Fig 1.
Communal conservancies and protected areas in relation to Namibia’s six major biomes [21].
Fig 2.
Total cash income and in-kind benefits of Namibia’s Community-Based Natural Resource Management program.
Cash income includes fees paid to conservancies by tourism and hunting operators, as well as resident wages from these operations. In-kind benefits include game meat and fringe benefits provided to employees by the private sector. Note that as of 2013, 10 $N equals approximately 1 USD [21].
Fig 3.
Map of DHS cluster locations for the 2000 and 2006/07 surveys.
Fig 4.
Flowchart summary of methods.
Fig 5.
Trends from 2000 to 2006/07 for conservancy households (filled squares, solid line) versus 3 comparison groups (dashed lines, circles = quasi-experimental match; triangles = nearest geographical cluster; diamonds = entire non-conservancy population) for the proportion of households that own a bednet.
Table 1.
Logistic regression model results for household bednet ownership.
Fig 6.
Trends from 2000 to 2006/07 for conservancy residents (filled squares, solid line) versus 3 comparison groups (dashed lines, circles = quasi-experimental match; triangles = nearest geographical cluster; diamonds = entire non-conservancy population) for the proportion of respondents that slept under a bednet during the previous night.
Table 2.
Logistic regression model results for bednet usage by the respondent during the previous night.
Fig 7.
Trends from 2000 to 2006/07 for conservancy children (filled squares, solid line) versus 3 comparison groups (dashed lines, circles = quasi-experimental match; triangles = nearest geographical cluster; diamonds = entire non-conservancy population) for the proportion of children under 5 that had diarrhea within the past 2 weeks.
Table 3.
Logistic regression model results for diarrhea prevalence in children under 5 within the past 2 weeks.
Fig 8.
Trends from 2000 to 2006/07 for conservancy children (filled squares, solid line) versus 3 comparison groups (dashed lines, circles = quasi-experimental match; triangles = nearest geographical cluster; diamonds = entire non-conservancy population) for the proportion of children under 5 that received medical treatment for their diarrhea in the past 2 weeks.
Table 4.
Logistic regression model results for diarrhea treatment in children under 5 within the past 2 weeks.
Fig 9.
Trends from 2000 to 2006/07 for conservancy children (filled squares, solid line) versus 3 comparison groups (dashed lines, circles = quasi-experimental match; triangles = nearest geographical cluster; diamonds = entire non-conservancy population) for the proportion of school-aged children that attended school during the current year.
Table 5.
Logistic regression model results for school attendance of children ages 6–16.
Fig 10.
Trends from 2000 to 2006/07 for conservancy households (filled squares, solid line) versus 3 comparison groups (dashed lines, circles = quasi-experimental match; triangles = nearest geographical cluster; diamonds = entire non-conservancy population) for standardized household wealth factor scores.
Table 6.
Linear regression model results for household wealth index factor scores.