Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon Analysis Voices from the village on trophy hunting in Hwange district, Zimbabwe Nqobizitha Dube Institute of Development Studies, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe ARTICLEINFO Keywords: Trophy Hunting Markets for Ecosystem Services CAMPFIRE Zimbabwe ABSTRACT There is a general scarcity of information on local community perspectives regarding trophy hunting in Zimbabwe. This information chasm is undesirable to the country, scientists and trophy hunting market parti- cipants given that major Western customer markets require evidence of benefits by local communities in order to support trophy hunting. This study contributes to closing the knowledge gap by discussing the community perspectives of the dominant trophy hunting market for ecosystem services (the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) programme) in Zimbabwe. In bringing this viewpoint to light, the study uses perspectives of communities in Hwange district, Matabeleland north with a particular focus on attributes and attitudes towards CAMPFIRE. A qualitative research design obtained in depth information on current CAMPFIRE issues. Data was collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Results show that the contribution of CAMPFIRE to local economic development has been hampered by market challenges and the exclusion of the local communities who are the producer constituency. 1. Introduction The 1st of July 2015 set in play a chain of events that once again brought issues of natural resource conservation to the forefront of academic debate. A Zimbabwean wild lion affectionately known as Cecil was wounded by an American recreational big game hunter (Walter Palmer) who tracked, and reportedly killed Cecil with a rifle approximately 40 h later (Di Minin et al., 2016a). Cecil was killed in the absence of appropriate permits with the help of a local professional hunter resulting in an unprecedented global public media reaction against Cecil's killers (Lindsey et al., 2016). Ultimately, the interna- tional media portrayed Cecil's death at the mercy of the hunters as an utmost evil. Killing Cecil the Lion added to the inferno on the trophy hunting moral debate (Descubes et al., 2018; Dickman et al., 2018). Trophy hunting by its nature demonstrates a market for ecosystem services (MES) where the supply side is given by the natural environment as the core producer together with human communities that live within the biodiversity areas (Frost and Bond, 2008). The demand side in the trophy hunting MES (THMES) is given by the trophy hunters who Descubes et al., (2018) described as predominantly Westerners seeking to maximise utility through a consumer experience with a strong ex- periential element related to hunters demonstrating virility, prowess and dominance by killing an animal (apparently, the more fierce/rare the better (Di Minin et al., 2016a)). The regulation of the THMES is often left to the State that grants safari operator permits to conduct sanctioned hunts in protected areas. The State may also grant com- munities rights to manage communal wildlife resources in communal lands for common benefit (Angula et al., 2018; Frost and Bond, 2008). In cases where rural communities hold rights to wildlife resources, THMES become highly significant rural development programmes (Frost and Bond, 2008). According to Angula et al. (2018), trophy hunting is part of the controversial goods and services industry characterised by trade in goods and services that for reasons of delicacy, decency, morality or even fear, tend to elicit reactions of distaste, disgust, offense, or outrage when mentioned or openly presented. This disgust (though not ne- cessarily ubiquitous) is often from the demand side (Western countries) as shown in the case of demonstrations against Walter Palmer in America. The responses to the Western narrative against trophy hunting (Descubes et al., 2018; Dickman et al., 2018; Di Minin et al., 2016b) predominantly point to the profits derived through safari operators which are said to also promote local economic development of rural communities that live alongside the wildlife. These rural communities are often referred to as producer communities in recognition of their role in allowing wildlife populations to flourish on their communal lands (Frost and Bond, 2008). Also, in the same vein, hunters often refer to the fact that trophy hunting adds value in the form of substantive contributions to gross domestic product, and are generally of the opi- nion that governments should promote rather than curb this activity (Gunn, 2001). Angula et al. (2018) cautioned against the profitability argument for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.006 Received 30 October 2018; Received in revised form 5 February 2019; Accepted 8 February 2019 E-mail address: nqobizitha.dube@nust.ac.zw. Ecological Economics 159 (2019) 335–343 0921-8009/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. T