Research

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decades, the concept of protected areas has shifted from a conservation-centric approach to a more holistic approach that integrates both biodiversity and human livability (Wolmer 2003, Mace 2014, Mpofu et al. 2023). Transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs), also known as Transboundary Protected Areas, are often cited as prime examples of this progressive shift given their integration of biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development (Hanks 2003, Muboko 2017). However, TFCAs have also often faced criticism for being highly political processes, driven by neoliberal approaches making communities invisible in policy development (Büscher 2013, Andersson et al. 2017). Rather, the recent Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Values Assessment highlights the significance of integrating diverse community values and knowledge systems into conservation policy and implementation (IPBES 2022). Communities provide unique socio-ecological perspectives, shaped by cultural practices, traditional knowledge, and historical experiences which often contrast with technical and bureaucratic approaches of TFCA policymakers, conservation experts, park management, and scientists (Büscher 2013, Bourgeois et al. 2023). Despite these insights, contemporary TFCA conservation models continue to marginalize local perspectives and knowledge, reinforcing the colonial legacy of exclusionary practices (Bourgeois et al. 2023). Power dynamics and complex multi-layered institutional frameworks involving multiple countries and jurisdictions continue to hinder effective community participation (Büscher 2013, Sibanda 2015b). Hence, unlike conventional conservation areas, TFCAs are characterized by unique governance challenges due to their operation under multiple national legal systems and administrative structures (Wolmer 2003, Andersson et al. 2017). The need for extensive coordination among national authorities has constrained the time available for community engagement, leading to limited and often questionable involvement of local communities (Muzeza et al. 2013).

Southern Africa has emerged as a significant region for TFCAs over the past two decades (Duffy 2006, Mpofu et al. 2023) emphasizing the importance of community involvement, with the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA), playing a crucial role in shaping the dynamics of other TFCAs and their communities (Spierenburg and Wels 2006, Ntuli et al. 2019). It integrates three renowned national parks—Kruger National Park, Limpopo National Park, and Gonarezhou National Park—spanning South Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. Controversies, such as extensive forced evictions, land-rights disputes, conservation commercialization, and militarized responses resulting from anti-poaching strategies of rhino particularly in Kruger National Park have further distinguished the GLTFCA from conventional conservation areas (Massé and Lunstrum 2016, Mushonga 2021, Ramutsindela et al. 2022). This underscores the necessity for GLTFCA national parks to integrate distinct community perspectives and needs into the park management plans (PMPs) and their implementation. PMPs outline the guidelines, strategies, goals, and measures for protected area management (Eagles et al. 2014). While PMPs in the GLTFCA do not follow a universal template, they generally include conservation, resource management, infrastructure, tourism, stakeholder engagement, security, monitoring, and research aspects.

The fundamental assertion of this research is that community members prioritize aspects of park management that directly impact their daily livelihoods. The PMP, however, does not adequately convert these priorities into actionable policies, resulting in unresolved socio-economic realities and diverse viewpoints within the community. Previous research (Duffy 2006, Andersson et al. 2017) has often focused on GLTFCA’s ecological and policy aspects with relatively limited studies that deeply explore how communities perceive and interact with conservation initiatives. Most studies addressing community perspectives in the GLTFCA are limited to single (Gandiwa et al. 2014a, Zanamwe et al. 2018, Musakwa et al. 2020) or two countries (Ntuli et al. 2019). While community-based conservation approaches often operate on the assumption that communities are territorially fixed and cohesive, this study aligns with Agrawal and Gibson (1999), acknowledging the inherent heterogeneity within communities. The study aims to investigate individual viewpoints from GLTFCA community members on PMP to uncover the nuanced perspectives that might be masked by aggregating data at the community level. For this, our study employs the Q-methodology: a methodology that systematically captures and analyses subjective viewpoints by integrating qualitative analysis and factor analysis (Barry and Proops 1999, Rost 2021). It seeks to answer the questions of: (i) What aspects of the PMP are well-represented and considered important within GLFCA communities? (ii) To what extent do GLTFCA communities exhibit agreement and disagreement in their viewpoints regarding PMP? (iii) In which aspects of the PMP do community viewpoints show the most significant tensions? This study provides empirical insights into communities’ perspectives on GLTFCA’s PMPs, based on their lived experiences, thereby informing policy development and implementation that genuinely address community concerns. It introduces a novel approach that offers nuanced insights into the intra- and inter-community heterogeneity of perspectives on the park management which further contribute to debates on the efficacy of TFCA policy and operations in conservation.

Community roles in GLTFCA

Conservation success in TFCAs is greatly influenced by the substantial role played by the communities (Chirozva 2015). With reference to GLTFCA, communities have contributed to conservation through sustainable resource management, wildlife protection, habitat restoration, community-based conservation initiatives, and human–wildlife conflict mitigation (Ntuli et al. 2019, Munthali et al. 2023, Sabuhoro et al. 2023). However, community roles and their participation have been influenced by complex power dynamics with authorities. Earlier exclusionary approaches such as “fines-and-fences,” restricted traditional land use practices essential for biodiversity conservation and ecological balance e.g. rotational grazing (Spierenburg and Wels 2006). While this has been deemed socially and politically unacceptable, fences have still been erected to prevent community encroachment which further undermines community roles in conservation (Spierenburg and Wels 2006, Ntuli et al. 2019). The role of communities in policy decision-making remains ambiguous and often lacks genuine meaningfulness as the GLTFCA political economy often prioritize tourism and wildlife protection (Büscher 2013, Zanamwe et al. 2020). Wildlife corridor establishment for park expansion has often proceeded despite community objections or without adequately addressing local livelihood impacts, owing to cases of green grabbing (Büscher and Ramutsindela 2015). Despite the prevailing social injustice, communities maintain a strong connection to nature through cultural practices and traditional ecological knowledge which continue to inform their interactions with the environment within GLTFCA (Mazzocchi 2022).

The Shangaan communities across three countries observe diverse cultural ceremonies like “hoko” (male circumcision) and “komba” (women's upbringing), which entail extended periods in the wild as a way of life, identity, and heritage (Sibanda 2015a, Muzingili and Raymond 2017). These cultural practices, and experiences imparting valuable insights regarding local systems, resource management, and sustainable living are deeply intertwined with traditional knowledge systems passed down through generations. GLTFCA communities have demonstrated profound knowledge regarding elephant movements, which is essential for tracking and managing human–elephant conflicts prevalent in the area (Sibanda 2015a). This harmonious blend of traditional knowledge and contemporary conservation science underscores the global importance of Indigenous cultures in maintaining the ecological balance of TFCAs. However, accessibility and restrictions on traditional land use practices have sparked conflicts between conservation authorities and communities. Similar issues having been reported Kgalagadi TFCA, where traditional hunting and gathering practices of Indigenous San/Bushmen communities were prohibited, leading to their displacement and loss of cultural heritage (Thondhlana et al. 2011). Scholars argue that the TFCAs authorities have overlooked the communities’ role as landscape guardians, discrediting their inherent responsibility for managing natural resources (Chibememe et al. 2014, Landon et al. 2021).

Key aspects for community livelihoods and participation in GLTFCA

The interaction between conservation and livelihoods in GLTFCA is influenced by various factors, including social, ecological, and governance-related aspects (Abukari and Mwalyosi 2020). Central to community perspectives are the intricate trade-offs between conservation and livelihoods (Ntuli and Muchapondwa 2017). One fundamental aspect that communities prioritize for their livelihoods is natural-resource management and access (Munthali et al. 2023). The availability and access to natural resources, (e.g., water, forests, and wildlife), directly impact their daily lives. However, the competition for these limited resources between humans and wildlife together with restrictive regulations often exacerbates tensions between communities and authorities. (Spierenburg and Wels 2006) argues that the initial approach taken by conservationists in developing TFCAs involved restricting access, prioritizing transboundary mobility primarily for tourists and investors. GLTFCA integrates multiple land uses, including wildlife conservation, tourism, and agriculture and its establishment has led to the implementation of strict conservation policies that often limit local communities' access to natural resources. The displacement of communities to create buffer zones around national parks have resulted in disruption of access to resources without providing equitable alternatives (Chibememe et al. 2014).

GLTFCA communities also value cultural significance. Communities exhibit a profound cultural connection to nature as natural landscapes and wildlife play a significant role in their spiritual beliefs and traditional practices (Gore et al. 2020, Bourgeois et al. 2023). Communities such as Sengwe and Makuleke still embrace precolonial conservation practices through Indigenous knowledge practices (Chibememe et al. 2014). However, there are concerns over Indigenous knowledge being overlooked in conservation approaches despite its longstanding history in TFCA communities (Sinthumule 2023). This inadequate recognition of Indigenous knowledge has often resulted in GLTFCA communities feeling disenfranchised and alienated from conservation activities that directly impact their lives (Berkes 2012, Sinthumule 2023).

Involvement and participation in decision-making is another important aspect in GLTFCA communities (Chiutsi and Saarinen 2017, Ntuli et al. 2019). Participation in governance structures and collaborative efforts that determine their future has been a primary concern fueling their grievances (Chiutsi and Saarinen 2017). However, operations such as green militarization which entails deploying militaristic tactics to enforce conservation regulations further undermines community participation as it reinforces power imbalances (Massé and Lunstrum 2016). This situation makes tangible benefits more appealing and necessary for survival (Büscher and Ramutsindela 2015), hence communities in the GLTFCA express a preference for tangible and direct benefits as incentives for their contributions to conservation (Tchakatumba et al. 2019). However, studies have indicated that direct and tangible benefits such as employment opportunities and revenue-sharing schemes often encounter limited reach and unequal distribution, leading to tensions and conflicts (Ntuli et al. 2019).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study area

This study was conducted within four GLTFCA community groups comprising, Chitsa, Malipati (Zimbabwe), Chicualacuala (Mozambique), and the Bende Mutale-Masisi communities (South Africa; Fig. 1). These communities share cultural traditions, history, and language despite being separated by country borders. The Chitsa community situated north of Gonarezhou National Park (GNP), harbors over 4000 inhabitants (ZimStats 2022) with Tsonga-speaking people being the dominant group. The community was displaced during the national park establishment. However, the community has reclaimed land ownership inside the national park that they consider to be their ancestral territory (Muboko and Bradshaw 2018). GNP asserts rights over this disputed land based on the existing legislation to protect biodiversity (Mombeshora and Le Bel 2009).

On the southern part of GNP is the Malipati community, extending into the Sengwe communal area bordering Kruger National Park (KNP). This community in Chiredzi Ward-15, is known for its low human population density, with over 12 people per km2, in contrast to the national average of about 33 people per km2 (Dhliwayo et al. 2022, ZimStats 2022). The population mainly comprises Tsonga-speaking people, separated by country borders from their counterparts in South Africa and Mozambique. Bende-Mutale, Dovho, and Masisi (Bende-Masisi) communities are situated on the South African side within Mutale local municipality bordering the KNP. The communities predominantly comprise Tshivenda-speaking people situated on the Northwestern side of KNP. Chicualacuala stretches from the KNP boundary, bordering the GNP on the Zimbabwean side. The community covers an area of 2400 km² with the most dominant community group being Tsonga. This area is also inhabited by some individuals who were subjected to voluntary resettlement for the establishment of the Limpopo National Park. Livelihoods are mainly driven by the need for food security with the majority practicing subsistence farming through crops like maize and sorghum and livestock such as cattle, goats, and chickens. Additional livelihoods are centered on ecotourism through Community Trust, NGOs, or Park employment.

Data Collection and Analysis

Q-Method

This study employs the Q-methodology (Q-study), a semi-quantitative method that combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to study subjectivity (Rost 2021). The Q-study consists of two main elements which include (i) participants ranking statements onto a grid; and (ii) factor analysis to identify viewpoints. It is reliable for systematically capturing diverse perspectives in exploring group-level experiences, like organizational culture or social attitudes. (Zabala 2014).

Developing statements (Q-set)

For concourse development, PMPs from the three key GLTFCA national parks were selected. Inductive document analysis was manually executed to systematically identify the themes addressed. These include conservation, resource management, infrastructure, tourism, stakeholder engagement, security, monitoring, and research. After categorizing the content, statements were developed based on the stipulated conservation practices for each theme, and 146 statements were initially compiled. These statements are guided by the Q-sort question: “What aspects of the park management do you consider important for your daily livelihoods?” To narrow down the number of statements to a representative set of statements (Q-set), two screening and refinement intervals were executed. In the first interval, similar statements were merged and/or eliminated to avoid redundancies and duplicates; the second interval consisted of visual inspection of the printed statements and further narrowing down the number to the final set of 49 statements, that cover all thematic clusters in a more or less equal way. The wording of the statements followed colloquial wording, avoiding scientific jargon. Subsequently, the statements were translated into Shona, Tsonga, and Venda, which are the most common local languages in all three countries. Translation and further adaptation of statements through assistance from community members were done to ensure that the statements were relevant and comprehensible.

Compliance with all necessary regulations by obtaining research permits from South Africa National Parks (SANParks research-SS798) and Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (Research permit 151/43/P/REND) was ensured, in addition to obtaining ethical clearance from the University of Johannesburg (2022-10-03/Musakwa). The research team that collected data on-site comprised both male and female researchers, supported by research assistants from each respective country, equally divided by gender (four per country). All interviewers were familiar with the local community and fluent in its native language. Additionally, the research assistants were of African origin. As we acknowledge that the researchers’ positionality may influence the research process, we made conscious efforts to reflect on how our presence might impact the sorting process. Reflective practices, including self-assessment, group discussions, and member checks with participants were employed to ensure their perspectives were accurately captured. Researchers also remained conscious of the potential power dynamics between the researchers and participants and efforts were made to foster an environment that encouraged openness and honesty in participants' responses. Post-sorting follow-up interviews with open-ended questions allowed participants to elaborate on their perspectives, clarify and expand on their responses. To ensure a diverse and inclusive sample across GLTFCA, a strategic approach of community selection from all three countries was employed. These communities were chosen based on proximity to conservation areas, historical engagement with conservation initiatives, cultural diversity, and accessibility. Participants selection employed a random sampling method which means each member of the community had an equal chance of being selected regardless of the literacy level. One hundred three participants from the selected communities participated in the Q-sort (Fig. 1), with at least 25 participants from each community. An important practical advantage of the Q-sort method is its ability to yield meaningful results from relatively small sample sizes (Dennis 1988, ten Klooster et al. 2008). Unlike conventional surveys or interviews, Q-sort is designed to sample from a concourse of perspectives, rather than from a population of people, hence the diversity of the respondents is more important than the number of respondents (ten Klooster et al. 2008, Moree 2017). Q-study enables participants to express their opinions on a wide range of topics as the structured nature of Q-sort facilitates the identification of common themes and patterns across participants, providing rich qualitative insights into shared beliefs or attitudes. Participants aged 18 and above were selected, as this age represents legal adulthood across the three countries, enabling participants to provide informed consent without legal guardians. For data management and privacy protection, identifiers that included the Q-sort number and date (e.g., 01/1911) were used for each participant. Participants were oriented to familiarize with the process and minimize potential confusion during data collection. During the sorting process further translation with the help of local assistance was utilized when necessary where further elaboration was needed. Data was then recorded manually on an A4 grid sheet to capture the participants' sorting patterns and served as the basis for data analysis. Triangulation with post-sorting interviews for each participant, was employed to enhance the validity of the findings ensuring that the sorting accurately represented the participants' perspectives. Before card collection, the grid placement image was captured to ensure that the original Q-sort arrangement was documented and preserved for reference and verification.

Data analysis

The Q-sort analysis was performed quantitatively using the qmethod package (Zabala and Held 2020) within the R software. Data was transferred into Microsoft Excel and converted to a CSV (comma-separated values) file before being loaded onto Open-Refine software for data cleaning and validation. The CSV file was saved in a separate folder for data integrity, version control, and ease of directory by the R software. Factor analysis was employed on the Q-sorts to identify the underlying factors that explain the correlations of statements (Q-set; Appendix 1) and participants (p-set). The Kaiser's Criterion was then employed to identify the number of factors to be interpreted as viewpoints. A scree plot was generated to visually depict and interpret the eigenvalues of the extracted factors, hence determining the appropriate number of factors to retain. The generated factors explained 41.1% of the dataset variance (Exp-var 41.4), meeting the threshold of 35% which is outlined in previous research (McKeown and Thomas 2013). Results were evaluated based on the factor loadings and factor array. Factor loading assesses the relationship between the P-set and a given factor. A threshold of 0.39 was used to determine the most significant variables in each factor based on Tavakol and Wetzel (2020). Factor array results determined by statement factor scores assess the degree of association between statements (Q-set) and a given factor. Each Q-sort with a standard deviation above 0.05 (P = > 0.05) was considered a distinguishing statement.

This study encountered a few limitations. While we associate location and demographic characteristics with each factor, the primary aim of this study was to identify overarching themes and perspectives related to the PMP, rather than to perform a demographic differentiation. Q-study does not encourage analyzing individual characteristics, particularly when the number of participants in each viewpoint is small (Danielson 2009). This method allows for the development of hypotheses and identification of key themes that can be further explored in subsequent, more targeted future studies (Watts and Stenner 2012). While translation, adaptation, and validation of statements were done with local community members, languages in GLTFCA communities do not have direct equivalents for certain concepts such as “sustainable development” or “empowerment”, hence not easily translatable into local languages. The high number of non-significant factor loadings implies an extensive variance in opinions, making it challenging to discern the distinct patterns represented by significant factor loadings. Furthermore, since statements are solely derived from existing PMPs at the time of the study, results are confined to the aspects mentioned in the PMPs. This may not encompass the entirety of community perspectives, particularly those that challenge or differ from the official conservation agenda. Furthermore, the statements may not account for the latest policy changes and developments due to the time lag between policy updates.

RESULTS

Our results from the sorting of 49 Q-statements underscore the spectrum of participants’ characteristics among the 103 individuals. These findings address three key research questions: (i) What aspects of the PMP are well-represented and considered important within GLFCA communities? (ii) To what extent do GLTFCA communities exhibit agreement and disagreement in their viewpoints regarding PMP? (iii) In which aspects of the PMP do community viewpoints show the most significant tensions? Using factor analysis, we identified distinct factors that capture the shared viewpoints among participants and examined areas of common agreement and disagreement to assess the overall level of consensus or divergence in these viewpoints. Statements with polarized scores within the viewpoints indicated areas of tension, highlighting divergent perspectives among participants.

Results show that 18–30 years age range has most participants constituting 41% (42/103) and out of 103 participants. Secondary level (48%) is the most significantly attained educational level, with most participants originating from Zimbabwe. Gender distribution shows a higher number of male participants, with 60 (58%) males, and 43 (42%) females. Only 8% of the participants are employed while the rest consider themselves unemployed or subsistence farmers (Fig. 2).

Based on the sorting of 49 statements (Table 2) by 103 participants the analysis yielded seven distinct viewpoints (Table 1). These viewpoints emanate from 46 Q-sorts categorized as significant factor loadings shared between factor one to seven. These significant factor loadings are associated with participants demographic characteristics shown in Appendix 1 and 2. The rest of the participants Q-sorts are considered not significant (54) while three participants are considered confounding.

Viewpoint One: Community empowerment

Viewpoint one primarily focuses on community empowerment, emphasizing educational initiatives and awareness programs. Community visits to neighboring conservation areas are considered vital for enhancing community education on environmental issues (#1/+6). This corresponds with the idea that communities are considered as starting points for environmental education (#2/+4) considering the significant role of NGOs in promoting and supporting community conservation programs (#11/+4). While there is agreement on environmental education, the viewpoint is rather critical toward local traditions and norms being the guiding principles for regulating hunting (#25/-4), underscoring the importance of adequate human–wildlife conflict management by the park as significant (#16/+5). While empowerment through environmental education is considered important, the priority of being provided with jobs opened by the national park plays an even more important role in this viewpoint (#41/+5). This “provisioning” perspective aligns with a strong disinterest in contributing to the PMPs (#23/-6), being involved in decision-making, or in the parks monitoring activities (#12/-4). However, the dilemma of balancing ecological concerns with livelihood sustainability becomes apparent, particularly considering the low relevance of preparing for sustainable livelihoods amidst climate change impacts (#44/-5). This sentiment resonates with the elimination of plants such as Lantana Camara, despite their significant role in community livelihoods which is deemed less important (#26/-5).

Viewpoint Two: Cultural heritage and ancestral land stewardship

Viewpoint two emphasizes cultural heritage and ancestral land stewardship. Access to cultural sites (#22/+4), natural resources (#21/+4), and monitoring these resources are relevant aspects for enhancing the quality of life. This also underscores the vital role of traditional knowledge as a rich source for the management of these natural resources (#4/+5). However, when it comes to participatory monitoring of community-park programs, community involvement is considered irrelevant (#15/-6). Rather, community visits to other neighboring conservation areas are important for enhancing education on matters of the environment (#1/+4). Environmental matters also entail the significance of herbivores such as elephants, buffalos, and rhinos which play an important role in biodiversity and heterogeneity of species (#32/+5). While these herbivores underscore ecological relevance, acknowledgment of corridors in connecting ecosystems and landscapes to retain ecological quality is less relevant (#28/-4).

Viewpoint Three: Participation and involvement

Viewpoint three emphasizes community involvement and participation. This viewpoint highlights community involvement in decisions regarding the park-management (#24/+5), participatory monitoring of the community-park programs (#15/+6), and capacity-building workshops which are considered vital in improving environmental skills and literacy (#3/+5). In that line, NGOs are essential in promoting and supporting the communities in natural-resource conservation programs (#11/+4). Nevertheless, the viewpoint downplays the importance of proactive conservation measures and regulatory coordination by assigning less importance to adequate park management on human–wildlife conflicts by the park (#16/-5). Furthermore, the viewpoint does not consider the need for parks in the GLTP to have harmonized rules on poaching and hunting as essential (#36/-4). It considers limiting community access to these natural resources (e.g., grass, firewood, meat) in order to maintain biodiversity as irrelevant (#20/-4). This is also reflected in the minimal attention on the elimination of invasive plants like Lantana Camara, despite their significance for community livelihoods (#26/-5).

Viewpoint Four: Wildlife protection through poaching deterring

Viewpoint four addresses wildlife protection through deterring poaching. It acknowledges the relevant and active role of the park has an active role to play in detecting and deterring illegal activities like poaching (#39/+6) and highlights the park’s need for adequate resources to combat poaching (#38/+5). There is a strong sentiment toward collaborative engagement between parks and communities to reduce poaching activities (#37/+5). Communities strongly reject the need for a formal or official way to be involved in park management (#10/-5). Rather, voluntary engagement in monitoring activities is more important (#12/+4). However, less relevance is assigned to issues relating to cultural heritage and does not consider traditional knowledge as a rich source for the management of natural resources in the park (#4/-6). Neither does the viewpoint consider direct input of community values to document their cultural history and norms as essential for the development of a cultural inventory (#49/-4).

Viewpoint Five: Conservation awareness and key species acknowledgment

This viewpoint acknowledges herbivores such as elephants, buffalos, and rhinos as key species for biodiversity and heterogeneity (#32/+6) and places little significance on the need for the park to adequately manage human–wildlife conflicts (#16/-5). Despite this little emphasis, the viewpoint acknowledges that in order to appreciate the value of their landscape, environmental education should start from the community level (#2/+5). A sense of belonging to the landscape does not trigger a commitment to care for the environment (#48/-5). This also resonates with the little relevance of the communities in voluntary monitoring activities within the park (#12/-6). In acknowledging the intrinsic value of nature, the harmonization of poaching and hunting rules and regulations within the GLTFCA is considered significant (#36/+4). Contrary to that notion, local traditions and norms are less relevant in establishing the hunting regulations in the park (#25/-4). Likewise, documenting local traditions, stories, and rituals for preservation purposes is also less important (#46/-4).

Viewpoint Six: Joint community collaboration

Viewpoint six primarily focuses on joint community collaborations in various aspects. However, the viewpoint shows some contradictions: While the collaboration between parks and communities to reduce poaching is considered highly significant (#37/+6), monitoring of endangered species is considered highly irrelevant (#31/-6). The viewpoint also underscores the necessity for joint agreements between the park and the community on access to cultural sites in the park (#19/+4) and the importance of documenting local traditions, stories, and rituals for secure preservation (#46/+4). Nevertheless, the viewpoint does not consider agreement between the community and park on identifying potential animal corridors as significant (#34/-4). Despite that, regular contact between the park and the communities in improving relations is essential (#6/+5), but engagement in various environmentally friendly initiatives for benefit sharing bears little attention (#42/-4). The strong desire in prioritizing community members for park jobs highlights the importance of fostering engagement through employment (#41/+5). However, community involvement in participatory monitoring of community-park programs is not regarded as important (#15/-4).

Viewpoint Seven: Landscape connectivity and conservation

This viewpoint presents a unique aspect attributed to landscape connectivity. Corridors are considered vital for connecting landscapes and ecosystems to retain ecological quality (#28/+5). Agreement on identification of potential animal corridors between communities and parks is highly significant (#34/+6) as joint identification of corridors provides the integration of different needs and requirements (#29/+4). This has a bearing on ecological quality of the landscape and herbivores play an important role for biodiversity and heterogeneity of species (#32/+5). While NGOs play a significant role in supporting and promoting communities in natural-resource conservation programs (#11/+4), gender-related aspects like the involvement of women in the community-park programs are firmly rejected (#45/-5). The viewpoint shows a strong disregard for community programs aimed at preventing corruption and conflicts of interest (#8/-6) but considers capacity-building workshops as essential in educating each other on environmental matters (#3/+4). Despite the conviction rooted in matters of their environment, commitment to care for the environment which maintains their livelihood is essential (#3/+4).

Commonalities and differences across viewpoints

Results reveal partial agreements through similar loadings of statements in specific viewpoints (V). This includes aspects related to community involvement in decision-making on the PMPs (#24/+1: V7, V6, V4); recognition of land rights (#35/+1: V2, V5, V7); economic cooperation (#43/+1: V2, V3, V5), and cultural heritage (#47/+1: V2, V3, V4). Additionally, two aspects which include jobs (#41/+5: V1, V6) and the importance of certain herbivores (#32/+5: V2, V7) reveal a high level of consensus. On the contrary, loadings for disagreements are most common in aspects of climate change preparedness (#44/-1: V2, V3, V6); accessing cultural sites in the park (#22/-2: V1, V5, V7); elimination of invasive species (#27/-2: V2, V3, V6); sense of belonging as trigger for taking care of the environment (#48/-1: V2, V3, V4). The highest disagreements are attributed to statements related to the management of human–wildlife conflicts (#16/-5: V3, V5); teamwork in preventing the spread of fire (#17/-5: V6, V7); and elimination of invasive plant species such Lantana Camara (#26/-5: V1, V3). The most significant tensions are between statements relating to the community involvement in participatory monitoring of community-park programs (#15, V2:-6/V3:6); the need for more resources to combat poaching (#38, V4:5/V3:-6); traditional knowledge as a rich source for natural-resource management (#4, V2:5/V4:-6); and the importance of community visits to neighboring conservation areas to enhance environmental education (#1, V1:6/ V6:-5).

DISCUSSION

The discussion section in this article elaborates and reflects upon the findings derived from three research questions: (i) What viewpoints of the PMPs are well-represented and considered important within GLFCA communities? (ii) To what extent do GLTFCA communities exhibit agreement and disagreements in their viewpoints regarding PMPs? (iii) In which aspects of the PMPs do community viewpoints show the most significant tensions?

Empowerment and cultural heritage as the most dominant aspects

Results from the Q-methodology reveal seven distinct viewpoints: community empowerment and management (V1); cultural heritage and ancestral land stewardship (V2); participation and involvement (V3); wildlife protection through poaching deterring (V3); conservation awareness and key species acknowledgment (V4); joint community collaboration (V6); and landscape connectivity and conservation (V7). Each viewpoint reflects a unique stance on the PMPs. Bourgeois et al. (2023), Broussard et al. 2023, and Cunningham et al. (2023) have previously documented diverse community perspectives in conservation contexts, a pattern that this study echoes. The diverse viewpoints within GLTFCA communities underscore enduring socio-economic priorities that often conflict with the design and interest of TFCA protagonists. Scholars have indicated that while the GLTFCA emphasize socio-economic benefits for communities, yet they remain invisible in TFCA marketing to global funding providers (Büscher 2013, Andersson et al. 2017). Further arguments assert that marketing of TFCAs typically handled by powerful organizations such as Peace Parks Foundation and World Wildlife Fund, follows neoliberal ideologies resulting in financial gains skewed in favor of these organizations at the expense of local communities (Spierenburg and Wels 2006, Andersson et al. 2017). The unmet expectations from GLTFCA by the community results in heightened dissatisfaction, mistrust and perpetuate feelings of neglect (Chibememe et al. 2014, Büscher and Ramutsindela 2015). These sentiments resonate with our findings of dominant viewpoints: V1 (22%) and V2 (22%), which echo community grievances and representing ongoing struggles for self-determination. Büscher (2013), has expressed that the neoliberal nature of the GLTFCA has taken away the power from the people to which (Andersson et al. 2017) further indicated that state-protected areas in Zimbabwe and South Africa during the 1950s developed in the context of settler-dominated political economy rather than conservation that prioritize tourism and market-based approaches that benefit external stakeholders.

Therefore, it is this legacy of resentment that continues to shape community dominant viewpoints relating to (i) economic empowerment: which entails community involvement in tourism planning and management to ensure that economic benefits, (ii) political empowerment which entails democratic decentralization in natural-resource management, and (iii) cultural empowerment which entails integrating traditional knowledge and practices in conservation strategies. Hence, V1 and V2 underscore the desire for local autonomy and a shift away from top-down conservation approaches perpetuated by the GLTFCA (Ntuli et al. 2019, Tchakatumba et al. 2019). However, PMPs present a valuable opportunity to integrate culture into tourism enriching cultural dimensions and fostering empowerment that communities ardently desire. Dowling and Pforr (2021) highlighted the success of cultural tourism, citing the significance of Indigenous cultures like the San people in the Kalahari Desert and the Himba people in northern Namibia, who have evolved into compelling “pull factors” that attract tourists in Windhoek and Swakopmund. While the integration of traditional culture into conservation appears positive, it must be approached cautiously, emphasizing open dialogue and consensus among all involved actors. Alamineh et al. (2023) indicated that traditional culture is sometimes commercialized and treated as a marketable commodity, granting tourists and industry professionals excessive control over it. Therefore, it is imperative to regularly assess the attitudes, thoughts, and feelings of communities to strike a balance between harnessing cultural capital for growth and safeguarding it.

Common agreements across viewpoints prioritizing direct, immediate, tangible benefits over those necessitating trade-offs.

Results indicate consensus statement that resonate across viewpoints. High consensus can be attributed to aspects of (i) jobs #41/+5 (V1 and V6); (ii) the importance of certain herbivore species #32/+5 (V2 and V7); (iii) harmonized rules on poaching and hunting #36/+4 (V4 and V5); and (iv) the importance of NGOs in supporting the communities in conservation programs #11/+4 (V1 and V7). These results underscore a preference for a conservation approach that directly benefits the community, as substantial benefits are mainly skewed toward powerful and external stakeholders (Spierenburg and Wels 2010, Andersson et al. 2017). Common agreement on direct, immediate, tangible benefits can be attributed to a series of social injustice that have taken more from communities than they have given leading to disrupted livelihoods. Research in GLTFCA has noted that evictions, land grabs, and restricted resource access have fostered resentment, leaving communities with limited reliability of circumstances to provide for immediate needs (Milgroom and Spierenburg 2008, Spierenburg et al. 2008). In such circumstances, seeking immediate benefits is a logical response to these challenges (Kegamba et al. 2023). Direct benefits are deemed compensatory mechanisms for the losses that they have incurred hence our results correspond to (Cumming et al. 2013) who highlighted that tangible benefits such as employment opportunities, infrastructure development, and access to education are frequently emphasized in community responses. Therefore, it is imperative that TFCAs integrate these viewpoints into their policies, as their success is largely dependent upon communities. Armitage et al. (2020) also noted that successful conservation strategies involving a balanced approach of ecological and social dimensions acknowledge that communities are more likely to support conservation when they see direct positive impacts on their quality of life.

Viewpoints highlighting tensions between different types of knowledge and recourse allocations

The study revealed that viewpoints containing statements emphasizing traditional knowledge and resource management exhibit higher levels of tension (e.g., #4 in V2:5 / V4:-6). Scholars have highlighted possession of ecological insights in GLTFCA communities that complement modern conservation approaches and often see themselves as custodians of their traditional land and associated knowledge (Tengö et al. 2017, Landon et al. 2021). Traditional knowledge in GLTFCA has been recorded in conservation of plants and animals due to medical benefits and being sacred, elephant tracking and behavior, and climate adaptation strategies, which have proved beneficial to conservation (Chibememe et al. 2014, Gore et al. 2020). Despite the proven efficacy, integrating traditional knowledge into formal conservation frameworks due to issues of recognition, intellectual property rights acknowledgment, and power dynamics between Indigenous communities and external stakeholders remains a major constraint in the GLTFCA (Spierenburg and Wels 2010, Andersson et al. 2017, Bourgeois et al. 2023). This divergence where some individuals strive to safeguard traditional practices while others embrace alternative knowledge systems owing to global influence results in tensions among community individuals. This alludes to Kodirekkala (2017) assertation that, when traditional practices are lost or diluted, communities may question the effectiveness of their traditional knowledge. While this tension affects community cohesion, integrating traditional knowledge into PMPs also influences conservation strategies as communities still possess valuable insights that have sustained biodiversity over generations (Rathwell et al.2015, Malapane et al. 2022).

Similarly, viewpoints with statements that revolve around resource allocation statements, (e.g., #38 resources to combat poaching: V4:5/V3:-6; #15 community involvement in participatory monitoring: V2:-6/V3:6), also result in high tensions. This tension stems from the inherent trade-offs and decisions involved in resource distribution. Results from this study correspond to research by Chiutsi and Saarinen, (2017) and Spierenburg et al. (2008) which underscore concerns about unfair resource distribution within GLTFCA, with some other communities and individuals claiming to have been sidelined from ecotourism benefits, state and donor-funded resources. Our findings align with Baynham‐Herd et al. (2020), who emphasized that resource allocation decisions, especially regarding community involvement in conservation, can generate tensions. These decisions introduce tensions and disputes as communities, conservation organizations, and governments grapple with the trade-offs between competing conservation and community needs (Baynham‐Herd et al. 2020).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the investigation of community viewpoints from the 103 participants through Q-methodology reveals the existence of heterogeneous perspectives held by GLTFCA communities regarding the PMPs. This paper asserts that the PMP's action plans fail to translate into meaningful actions that incorporate community concerns, resulting in unresolved socio-economic realities, leading to mixed viewpoints regarding GLTFCA. The paper emphasizes the importance of prioritizing community perspectives, advocating for proactive reassessment of conservation strategies to promote greater inclusivity and better livelihoods. Well-represented and dominant community viewpoints on the PMP in the GLTFCA reflect a variety of socio-economic concerns that align with the main grievances shaping major debates in GLTFCA. The findings of this study reveal that empowerment and cultural heritage are the most dominant aspects, with common agreements centered on viewpoints prioritizing direct, immediate, and tangible benefits. This implies the need for TFCA management to link their strategies to these aspects to effectively engage local communities. Given the challenges in community engagement faced by TFCAs, it is essential for GLTFCA policies to strengthen cultural and empowerment aspects, as well as ensure tangible benefits are prioritized in their management strategies. Conceptually, this means that TFCA studies should focus on conservation concepts that emphasize material benefits and cultural heritage. This may include provision and cultural ecosystem services coupled with relational frameworks such as “nature as culture” beyond the intrinsic “nature for nature” and instrumental “nature for society” models highlighted in the IPBES nature future frameworks (IPBES 2021).

The study also highlights the tensions between different types of knowledge and resource allocations as indicated by the distinguishing statements. While focusing on traditional knowledge might exclude those inclined toward modernization, and vice versa, identifying distinguishing statements might be argued as strength of q-methodology. Firstly, these distinguishing statements are a key insight for inclusive management: either providing diverse approaches linking to the pluralism of viewpoints or identifying other strategies of managing these tensions. These might imply (a) spatial separation: where one part of the park focuses on traditional knowledge and science on the other, or (b) temporal separation: in certain periods of the year highlighting the strength and opportunities of different knowledge systems, (c) organization separation: where some organizations focus on traditional knowledge and others that do not. Additionally, transdisciplinary approaches that bridge different types of knowledge and foster synergies can help to address these epistemological diversities. Secondly, distinguishing statements can serve as a basis for follow-up studies on demographic or locational factors. This would help identify patterns across different demographics or locations through larger survey-based studies with representative sampling. If locational patterns are identified, it could support arguments for spatial separation, such as implementing conservation approaches based on traditional knowledge in one area and modern science in another. If age-specific patterns emerge, this would support intergenerational management approaches. Similarly, if there are differences between men and women, gender-based approaches could be adopted. Furthermore, this Q-study confirms previous research on the critical issue of benefit and burden-sharing within TFCAs, a challenge that is especially pronounced in these contexts. The findings, therefore, can inform the development of follow-up management strategies, which entail direct democratic processes where representatives from all stakeholder groups negotiate equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. These insights can guide further research into what different groups across various countries perceive as fair or unfair, helping to tailor conservation approaches accordingly.

LITERATURE CITED

Abukari, H., R. B. Mwalyosi. 2020. Local communities’ perceptions about the impact of protected areas on livelihoods and community development. Global Ecology and Conservation 22:e00909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00909

Agrawal, A., C. C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4):629-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2

Alamineh, G. A., G. M. Belay, W. Ayalew, and A. Habtemariam. 2023. The negative cultural impact of tourism and its implication on sustainable development in Amhara Regional State. Cogent Arts & Humanities 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2224597

Andersson, J. A., D. Mazambani, M. Baloyi, and L. Mangwi. 2017. Transfrontier Conservation Areas: people living on the edge. First edition. In Jens A. Andersson, M. de Garine-Wichatitshky, D. H. M. Cumming, V. Dzingirai, and K. E. Giller, editors. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147376

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, and C. Cote. 2020. Governance principles for community‐centered conservation in the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Science and Practice 2(2):3160. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.160

Barry J., J. Proops. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28(3):337-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6

Baynham‐Herd Z., D. Redpath, C. Keane, and E. J. Milner‐Gulland. 2020. Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology 34(1):232-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13372

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK.

Bourgeois, R., P. Limon, S. Mathevet, R. Biggs, and B. Reyers. 2023. Using anticipation to unveil drivers of local livelihoods in Transfrontier Conservation Areas: a call for more environmental justice. People and Nature 5(2):726-741. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10446

Broussard, A., F. Dahdouh-Guebas, and J. Hugé. 2023. Diversity of perspectives in biodiversity conservation: a case study of port land use in Antwerp and Rotterdam. Journal of Environmental Management 341:117937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117937

Büscher B. 2013. Transforming the frontier: peace parks and the politics of neoliberal conservation in Southern Africa. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822399087

Büscher, B., M. Ramutsindela. 2015. Green violence: Rhino poaching and the war to save Southern Africa’s peace parks. African Affairs 115(458):1-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adv058

Chibememe, G., N. Mandizadza, and E. Munyoro. 2014. Embracing Indigenous knowledge systems in the management of dryland ecosystems in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: The case of Chibememe and Tshovani communities, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe. Biodiversity 15(2-3):192-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2014.934715

Chirozva, C. 2015. Community agency and entrepreneurship in ecotourism planning and development in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Journal of Ecotourism 14(2-3):185-203. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315205205-7

Chiutsi, S., and J. Saarinen. 2017. Local participation in transfrontier tourism: case of Sengwe community in Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, Zimbabwe. Development Southern Africa 34(3):260-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2016.1259987

Cunningham, C. A., L. Gilbert, J. Ogden, and J. Wilson. 2023. Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning. People and Nature 5(2):621-632. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10449

Danielson, S. 2009. Q method and surveys: three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods 21(3):219-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X09332082

Muzeza, D., D. Schutte, and R. Snyman. 2013. The impact of institutions of governance on communities’ livelihoods and sustainable conservation in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP): the study of Makuleke and Sengwe communities. Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa.

Cumming, D. H. M., V. Dzingirai, and G.-M. de Wichatitsky. 2013. Land- and natural resource-based livelihood opportunities in TFCAs. In Transfrontier Conservation Areas. First edition. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147376-9

Dennis, K. E. 1988. Q-methodology: new perspectives on estimating reliability and validity. Measurement of Nursing Outcomes 2:409-419.

Dhliwayo, I., G. Mukaro, and T. Makaza. 2022. Climate variability impacts and coping strategies in Malipati Communal Area, Chiredzi District, Southeast Zimbabwe. International Journal of Ecology 2022:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8493977

Dowling, R., and C. Pforr. 2021. Geotourism - a sustainable development option for Namibia. Journal of Ecotourism 20(4):371-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2021.1910699

Duffy, R. 2006. The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: the politics of transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa. Political Geography 25(1):89-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.08.001

Eagles, P. F. J., J. Coburn, and B. Swartman. 2014. Plan quality and plan detail of visitor and tourism policies in Ontario Provincial Park management plans. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8:44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.006

Gandiwa, E., F. Chama, and J. Manyanga. 2014. Local people’s knowledge and perceptions of wildlife conservation in Southeastern Zimbabwe. Journal of Environmental Protection 5(6):475-481. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2014.56050

Gore, M. L., D. Ogada, J. Magome, and R. Pitjeng. 2020. A conservation criminology-based desk assessment of vulture poisoning in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Global Ecology and Conservation 23:e01076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01076

Hanks, J. 2003. Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in Southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17(1-2):127-148. https://doi.org/10.1300/J091v17n01_08

IPBES. 2021. Report of the Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue workshop on scenarios and the Nature Futures Framework. In Peter Bates, Marco Immovilli, and Machteld Schoolenberg, editors.

IPBES. 2022. Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, C. Michael, and D. González-Jiménez, editors. Bonn, Germany.

Kegamba, J. J., M. Mnyenyo, L. Matikha, and R. Ndumo. 2023. Conservation benefit-sharing mechanisms and their effectiveness in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem: local communities’ perspectives. Biodiversity and Conservation 32(6):1901-1930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02583-1

Kodirekkala, K. R. 2017. Internal and external factors affecting loss of traditional knowledge: evidence from a horticultural society in South India. Journal of Anthropological Research 73(1):22-42. https://doi.org/10.1086/690524

Landon, A. C., T. Wilson, J. Craig, and B. Patterson. 2021. Community attachment and stewardship identity influence responsibility to manage wildlife. Society & Natural Resources 34(5):571-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1852636

Mace, G. M. 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345(6204):1558-1560. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254704

Malapane, O. L., G. Ntuli, and D. Ncube. 2022. Bibliometric analysis and systematic review of Indigenous knowledge from a comparative African perspective: 1990-2020. Land 11(8):1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081167

Massé, F., and E. Lunstrum. 2016. Accumulation by securitization: commercial poaching, neoliberal conservation, and the creation of new wildlife frontiers. Geoforum 69:227-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.005

Mazzocchi, F. 2022. Diving deeper into the concept of “cultural heritage” and its relationship with epistemic diversity. Social Epistemology 36(3):393-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2021.2023682

McKeown, B., and D.B. Thomas. 2013. Q methodology. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Milgroom, J., and M. Spierenburg. 2008. Induced volition: resettlement from the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 26(4):435-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589000802482021

Munthali, M., J. Machavi, and J. Mongoè. 2023. Community collective land stewardship contributions to sustainable rural development: lessons from Cubo, Mozambique. In Sustainable Rural Development Perspective and Global Challenges. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104212

Mombeshora, S., and S. Le Bel. 2009. Parks-people conflicts: the case of Gonarezhou National Park and the Chitsa community in south-east Zimbabwe. Biodiversity and Conservation 18(10):2601-2623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9676-5

Moree, W. 2017. Q-methodology explained by comparing Q-sort survey with conventional R-sample survey and relating factor analysis described. Civil Engineering Research Journal 1(2). https://doi.org/10.19080/CERJ.2017.01.555560

Mpofu, E., V. Radinger-Peer, W. Musakwa et al. 2023. Discourses on landscape governance and transfrontier conservation areas: converging, diverging and evolving discourses with geographic contextual nuances. Biodiversity and Conservation 32:4597–4626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02720-w

Muboko, N. 2017. The role of transfrontier conservation areas and their institutional framework in natural resource-based conflict management: a review. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 36(6):583-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2017.1320224

Muboko, N. and G. J. Bradshaw. 2018. Towards resolving local community and protected area management conflicts: lessons from the Chitsa community and Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Development and Conflict 62-79.

Musakwa, W., E. Mpofu and N. A. Nyathi. 2020. Local community perceptions on landscape change, ecosystem services, climate change, and livelihoods in Gonarezhou national park, Zimbabwe. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(11):4610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114610

Mushonga, T. 2021. The militarisation of conservation and occupational violence in Sikumi Forest Reserve, Zimbabwe. Conservation and Society 19(1):3-12. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_20_5

Muzingili, T., and T. Raymond. 2017. Culturally-inflicted child rights violation: a case of Khomba practice of Shangaan people in Zimbabwe. Journal of African Studies 7(1).

Ntuli, H., S. C. Jagers, A. Linell et al. 2019. Factors influencing local communities’ perceptions towards conservation of transboundary wildlife resources: the case of the Great Limpopo Trans-frontier Conservation Area. Biodiversity and Conservation 28(11):2977-3003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01809-5

Ntuli, H., and E. Muchapondwa. 2017. Effects of wildlife resources on community welfare in Southern Africa. Ecological Economics 131:572-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.004

Ramutsindela, M., F. Matose, and T. Mushonga. 2022. Conservation and violence in Africa. In The violence of conservation in Africa. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800885615.00010

Rathwell, K., J., D. Armitage, and F. Berkes. 2015. Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of environmental commons: a typology of settings. International Journal of the Commons 9(2):851. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.584

Rost, F. 2021. Q‐sort methodology: bridging the divide between qualitative and quantitative. An introduction to an innovative method for psychotherapy research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research 21(1):98-106. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12367

Sabuhoro, E., M. Mususa, M. Namukose, et al. 2023. Exploring the impact of community conservation enterprises on household livelihoods around two wildlife areas in sub-Saharan Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 28(2):103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2021.2015487

Sibanda, M. 2015a. Realms of conservation or wildlife liberation: a case of Sengwe in Zimbabwe. Centre for African Studies 253-272. Social Dynamics 41(2):253–272 https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2015.1072655

Sibanda, M. 2015b. Rhythms of power and institutional reengineering in conservation. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 17(2).

Sinthumule, N. I. 2023. Traditional ecological knowledge and its role in biodiversity conservation: a systematic review. Frontiers in Environmental Science 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1164900

Spierenburg, M., C. Steenkamp, and H. Wels. 2008. Enclosing the local for the global commons: community land rights in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area.

Spierenburg, M., and H. Wels. 2006. Securing space. Space and Culture 9(3):294-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331206289018

Spierenburg, M., and H. Wels. 2010. Conservative philanthropists, royalty and business elites in nature conservation in Southern Africa. Antipode 42(3):647-670. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444391442.ch7

Tavakol, M., and A. Wetzel. 2020. Factor analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. International Journal of Medical Education 11:245-247. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a

Tchakatumba, P. K., E. Gandiwa, E. Mwakiwa, B. Clegg, and S. Nyasha. 2019. Does the CAMPFIRE programme ensure economic benefits from wildlife to households in Zimbabwe? Ecosystems and People 15(1):119-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1599070

Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C. M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005

ten Klooster, P. M., M. Visser, and M. D. T. de Jong. 2008. Comparing two image research instruments: the Q-sort method versus the Likert attitude questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference 19(5):511-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.007

Thondhlana, G., S. Shackleton and E. Muchapondwa. 2011. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and its land claimants: a pre- and post-land claim conservation and development history. Environmental Research Letters 6(2):024009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024009

Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. Sage Publications, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911

Wolmer, W. 2003. Transboundary conservation: the politics of ecological integrity in the Great Limpopo transfrontier park. Journal of Southern African Studies 29(1):261-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305707032000060449

Zabala, A. 2014. qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal 6(2):163. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-032

Zabala, A., and M. Held. 2020. Package “qmethod”: analysis of subjective perspectives using Q methodology.

Zanamwe, C., E. Gandiwa, N. Muboko, O. L. Kupika, and B. B. Mukamuri. 2018. Ecotourism and wildlife conservation-related enterprise development by local communities within Southern Africa: perspectives from the greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation, South-Eastern Lowveld, Zimbabwe. Cogent Environmental Science 4(1):1531463. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2018.1531463

Zanamwe, C., E. Gandiwa, N. Muboko, O. L. Kupika, B. B. Mukamuri. 2020. An analysis of the status of ecotourism and related developments in Zimbabwe’s component of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Sustainability in Environment 5(2):p14. https://doi.org/10.22158/se.v5n2p14

ZimStats. 2022. Zimbabwe 2022 population and housing census report Volume 1.