Of 52 conservancies that had any sort of financial benefit from wildlife (that is, their income was higher than their expenses), more than half derived all or almost all those benefits from hunting. Just six were wholly or mostly reliant on ecotourism, while 18 conservancies benefited equally from both activities. Still, from a statistical perspective, neither form of tourism won out as being more beneficial than the other, with one small exception: after beginning their tourism operations, conservancies drew benefits from hunting more rapidly (within 3 years) than from ecotourism (which took 6 years, on average).
Also different were the kinds of benefits that each activity offered to the conservancies. To put it plainly, hunting offered money and meat while ecotourism offered employment. Between 2011 and 2013, hunting operations paid $5.41 million to community conservancies, while ecotourism operations paid $2.13 million. (Buffalo and elephant, by the way, were the most lucrative trophies, with elephants representing 55% of all hunting-related income.)
It was when Naidoo simulated a ban on trophy hunting that things became really interesting. In 2013, 74% of conservancies had income that was greater than their operating expenses. In other words, they were in the black. But if they were deprived of hunting-related income, only 16% of conservancies would have been able to pay all their bills. Thats some 50,000 square kilometers of land that would go without important protections.
By contrast, if the opposite were to occur if communities were deprived of ecotourism-related revenue they would still feel it, but the impact would be smaller. In that scenario, 59% of conservancies would remain in the black.
