only articulate with genuine community needs but could be feasibly pursued based on SANParks’ expertise, resources and core mandate and thus hold the promise of truly achieving a positive impact on community development.