How Safari Tourism Funds Conservation in Zambia (2026)

Quick answer: Safari tourism funds conservation in Zambia through protected-area revenue, lodge and safari-business operations, employment, local procurement, community projects and partnerships supporting rangers, research and habitat protection. The World Bank reports that revenue generated by protected areas is an essential source of biodiversity-conservation funding, while nature-based tourism directly contributes more than 7% of Zambia’s GDP and creates employment around national parks and game-management areas (GMAs).

Tourism is not a complete solution. Zambia’s protected areas remain perpetually underfunded, and conservation organisations still depend on government investment, philanthropy and international programmes to maintain law enforcement and ecological monitoring. Last reviewed August 2026. Conservation data changes — see the cited sources for the latest figures.

Why ecotourism and conservation funding matter in Zambia

Zambia has built its wildlife-tourism identity around large, relatively wild landscapes including South Luangwa National Park, Kafue National Park, Liuwa Plain National Park, Bangweulu Wetlands and Lower Zambezi National Park. The country’s protected-area network includes national parks and GMAs, which provide habitat for elephants, buffalo, lions, leopards, wild dogs, giraffes, birds and other species.

The economic case is especially important because wildlife areas are frequently expensive to manage and generate limited income from surrounding rural economies. The World Bank says protected areas contribute to economic development and poverty alleviation through tourism, trade with nearby villages and towns, and spending that reaches businesses and households beyond the parks themselves.

Tourism also gives conservation a visible economic value. A visitor staying near South Luangwa, for example, pays for accommodation, guiding, transport, food and activities. Those transactions can support park revenue, lodge staff, local suppliers and community initiatives. The link is strongest when businesses operate in or beside wildlife areas and when local people receive tangible benefits from keeping habitat intact.

That link should not be overstated. A safari booking is not automatically a conservation donation. The actual benefit depends on the park’s revenue arrangements, the operator’s commitments, the quality of community partnerships and whether funds are transparently directed to conservation or local development. The evidence supports tourism as one part of a broader financing system—not as a substitute for public budgets or accountable conservation management.

How safari tourism funds conservation in Zambia

Funding route	How it supports conservation	Important limitation
Protected-area revenue	Park income can help finance biodiversity conservation and protected-area operations.	National parks remain underfunded, so tourism income does not cover every management need.
Lodges and safari operators	Businesses provide jobs, buy from nearby communities and may fund water, education, infrastructure or conservation activities.	Benefits vary between locations and operators; community perceptions are not uniform.
Concession and tourism development	Tourism can create an economic reason to retain wildlife habitat and support investment in remote areas.	Unmanaged growth can increase pressure on buffer zones and local resources.
Conservation partnerships	Tourism can operate alongside government, NGO and donor funding for rangers, monitoring and community programmes.	Major protected landscapes still require substantial external support.
Local spending	Visitor spending circulates through transport, food supply, guiding, crafts and other rural businesses.	Leakage, unequal access to employment and weak local participation can reduce the benefit.

Park income and the national conservation budget

The World Bank’s assessment is clear: revenue generated by Zambia’s protected areas is an essential source of funding for biodiversity conservation. It also identifies a persistent financing gap and calls for sustainable ways to finance park operations while incentivising local communities to participate in conservation.

This means safari tourism can have two effects at once. Direct revenue may help maintain protected areas, while the wider tourism economy can strengthen the political case for investing in wildlife. Zambia’s updated Wildlife and Protected Areas Accounts are intended to measure the economic contribution of wildlife-based tourism alongside biodiversity trends, habitat loss and the effects of illegal wildlife trade. The work involves the Ministry of Green Economy and Environment, Zambia Statistics Agency, Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW), World Bank and WWF.

Lodges, employment and local enterprise

Research from the Lupande GMA around South Luangwa found that ecotourism businesses support local communities through employment and development projects. Lodge representatives described contributions including boreholes, education programmes, feeding initiatives, female empowerment, infrastructure and employment.

These benefits matter because a conservation economy is more credible when it supports household livelihoods as well as wildlife. Local procurement can extend the impact of tourism beyond the lodge: food, maintenance, transport, construction and guiding may all create opportunities for nearby residents. However, the same research found differing perceptions among communities, government representatives, community leaders and conservation stakeholders.

Tourism can also create unintended pressure. In the Lupande GMA, the growth of a conservation-based economy has been associated with population growth, raising concern that development could undermine the GMA’s function as a buffer between South Luangwa National Park and unprotected areas. More visitors are not automatically better; planning, land-use safeguards and community decision-making are essential.

The threats conservation funding must address

Poaching and illegal wildlife trade

Zambian conservation programmes address illegal killing and wildlife trafficking involving ivory, bushmeat and species used in traditional-medicine markets. The World Bank identifies these pressures as priorities for the country’s wildlife accounts, alongside habitat loss and land-use change.

Reliable, current national poaching totals were not provided in the supplied research, so this article does not present an unsupported national statistic. The practical implication is nevertheless clear: tourism revenue must be converted into effective protection, including law enforcement, intelligence, monitoring and support for the people who work in and around protected areas.

Habitat loss and land-use change

Encroachment and agricultural expansion are identified as major threats to conservation areas, while habitat connectivity remains a management concern. GMAs are particularly important because they can connect protected landscapes and provide space for people and wildlife outside national-park boundaries. If land-use planning fails, tourism income may rise in one area while the wider ecosystem becomes increasingly fragmented.

Human–wildlife conflict

Communities living near parks can experience costs from wildlife, including risks to crops, livestock, property and personal safety. The World Bank highlights the need to incentivise local communities to play a role in conservation, and research around South Luangwa shows that conservation economies can bring benefits while also creating social and land-use pressures. Tourism-funded projects are most defensible when they respond to locally identified needs rather than treating communities only as recipients of outside decisions. For wider context, see our guide to human–wildlife conflict in Zambia.

Climate and economic shocks

Zambia’s economy has been recovering from drought, while climate risks and shortages of hydroelectric power continue to threaten economic prospects. The World Bank projects that tourism will remain among the sectors supporting growth, but also warns that climate pressures can affect the wider economy.

For conservation, drought can affect water availability, wildlife distribution, local livelihoods and tourism operations. Climate-resilient tourism therefore needs careful water and energy use, realistic seasonal planning and protection of habitats that allow wildlife to move.

What is being done: parks, rangers and partnerships

Kafue National Park and the Greater Kafue Ecosystem

Kafue provides one of the clearest examples of coordinated conservation investment. Between April 2018 and July 2022, Zambia’s DNPW worked with Game Rangers International, Musekese Conservation, Panthera, Wildlife Crime Prevention, the Zambian Carnivore Programme and, from 2021, African Parks. The collaboration focused on Kafue National Park and the wider Greater Kafue Ecosystem.

In the peak funding year covered by Panthera’s case study, 2021, the programme received approximately US$4,730,748 for 22,400 square kilometres, or about US$211 per square kilometre. The same report recorded approximately 240 wildlife police officers and related scouts in 2021. These figures describe the case-study funding and staffing period; they should not be treated as a current national total.

The model combined law enforcement with technology and scientific monitoring. Panthera conducted a systematic camera-trap population study in Kafue in 2018, establishing baseline information for lions and leopards. This kind of evidence helps managers decide where protection and ecological interventions are most needed.

Liuwa Plain and Bangweulu Wetlands

African Parks’ work in Zambia illustrates how conservation management depends on more than visitor revenue. Its 2022 annual report describes support for Liuwa Plain National Park and Bangweulu Wetlands, including WWF contributions to core operating costs and conservation projects.

The same report records a continued domestic dog rabies-vaccination programme in Liuwa Plain, with 2,408 dogs and 212 cats inoculated during the reporting period. This is a public-health and conservation intervention, not a safari-fee result, but it shows why wildlife protection often requires integrated programmes involving communities, animal health and park management.

Community-based conservation and alternative livelihoods

Conservation finance can support livelihood alternatives that reduce pressure on wildlife and natural resources. A Transfrontier Conservation Area grant project in Zambia’s Sichifula and Mulobezi GMAs focused on wildlife protection, habitat conservation and alternative livelihoods.

The GEF Small Grants Programme also reports a Zambia project implemented by Save Environment People Agency (SEPA). It combined climate-smart agriculture, agroecology and financial literacy, and reported improved food production and resilience among more than 50 households. This is not safari tourism funding, but it is relevant to the wider conservation-finance picture: tourism works best when combined with community development and climate-resilience funding.

Forest and climate finance

Zambia is also developing non-tourism sources of conservation finance. The Zambia Integrated Forest Landscape Program’s Emissions Reduction Payment Agreement can unlock up to US$30 million in results-based payments for emission reductions achieved between 2024 and 2029. Such payments complement tourism by rewarding verified climate outcomes rather than visitor numbers.

Results and setbacks: what the evidence shows

The strongest evidence supports a mixed conclusion. Coordinated funding in Kafue supported a substantial ranger and wildlife-policing presence, scientific surveys and collaboration among government, NGOs and conservation programmes during the period assessed by Panthera. Protected-area tourism also contributes to the national economy and provides employment around parks and GMAs.

Yet the system remains financially vulnerable. The World Bank says protected areas are perpetually underfunded, and research around South Luangwa identifies concerns that tourism-driven population growth may weaken the buffer function of the Lupande GMA. Funding can also be uneven, donor-dependent or difficult for communities to track.

Success should therefore be measured by more than visitor arrivals or lodge occupancy. Useful indicators include reliable park operations, wildlife and habitat trends, law-enforcement performance, community income and participation, reduced conflict, transparent revenue sharing and resilience to drought. Zambia’s Wildlife and Protected Areas Accounts are designed to improve the data available for those decisions.

Safari visitors can learn more about the organisations involved through SafariFind’s guide to conservation organisations protecting Zambia’s wildlife. Species-focused programmes also matter: landscape tourism can help create the financial conditions for protecting carnivores, vultures and other less visible species, but their conservation needs targeted action too.

How travellers can help responsibly

• Choose transparent operators. Ask how park fees, conservation levies or community contributions are calculated and where they go. Do not assume that a “green” label proves a measurable benefit.
• Stay longer and spend locally. Longer stays can support guides, drivers, camp staff and local suppliers more consistently than rushed itineraries. The wider economic value of protected-area tourism depends on spending reaching nearby communities.
• Respect wildlife space. Follow guide instructions, keep a safe distance and avoid pressuring guides to drive off-road or pursue animals. Responsible viewing protects the quality of the experience and reduces disturbance.
• Support community priorities. Look for partnerships that involve local institutions in decision-making and that report employment, procurement or development outcomes.
• Reduce resource pressure. Ask camps about water, energy, waste and drought planning. Climate risks and power shortages are already significant concerns for Zambia.
• Support credible conservation beyond your trip. Visitors can contribute to reputable organisations working with DNPW and local partners. Species-specific reading includes African wild dog conservation in Zambia and vulture conservation in Zambia.

Travellers can book conservation-supporting safaris on SafariFind, while checking each itinerary’s operator policies and local partnerships before paying. The most responsible choice is not necessarily the most expensive one; it is the trip with a clear, credible connection between tourism, local benefit and long-term protection.

Conclusion

Safari tourism funds conservation in Zambia by generating protected-area revenue and by sustaining businesses, jobs, local supply chains and partnerships around wildlife landscapes. Kafue’s coordinated conservation programme demonstrates the scale of investment required, while South Luangwa research shows both the value and the social complexity of a tourism-based conservation economy.

In 2026, Zambia’s priority is to make that connection more transparent, inclusive and resilient. Tourism can help pay for conservation, but lasting results also require public investment, donor support, reliable data, community authority, climate adaptation and effective management by DNPW and its partners.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does safari tourism fund conservation in Zambia?

It contributes through protected-area revenue, lodge and safari-business activity, employment, local procurement, community projects and partnerships supporting rangers, research and habitat protection. The World Bank describes protected-area revenue as an essential source of biodiversity-conservation funding.

Does every Zambia safari booking directly fund wildlife conservation?

No. The conservation benefit depends on the park’s revenue system, the operator’s commitments, community partnerships and financial transparency. A safari supports conservation most reliably when those links are clearly explained and independently credible.

Which Zambian parks receive conservation investment?

Research supplied for this article identifies investment and conservation partnerships in Kafue National Park, Liuwa Plain National Park, Bangweulu Wetlands and the South Luangwa landscape.

How much was spent on Kafue conservation?

Panthera’s 2018–2022 case study reports approximately US$4,730,748 in annual funding during the 2021 peak year for 22,400 square kilometres, equivalent to about US$211 per square kilometre. This is a period-specific case-study figure, not a current national total.

How many rangers worked in Kafue in 2021?

Panthera’s case study recorded approximately 240 wildlife police officers and related scouts in Kafue in 2021.

What are the main conservation threats in Zambia?

The main threats identified in the supplied research are illegal wildlife trade and poaching, habitat loss, agricultural expansion, land-use change, human–wildlife conflict, drought and wider climate risks.

How does tourism help communities near Zambian parks?

Tourism can provide employment, local procurement and funding for projects such as boreholes, education, infrastructure and livelihood initiatives. Benefits vary, and research around South Luangwa found differing perceptions among stakeholder groups.

Why are Zambia’s GMAs important?

Game-management areas can provide habitat and buffer space outside national parks, helping connect protected landscapes and support communities. Research around the Lupande GMA also warns that unmanaged population growth can undermine this buffer function.

What can travellers do to support conservation in Zambia?

Choose transparent operators, stay longer, spend locally, respect wildlife-viewing rules, ask about community partnerships and reduce water, energy and waste impacts. These actions complement, rather than replace, government and conservation-partner funding.