Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about wildlife governance in the Hwange Tsholotsho wildlife area in Zimbabwe: A multi-methods approach

IF 5.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Tanyaradzwa Mundoga, Walter Musakwa, Nelson Chanza
{"title":"Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about wildlife governance in the Hwange Tsholotsho wildlife area in Zimbabwe: A multi-methods approach","authors":"Tanyaradzwa Mundoga,&nbsp;Walter Musakwa,&nbsp;Nelson Chanza","doi":"10.1016/j.indic.2025.100615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Local communities' knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions (KAP) are at the center of wildlife governance, particularly the discourse on conservation of megafauna such as the African savannah elephant. Yet, there is limited scholarship on (KAP) related to different levels of wildlife governance and the consequences, especially in the global South. Local KAP are likely diverse and multifaceted and often contradict higher-level perspectives. To contribute to the understanding of KAP of the local communities about wildlife governance, this study applied a multi-method approach utilizing the Q methodology and focus group discussions (FDG) in the Hwange Tsholotsho Wildlife Area of Zimbabwe. Fifty-nine (59) purposively selected participants sorted forty-nine (49) statements collected from related literature. Data from the Q-method was analyzed for factors and compared with emerging themes from the FGD. Four distinct clusters emerged i.e. the <em>progressive and collaborative perspective</em>; the <em>pro-multilateralism perspective</em>; the <em>disenfranchised and radical reforms perspective</em>; and the, <em>balanced perspective</em>. The clusters indicate that while respondents agree on the need for multilevel wildlife governance systems, there is a general concern about the restrictive and opaque nature of decisions outside their scope with little recognition of their views. While there is scope for collaborative approaches and best practices, local interests should guide decisions on concepts, conservation, and participation. This work adds to the dearth of scholarship on wildlife governance, particularly in Africa, through the use of mixed methods which exhibited potential for application in studies that address complex environmental management challenges.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36171,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100615"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972725000364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Local communities' knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions (KAP) are at the center of wildlife governance, particularly the discourse on conservation of megafauna such as the African savannah elephant. Yet, there is limited scholarship on (KAP) related to different levels of wildlife governance and the consequences, especially in the global South. Local KAP are likely diverse and multifaceted and often contradict higher-level perspectives. To contribute to the understanding of KAP of the local communities about wildlife governance, this study applied a multi-method approach utilizing the Q methodology and focus group discussions (FDG) in the Hwange Tsholotsho Wildlife Area of Zimbabwe. Fifty-nine (59) purposively selected participants sorted forty-nine (49) statements collected from related literature. Data from the Q-method was analyzed for factors and compared with emerging themes from the FGD. Four distinct clusters emerged i.e. the progressive and collaborative perspective; the pro-multilateralism perspective; the disenfranchised and radical reforms perspective; and the, balanced perspective. The clusters indicate that while respondents agree on the need for multilevel wildlife governance systems, there is a general concern about the restrictive and opaque nature of decisions outside their scope with little recognition of their views. While there is scope for collaborative approaches and best practices, local interests should guide decisions on concepts, conservation, and participation. This work adds to the dearth of scholarship on wildlife governance, particularly in Africa, through the use of mixed methods which exhibited potential for application in studies that address complex environmental management challenges.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
49
审稿时长
57 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信