Volume 2, Issue 4 pp. 226-239

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open Access

An assessment of local community engagement in wildlife conservation: A case study of the Save Valley Conservancy, South Eastern Zimbabwe

评估当地社区保护野生动物的参与度:以津巴布韦东南部的Save Valley Conservancy为例

Itai Dhliwayo,

Corresponding Author

Itai Dhliwayo

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0001-5356-1002

Department of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, School of Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

Correspondence Itai Dhliwayo, School of Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe.

Email: [email protected]

Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Never Muboko,

Never Muboko

Department of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, School of Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Harare, Zimbabwe

Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Given Matseketsa,

Given Matseketsa

Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Contribution: Formal analysis, Software, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Edson Gandiwa,

Edson Gandiwa

Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Harare, Zimbabwe

Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Itai Dhliwayo,

Corresponding Author

Itai Dhliwayo

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0001-5356-1002

Department of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, School of Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

Correspondence Itai Dhliwayo, School of Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Never Muboko,

Never Muboko

Department of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, School of Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Harare, Zimbabwe

Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Given Matseketsa,

Given Matseketsa

Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Contribution: Formal analysis, Software, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

Edson Gandiwa,

Edson Gandiwa

Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Harare, Zimbabwe

Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 15 December 2023

https://doi.org/10.1002/inc3.31

Citations: 1

Editor-in-Chief & Handling Editor: Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

In southern Africa, human and wildlife interactions have significantly increased over the past decade, resulting in complex conservation conflicts. As humans and wildlife share space, stakeholder engagement becomes a critical component of wildlife management and transformative conservation. We analysed the conservation conflicts in the Save Valley Conservancy (SVC) in south-eastern Zimbabwe. Data were collected between April and May 2020 through focus group discussions and interviews with purposively sampled informants. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were adopted in this study. The results revealed that the absence of an effective, inclusive, integrated multi-cross-sectional stakeholder engagement plan is a primary contributing factor to conservation conflicts in the SVC. In conclusion, our study found that community participation in land use decision-making is limited within the SVC, and this is a general lack of consensus among the community members on viable land use options. This study proposes an integrated, cross-sectional stakeholder working framework that not only informs conservation practitioners but also fully addresses the prevailing conservation conflict scenarios. These conflicts emanate from the exclusion of humans from protected areas and the encroachment of wildlife in human settlements.

摘要

在非洲南部，人类与野生动物的接触在过去十年中显著增加，导致了复杂的保护冲突。由于人类与野生动物生存空间的重叠，利益相关方的参与成为野生动物管理和变革性保护的关键之一。本研究分析了在津巴布韦东南部Save Valley Conservancy (SVC) 内发生的保护冲突。在2020年4月至5月期间，通过定性和定量的研究方法，对目标人群展开专题小组讨论和访谈。研究结果表明，缺乏利益相关方有效、广泛和综合地参与计划是造成SVC保护冲突的主要因素。研究发现，在SVC，社区参与土地利用决策的程度有限，社区成员普遍对可行的土地利用方案缺乏共识。本研究提出了一个综合的、跨利益相关方的工作框架，它不仅能为保护实践者提供信息，还能充分解决普遍存在的保护冲突。这些冲突源于人类被排斥在保护区之外，以及野生动物对人类居住区的侵占。【审阅：于潇雨】

Abstract

Dzongeni wa Africa, kuhlangana ka vanhu na swiharhi ku engetele ka malembe khume a nga hundza leswi swi nga vanga hasa hasa ya madzolonga. Loko swiharhi na vanhu ka swi tirhisa ndzawu yin'we, kuhlanganisa mitlawa hikwayo kuna nkoka ka kuhlaisa swiharhi na mbangu hi ndlela yi hluvukisako. Hi langutisile madzolonga ya mbangu ka ndzawu ya Save Valley Conservancy (SVC), dzonga vuxa bya Zimbabwe. Hlayo wa swiendleko u tekiwe xikarhi ka tin'weti ta Dzivamusoko na Mudyaxihi 2020 hi ndlela ya timbulavulo na mitlawa ya vanhu na tiindavhiyu na vanhu va nga khetiwa. Tindzavisiso ta rixaka ra qualitative na quantitative ti tirhisiwe ka tirho lowu. Swi nga huma, swi kombe ku pfumaleka ka xikongomelo xi tirhako ka xi katsa vanhu va swienge na mitlawa yo hambana yi kumekako migangeni; swi nga swona swi vangako madzolonga ya mbangu ndzaweni ya SVC. Hi makumo swi komba ku kuhava ku ngenelela ku nga rhingana ka muganga na kambe kuhava mavonele man'we hitlhelo la tindlela ta matirhisele ya ndzawu SVC. Tsalwa leri ri tisa kucetelo lowu u nga kuhlanganisa mitlawa na swiyenge hikwaswo swa vanhu leswi swi pfunako vatirhi va mbangu na kukomba tixaka ta madzolonga a mbangu hi maendlekelo a wona lomu kutshamako vanhu.

Plain Language Summary

Local community engagement is key in conservation, as it provides a vital connection between communities and their environment. Such engagement promotes sustainable conservation, improves community participation and positively shapes local perception towards the stewardship of natural resources within their surroundings. The study identified a stakeholder engagement matrix that involves all key players in SVC, underscoring every stakeholder's significance and their impact on development in the study area. It suggests that local community engagement in the SVC needs to be enhanced. Furthermore, it advocates for all interested players to be equally involved and participate in all conservation initiatives and development programmes taking place in the SVC.

通俗语言摘要

当地社区的参与是保护工作的关键，因为它是社区与环境之间的重要纽带。这种参与促进可持续保护，提高社区参与度，并能积极塑造当地人对其周围自然资源的管理观念。本研究提出的利益相关方参与度矩阵，囊括了SVC的所有关键利益相关方，并强调了各方的重要性及其对研究区域的影响。结果表明，当地社区的参与度还需加强。此外，本研究还倡导所有利益相关方平等地参与SVC的所有保护措施和发展计划。

Nkatsakanyo (Plain language summary)

Kuhlangana na vaakatiko va muganga kuna nkoka ka timhaka ta kuhlaisa mbangu tani hi leswi ku nyikako kudyetana ka vaakatiko na mbangu leswi swi humelerisako mahlaiselo a mbangu a yaka mahlweni na kambe ku endla ku vaakatiko va ngenelela ka mintirho ya ku hlaisa mbangu na mavonelo ka timhaka leti ta mbangu u nga va rhendzeleta. Tsalwa ri kombetile maendlele ya kuhlanganisa mitlawa lawa a ngenisako swienge swa vatirhela mbangu SVC ka ri komba nkoka wa tlawa un'wani na un'wani na leswi u yendlako ka hluvuko wa ndawu yi nga langutiwa. Tsalwa ri kucetela ku kuhlangana na mitlawa SVC kufanela ku atswisiwa na kambe hikwavo va nga na xo endla vafanele kunyikwa nkoka wo fanana ku va tirha kuhlaisa mbangu na mintirho ya hluvuko ndzaweni ya SVC.

Practitioner points

A strong relationship exists between local communities and the surrounding environment, indicating that biodiversity conservation efforts are likely to face challenges if they fail to include and actively engage the local people.
Comprehensive stakeholder participation is vital in all biodiversity conservation processes.
Local communities need to be integrated into conservation efforts within their zone of influence to enhance the success of biodiversity conservation projects.

实践者要点

当地社区与周围环境之间存在着密切的关系，这表明，如果生物多样性保护工作没有当地居民的积极参与，就有可能面临挑战。
利益相关方的全面参与对所有生物多样性保护工作都至关重要。
当地社区需要融入与其相关的保护工作，以促进生物多样性保护项目的成功。

Practitioner Points

Ku na dyetano u nga tiya phakati ka vaakatiko na mbangu u nga va rhendzeleta na kambe mitirho ya kuhlaisa mbangu yi ta karhata loko yi nga ngenisi vaakatiko va ndzawu leyi. Kuntirhela ndzawu yin'we ka mitlawa ku na nkoka ka mintirho ya kuhlaisa mbangu. Vaakatiko va ndzawu leyi vafanela ku ngenisiwa ka matshala tshala ya kuhlaisa mbangu swi ka swi ya hileswi va endlako ku swi atswisa kuhumelela ka mintirho ya kuhlaisa mbangu.

1 INTRODUCTION

As the global population continues to grow, there has been increasing pressure to repurpose land for human settlement and agriculture, while at the same time addressing food deficits within local communities. This process has had profound implications for wildlife conservation and local communities, particularly in the Save Valley Conservancy (SVC) in south-eastern Zimbabwe. It has resulted in a decreased space for game, declining wildlife populations and the contentious sharing of limited space between humans and wildlife (Stoldt et al., 2020). In the year 2000, Zimbabwe embarked on a Fast Track Land Reform (FTLR) redistribution programme, an exercise aimed at addressing and rectifying historical land imbalances stemming from colonial practices. This endeavour sought to ensure that most of the landless people were resettled in gazetted farms (Moyo, 2011; Muzvidziwa, 2019).

One of the key aspects of the FTLR programme was an emphasis on direct redistribution, equity, and land for crops, with little attention paid to wildlife management (Rukuni et al., 2006). During the 2000 land reform exercise, parts of the SVC were converted into agricultural land, impacting negatively on wildlife conservation. The attempt to incorporate inherently extensive wildlife management into resettlement schemes runs directly counter to the rhetoric and technical biases of land reform programmes in Zimbabwe (Wolmer et al., 2004). According to Lindsey et al. (2012), ‘this intentionally or unintentionally resulted in the 2000 land reforms significantly transforming all the affected areas such as the SVC and in certain circumstances converted wildlife areas into agricultural land’. The formation and evolution of the SVC and other conservancies depended largely on several catalytic and enabling factors, as well as collaborative efforts among various stakeholders (Matseketsa et al., 2019). SVC was formed as a result of a number of circumstances, notably an epic drought (1991–1992) that brought an end to cattle ranching and agricultural endeavours in the area. Consequently, it was recognized that wildlife management was the only viable enterprise in the area (Mashapa et al., 2021; Moyo, 2011).

Failure to embark on a transformative and integrated conservation approach which prioritizes a multi-stakeholder approach to biodiversity conservation and community engagement will continue to undermine socio-ecological development in the SVC. Wildlife is facing extinction, local communities are entangled in conservation conflicts, agricultural areas lack clear demarcation, human settlements are without defined boundaries, wildlife habitats are not properly designated and privately owned properties, along with their operators, have been left exposed. Local communities in this area mainly rely on dry subsistence farming. Without meaningful engagement between all stakeholders, these communities risk being trapped in a relentless cycle of poverty, with conservation conflicts continuing to escalate as a result (Lindsey et al., 2012; Matseketsa et al., 2019).

The ownership and operational structure of the SVC are now markedly diverse. In its northern part, which was not affected by the land reform, most properties are supported by Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (Kreuter et al., 2010). In the southern region of the SVC, land reform brought significant changes. Large settlements in the western and eastern areas have led to wildlife areas being transformed into crop and livestock spaces (Scoones et al., 2012; Wels, 2000). The other remaining wildlife pockets in the SVC are now under the custodianship of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. However, given the lack of irrigation and semi-arid climate, local communities are now struggling to make a living from agriculture and livestock production. Communities situated in and around wildlife areas remain particularly susceptible to food insecurity and diseases. This, therefore, calls for a transformative stakeholder engagement approach to conservation—one that alleviates the challenges faced by humans and wildlife coexisting in the SVC.

Wildlife conservation efforts need to reduce the decline of species and habitats; key among them is a critical shift from operating under a framework focused predominantly on a narrow set of wildlife interests to a social-ecological paradigm and concomitant approach. This would embrace the interests and participation of local communities and all stakeholders, with an emphasis on restoring, transforming and enhancing biodiversity in the SVC. Existing literature on the SVC has predominantly focused on human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs), wildlife management and adaptation strategies, with scant attention given to local community engagement in wildlife conservation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (i) document stakeholder engagement platforms in the SVC, (ii) establish the nature and causes of HWC in the SVC and (iii) assess community members’ perceptions regarding wildlife conservation and other land uses in the SVC.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Transformative conservation

This study was anchored on the transformative conservation framework. Transformative conservation, by definition, is a substantial, profound and fundamental change, which requires a paradigm shift in how communities relate to and manage their environment (Massarella et al., 2022). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services defined transformative change as a fundamental, society-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors and structures, including paradigms, goals and values (Díaz et al., 2019; Kok et al., 2022). As argued by Mashapa et al. (2021), ‘the Transformative Conservation Framework envisages a multi-stakeholder approach to enhance wildlife conservation in the SVC’. The multi-stakeholder approach in a transformative conservation strategy maintains focus on environmental justice declarations and aims primarily to enable and sustain constructive stakeholder interaction at the local level (Basson et al., 2018; Hovardas, 2021).

Many conservation initiatives call for ‘transformative change’ to counter biodiversity loss, climate change, and injustice (Büscher et al., 2022). In a broad context, the pursuit of biodiversity restoration through transformative conservation and governance is key. Such efforts must be integrative, seeking synergy and minimizing incoherence not only across various sectors, institutions and policy instruments but also aligning with overarching societal goals, including justice and sustainability (Pickering et al., 2022). Biodiversity governance needs to acknowledge socio-ecological complexity, expose existing conditions of injustice, embrace opportunities and achieve equity to overcome challenges in conservation efforts (Bennett and Roth, 2019).

The transformative conservation approach brings fundamental, broad, durable and positive changes to human relationships with nature (Hiller & Fisher, 2023). This framework underscores the fundamental reorganization required within global conservation initiatives to avert ecological catastrophe. Today's conservation community is moving towards more integrative and collaborative approaches to conservation (Fougères et al., 2020). These novel approaches re-evaluate the relationships between nature, society, individuals and risks, considering nature's contributions to people, equity and justice, and sustainable development goals. They are premised on the profound transformation of societal structures, altering relationships between humans as a prerequisite for necessary changes in the human-nature nexus (Martin et al., 2020). Transformative conservation restructures systems to create large geographic, ecological, socioeconomic and demographic scales, and ultimately conserves biodiversity while securing the sustainable and regenerative use of natural resources (Fougères et al., 2020).

For effective implementation of a transformative conservation approach, support from conservation practitioners and stakeholders is crucial. Local community engagement is critical for mobilization and collective action, encompassing those who live and work within conservation areas (Malmer et al., 2020). Engaging local stakeholders is a central feature of many biodiversity conservation and natural resource management projects globally (Fougères et al., 2020; Sterling et al., 2017). This framework is very important, as it acknowledges the diversity of human values and relationships with nature, and defines how nature contributes both directly and indirectly to the livelihoods of local communities (Lundquist et al., 2021). Contemporary wildlife conservation necessitates a shift in both perceptions of and approaches to conflict, coupled with enhanced capacities, to achieve long-lasting success.

An effective, transformative conservation process devotes attention to the dialogue and relationship-building needed to foster dignity, respect and trust among stakeholders. It also supports more effective decision-making and commitment to tangible solutions (Ruano-Chamorro et al., 2022). Therefore, the transformative conservation approach can be understood as a long-term process that requires both individual agency and collective community action to meet food production demands and protect biodiversity (Armitage et al., 2020). Additionally, this approach should be regarded as a strengthening pillar of the socio-ecological systems, facilitating communities' adaption to global change (Bennett & Roth, 2019; Colloff et al., 2017; Mupepele et al., 2021). Thus, the overall objective of engaging all the stakeholders in the SVC through this transformative approach is to improve the livelihoods of rural communities through sustainable and climate-resilient management of natural resources, which aligns closely with the aims of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Bleischwitz et al., 2018).

2.2 The transformative stakeholder engagement approach

Transformative biodiversity governance must be inclusive, strategic and purposeful, with the aim of focusing on actors that want to influence the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss (Kok et al., 2022). Inclusivity in multi-stakeholder engagement, and sustained and systemic knowledge exchange between stakeholders are critical. All these elements support the codesign and coproduction of integrated, sustainable policies and management plans that reconcile the objectives of multiple landscape actors (Favretto et al., 2021). The underlying hope is that this approach will lead to the achievement of biodiversity goals: resource preservation, coexistence and livelihood improvement, bringing wider benefits to the local communities in the SVC (Durant et al., 2022). Transitioning towards sustainability requires interventions at the system level that address the root causes of unsustainability in existing frameworks. Consequently, it is suggested that a wide range of aspects are addressed. These include institutions, structures, economic and financial systems, policy and regulatory systems and power relations, as well as world views, beliefs, mindsets, lifestyles and values (Luederitz et al., 2017).

Transformation can be guided, for instance, by addressing problem-solving in multi-stakeholder settings and by providing experimental spaces. The learning outcomes gained from experimental activities can then be incorporated into standard practices (Pólvora et al., 2020). Involving multiple stakeholders is essential; however, the decision of who to involve and to what extent is challenging yet acknowledged as of paramount importance. A distinction must be made between involvement and influence: involving stakeholders does not necessarily mean allowing them to influence decision-making (Barletti et al., 2020; Brenner, 2019). Thus, stakeholders can be invited to participate with the understanding that there will be differing levels of expectation regarding their engagement and involvement. The value of involving a wide range of stakeholders, particularly those from diverse backgrounds, is commonly acknowledged when addressing issues of sustainability (Maczka et al., 2021). It is, therefore, important to ensure community involvement and foster collaboration between different actors (Fernandes et al., 2019). Once decisions are made on who to involve and to what extent, one needs a set of appropriate tools for stakeholder involvement: interviews, feedback sessions and dialogue (Islam et al., 2020). In their study, Ndonye et al. (2021) used the same framework in assessing stakeholder engagement and performance of community-based conservation projects in Laikipia Conservation Region Conservancies in Kenya. They observed that conservation projects do not exist in isolation; rather, they operate within a local context populated by communities who hold vested interests in the outcomes of such projects.

2.3 Stakeholder engagement parameters

Environmental problems are typically complex, fraught with uncertainty and span multiple scales, affecting multiple actors and agencies (Baigún & Minotti, 2021). This demands transparent decision-making that is adaptable to changing circumstances and embraces a diversity of knowledge systems and values. To achieve this, stakeholder participation is increasingly being sought and incorporated into environmental decision-making processes, from local to international scales (Reed et al., 2018). Stakeholder engagement is usually ‘understood as practices the organization undertakes to involve stakeholders in a positive manner in organizational activities’ (Boiral & Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017). Stakeholder engagement is traditionally seen as corporate responsibility in action; the more an organization engages with its stakeholders, the more it becomes responsible (Blok, 2019; Reed et al., 2018). Stakeholder engagement in environmental management is a process where stakeholders, that is, those directly or indirectly affected by and able to affect a decision, take active roles in research, planning and actions impacting their lives (Plummer et al., 2017).

Stakeholder engagement describes a range of practices where organizations take a structured approach to consulting with potential stakeholders (Reed et al., 2019). The dimension of inclusive governance suggests focusing on ‘empowering and emancipating those whose interests are currently not being met and who represent values that constitute transformative change toward sustainability’ (Bidwell & Schweizer, 2021). Engagement is initiated and led by stakeholders and/or publics, communicating with decision-making bodies, often via grassroots networks and social media, to persuade them to make their decision-making processes more transparent and open to participation (Reed et al., 2018). This development towards stronger involvement of nonstate and subnational actors is subject to debate and has at least two dimensions. Empowering stakeholders to join experts in decision-making enables learning, builds relationships, strengthens capacities and fosters the coordination required to address complex environmental problems (Eaton et al., 2021). It requires working with nonstate actors who possess the power and ability to take ownership and provide leadership in biodiversity efforts. Additionally, it involves addressing vested interests that may resist transformative change (Bull et al., 2020). Those leading the process may consult with publics and stakeholders to better understand and represent their views, thereby demonstrating commitment and support. Such engagement can augment their capacity to influence decision-makers or overturn decisions (Reed et al., 2018).

The opposite of stakeholder engagement is the traditional top-down approach, and this is increasingly being replaced by an inclusive multi-stakeholder approach (Conallin et al., 2017). The top-down process is led by governments and their official representatives, supported by scientifically trained specialists, with those affected by the conflict often relegated to the role of data gatherers and passive recipients of information and instructions (Sterling et al., 2017; Van Meerkerk, 2019). Engagement, as initiated in a top-down manner, is led by an organization with decision-making power, consulting publics and stakeholders (but retaining control over the final decisions), or simply communicating decisions to them (Reed et al., 2018). Rather than resolve conflict, these top-down approaches have often inflamed conflicts in protected areas, whereas the stakeholder engagement approach mediates controversial conservation issues and has the capacity to avoid, cope with or resolve conservation conflicts (Schoon et al., 2021). A successful stakeholder engagement process requires that the actors possess a cultural affinity, recognize each other's legitimacy, dedicate time to building trust and are willing to accept incremental gains (López-Rodríguez et al., 2020). Issues of power and trust are potential pitfalls that tend to affect a transformative stakeholder engagement approach to conservation challenges. These issues can be addressed if all parties or actors are treated equally, with equal opportunities and participation in the broader multi-stakeholder engagement process (Barletti et al., 2020).

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study area

This study was conducted in Ward 24 of Chiredzi district, which covers the greater part of the SVC (20° 22′ S and 31° 56′ E) in southeast Zimbabwe (see Lindsey et al., 2009; Matseketsa et al., 2019) for a detailed description of the SVC). The SVC is located in natural agroecological region IV, which is one of the driest regions in Zimbabwe. It occurs at an elevation of 480–620 m, with deciduous woodland savanna, low and variable rainfall (474–540 mm per annum) and poor-quality soils (Lindsey et al., 2009). The SVC is the largest model of amalgamated privately owned ranches devoted to wildlife production in Africa (du Toit & O'Connor, 2017). The original SVC comprised 24 properties with a total area of over 3500 km² (Lindsey et al., 2012). These properties are also part of the SVC, which falls into two districts: Bikita in the north (1631 km²) and Chiredzi to the south (1894 km²). The SVC also forms the northern part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (Makumbe et al., 2022).

The SVC is bordered primarily by high-density communal lands (of between 11 and 82 people per km²), with some commercial agriculture to the south and east (Lindsey et al., 2012). The SVC's commercial land is surrounded by communal land, where some 119,000 communal farmers (try to) make a living (Wels, 2000). Under the FTLR Programme, people were settled in some parts of the ward that were previously designated for wildlife conservation. Local communities in the SVC make a living from farming sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), cotton (Gossypium herbaceum) and by rearing livestock. Sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum) and citrus have been successfully cultivated on irrigated land and are key economic drivers in the region (Lindsey et al., 2012; Matseketsa et al., 2019). Low rainfall restricts the land uses to irrigated crop production, commercial cattle and game ranching on extensive privately owned ranches, safari hunting on state land and communal lands, and dry land subsistence farming in the overcrowded communal lands (Mashapa et al., 2021).

3.2 Study design

In this study, a mixed methods approach was adopted, allowing researchers to design a single research study that answers questions about the complex nature of a phenomenon from the perspective of participants and to analyse the relationship between measurable variables (Williams, 2007). Accordingly, the qualitative approach helped in explaining the phenomena, while the quantitative approach was important in examining collected statistical data. Participation in stakeholder analysis is often presented as beneficial and posited as a fairer way to represent a diverse array of views and opinions outside the narrow confines of interest and expertise (Bell et al., 2012). In the study area, a stakeholder analysis was carried out, wherein all actors were put into a matrix which indicated their roles, interests, and levels of influence, thereby justifying their presence in the area (Reed et al., 2009). In this context, a stakeholder participant is defined as an individual, group or organization that may affect, be affected by or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity or outcome of a project, programme or portfolio (Pandi-Perumal et al., 2015). These individuals are brought together to interact and relate to execute the project with the aim of achieving set standards and sharing a common interest in the project's success. This interaction and involvement are, therefore, referred to as ‘participation’ in this study (Eaton et al., 2021). Table 1 shows a typical stakeholder analysis in the case of the SVC. There are many stakeholders in the study area, including ZimParks, safari operators, individuals, groups, private corporations, trusts and nongovernmental organizations, among others.

Table 1. Stakeholder engagement matrix for the SVC.

Stakeholder name	Impact: How much does the project impact them (low, medium, high)?	Influence: How much influence do they have over the project (low, medium, high)?	What is important to the stakeholder?	How could the stakeholder contribute to the project?	How could the stakeholder block the project?	Strategy for engaging the stakeholder
ZimParks	High	High	Wildlife and biodiversity conservation	Protection of biodiversity	Going on strike	Quarterly meetings and monthly feedback meetings
A2 Farmers	Medium	Low	Land and crop protection	Cooperation with other players	Overlapping into the PA	Monthly engagements
Safari Operators	High	High	Tourism and biodiversity conservation	Protection of biodiversity	By not investing in environmental conservation	Monthly feedback meetings
Government	High	High	Tourism and development	Policy planning	Repressive policy and conservation laws	Annual conferences and quarterly feedback meetings
Community	High	High	Conservation benefits, protection from predators	Linkage between government and community	Poaching, competing with wildlife for resources	Information and feedback meetings
Chiredzi Rural District Councils, Bikita Rural District Council	High	Medium	Revenue from wildlife conservation	Coordination and creation of a conducive conservation environment	By not creating a conducive environment for the project	Quarterly feedback meetings
ZTA	High	Medium	Tourism promotion and conservation	Strategizing and proper planning in tourism promotion	Inhibiting tourism strategies that discourage tourism	Annual and quarterly conferences
Nyangambe Wildlife Project	High	High	Conservation benefits	Biodiversity protection	Overlapping and not abiding to the rules of biodiversity conservation	Quarterly feedback meetings
Interested Partners	High	Low	Community development	Invest towards conservation and community development	Negatively Influencing community perceptions	Quarterly planning meetings

Abbreviations: PA, protected area; SVC, Save Valley Conservancy; ZTA, Zimbabwe Tourism Authority.

3.3 Sample size and data collection

A survey was carried out in Ward 24 of Chiredzi district, and data were collected in April and May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers followed the COVID-19 restrictions and guidelines, which limited and controlled gatherings during that time. Focus group discussions were held with the seven-member committee (farm chairpersons), 84 randomly selected community members and traditional leaders. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 key informants (Table 2), who were purposively selected based on their knowledge, background and positions held in society. These included the Ward Councillor, the government extension staff in relevant departments and village heads. The main focus group discussion was held at the ward centre on the peripheries of the conservancy under Chief Gudo. Participants were randomly selected by picking cards from a hat. The ward centre was chosen because of its convenience to all the participants. Key informants were selected based on their knowledge, background and positions held in society. These included the Ward Councillor, the government extension staff in relevant departments and village heads. All the participants in this study were informed that they were free to withdraw from the research at any time without incurring any prejudice or risks. In lieu of written consent, verbal authorization to carry out and interact with the community in this research study was granted by Chief Gudo, under whose jurisdiction the study area falls. Participants were also assured that their contributions would be strictly used for academic purposes and would remain confidential, with the guarantee that no information would be divulged to anyone outside the research context (Ferreira & Serpa, 2018).

Table 2. Sample size and data collection methods.

Category	Number of participants			Data collection method
Category	Male (%)	Female (%)	Total (%)	Data collection method
Farm chairpersons	7 (13)	0	7 (6)	Focus group discussion
Community members	36 (64)	48 (87)	84 (76)	Focus group discussion
Key informants	13 (23)	7 (13)	20 (18)	Semistructured Interview
Total	56 (50)	55 (50)	111

Data collected focused on an assessment of the stakeholder engagement platforms available in the SVC, the nature and causes of HWC and the perceptions of community members towards the SVC. To understand the nature and causes of HWC in the SVC, focus group discussions were held in each area (Masapasi, Levanga, Mkwasine Ranch, Chegwite and Senuko). These parameters helped in understanding the transformative conservation in the SVC. Permission to conduct the survey was sought from the Chiredzi Rural District Council and village heads. Secondary data used in this study were collected from the Livestock Production Department in Chiredzi district, which gave us all the data on HWC. This secondary data assisted in tracing the deaths and injuries caused by HWC from 2014 to 2018. This helped to establish the nature and causes of HWC in the SVC and also assess community members’ perceptions regarding wildlife conservation and other land uses in the SVC.

3.4 Data analysis

The thematic content analysis method was used to analyse qualitative data in this survey. For thematic content analysis, a six-step process was adopted. The steps were familiarization, coding, generating themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and writing up (Caulfield, 2019). (1) Familiarization involves data transcription, immersion and taking notes on initial ideas. (2) Coding involves generating initial codes from the data, which identify features of both the semantic and latent content that appear interesting. (3) The process of generating themes requires the collation of codes into preliminary themes. (4) Reviewing themes requires a two-level validation: first, checking themes are consistent with codes and data extracts (Level 1) and, second, assessing their coherence across the entire data set (Level 2). (5) Defining and naming themes involves refining the specifics of each theme and defining the overall narrative of the analysis. (6) Writing up the presentation of the found theme is the final step, which is followed by fine-tuning the overall story to complete the analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Humble & Mozelius, 2022). Furthermore, data were analysed through themes that were specifically created to be relevant to the subject under study, such as HWC, stakeholder engagement platforms and community land-use perceptions. The approach is flexible, facilitating the generation of new insights and concepts derived from data patterns. Additionally, a cross-tabulation method was used to analyse the association and frequency of variables. Samal and Dash (2022) used a similar approach when they sought to understand the convergence and divergence of ecotourism, biodiversity, conservation and livelihoods in Peru.

4 RESULTS

4.1 Stakeholder engagement platforms in the SVC

The results showed limited platforms for community members to participate in stakeholder engagement activities in the SVC. The majority of participants (98% [n = 89]), as shown in Table 3, stated that they had never participated in consultative meetings; only 2% (n = 2) said they had participated in such meetings. Annual planning meetings, Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) meetings and community share ownership meetings were the available stakeholder platforms in the SVC. However, 98% (n = 89) of the participants had no knowledge of these platforms and only 2% (n = 2) were in the know. One hundred percent (n = 91) were unaware of CAMPFIRE meetings and neither did they (100% [n = 91]) have any knowledge about the existence of community share ownership in the SVC. One of the respondents had this to say:

Table 3. Engagement platforms in the SVC and responses by participants.

Platform	Knowledge of the platform		Participation
Platform	Yes (%)	No (%)	Yes (%)	No (%)
Consultative meetings	2 (2)	89 (98)	2 (2)	89 (98)
Annual planning meetings	4 (4)	87 (96)	0	91 (100)
CAMPFIRE meetings	0	91 (100)	0	91 (100)
Community share ownership	0	91 (100)	0	91 (100)

Abbreviation: CAMPFIRE, Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources.

(Respondent 1): We have never been invited to, consulted on or participated in any planning meetings, even at ward level, to talk about the community share ownership. We are not even aware if those meetings are being conducted.

The results (Table 4) showed that elephants (Loxodonta africana) constituted the most frequently reported problem animals, with 385 reports received from the period 2014–2018. During the same period, a total of 316 reports on lions (Panthera leo) were received. Within these incidents, a total of 15 lions were killed, two people were injured and one person was killed. As another common problem species, a total of 261 reports on buffalo (Syncerus caffer) were recorded within the same period, 2014–2018. Overall, 1201 reports were received, 13 people were killed and 19 were injured. One hundred and eighty-seven cattle were killed, whereas 224 goats and 38 donkeys were killed by wildlife in the SVC within the same period. One operator who was interviewed had this to say:

Table 4. Deaths and injuries caused by wildlife.

Species involved	Reports received 2014–2018	Problem animals killed 2014–2018	People killed/injured 2014–2018		Domestic animals killed 2014–2018
Species involved	Reports received 2014–2018	Problem animals killed 2014–2018	Killed	Injured	Cattle	Goats	Donkey
Elephant	385	57	0	0	0	0	0
Hippo	120	19	2	0	0	0	0
Buffalo	261	93	2	7	0	0	0
Lion	316	15	2	1	165	174	29
Crocodile	74	12	6	9	0	1	0
Hyena	33	11	1	2	20	38	9
Leopard	12	1	0	0	3	12	0
Total	1201	208	13	19	187	224	38

Note: Source: Chiredzi District Livestock Production Department, 2022, Human and Wildlife Conflict Data—Chiredzi Rural Development Council —Environment Department, 2022.

(Interviewee 1): A lasting solution needs to be sought as a matter of urgency so as to curb poaching and encroachment by communities into private properties if we are serious about promoting tourism, improving the livelihoods of local people and conserving our biodiversity. The situation needs intervention as people are settling themselves, closing the corridor, and some communities have settled on traditional wildlife tracks to water sources.

4.2 HWC in the SVC

It was evident that HWC in the SVC were pervasive, and this is caused by a number of factors. Communities in the SVC have no alternative income-generating sources besides exploiting resources within their surroundings. There has been a noted increase in the illegal harvest of mopane trees (Figure 1) to extract charcoal. Domestic animals have been competing for grazing land in the SVC, leading to increased reports of communities losing their livestock to wildlife and human fatalities linked to these conflicts. The increased population in the SVC has seen communities expanding their settlements into areas designated as protected private properties, necessitating the clearance of large tracts of land for settlement (Figure 1). This deforestation has reduced space and natural habitats for wildlife in the SVC. One local farmer interviewed had this to say:

(Interviewee 2): I lost 5 of my cattle in one night to lions after they broke into my kraal, and I don't think there are any plans from the park authorities to compensate me. That was my only source of income since we have not received any meaningful rains in this part of the district for the past 3 years.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

(a) A disturbed cattle owner standing beside his cow, which had fallen victim to lions in the Save Valley Conservancy (SVC). (b) An arrested poacher in the SVC. (c) Charcoal bags in a truck ready for sale after being extracted from mopane trees in the SVC. (d) Land being cleared for farming and settlement in the SVC. (e) Burning mopane trees to extract charcoal in the SVC. Photo credit: Authors (this study).

4.3 Community members' perceptions of the SVC

The majority of community members and traditional leaders, 74% (n = 67) had a negative perception of wildlife conservancy; only 14% (n = 13) had a positive perception and 12% (n = 11) were neutral. Those who had negative perceptions of wildlife conservation said that they were opposed to the idea, because they felt it was a waste of land. They further identified some of the wild animals as threats, both to personal safety and agricultural production, exacerbated by the lack of secure boundaries.

The majority of community members, that is, 48% (n = 53), preferred the land to be used for crop production, whereas 21% (n = 24) pointed out that they preferred a mixed-use approach and 6% (n = 7) favoured ranching. None of the community members reported that they wanted the land to be used for wildlife conservancy. The views of traditional leaders on land use were closely aligned with those of community members. The majority of traditional leaders, 57% (n = 4), would like the land to be used for crop production, whereas 4% (n = 2) said that they preferred mixed land use and 1% (n = 1) preferred ranching. Of the key informants, 10% (n = 11) advocated that the land should be used for wildlife conservancy. A minority of 4% (n = 4) opted for ranching and another 4% (n = 4) supported a mixed land use approach, whereas only 1% (n = 1) suggested that it should be used for crop production. During the focus group discussions, one community member had this to say:

(Respondent 2): We regard wildlife conservancy as a waste of land. We are proposing that that the land be divided amongst ourselves for settlement and cultivation as we are not benefiting from wildlife; our crops are destroyed by elephants—year in and year out, thus why we are having poor yields.

5 DISCUSSION

This study established that community participation in wildlife conservation projects in the SVC is very limited. The two traditional leaders, who reported their participation in the consultative meetings, explained it was a singular occurrence and that there was no proper structure to coordinate meetings. Stakeholder engagement in the SVC can only be realized if community members are provided with opportunities to discuss issues with wildlife conservancy operators. Engagement fosters a mutual understanding and is instrumental in addressing a plethora of challenges present in the study area. The participation of a diverse group of people in a systemic process of collecting, discussing, and analysing scenarios builds shared understanding (Lawrence et al., 2022).

Stakeholder engagement is not only key; it is the critical missing ingredient in addressing conservation conflicts, which have been so rampant in the SVC. Achieving biodiversity conservation within the SVC may prove difficult if there are still pockets where communities and wildlife cannot coexist in harmony. Human settlements in the park threaten conservation efforts, and mixed views on the proposed game fence have been observed. Some protected areas remain settled or have recently been partially settled by people with prior claims on the area (Muboko & Bradshaw, 2018). The study also determined that there was no effective communication strategy between stakeholders in the study area. The infrequent consultative and planning meetings have registered poor attendance, thus affecting community participation, which could help in resolving conservation conflicts in the SVC. It is essential to ensure that communities and other stakeholders are made aware of every programme and planning meeting. The attendance and contribution of every stakeholder are vital for achieving a shared view and common understanding of the main issues affecting development in the SVC. The lack of an effective communication strategy in the SVC has also affected decision-making processes, as communities are unaware of reporting and governing structures. There is a need to facilitate a working framework delineating the organizational hierarchy and reporting procedure in the SVC. The current organizational structure in the SVC, as revealed by this study, is marked by a level of ambiguity that obscures the division of labour and leadership roles in biodiversity protection and social development.

This study recorded that HWCs are prevalent in the SVC, a phenomenon mainly attributed to the coexistence and consequent competition between wildlife and human populations for the scarce resources available. Conflicts between humans and wildlife have occurred since the dawn of humanity. Most HWCs stem from differences in land use practices between various stakeholder groups, especially where the wildlife in question is a resource that can be exploited for economic or cultural benefit, or where the conservation of wildlife is at odds with human population growth or development pressure. In Africa, these conflicts have become more frequent and severe over recent decades as a result of human population growth, extension of transport routes and expansion of agricultural and industrial activities, which together have led to increased human encroachment on previously wild and uninhabited areas (Mekonen, 2020). Large areas of woodland, once habitats for wildlife, have been cleared for subsistence farming within the SVC. Frequently, wildlife poses a direct threat to the lives of people irking out an existence in or close to their natural habitats. Consequently, wildlife is perceived to have little value outside the protected areas, and it tends to dwindle or disappear either through active persecution, loss of habitat or competition with livestock. HWCs occur around the edges of protected areas where there are frequent human and wild animal interactions. This is exemplified by the SVC, where reports of human-wildlife confrontations are increasing (Matseketsa et al., 2019).

The removal of portions of the perimeter fence by the settler farmers has greatly increased HWC in neighbouring communal lands. In the SVC, the conflict is evidenced by fatal encounters between humans and wildlife, crop damage and livestock depredation. In response to crop damage, several elephant bulls are culled in problem-animal control operations every year, significantly reducing potential revenues from trophy hunting. Settler farmers living in the conservancy have abandoned traditional (conflict-reducing) husbandry techniques employed effectively elsewhere. As the lion population increases, complaints of livestock losses appear to be increasing in frequency, resulting in the risk of predators being poisoned by affected farmers (Lindsey et al., 2012; Mashapa et al., 2021).

Expansion for agricultural purposes and the growth in human population are key contributing factors to HWC in the SVC (Matseketsa et al., 2019). HWCs are one of the biggest obstacles to community-based natural resource management in Zimbabwe. The 1999 land reform, which resulted in the resettlement of indigenous local people on former White-owned commercial farms, as well as game safari land and sections of protected areas, has intensified these conflicts. Crop damage caused by wildlife can inflict substantial financial losses for farmers and, at the same time, create negative attitudes towards wildlife and conservation efforts. Such sentiments may result in negative interactions with wildlife, culminating in increased HWCs (Gross et al., 2018).

Emphasizing and building shared understandings of fundamental assumptions regarding wildlife conservation could enhance the participatory process, improve ecological understanding and aid conservation success (Heisel et al., 2021). In the SVC, only a small fraction of the population realize the benefits derived from wildlife conservation, a situation that has strained relationships in the community. The nature of this perceived poor relationship is attributed to a host of factors, key among them being the absence of wildlife-related benefits and the escalation of wildlife-induced costs, which are crucial in determining local community support for conservation (Matseketsa et al., 2019). Identifying solutions for the successful coexistence of humans and wildlife requires an understanding of both environmental and social dimensions (König et al., 2020, 2021). Being semi-arid, the SVC has no viable crop cultivation activity that can be carried out without irrigation. This leaves cattle ranching and wildlife conservation as the most favourable alternatives, underscoring the need to consider and engage community support for these options (Matseketsa et al., 2019).

This study revealed the need to educate all stakeholders on the importance of wildlife conservation, particularly emphasizing its positive contributions to the country's Gross Domestic Product. It also highlighted how communities could directly and indirectly benefit from such conservation initiatives. Local people's knowledge about natural resource conservation is influenced by education and awareness programmes, as well as the services and benefits they receive from conservation-related projects. Wildlife conservation efforts have done little to address poverty within communities, and this is contributing to the negative perceptions people have towards such initiatives. Members of the interviewed communities raised a number of issues, including restricted access to natural resources, no employment opportunities within the park and stray elephants raiding their crops. Reports provide evidence of the local communities’ animosity towards parks, with many people dismissing the poverty alleviation benefits as an illusion. This feeling is exacerbated given the huge social capital loss resulting from involuntary relocation and the spike in HWCs.

Our findings corroborate those of Mbereko et al. (2017), who also made similar observations that some institutions involved in the management of the protected areas are failing to promote the participation of the local community in decision-making processes. This has often led to communities holding opposing views from other stakeholders on wildlife conservation in the SVC. Our study showed that communities in the SVC continue to have negative perceptions towards wildlife, steadfastly maintaining that coexistence with wildlife is unachievable.

Communities situated adjacent to protected areas often bear a disproportionate share of the costs of conservation, but they may also derive benefits from the proximity to these protected zones (Matseketsa et al., 2018). The extent to which local communities benefit or incur costs as a result of residing next to protected areas is of interest to conservationists and policy-makers. Local communities need to be involved from the planning phase of community-based tourism projects, which are meant to benefit them socio-economically, while also empowering them to participate actively in the conservation of local environmental assets (Hlengwa & Maruta, 2020). All players in the SVC need to find common ground and an engagement platform where each and every stakeholder, big or small, is regarded as key and is allowed to be heard, given equal opportunities to participate in and contribute to the development of communities, and promote wildlife conservation.

The study found that communities in the SVC perceive a lack of benefits from local wildlife. Hence, there is a need to start regular engagements and consultative meetings with these communities. Furthermore, initiating and implementing programmes and projects that are sensitive to the specific challenges faced by communities in the area is recommended. Failure to link conservation and development in the SVC may not be without consequences. The long-term future of the core protected areas within the SVC is likely to be compromised or threatened unless those living on the park's edges are consulted, involved and invited to participate fully in the planning and implementation processes of wildlife and biodiversity conservation.

In light of the severe loss of biodiversity, soaring reports of HWC, failure to co-exist, no consensus on conservation, unimproved livelihoods and insufficient efforts to promote conservation in the SVC, this study advocates for a more integrated and inclusive approach to address the challenges in SVC. Inclusivity fosters the meaningful participation of new or previously unacknowledged and/or underrepresented human and nonhuman voices. Inclusivity values diverse contributions that drive change and advocates for shared leadership to ensure sustained and equitable outcomes. Narrative approaches can complement objective scientific perceptions of biodiversity with insights entangled with human emotion, significance and cultural context. (Sterling et al., 2017; Wyborn et al., 2020). The findings in this study foster coexistence between local communities and wildlife while strengthening existing socio-ecological mechanisms, pathways and traditional ecological knowledge systems integral to natural resource management.

6 CONCLUSION

The study concludes that there is little involvement of community members as key stakeholders in issues of conservation in the SVC, given the limited platforms for participation. HWC is still pervasive and community members have negative perceptions towards wildlife conservation. Views are not shared and there are no links between the community members and the wildlife conservation projects in the SVC. Although some platforms do exist, this study established that the majority of community members are not aware and/or are not invited to such platforms to enable them to participate. Given this, the SVC's activities are viewed negatively by community members and regarded as a waste of land that could be used for farming activities. This study highlights the paramount importance of active participation by community members in wildlife conservation initiatives. Such involvement is essential for communities to fully embrace and support all plans and implementation processes towards sustainability in the SVC. Without substantial participation by community members, wildlife conservation initiatives are likely to fail. One of the major challenges in the SVC, as illustrated in this study, is HWCs, which are mainly caused by a lack of shared understanding and vision. There is a necessity for enhanced engagement of community members regarding wildlife conservation. This can be realized by having regular consultative planning and review meetings with key stakeholders, recognizing and respecting each other's roles, interests and contributions. Further, there is a need for community engagement regarding the issue of boundaries in the SVC. Future studies must focus on other factors to improve community participation and alter local communities’ negative perceptions of the SVC.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Itai Dhliwayo: Data curation, conceptualization, analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, writing original draft, project administration, writing—review and editing, visualization, funding acquisition, software. Never Muboko: Supervision, conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing, data curation, formal analysis, validation. Given Matseketsa: Review—writing and editing, software, formal analysis. Edson Gandiwa: Supervision, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, validation, data curation, writing—review and editing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the Local Traditional Leadership (Farm and village Chairpersons). We also thank Ward 24 Councillor Mr M. Mazara and Chief Gudo for allowing us to carry out this study in his area of jurisdiction, Blessing Bhaiseni for his contributions and Joseph Antipas for capturing the photos. The following individuals, groups, organizations and government departments were key in this study: Joseph Shoko; Chinhoyi University of Technology; Ministry of Environment, Climate, Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Safari Operators, Department of Tourism in Chiredzi, Chiredzi Rural District Council Chief Executive Officer (Dr I Matsilele), Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA)—Mr Peter Shotere, Agritex Department (Mr KZ Madzikanda), Department of Lands (Mr H Mapfumo) District Development Coordinator (Mr Lovemore Chisema), the Department of Veterinary Services (Dr K Makwangudze), War Veterans in Chiredzi District and the Nyangambe Community. This study was self-funded.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

Armitage, D., Mbatha, P., Muhl, E.K., Rice, W. & Sowman, M. (2020) Governance principles for community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(2), e160.
10.1111/csp2.160
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Baigún, C.R.M. & Minotti, P.G. (2021) Conserving the Paraguay-Paraná Fluvial Corridor in the XXI century: conflicts, threats, and challenges. Sustainability, 13(9), 5198.
10.3390/su13095198
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Barletti, J.P., Larson, A.M., Hewlett, C. & Delgado, D. (2020) Designing for engagement: a realist synthesis review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change. World development, 127, 104753.
10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104753
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Basson, M., van Rensburg, H., Cuthill, M. & Erdiaw-Kwasie, M.O. (2018) Is regional government-governance nexus delivering on social sustainability promises? Empirical evidence from Moranbah in Australia. Local Government. Studies, 44, 826–847.
10.1080/03003930.2018.1488689
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bell, S., Morse, S. & Shah, R.A. (2012) Understanding stakeholder participation in research as part of sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Management, 101, 13–22.
10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bennett, N.J. & Roth, R. (2019) Realizing the transformative potential of conservation through the social sciences, arts and humanities. Biological Conservation, 229, A6–A8.
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.023
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bidwell, D. & Schweizer, P.J. (2021) Public values and goals for public participation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 31(4), 257–269.
10.1002/eet.1913
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bleischwitz, R., Spataru, C., VanDeveer, S.D., Obersteiner, M., van der Voet, E., Johnson, C. et al. (2018) Resource nexus perspectives towards the United Nations sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 1(12), 737–743.
10.1038/s41893-018-0173-2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Blok, V. (2019) From participation to interruption: toward an ethics of stakeholder engagement, participation and partnership in corporate social responsibility and responsible innovation. In: R. Schomberg & J. Hankins (Eds.) International handbook on responsible innovation: a global resource. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 243–258. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718862
10.4337/9781784718862.00024
Google Scholar
Boiral, O. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2017) Managing biodiversity through stakeholder involvement: why, who, and for what initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 403–421.
10.1007/s10551-015-2668-3
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Google Scholar
Brenner, L. (2019) Multi-stakeholder platforms and protected area management. Conservation & Society, 17(2), 147–160.
10.4103/cs.cs_18_63
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bull, J.W., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Addison, P.F.E., Arlidge, W.N.S., Baker, J., Brooks, T.M. et al. (2020) Net positive outcomes for nature. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4, 4–7.
10.1038/s41559-019-1022-z
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Büscher, B., Massarella, K., Coates, R., Deutsch, S., Dressler, W. & Fletcher, R. et al. (2022) 12. The convivial conservation imperative: exploring “Biodiversity Impact Chains” to support structural transformation. Earth system governance series. In: I.J. Visseren-Hamakers & M.T.J. Kok (Eds.) Transforming biodiversity governance. Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108856348.013
10.1017/9781108856348.013
Google Scholar
Caulfield, J. (2019) How to do thematic analysis. Scribbr. Retrieved February 7, 2021, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/
Google Scholar
Colloff, M.J., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Locatelli, B., Gorddard, R., Longaretti, P.Y. et al. (2017) An integrative research framework for enabling transformative adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy, 68, 87–96.
10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.007
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Conallin, J.C., Dickens, C., Hearne, D. & Allan, C. (2017) Stakeholder engagement in environmental water management, Water for the environment. Academic Press, pp. 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803907-6.00007-3
10.1016/B978-0-12-803907-6.00007-3
Google Scholar
S. Díaz, J. Settele, E.S. Brondízio, H.T. Ngo, M. Guèze & J. Agard et al. (Eds.) (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat, pp. 1–56.
Google Scholar
Durant, S.M., Marino, A., Linnell, J.D.C., Oriol-Cotterill, A., Dloniak, S., Dolrenry, S. et al. (2022) Fostering coexistence between people and large carnivores in Africa: using a theory of change to identify pathways to impact and their underlying assumptions. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 2, 127.
10.3389/fcosc.2021.698631
Google Scholar
Eaton, W.M., Brasier, K.J., Burbach, M.E., Whitmer, W., Engle, E.W., Burnham, M. et al. (2021) A conceptual framework for social, behavioral, and environmental change through stakeholder engagement in water resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 34(8), 1111–1132.
10.1080/08941920.2021.1936717
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Favretto, N., Shackleton, S., Sallu, S.M. & Hoffman, T. (2021) Editorial for special issue: “collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement in landscape governance and management in Africa: lessons from practice”. Land, 10(3), 285.
10.3390/land10030285
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Fernandes, J.P., Guiomar, N. & Gil, A. (2019) Identifying key factors, actors and relevant scales in landscape and conservation planning, management and decision making: promoting effective citizen involvement. Journal for Nature Conservation, 47, 12–27.
10.1016/j.jnc.2018.11.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ferreira, C.M. & Serpa, S. (2018) Informed consent in social sciences research: ethical challenges. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 6, 13.
10.11114/ijsss.v6i5.3106
Google Scholar
Fougères, D., Andrade, A., Jones, M. & McElwee, P.D. (2020) Transformative conservation in social-ecological systems. Geneva, Switzerland: IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM).
Google Scholar
Gross, E.M., Lahkar, B.P., Subedi, N., Nyirenda, V.R., Lichtenfeld, L.L. & Jakoby, O. (2018) Seasonality, crop type and crop phenology influence crop damage by wildlife herbivores in Africa and Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(8), 2029–2050.
10.1007/s10531-018-1523-0
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Heisel, S.E., King, E., Lekanta, F., Lemoile, F., Ryan, C. & Lemerketo, I. et al. (2021) Assessing ecological knowledge, perceived agency, and motivations regarding wildlife and wildlife conservation in Samburu, Kenya. Biological Conservation, 262, 109305.
10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109305
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hiller, B. & Fisher, J. (2023) A multifunctional 'scape approach for sustainable management of intact ecosystems—a review of tropical peatlands. Sustainability, 15(3), 2484.
10.3390/su15032484
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hlengwa, D.C. & Maruta, A.T. (2020) A framework for facilitation of community participation in and beneficiation from CBT around the Save Valley Conservancy. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 9(2), 1–11.
Google Scholar
Hovardas, T. (2021) Social sustainability as social learning: insights from multi-stakeholder environmental governance. Sustainability, 13(14), 7744.
10.3390/su13147744
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Humble, N. & Mozelius, P. (2022) Content analysis or thematic analysis: similarities, differences and applications in qualitative research. In European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Kidmore End (Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 76–81).
Google Scholar
Islam, M.M., Nahiduzzaman, M. & Wahab, M.A. (2020) Fisheries co-management in hilsa shad sanctuaries of Bangladesh: early experiences and implementation challenges. Marine Policy, 117, 103955.
10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103955
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kok, M.T., Tsioumani, E., Bliss, C., Immovilli, M., Keune, H. & Morgera, E. et al. (2022) 16. Enabling transformative biodiversity governance in the post-2020 era. In: I.J. Visseren-Hamakers & M.T.J. Kok (Eds.) Transforming biodiversity governance. Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108856348.017
10.1017/9781108856348.017
Google Scholar
König, H.J., Ceaușu, S., Reed, M., Kendall, H., Hemminger, K., Reinke, H. et al. (2021) Integrated framework for stakeholder participation: methods and tools for identifying and addressing human–wildlife conflicts. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(3), e399.
10.1111/csp2.399
Google Scholar
König, H.J., Kiffner, C., Kramer-Schadt, S., Fürst, C., Keuling, O. & Ford, A.T. (2020) Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 786–794.
10.1111/cobi.13513
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kreuter, U., Peel, M. & Warner, E. (2010) Wildlife conservation and community-based natural resource management in southern Africa's private nature reserves. Society & Natural Resources, 23(6), 507–524.
10.1080/08941920903204299
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lawrence, M.G., Williams, S., Nanz, P. & Renn, O. (2022) Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth, 5(1), 44–61.
10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010
Google Scholar
Lindsey, P., du Toit, R., Pole, A. & Romañach, S. (2012) Save Valley Conservancy: a large-scale African experiment in cooperative wildlife management, Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation. Earthscan, London, UK: Routledge. pp. 181–202.
Google Scholar
Lindsey, P.A., Romañach, S.S. & Davies-Mostert, H.T. (2009) The importance of conservancies for enhancing the value of game ranch land for large mammal conservation in southern Africa. Journal of Zoology, 277(2), 99–105.
10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00529.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
López-Rodríguez, M.D., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Oteros-Rozas, E., March, H., Keller, R., Lo, V.B. et al. (2020) Delineating participation in conservation governance: insights from the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park (Spain). Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 486–496.
10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.019
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Luederitz, C., Abson, D.J., Audet, R. & Lang, D.J. (2017) Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustainability Science, 12, 393–407.
10.1007/s11625-016-0414-0
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lundquist, C., Hashimoto, S. & Schoolenberg, M. (2021) Transformative scenarios for biodiversity conservation and sustainability. Conservation Letters, 14(2), e12772.
10.1111/conl.12772
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Maczka, K., Matczak, P., Jeran, A., Chmielewski, P.J. & Baker, S. (2021) Conflicts in ecosystem services management: analysis of stakeholder participation in natura 2000 in Poland. Environmental Science & Policy, 117, 16–24.
10.1016/j.envsci.2021.01.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Makumbe, P., Mapurazi, S., Jaravani, S. & Matsilele, I. (2022) Human-wildlife conflict in save valley conservancy: Residents' attitude towards wildlife conservation. Scientifica, 2022.
Google Scholar
Malmer, P., Vanessa, M., Austin, B. & Tengö, M. (2020) Mobilisation of indigenous and local knowledge as a source of useable evidence for conservation partnerships. In: W.J. Sutherland, P.N.M. Brotherton, Z.G. Davies, N. Ockendon, N. Pettorelli & J.A. Vickery (Eds.) Conservation research, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, pp. 82–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108638210
10.1017/9781108638210.006
Google Scholar
Martin, A., Armijos, M.T., Coolsaet, B., Dawson, N., Edwards, G.A.S., Few, R. et al. (2020) Environmental justice and transformations to sustainability. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 62(6), 19–30.
10.1080/00139157.2020.1820294
Google Scholar
Mashapa, C., Gandiwa, E., Muboko, N. & Mhuriro-Mashapa, P. (2021) Land use and land cover changes in a human-wildlife mediated landscape of save valley conservancy, south-eastern lowveld of Zimbabwe. Journal of Animal Plant Sciences, 31(2), 583–595.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Massarella, K., Krauss, J.E., Kiwango, W. & Fletcher, R. (2022) Exploring convivial conservation in theory and practice. Conservation & Society, 20(2), 59–68.
10.4103/cs.cs_53_22
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Matseketsa, G., Chibememe, G., Muboko, N., Gandiwa, E. & Takarinda, K. (2018) Towards an understanding of conservation-based costs, benefits and attitudes of local people living adjacent to save Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe, vol. 2018. Scientifica, Global Ecology and Conservation, 2018, 6741439.
10.1155/2018/6741439
Google Scholar
Matseketsa, G., Mukamuri, B.B., Muboko, N. & Gandiwa, E. (2019) An assessment of local people's support to private wildlife conservation: a case of Save Valley Conservancy and fringe communities, Zimbabwe. Scientifica, Global Ecology and Conservation, 20, e00737.
10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00737
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mbereko, A., Kupika, O.L. & Gandiwa, E. (2017) Linking social and ecological sustainability: an analysis of livelihoods and the changing natural resources in the middle Zambezi biosphere reserve. The Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 6(1), 49–68.
10.5947/jeod.2017.004
Google Scholar
Van Meerkerk, I. (2019) Top-down versus bottom-up pathways to collaboration between governments and citizens: reflecting on different participation traps, In: A. Kekez, M. Howlett & M Ramesh. (Eds.) Collaboration in Public Service Delivery: Promise and Pitfalls. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 149–167. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788978583
10.4337/9781788978583.00019
Google Scholar
Mekonen, S. (2020) Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia. BMC Ecology, 20(1), 51.
10.1186/s12898-020-00319-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Moyo, S. (2011) Changing agrarian relations after redistributive land reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(5), 939–966.
10.1080/03066150.2011.634971
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Muboko, N. & Bradshaw, G.J. (2018) Towards resolving local community and protected area management conflicts: lessons from the Chitsa community and Gonarezhou National Park. Zimbabwe. International Journal of Development & Conflict, 8, 62–79.
Google Scholar
Mupepele, A.C., Bruelheide, H., Brühl, C., Dauber, J., Fenske, M., Freibauer, A. et al. (2021) Biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes: transformative societal changes needed. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36(12), 1067–1070.
10.1016/j.tree.2021.08.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Muzvidziwa, J. (2019) Mixed responses from the international community to Zimbabwe's post 2000 fast track land reform. Journal of Governance and Development (JGD), 15(1), 19–35.
Google Scholar
Ndonye, H.N., Mulwa, A. & Kyalo, D.N. (2021) Stakeholder engagement and performance of community based conservation projects: a case of Laikipia Conservation Region Conservancies. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 12(4), 41–50.
Google Scholar
Pandi-Perumal, S.R., Akhter, S., Zizi, F., Jean-Louis, G., Ramasubramanian, C., Edward Freeman, R. et al. (2015) Project stakeholder management in the clinical research environment: how to do it right. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 6, 71.
10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00071
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pickering, J., Coolsaet, B., Dawson, N., Suiseeya, K.M., Aoki Inoue, C.Y. & Lim, M. (2022) Rethinking and upholding justice and equity in transformative biodiversity governance. In: I.J. Vesseren-Hamakers & M.T.J. Kok (Eds.) Cross-cutting issues central to transformative biodiversity governance. Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108856348.009
10.1017/9781108856348.009
Google Scholar
Plummer, R., Dzyundzyak, A., Baird, J., Bodin, O., Armitage, D. & Schultz, L. (2017) How do environmental governance processes shape evalution of outcomes by stakeholders? A casual pathway-approach. PloS one, 12(9), e0185375.
10.1371/journal.pone.0185375
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pólvora, A., Nascimento, S., Lourenço, J.S. & Scapolo, F. (2020) Blockchain for industrial transformations: a forward-looking approach with multi-stakeholder engagement for policy advice. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120091.
10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120091
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Reed, J., Barlow, J., Carmenta, R., van Vianen, J. & Sunderland, T. (2019) Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile climate, conservation and development objectives in tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation, 238, 108229.
10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108229
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J. et al. (2009) Who's in and Why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methgods for natural resource management. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1933–1949.
10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Reed, M.S., Vella, S., Challies, E., De Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D. et al. (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26, S7–S17.
10.1111/rec.12541
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ruano-Chamorro, C., Gurney, G.G. & Cinner, J.E. (2022) Advancing procedural justice in conservation. Conservation Letters, 15(3), e12861.
10.1111/conl.12861
Web of Science® Google Scholar
M. Rukuni, P. Tawonezvi, C.K. Eicher, M. Munyuki-Hungwe & P.B. Matondi (Eds.) (2006) Zimbabwe's agricultural revolution revisited. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications, pp. 119–140.
Google Scholar
Samal, R. & Dash, M. (2023) Ecotourism, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods: understanding the convergence and divergence. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.11.001
10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.11.001
Google Scholar
Schoon, M., Chapman, M., Loos, J., Speranza, C.I., Kelman, C.C., Aburto, J. et al. (2021) On the frontiers of collaboration and conflict: how context influences the success of collaboration. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 383–399.
10.1080/26395916.2021.1946593
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Scoones, I., Chaumba, J., Mavedzenge, B. & Wolmer, W. (2012) The new politics of Zimbabwe's lowveld: struggles over land at the margins. African Affairs, 111(445), 527–550.
10.1093/afraf/ads057
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sterling, E.J., Betley, E., Sigouin, A., Gomez, A., Toomey, A., Cullman, G. et al. (2017) Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 209, 159–171.
10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Stoldt, M., Göttert, T., Mann, C. & Zeller, U. (2020) Transfrontier conservation areas and human-wildlife conflict: the case of the Namibian component of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 7964.
10.1038/s41598-020-64537-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
du Toit, J.C.O. & O'Connor, T.G. (2017) Minimum temperatures and frost at Grootfontein in the eastern Karoo, South Africa, over 98 years. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 72(1), 39–46.
10.1080/0035919X.2016.1218373
Google Scholar
Wels, H. (2000) Fighting over fences. Organisational co-operation and reciprocal exchange between the Save Valley Conservancy and its neighbouring communities, Zimbabwe. Netherlands: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Google Scholar
Williams, C. (2007) Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 5(3). https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v5i3.2532
10.19030/jber.v5i3.2532
Google Scholar
Wolmer, W., Chaumba, J. & Scoones, I. (2004) Wildlife management and land reform in south-eastern Zimbabwe: a compatible pairing or a contradiction in terms? Geoforum, 35(1), 87–98.
10.1016/S0016-7185(03)00031-9
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Wyborn, C., Montana, J., Kalas, N., Cisneros, F.D., Clement, C. & Tort, S.I. et al. (2020) Research and action agenda for sustaining diverse and just futures for life on Earth: biodiversity revisited. Luc Hoffmann Institute. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342425123_Research_and_action_agenda_for_sustaining_diverse_and_just_futures_for_life_on_Earth_Biodiversity_Revisited
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume2, Issue4

December 2023

Pages 226-239

This article also appears in:

Human Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence in the context of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

An assessment of local community engagement in wildlife conservation: A case study of the Save Valley Conservancy, South Eastern Zimbabwe

评估当地社区保护野生动物的参与度:以津巴布韦东南部的Save Valley Conservancy为例

Abstract

摘要

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

通俗语言摘要

Nkatsakanyo (Plain language summary)

Practitioner points

实践者要点

Practitioner Points

1 INTRODUCTION

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Transformative conservation

2.2 The transformative stakeholder engagement approach

2.3 Stakeholder engagement parameters

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study area

3.2 Study design

3.3 Sample size and data collection

3.4 Data analysis

4 RESULTS

4.1 Stakeholder engagement platforms in the SVC

4.2 HWC in the SVC

4.3 Community members' perceptions of the SVC

5 DISCUSSION

6 CONCLUSION

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Related

Information