Research

INTRODUCTION

Human-wildlife relationships and coexistence are gaining increasing attention in both academic discourses and conservation practices due to global concerns about biodiversity conservation and landscape preservation (Ceaușu et al. 2019, Balasubramaniam et al. 2021). In multiple-use landscapes such as protected conservation areas, which are shared by people and wildlife, one of the global challenges is to promote biodiversity conservation while concurrently reducing poverty and improving community livelihoods (Kansky 2022). Although local communities have traditionally shared landscapes and ancestral land with wildlife, today they do so under different terms: concerns are often raised that the protection of wildlife and nature are prioritized due to the global importance for conservation (Mombeshora and Le Bel 2009, Massé 2016, Michler et al. 2019). This is often at the expense of communities living adjacent to these protected areas. Relationships between humans and wildlife play an essential role in the governance of protected landscapes in which communities and wildlife are entangled in complex interactions and traditional natural resources governance have largely been replaced by conservation regimes (Crespin and Simonetti 2019, Kansky 2022). Protected areas as hotspots for biodiversity and wildlife are of interest for global biodiversity agendas, but they also require the willingness of local communities to coexist with wildlife (Crespin and Simonetti 2019). The most recent Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report (Brondizio et al. 2019) emphasized the importance of integrating diverse community values, perspectives, and knowledge systems into conservation strategies, and implementation measures that lack in (transfrontier) conservation approaches have been repeatedly criticized (Bourgeois et al. 2023).

The overall success of biodiversity conservation has resulted in increased wildlife populations (e.g., elephants) causing tensions and human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) with negative repercussions for local communities and their livelihood activities. Human-wildlife conflicts are considered reoccurring conflicts that impact the relationship of communities with the park management and its wildlife (Massé 2016). Such conflicts can threaten food security at household and community levels, particularly in areas with marginalized communities and subsistence farming. Livestock predation, livestock damage, crop raiding/damage, damage to housing environments, attacks on people leading to injury or loss of life are reoccurring conflicts, with foraging becoming an increasing issue more recently (Chiyo et al. 2005, Gandiwa et al. 2013, Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay 2016, Branco et al. 2019, Fehlmann et al. 2021). These conflicts can be amplified by the overlapping of compounding risks arising from HWC (e.g., elephants) and the further expanding climate crisis (droughts, flooding; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay 2016, Agence France-Presse, Harare 2024, Mutsaka and Mogomotsi 2024). Previous research indicates the overall dissatisfaction of local communities regarding responses to HWC, with a particular focus regarding fencing (e.g., location, ownership claims, park boundaries; Wolmer 2005, West et al. 2006, Dickman 2010, Guerbois et al. 2012, Muboko and Bradshaw 2018) and financial compensation (Gandiwa et al. 2013, Mutanga et al. 2017, Musakwa et al. 2020a, Perry et al. 2022). On the other hand, biodiversity, protected areas, and landscapes are also under pressure from intensified human agriculture and (informal) human activities (Muboko and Bradshaw 2018, Musakwa et al. 2020a, Sarkar et al. 2022). These activities encompass veld fires, human encroachment, land development, poaching, illegal wildlife and ivory trade, (informal and formal) resource extraction, timber and firewood extraction, and the use of non-forest products (Nyaupane et al. 2020).

Costs and burdens resulting from human-wildlife conflicts range from minor to severe tangible effects on both wildlife, people and their livelihoods, decreased food security due to crop- and livestock loss, human and wildlife injury, and property damages. It also covers intangible costs to people such as psychological stress, disruption of families, worry, and lowered individual and community well-being (Barua et al. 2013, Thondhlana et al. 2020, Salerno et al. 2021). Thus, the costs and potential burdens emerging from human-wildlife conflicts can significantly lower the acceptance of approaches that emphasize coexistence. Positive human-wildlife relationships are crucial for conservation and the governance of nature reserves or large-scale, transboundary conservation areas and landscapes (Chapron and López-Bao 2016, Pooley et al. 2017, Crespin and Simonetti 2019, Glikman et al. 2021, Knox et al. 2021, van Eeden et al. 2021, Gross et al. 2022, Jolly et al. 2022, Kansky 2022).

Over past decades, the concept of biodiversity conservation and protected area management has shifted from fortress conservation toward more integrated approaches, which aim at co-benefits of biodiversity and human well-being (Mpofu et al. 2023). Recognizing traditional knowledge systems, practices, customary institutions, and values of local communities is considered crucial for conservation efforts to safeguard nature and its contributions for local people (Brondizio et al. 2019, Mpofu et al. 2025). Different approaches, like the landscape approach, co-management, or landscape governance recognize their important role (Brondizio et al. 2019, Nyaupane et al. 2020, Omoding et al. 2020, Mpofu et al. 2023). Various scholars emphasized the role of different actors and interested parties collaborating across scales (Mombeshora and Le Bel 2009, Agranoff 2018, Musakwa et al. 2020a) and policy domains in joint decision making on various governance issues, such as natural resource use, park management, HWC, and potential mitigation measures (Gandiwa et al. 2013, Mutanga et al. 2017, Michler et al. 2019, Branco et al. 2020). Local and traditional governance approaches possess a high degree of legitimacy that can support solving park-community tensions and serve as guardians for human-wildlife relationships. Transboundary conservation areas (TFCAs) like the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park with Gonarezhou National Park (where this research is based) are considered an important example of this novel approach (Muboko 2017). Despite the general appreciation and praise of TFCAs, they are also criticized for marginalizing local perspectives, values, and interpretations and for not sufficiently considering local, traditional knowledge systems (Bourgeois et al. 2023).

Understanding frames and frame conflicts

Individual and collective perspectives, interpretations and understandings of conservation, human-wildlife conflicts, natural-resources management, and livelihoods amalgamate into so-called frames (within Q-methodology the terms factors, viewpoints, and frames are used synonymously and are the result from the factor analysis or PCA; Benford 1997, Benford and Snow 2000, Dewulf et al. 2009, Cairns and Stirling 2014, Zimmermann et al. 2022). Frames are interpretation schemes that organize experience, values, ideas, and assumptions that guide individual or collective action and practices in natural resources management and landscape governance (Dewulf 2013, Scheidel et al. 2018, Sandbrook et al. 2019, Seijo et al. 2020, Lesser et al. 2023, Shackleton et al. 2023). Frames, as dynamic, social structures that can adapt or entirely change over time, also represent changing social, environmental, cultural, or economic needs and/or interests. As such, they are useful means to illustrate complex, multifaceted matters that can differ notably within and among populations and social groups (Dewulf et al. 2009, Davies et al. 2016, Kügerl et al. 2023). Thus, frames can illustrate the diversity of perspectives on human-wildlife conflicts and protected landscape governance across and within communities. Hence, frames are not always perfectly aligned, but can also be in a state of tension, conflict, or total opposition (Dewulf et al. 2009, Norton 2012, Cairns and Stirling 2014, Davies et al. 2016). Previous research shows that frame conflicts around biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and natural resources management are very common with an impact on their current and future quality and (self-)recovery potential (Dewulf et al. 2009, Davies et al. 2016, Beland Lindahl et al. 2018, Mahlalela et al. 2022, Kügerl et al. 2023, Lesser et al. 2023). These conflicts might be rooted in competing cultural understandings of human-nature and/or human-wildlife relationships, and in how nature is valued, made-use-of, and interacted with (Neumann 2002, Liu et al. 2007, 2010, Flint et al. 2013, Muhar et al. 2018, Seijo et al. 2020, Mpofu et al. 2025). Effective co-management and (landscape-) governance approaches must navigate between these frames and opposing positions (Schön and Rein 1994, van den Hove 2006). Between-frame-conflicts (e.g., between/within local communities and/or park management) or unawareness of existing frames might stand in the way of joint decisions and hamper effective strategies and implementation (Schön and Rein 1994, Zimmermann et al. 2022). Hence, making frames and frame conflicts tangible can (1) inform (co-creative) development processes of political policies and frame-sensitive management strategies with more tailored implementation measures (van Hulst and Yanow 2016, Musakwa et al. 2020a, Mpofu et al. 2025), and (2) support the development of governance approaches that are conscious regarding local perceptions and thus benefit quality criteria for governance approaches outlined in the IPBES report. Competing or conflicting frames can produce powered landscapes that can result in overall contestation and lower acceptance for biodiversity conservation and landscape governance (Neumann 2002, Lejano and de Castro 2014, Seijo et al. 2020).

We followed the IPBES goal, aiming to value and appreciate local perspectives and values by devising different frames and uncovering nuanced perspectives on human-wildlife conflicts in the context of the governance of protected areas in Zimbabwe. To achieve this, we used Q-methodology, which is a semi-quantitative method that systematically captures and analyzes subjective frames. In recent years, the methodology has been increasingly adopted in the context of conservation, environmental planning, or even human-wildlife conflicts (Grimsrud et al. 2020, Choudhury et al. 2023, Seghezzo et al. 2024). The research aims to clarify the following research questions: (1) whether distinct frames of human-wildlife conflicts exist; (2) whether these frames are conflicting with one another and which different aspects seem relevant to causing these tensions or conflicts; and (3) to which degree frames and/or conflicting frames are community specific. Elucidating frames and potential frame conflicts supports the practice of biodiversity conservation by explaining which different frames exist on a topic and how these are received in local communities. It can illustrate that tailored approaches are necessary for different frames and that these can also differ within communities. This clarification also helps in the evaluation and fine-tuning of governance concepts (Fig. 1).

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Q-methodology (Q-study), which is an established semi-quantitative method that combines qualitative and quantitative techniques to investigate subjectivity (Rost 2021), is used in this study. It consists of two main parts: (1) participants ranking prepared statements into a grid, resembling a forced normal distribution; and (2) factor analysis to identify the distinct frames (Zabala 2014, Schmolck 2021). Q-methodology has been employed in various fields of research similar to the work presented here, including agriculture and biodiversity (Hamadou et al. 2016, Braito et al. 2020), resource management (Buckwell et al. 2020, Edgeley et al. 2020), in policy design and implementation (Davies et al. 2016, Kügerl et al. 2023), environmental planning (Grimsrud et al. 2020, Seghezzo et al. 2024), and more recently also in researching human-wildlife conflicts (Choudhury et al. 2023).

Q-set development

For this study, we opted for a theory-driven Q-set that focused on a deductive development of the concourse and subsequently the Q-statements and the Q-set. The development of the concourse was limited to articles (in English) published in academic journals that are indexed in Web of Science (WoS) to determine how academic discourses are reflected in local communities. We used a Boolean search strategy with the following keywords in various combinations: national park, human wildlife conflict, livelihoods, human wildlife relationship, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Mozambique, yielding a total of 161 articles covering the time between January 2002 and May 2022. The following criteria were used to determine which articles will be included in the further development of the Q-statements: (1) publication date and (2) citation numbers. Setting these inclusion criteria was based on the consideration to use (1) the most recent literature (up until May 2022), (2) highly cited articles that are in high demand in academia; and (3) articles published in the last decade, using the four most highly cited articles of the respective year. In case of overlaps between the categories (e.g., an article is counted in the most cited articles), the next article in the respective year was used, which resulted in a total of 54 articles for the development of the Q-sort (Appendix 1). We are aware that our choice to exclude articles published (1) in languages other than English, (2) in Scopus, i.e., indexed journals and/or academic journal using any other indexing, and/or (3) non-indexed magazines, is expected to produce a certain limitation or bias in the results, which we disclose here transparently.

The articles were analyzed in a six-steps-approach: (1) articles were inductively coded; (2) the identified codes were flagged, using previous research from Kansky (2022) as a heuristic (see Table 1); (3) similar or familiar codes were summarized and duplicates cleaned; (4) the codes were translated into statements, responding to the q-question: what influences the relationship between wildlife and the community; (5) two rounds of validation with the scientists involved in this research and a final check by a local conservation practitioner (from ZIMParks) flagging statements for inclusion in the q-set and refining wording; discussion of the flagged statements, improvement of wording, and first reduction of the initial statement set (208 statements); and ensuring readability and use of easily accessible, non-academic language. The final step (6) was a visual inspection of the remaining 63 statements to consolidate the set to 49 statements, pursuing an even representation of Kansky et al. categories (Kansky et al. 2016, 2021), by eliminating duplications and/or merging statements with comparable content. Subsequently, the statements were translated into Tsonga (Bantu language, spoken by the Tsonga people and communities, e.g., in South Africa and Zimbabwe) for use in the fieldwork, employing bilingual cards featuring both the local language and English.

The categorization of frame conflicts follows previous research from Kügerl (2023) and Morinière and Hazma (2012) distinguishing the following categories:

• slight agreement: +2 to +3
• strong agreement: +4 to +6
• slight disagreement: -2 to -3
• strong disagreement: -4 to -6
• neutral: -1, 0, +1
• strong conflict: at least 3 categories difference, occurring in at least 6 frames
• conflict: 2 categories difference, occurring in at least 5 frames
• strong tension: 2 categories difference, occurring in at least 3 frames
• tension: 1 category difference, occurring at least in 5 frames.

Study area, data collection, and analysis

Our study area consists of parts of the Gonarezhou National Park and communities located at the fringe of the national park, in particular the Chitsa and Malipati communities adjacent to the park, in the Chiredzi district, Masvingo province, in the south-eastern lowveld of Zimbabwe. Gonarezhou National Park is part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which is a transboundary conservation area spanning three countries and national parks: (1) Kruger National Park in South Africa, (2) Limpopo National Park in Mozambique, and (3) Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. Gonarezhou National Park was established as a game reserve in 1935 and promulgated to a national park in 1975 (Mombeshora and Le Bel 2009). The park’s establishment involved the forced eviction of the Tsonga ethnic group from their ancestral land. This forced eviction echoes still in current tensions. Gonarezhou National Park is rich in biodiversity hosting a significant elephant population and recovering predator populations. The park also encompasses significant landscapes and landscape elements that play an important role for the local culture and traditional community practices (http://gonarezhou.org/the-park/). The Runde, Mwenezi, Muwawa, and Save rivers traverse the park. The elevation ranges from 165 m to 578 m above sea level. Our study areas are dryland with an average annual temperature of 31 °C and an annual rainfall of 466 mm (see Fig. 2).

Gonarezhou National Park has faced challenges such as decline in tourist visitors, loss of biodiversity, and poaching. Thus, in 2013 there was a Memorandum of Understanding between Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) and Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Agency (ZPWMA) whereby FZS provided technical and budgetary assistance. Subsequently, as of 2017, Gonarezhou National Park is under the management of the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust (GCT), a conservation partnership between the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority partnered with the Frankfurt Zoological Society (GCT 2022). Gonarezhou Conservation Trust aims to both enhance biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources and to engage meaningfully with the hosting communities as key partners in conservation efforts and to support local livelihoods. The governance of GCT is guided by five key objectives referred to as the five Cs, namely, (1) conservation, (2) commercial viability, (3) community, (4) connectivity, and (5) cooperative governance.

Being next to a national park entails that the Malipati and Chitsa communities have a strong relationship with wildlife. This relationship is often defined by the communities’ coexistence with wildlife, the benefits derived from wildlife, and nature-based tourism, or by HWC experiences, which are common (White and Ward 2010, Bhola et al. 2021). The Malipati community, located in Ward 15 in the Sengwe corridor south of Gonarezhou National Park, comprises 8391 people and 1714 households as of 2012 (ZimStat 2012). The Malipati community mainly consists of the Tsonga ethnic group and is complimented by smaller ethnic groups of Ndebele, Karanga, Venda, and Shona. The Malipati community has largely withstood the history of displacement following the establishment of Gonarezhou National Park. Meanwhile, the Chitsa community occupies the northern section of Gonarezhou National Park under Headman Chitsa. Having been evicted from their ancestral land to make way for the park, the Chitsa community invaded and settled in the northern section during the Fast Track Land Reform Program in 2000 (Mombeshora and Le Bel 2009, Musakwa et al. 2020a, 2020b). The Chitsa community was granted permits by the then governor of Masvingo province, without the knowledge of the Minister of the Environment, to settle in Gonarezhou National Park. The Chitsa- and Malipati-communities’ livelihoods are mostly agriculture dependent (ZimStat 2012) and depend on rainfall-fed agriculture and the use of local natural resources. Unemployment in the communities is also rather high due to a lack of job opportunities and availability, limited mobility, and lack of formal education (ZimStat 2012).

Fieldwork and data collection

Fieldwork and data collection took place in August 2022 in communities located at the border of Gonarezhou National Park and included members of the Chitsa community (n = 61) and the Malipati community (n = 80) as well as individuals working in the park management on local and national levels, public servants on local, regional (e.g., regional district council), and ministerial levels. The fieldwork was not a one-time meeting but is part of a continuous interaction between the researchers and the local communities. The park’s liaison persons supported the fieldwork. Data collection followed a random sampling approach within the selected communities and consisted of three main parts: (1) participants sorting the statements into the grid with the forced distribution, (2) open post-sorting questions, wherein participants explained their sentiments about strongly endorsed statements (both positive and negative extremes of the forced distribution) and provided input on topics, issues, or concerns they felt were missing. The answers were immediately summarized and (3) a questionnaire covering demographics and experiences with HWCs was completed. On request from the local communities, the fieldwork was supported by young university or high school graduates who were members of the two local communities. They supported the fieldwork with translations between English and Tsonga. A total of 151 Q-sorts were collected during the fieldwork: the sampling technique followed probabilistic sampling and represents a simple random sample. Only persons who have reached the age of 18 (age of legal majority) could participate. Figure 3 illustrates that the probabilistic sampling approach resulted in a somewhat skewed sample. Although gender is almost balanced, the age distribution is centered on the younger cohorts and decreases significantly toward the older cohorts. Agriculture plays a central role as the sole or most important basis for household income. In HWC, there is a clear focus on elephants, followed by crocodiles and pythons. There are also people who have never had a conflict with wildlife. The generally lower number of HWC and experienced damages in Ward 22 might be related to the fact that 19 samples were excluded from the analysis, all of which originated from this ward. In the case of damage and casualties, the focus was on livestock damage and loss, crop damage, and human casualties.

Free prior and informed consent was obtained: the participants were informed about the research (in their preferred language), which data were collected, how they were used, stored and processed, and how the results were used. The participants could stop or refrain at any moment. Participation was not incentivized. Research and associated ethical clearance, an integral part of obtaining a mandatory research permit for research and fieldwork in national parks in Zimbabwe (competent authority: ZIMPARKS), was obtained prior to the fieldwork in 2022 (Permit Number: 2022-10-03/MUS).

RESULTS

The collected data was transferred into an Excel grid, controlled, and cleaned: 19 Q-sorts were omitted from the sample and excluded from analysis due to mistakes in the data recording. There were 132 Q-sorts analyzed in the statistical program R using the provided Q-package (Zabala 2014). Standard Q-methodology in R, employing principal component analysis (PCA) and varimax rotation, was used to identify patterns and distinct factors. The analysis showed that the extraction of 10 factors (frames) accounted for 70% of the explained variance (minimum level 35–40%; Watts and Stenner 2012), and met the following characteristics: (1) Eigenvalue > 1.0 and (2) at least two Q-sorts loading significantly on the respective factor; the significance level is 0.37 (2.58 × (1/√49), 49 = no. of items in the Q-set, p < 0.01 level; Watts and Stenner 2012). Further analysis was supported by crib sheets illustrating the highest and lowest ranked statements of each factor (factor arrays), the Z scores (i.e., normalized factor scores), and key aspects from the three questions asked during the post-sorting conversations (Stenner et al. 2008, Watts and Stenner 2012).

The Q-sort exercise, featuring 49 statements sorted by 132 participants, resulted in 10 distinct frames (significance level 0.37), which satisfies the required threshold on Eigenvalues (> 4) and explains 70% of the samples (Watts and Stenner 2012). Notably, frames 1, 2, and 3 are more strongly populated (explaining 30% of the entire samples, relative to 40% of the samples loading on one or more frames; see Table 2, Fig. 3). Frames 4–6, 8, and 10 fell within a smaller range (explaining 27% of the entire sample, relative values between 7–9%). Frames 7 and 9, although small, still meet the required Eigenvalues. Ten participants loaded on two frames, and one participant loaded on three frames (see Fig. 3). Forty participants (30%) did not load on any frame (Appendix 2).

Frame 1: human wildlife relationship and livelihood nexus

This frame is characterized by very strong perceptions on human-wildlife interactions and community livelihoods: wildlife encroaching on fields and villages is considered a misdemeanor (#48/+5, read statement 48, score +5) and losses related to these encroachments (e.g., livestock, crops) are expected to be compensated (+43/+6). On the other hand, letting domestic animals and livestock enter protected areas is not considered an illicit practice (#22/-5). Representatives of this frame believe that harvesting of local resources in the park is crucial to sustain livelihoods (#11/-4) and that more overlapping areas between wildlife and community areas causes worries about farming opportunities and food provision in the future (#15/-4). Nevertheless, preventing HWC is considered a more sustainable solution than compensation (#28/+5), and communities should contribute by agreeing and deciding on the location of protective fences (#35/+4). Relocation and displacement of communities for the sake of biodiversity and wildlife conservation are strongly rejected (#20/-6), also in cases of increasing HWC, relocation is considered illegitimate (#16/-5). Although economic benefits are to some degree considered a priority in the context of protected areas and conservation (#5/4), interested and actively engaged communities in the park’s conservation goals and objectives are regarded as less important (#19/-4, scoring lower than in any other frame).

Frame 2: global biodiversity conservation efforts with local economic co-benefits

Frame 2 strongly emphasizes the role of economic benefits for local communities (#5/+6) and the importance of conservation for the improvement of the local liveability (#47/+4). Prioritizing wildlife protection to secure global biodiversity receives strong support (#40/+5). Against this backdrop, there is a notable inclination toward regulating the use of local natural resources in favor of conservation and wildlife (#39/+4), and the role of policing and sanctioning of illegal human activities to ensure compliance to regulations receives stronger agreement than in any other frame (#26/+4). Excluding local communities from the park and natural resources use has little impact on the community-wildlife relationships (#7/-5). Encounters with wildlife are not considered terrifying events (#6/-6), and these reoccurring problems have neither lowered the individual interest in conservation (#32/-4) nor the community’s trust in the park management (#29/-5). Stronger than in any other frame, there is an agreement that the park has created more empathy toward wildlife and conservation (#38/5), and that local communities should be interested and actively engaged in the park’s goals and objectives (#40/+5).

Frame 3: conservation as global necessity for threatened wildlife

The core of this frame consists of wildlife conservation from a global perspective: it emphasizes the pivotal importance for global biodiversity to protect wildlife (34/5) but explicitly rejects resettlement of communities for these purposes (#20/-5). Contrary to any other identified frame, greater negative impacts on conservation and human-wildlife are expected due to increased human activities (34/+5) and climate change (#2/6). Overuse of local, natural resources is threatening ecosystems (#39/4) and requires regulations in favor of conservation and wildlife (#39/4). The need for training programs on responsible resource-use for local communities (#42/3) received stronger support than in any other frame. It is the only frame that characterizes powerful actors as unwilling to share their power with local communities (#27/3), and that the lacking devolution of rights will keep communities as passive actors in governance and decision making. This frame shows a strong sentiment on the perceived inadequate protection of local communities through wildlife fences (#8/-6). In strong opposition to the frames 1, 6, and 10, wildlife encroaching fields and villages is not considered a malpractice (#48/-5).

Frame 4: wildlife as a significant risk for communities that requires strict prevention measures

Frame 4 underlines the importance of HWC-prevention (28/5): fences are sufficiently protecting communities against wildlife (#8/6) when communities are consulted and agree on the fences’ locations (#35/4). Conflicts with wildlife are considered a major risk for the community (#12/4) and have created intra-community tensions (#3/4). Against this background, representatives of this frame identify an unjust distribution of benefits and burdens from wildlife and conservation (tourism). The frame rejects the conceptualization that the park and wildlife represent rich elites (#25/-5), and that powerful actors are unwilling to share power with local communities to become involved in decision making. However, in this frame, the suggested co-creation of rules for the use and management of natural resources ranks lower than in any other frame (#30/-3). This frame is the only one that addresses poaching in the context of the COVID crisis: it does not identify a causality between COVID and a need for “subsistence poaching” (#33/-6), which is in stark contrast to frame 10.

Frame 5: conservation for economic benefits and liveability

The core content of Frame 5 emphasizes the role of economic nature conservation for local economic benefit (#5/5) and community liveability (#47/6). Encounters with wildlife are experienced as rather terrifying events (#6/4), while empathy toward harmed, killed, and distressed wild animals ranks comparatively low (#21/-4). Fear from wildlife might relate to the strong emphasis on the community agreement regarding the location of fences (#35/5), the call for training and knowledge provision by the park to improve the management of wildlife (conflicts; #10/4), and lower potential social inequalities due to the herding needs and the protection of livestock also in the park (e.g., kids missing school; #45/4; #22/-4). Governance, focusing on conservation and park management, strongly grounded in partnerships among different actors and organizations, is notably rejected (#36/-5). The correlation between factor scores shows thematic overlaps and thematic proximity between frame 1 and 5 (r = 0.46).

Frame 6: power to the community

The central core of Frame 6 is liveability and the support of liveability for community members (#47/6), which links this frame to F5 and F2. It illustrates tensions within the community related to wildlife-conflicts (#3/5): these tensions might be connected to encroaching wildlife in villages and fields (#48/5) and the perceived need to harvest natural resources in the park to sustain livelihoods (#11/4). Interpersonal and societal appreciation for damages, livestock loss, and as a contribution to conservation, are not considered suitable replacements for financial compensation payments (#43/-5). The importance of community structures and traditional rules guiding the park and wildlife management (#41/3) and the transfer of power and rights to local communities (#49/4) rank higher than in any other frame. Increasing HWC is no legitimate cause to displace local communities (#16/-6). This group does not recognize wildlife as part of their identity. This perspective is rated lower than in all other frames (#13/-4).

Frame 7: conservation first

Representatives of Frame 7 strongly prioritize conservation. It is acknowledged that wildlife-conflicts have created tension within communities (#3/6). Interpersonal and societal appreciation (#17/5) and financial compensation (#43/4) are appreciated to compensate for various damages. Both the potential risk for communities to co-exist with wildlife (#12/-5) and conflict prevention as a more sustainable solution than financial compensation (#28/-2 lower than in any other frame) are ranked low. Personal actions against problematic animals to protect the community and personal livelihoods are also rejected (#31/-5). In parallel, letting domestic animals encroach on the park is considered a malpractice (#22/5). What makes this frame unique is that cultural and spiritual values of nature and wildlife are ranked lowest (#23/-6).

Frame 8: wildlife empathy

Frame 8 reveals a deeply positive sentiment toward the role of nature for communities: they perceive nature and community as a joint entity (#14/6), show empathy toward distressed, harmed, or killed wildlife (#19/4), and do not consider wildlife encounters as terrifying experiences (#6/-6). Although there is a general positive attitude toward wildlife, representatives of this frame also perceive fences as an insufficient measure to protect communities from wildlife (#8/-4). Although the exclusion from the park and its natural resources is considered a continuation of previous injustices (#7/5), they also believe that encroachment of domestic animals into protected areas is a malpractice (#22/5). From their perspective, the increase in human activities (e.g., settlement development, farming) will not result in a substantial impact on wildlife (#34/-4), which corroborates with the perspective that training programs to avoid over-exploitation of local natural resources (#42/-4) only play a minor role. Relatively low-scoring aspects are unjust benefit sharing (#1/-5) and profit making at the expense of community members (#37/-5). In parallel, reasonably high value is attributed to responsible reporting of benefits and revenues to the park management (#18/4). Although the interest and involvement of communities in the park’s objectives and conservation management are acknowledged (#19/4), less emphasis is placed on the formal devolution of rights to local communities to spur their active engagement (#49/-2), ranking lower than in any other frame.

Frame 9: disinterest in wildlife and conservation

Frame 9 is a niche with very low abundance characterized by disinterest and an adverse sentiment to wildlife and conservation: empathy toward wildlife in distress or harm (#21/-6, scoring lowest) and the role of wildlife for functioning ecosystems (#46/-4) score lower than in any other frame. The prioritization of conservation to protect global diversity is strongly opposed (#40/-5), and reoccurring HWC have lowered the individual interest in conservation (#32/4) and the trust in the park management (#29/5). Nevertheless, interest and engagement in the park/conservation objectives (#19/5) and partnerships and the devolution of rights (#49/3) are required for the management of conservation and natural resources (#19/5). Social inequalities resulting from herding because livestock protection is strongly confirmed (#45/6), whereas compensation measures for livestock damages or crop losses (#43/-5) and community monitoring of compensation payments spot are rather opposed (#9/-3). Contrary to other frames, there is a minimal assent to relocate communities because of increasing HWC (#16/1).

Frame 10: spiritual and cultural values of wildlife and nature

Frame 10 is characterized by strong empathy toward wildlife and appreciating wildlife and nature as a bio-cultural value: empathy is expressed in sadness when wildlife experiences harm, death, or distress (#21/6). It is the only frame in which spiritual and cultural values and living in close relation with wildlife and nature (#23/4) are positively signified. This positive attitude toward wildlife is shared with Frame 8, but nature and community are not understood as a joint entity (#14/-4, scoring lower than in any other frame). In this frame, human-wildlife relationships are perceived in a nuanced fashion. Although coexistence is in general not perceived as a big risk for communities (#12/-6), they regard subsistence farmers at higher risks from wildlife than commercial ones (#44/4) and livestock herding as causing social inequalities (#45/4). Encroachment of domestic animals in protected areas is considered less of a malpractice (#22/-5), whereas wildlife entering agricultural land and villages is considered problematic (#48/5). Contrary to any other frame, they perceive the COVID crisis as a driver for (subsistence) poaching (#33/5). However, conflicts with wild animals neither resulted in lowered individual interest in conservation (#32/-5) nor in intra-community tensions (#3/-4). Scoring lower than in any other frame is the statement that benefits and revenues from the park should be properly reported to the park management (#18/-3).

The results show that frames spread across the sampled populations, but there are smaller clusters (see Fig. 4): F1, F2, and F3 have a focus in the Malipati community. However, F4–F6 and F9–F10 focus on the Chitsa community. Initially, we expected a distinct cluster related to park management and policy, but this expectation turned out to be untrue.

DISCUSSION

We characterized 10 distinct frames as a result of our analysis. The third research question focused on potential tensions and/or conflicting frames. Our study identified 10 different frames on human-wildlife relationships. In contrast to other studies, which focused on selected aspects of HWC (Buchholtz et al. 2020, Ntuli et al. 2021), we took a systemic perspective on human-wildlife relationships to elucidate their complexities and their relations to protected landscapes governance. Although there are 10 distinct frames, Frame 1 (human wildlife relationship and livelihood nexus), Frame 2 (global diversity conservation efforts with local co-benefits), and Frame 3 (conservation as global necessity for threatened wildlife) occur mainly in the Malipati community.

Remarkably, the results show consistent (strong) disagreement on various issues and aspects across the extracted frames, while there is very little consensus or similar perspectives across the extracted frames. The issues in which the results indicated a (strong) disagreement and divergence of opinion pertain to (1) the legitimacy of displacing communities for the purpose of protecting biodiversity and wildlife (#13, F1-F6); (2) the justification of resettling communities in response to human-wildlife conflicts (#16, F1–F2; F4–F8, F10); (3) the adverse effects on biodiversity caused by the intensification of human activities (#34; F1–2, F4, F6–8, 10); (4) the necessity of harvesting natural resources in the park to support livelihoods (F1–F5, F9–10); and (5) the COVID crisis prompting subsistence poaching (F2, F4–7). These findings align with existing research on institutional dimensions of human-wildlife interactions, such as the exacerbation of resource scarcity due to the overlapping of residential, agricultural land uses into habitat areas (Gandiwa et al. 2013, Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay 2016) as well as restricted access to natural and cultural resources (Guerbois et al. 2013, Musakwa et al. 2020a). An additional point of contention across the frames involved (7) the societal and value placed on enduring damages in lieu of financial compensation (F1, F3; F5–6, F10) and (8) the perception of the park representing and catering to affluent elites (#25, F1–F7). This corresponds with contemporary discussions on HWC-related damages that remain inadequately compensated (Gandiwa et al. 2013, Musakwa et al. 2020a) as well as the role of compensation schemes as targeted policy instruments aimed at improving tolerance in human-wildlife relations (Anthony 2021, Perry et al. 2022). The diverging frames have been recognized as impeding collaborative planning efforts among policymakers, conservation officials, and communities (Gray 2004). As these collaborative initiatives progress, reframing is frequently necessary to facilitate continued cooperation. Such reframing helps to (re-)align actors’ perspectives, fostering a shared understanding at least on a basic level that is crucial for complex conservation challenges (Ranger et al. 2016, Kuster et al. 2024). Without these efforts, entrenched disagreements may persist, undermining the potential for sustainable human-wildlife coexistence.

The results indicate a modest consensus across frames with convergence on several key points, including: (1) the contribution of wildlife conservation to enhancing the liveability of community members (#47, F1–2, F5–6, F8); (2) the necessity of devolving rights to activate and empower local communities (#49, F3, F5–7, F9); (3) the reporting of benefits and revenues from the park to its management (#18; F1, F4–5, F8); (4) the provision of knowledge and training to address and handle wildlife (conflicts; #10; F1, F3, F5, F7–8; F10); (5) concerns regarding local farming and food security due to increased overlap between wildlife habitats and community areas (housing, agriculture; #15, F5–6, F7–8); and (5) community-led monitoring of financial compensation payments (#9, F1–3, F5). These findings strongly align with prior research emphasizing the critical role of communities and trust-building efforts in the governance of protected landscapes and the realization of conservation goals (Matseketsa et al. 2019). Moreover, the focus on compensation payments and the importance of community monitoring reflect existing scholarship, which advocates for increased accountability and transparency of financial compensation schemes within conservation programs (Shereni and Saarinen 2021). Such agreements underscore the call for collaborative governance structures that place communities more in the center of conservation efforts, ensuring that benefits are equitably distributed, community needs are adequately addressed, and conflicts are mitigated through inclusive, transparent, decision making-processes that complement distributive with procedural justice aspects (Martin et al. 2016, Ruano-Chamorro et al. 2022). These aspects acknowledge that conservation and inclusive decision making require integrated approaches that consider competing values, power dynamics, perception, problem perspectives, and potentially even conflicting goals (Sayer 2013, Reed et al. 2016, 2019, Levin et al. 2018, Ros-Tonen et al. 2018, Mugo et al. 2022). The academic discourses identify power struggles in conservation and protected landscape governance to two main interrelated dimensions: the unequal distribution of property rights (Lenggenhager and Ramutsindela 2021) and the lasting impacts of colonial legacies, which continue to shape present day power structures (Sibanda 2015, Chiutsi and Saarinen 2017, Bourgeois et al. 2023). Power structures and power asymmetries are intricately linked to roles, capacities, and resources of different actors in shaping agendas, and interacting in and influencing decision-making processes (Görg 2007, Lazdinis et al. 2019, Amaruzaman et al. 2022). These diverse actor constellations are critical in discussing and mediating conflicting frames and driving conversations and negotiations. Even if the legal mandate focuses or is even limited to conservation, it is crucial that conservation areas take an active role in integrated landscape governance approaches.

Our results demonstrate significant frame conflicts across all categories, with the exception of “intangible benefits,” which remains on a lower conflict level. Conflicting perspectives emerge across frames regarding (1) the community’s diminished trust in park management due to recurring human-wildlife conflict issues (#29, strong agreement F1 + F9/ strong disagreement F2 + F4); (2) intra-community tensions as a result of wildlife conflicts (#3; strong agreement F4 + F6 + F7/strong disagreement F3 + F10); (3) the encroachment of domestic animals into the park and vice versa (#22, strong agreement F6–9; strong disagreement F1, F3, F9–10; #48: strong agreement F1, F6, 10/strong disagreement: F3); (4) the possibility of community-wildlife coexistence (#12: strong agreement F4, 9/strong disagreement: F7, 10); and (5) financial compensation for damages and/or crop loss (#43: strong agreement F1, F7/strong disagreement: F6, 9). Overall, the results reveal highly polarized frames with minimal overarching common consensus or dissent, but instead, reveal a sharp division of perspectives on the issues examined. These findings also suggest that park officials do not represent a unified group with uniform or streamlined perceptions, values, and experiences; nor are the communities to be considered entirely cohesive groups. Rather intra- and inter- community frame conflicts are evident and span across a wide range of topics and concern, again highlighting the complexity of these relationships. This underlines the need for nuanced approaches in conservation planning and landscape governance that adequately account for the diversity of perspectives and take them into account across but also within communities.

The results show some commonalities but also significant frame conflicts within and between the communities. In the Malipati community, consensus is found on the prioritizing of wildlife for global biodiversity (#40), the role of wildlife for biodiversity (#46), and the importance of economic benefits for the communities (#5). Institutional aspects like financial compensation payments for wildlife damages (#9) and training programs (#42, #10) to prevent over-use and mitigate HWC are also areas of agreement. Both communities reject displacement of communities to protect wildlife and biodiversity (#20) and mitigate increased HWC (#16). The displacement of communities to create buffer zones around conservation areas have caused restricted and disrupted access to their cultural heritage (e.g., ancestral land) and natural resources without always providing suitable and equitable alternatives (Chibememe et al. 2014, Thondhlana et al. 2020). Accessibility and limitations surrounding these traditional land-use practices have sparked continuous controversies between communities and conservation actors. Previous research indicated that conservation authorities are required to acknowledge and appreciate the communities’ role as landscape stewards and their active role in natural-resources governance (Landon et al. 2021).

However, notable disagreements exist, particularly around the need to harvest natural resources in the park for livelihoods (#11), and the perceived difficulty of balancing conservation with improved livelihoods (#22). Strong frame conflicts arise within the community especially between Frame 1 (strong agreement) and Frame 3 (strong disagreement) regarding whether wildlife encroachment into communal agricultural land is criminal. Conflicts also occur over governance issues, including the need for community engagement in conservation management (#19) and the diminished trust in park authorities due to recurring wildlife issues (#29). In the Chitsa community, there is a strong agreement that herding as a protective measure creates social injustices (#45), and that the lack of devolved decision-making power keeps communities passive in conservation (#49). This aligns with moderate agreement that wildlife conflicts have decreased the individual’s interest in conservation (#32). These findings strongly resonate with other studies on community participation and inclusive decision making on protective measures, fence placement, property rights, and land-ownership claims that are strongly related to questioning existing park boundaries (West et al. 2006, Dickman 2010, Guerbois et al. 2012, 2013, Muboko and Bradshaw 2018). Protected areas in Africa, like Kruger National Park in South Africa and Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe, were established on ancestral lands, leading to ongoing tensions between communities and conservation. Recognizing these historical challenges and promoting continuous engagement on a level playing field are crucial to achieve agreeable conservation outcomes. Integrated governance approaches that balance environmental needs, local perceptions and values, land-use choices, and socioeconomic necessities (Riggs et al. 2021, Ros-Tonen et al. 2021, Amaruzaman et al. 2022, Gonçalves and Pinho 2022) can provide an entry point to actively address existing frame conflicts. Previous research shows that such integrated strategies are essential for mitigating habitat and ecosystem loss and fragmentation, supporting the conservation of and coexistence with global key species such as a (snow) leopards, lions (Sultan et al. 2022, Rogan et al. 2022), and migratory mega-herbivores like elephants (Ngouhouo Poufoun et al. 2016, Gross et al. 2022, van de Water et al. 2022a, 2022b).

Clear-cut frame conflicts between the two communities emerge only to a limited extent because the outcomes are diverse and marked by conflictual and tense relationships both within and between frames. Notable frame conflicts include differing views on empathy toward harmed, killed, and distressed animals (#21), with Malipati expressing strong to slight agreement and Chitsa showing strong disagreement. Similar divisions arise over whether wildlife conflicts have created tensions in communities (#3), have resulted in financial compensation for damages caused by wildlife (#43), and whether the prioritization of conservation and wildlife protection achieves global biodiversity targets (#40). In this context, our study contributes valuable insights to ongoing discussions on (1) the need for innovative approaches to address the complexity of human-wildlife relationships (Kansky 2022) and (2) the importance of closely monitoring conflicts, diverging perspectives, and mindsets in protected area- and landscape governance (Mpofu et al. 2023, Shackleton et al. 2023). These frame conflicts help illuminate the stakes, interactions, and relationships among various actors such as practitioners, individuals, communities, local authorities, and government agencies. They also reveal deeply embedded power dynamics and asymmetries, and provide insights why certain governance or conservation approaches fail, highlighting the measures required to address these issues (Turnhout and Purvis 2020, Shackleton et al. 2023).

From a policy and practice perspective, identifying frames and potential frame conflicts can help uncover possible rift lines within and between communities. Recent research highlights that transfrontier conservation areas face particular challenges in this regard because local communities often prioritize socioeconomic benefits, whereas policymaking continues to focus mainly on wildlife and biodiversity conservation (Mpofu et al. 2025). A continued failure to meet community expectations and needs (such as adequate compensation for total crop losses) can lead to growing mistrust and dissatisfaction with the national park, its actors, and its broader goals. Hence, frames resulting from Q-sort studies can support policymakers in developing more place-based policies and tailored implementation measures that are socially accepted and thus more likely to be implemented. From a procedural perspective, frames also provide insights into compounding issues that may arise in community engagement and participatory policy (implementation) processes. Our research supports the findings of Armitage et al. (2020), which emphasized that community-centered conservation approaches can only achieve their intended social, economic, and ecological outcomes if cultural contexts, past injustices, traditional or even spiritual perspectives, and local grievances are meaningfully addressed: Q-methodology can serve as a helpful tool in this regard.

CONCLUSION

We employed the concept of frames to illuminate the diverse and often conflicting perspectives on human-wildlife relationships of communities in close relation to protected areas. Our investigation identified 10 distinct frames regarding these relationships, highlighting the complexity and variability of actor perceptions, mindsets, and preferences. These findings resonate with recent calls to navigate the intricacies of human-wildlife dynamics, conflicts, and controversies in protected area governance. They further underscore the notion that a one-fits-all approach to conservation is inadequate.

West et al. (2006) argued that national parks are inextricably linked to the cultures and lived realities of neighboring communities. With the consequences of climate change and the impacts that will affect landscapes in Sub-Saharan Africa, these conflicting frames will drift even further apart or intensify in the future because human-wildlife conflicts and competition for resources will increase (IPCC 2022). The extent to which these climate change effects will realign biodiversity conservation as a whole and open up a new playing field will have to be assessed in the future. Q-methodology can contribute to exploring and contextualizing the frames and perspectives involved (Zimmermann et al. 2022).

LITERATURE CITED

Agence France-Presse. 2024. Zimbabwe orders cull of 200 elephants amid food shortages from drought. The Guardian, 14 September. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/14/zimbabwe-orders-cull-of-200-elephants-amid-food-shortages-from-drought

Agranoff, R. 2018. Local governments in multilevel governance: the administrative dimension. The Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group, Lanham, Maryland, USA. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781666999075

Amaruzaman, S., D. Trong Hoan, D. Catacutan, B. Leimona, and M. Malesu. 2022. Polycentric environmental governance to achieving SDG 16: evidence from Southeast Asia and Eastern Africa. Forests 13(1):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010068

Anthony, B. P. 2021. Paying for the past: the importance of fulfilling promises as a key component to resolving human–wildlife conflict. Sustainability 13(13):7407. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137407

Armitage, D., P. Mbatha, E.-K. Muhl, W. Rice, and M. Sowman. 2020. Governance principles for community‐centered conservation in the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Science and Practice 2(2):e160. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.160

Balasubramaniam, K. N., S. S. K. Kaburu, P. R. Marty, B. A. Beisner, E. Bliss-Moreau, M. E. Arlet, N. Ruppert, A. Ismail, S. A. M. Sah, L. Mohan, S. Rattan, U. Kodandaramaiah, and B. McCowan. 2021. Implementing social network analysis to understand the socioecology of wildlife co-occurrence and joint interactions with humans in anthropogenic environments. Journal of Animal Ecology 90(12):2819–2833. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13584

Barua, M., S. A. Bhagwat, and S. Jadhav. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157:309–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014

Beland Lindahl, K., A. Johansson, A. Zachrisson, and R. Viklund. 2018. Competing pathways to sustainability? Exploring conflicts over mine establishments in the Swedish mountain region. Journal of Environmental Management 218:402–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.063

Benford, R. D. 1997. An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry 67(4):409–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00445.x

Benford, R. D., and D. A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611–639.

Bhola, N., H. Klimmek, N. Kingston, N. D. Burgess, A. van Soesbergen, C. Corrigan, J. Harrison, and M. T. J. Kok. 2021. Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy. Conservation Biology 35(1):168–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13509

Bourgeois, R., C. Guerbois, N. Giva, P. Mugabe, B. Mukamuri, R. Fynn, W. Daré, M. Motsholapheko, L. Nare, E. Delay, R. Ducrot, J. Bucuane, S. Mercandalli, C. Le Page, and A. Caron. 2023. Using anticipation to unveil drivers of local livelihoods in transfrontier conservation areas: a call for more environmental justice. People and Nature 5:726–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10446

Braito, M., H. Leonhardt, M. Penker, E. Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, G. Thaler, and C. G. Flint. 2020. The plurality of farmers’ views on soil management calls for a policy mix. Land use policy 99:104876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104876

Branco, P. S., J. A. Merkle, R. M. Pringle, L. King, T. Tindall, M. Stalmans, and R. A. Long. 2020. An experimental test of community‐based strategies for mitigating human-wildlife conflict around protected areas. Conservation Letters 13(1):e12679. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12679

Branco, P. S., J. A. Merkle, R. M. Pringle, J. Pansu, A. B. Potter, A. Reynolds, M. Stalmans, and R. A. Long. 2019. Determinants of elephant foraging behaviour in a coupled human‐natural system: is brown the new green? Journal of Animal Ecology 88(5):780–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12971

Brondizio, E. S., J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo. 2019. The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673

Buchholtz, E. K., L. A. Fitzgerald, A. Songhurst, G. P. McCulloch, and A. L. Stronza. 2020. Experts and elephants: local ecological knowledge predicts landscape use for a species involved in human-wildlife conflict. Ecology and Society 25(4):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11979-250426

Buckwell, A., C. Fleming, M. Muurmans, J. C. R. Smart, D. Ware, and B. Mackey. 2020. Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method. Ecological Economics 177:106781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106781

Cairns, R., and A. Stirling. 2014. ‘Maintaining planetary systems’ or ‘concentrating global power?’ High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering. Global Environmental Change 28:25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.005

Ceaușu, S., R. A. Graves, A. K. Killion, J.-C. Svenning, and N. H. Carter. 2019. Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human-wildlife coexistence. Conservation Biology 33(3):543–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13241

Chapron, G., and J. V. López-Bao. 2016. Coexistence with large carnivores informed by community ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31(8):578–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.06.003

Chibememe, G., N. Muboko, E. Gandiwa, O. L. Kupika, V. K. Muposhi, and G. Pwiti. 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

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

Chiyo, P. I., E. P. Cochrane, L. Naughton, and G. I. Basuta. 2005. Temporal patterns of crop raiding by elephants: a response to changes in forage quality or crop availability? African Journal of Ecology 43(1):48–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00544.x

Choudhury, U. R., J. D. Margulies, D. Mariyam, B. R. Rajeev, and K. K. Karanth. 2023. Seeing animals like a state? Divergent forester subjectivities and the managing of human-wildlife conflicts in South India. Geoforum 147:103892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103892

Crespin, S. J., and J. A. Simonetti. 2019. Reconciling farming and wild nature: integrating human-wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework. Ambio 48(2):131–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1059-2

Davies, W., J. Van Alstine, and J. C. Lovett. 2016. ‘Frame conflicts’ in natural resource use: exploring framings around Arctic offshore petroleum using Q-methodology. Environmental Policy and Governance 26(6):482’497. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1729

Dewulf, A. 2013. Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation. WIREs Climate Change 4(4):321–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.227

Dewulf, A., B. Gray, L. Putnam, R. Lewicki, N. Aarts, R. Bouwen, and C. van Woerkum. 2009. Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human relations 62(2):155–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708100356

Dickman, A. J. 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13(5):458–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x

Edgeley, C. M., A. M. Stasiewicz, and D. H. Hammond. 2020. Prioritizing research needs in natural resources: using Q-methodology as a focus group discussion tool. Journal of Forestry 118(6):569–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa035

Fehlmann, G., M. J. O’riain, I. FÜrtbauer, and A. J. King. 2021. Behavioral causes, ecological consequences, and management challenges associated with wildlife foraging in human-modified landscapes. BioScience 71:40–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa129

Flint, C. G., I. Kunze, A. Muhar, Y. Yoshida, and M. Penker. 2013. Exploring empirical typologies of human-nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape and Urban Planning 120:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002

Gandiwa, E., I. M. A. Heitkönig, A. M. Lokhorst, H. H. T. Prins, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Ecology and Society 18(4):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05817-180407

GCT. 2022. The Park. 2020. http://gonarezhou.org/the-park/.

Glikman, J. A., B. Frank, K. A. Ruppert, J. Knox, C. C. Sponarski, E. C. Metcalf, A. L. Metcalf, and S. Marchini. 2021. Coexisting with different human-wildlife coexistence perspectives. Frontiers in Conservation Science 2:703174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.703174

Gonçalves, C., and P. Pinho. 2022. In search of coastal landscape governance: a review of its conceptualisation, operationalisation and research needs. Sustainability Science 17(5):2093–2111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01147-6

Görg, C. 2007. Landscape governance: the “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 38(5):954–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.004

Gray, B. 2004. Strong opposition: frame‐based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14(3):166–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.773

Grimsrud, K., M. Graesse, and H. Lindhjem. 2020. Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: a better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management. Ecological Economics 170:106588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106588

Gross, E. M., J. G. Pereira, T. Shaba, S. Bilério, B. Kumchedwa, and S. Lienenlüke. 2022. Exploring routes to coexistence: developing and testing a human-elephant conflict-management framework for African elephant-range countries. Diversity 14(7):525. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14070525

Guerbois, C., E. Chapanda, and H. Fritz. 2012. Combining multi-scale socio-ecological approaches to understand the susceptibility of subsistence farmers to elephant crop raiding on the edge of a protected area. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(5):1149–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02192.x

Guerbois, C., A.-B. Dufour, G. Mtare, and H. Fritz. 2013. Insights for integrated conservation from attitudes of people toward protected areas near Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. Conservation Biology 27(4):844–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12108

Hamadou, I., N. Moula, S. Siddo, M. Issa, H. Marichatou, P. Leroy, and N. Antoine-Moussiaux. 2016. Mapping stakeholder viewpoints in biodiversity management: an application in Niger using Q methodology. Biodiversity and Conservation 25(10):1973–1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1175-x

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. First edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

Jolly, H., T. Satterfield, M. Kandlikar, and S. Tr. 2022. Indigenous insights on human-wildlife coexistence in southern India. Conservation Biology 36(6):e13189 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13981

Kansky, R. 2022. Unpacking the challenges of wildlife governance in community‐based conservation programs to promote human-wildlife coexistence. Conservation Science and Practice 4(10):e12791. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12791

Kansky, R., M. Kidd, and J. Fischer. 2021. Understanding drivers of human tolerance towards mammals in a mixed-use transfrontier conservation area in southern Africa. Biological Conservation 254:108947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108947

Kansky, R., M. Kidd, and A. T. Knight. 2016. A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation 201:137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.002

Knox, J., K. Ruppert, B. Frank, C. C. Sponarski, and J. A. Glikman. 2021. Usage, definition, and measurement of coexistence, tolerance and acceptance in wildlife conservation research in Africa. Ambio 50(2):301–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01352-6

Kügerl, M.-T., A. Endl, M. Tost, G. Ammerer, P. Hartlieb, and K. Gugerell. 2023. Exploring frame conflicts in the development of a new mineral resource policy in Austria using Q-methodology. Ambio 52:210–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01761-9

Kuster, C., M. Voyer, C. Moyle, and A. Lewis. 2024. Conceptualising the role of values in environmental governance and management: an analytical framework. Ecosystems and People 20(1):2365232. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2365232

Landon, A. C., D. C. Fulton, A. K. Pradhananga, L. Cornicelli, and M. A. Davenport. 2021. Community attachment and stewardship identity influence responsibility to manage wildlife. Society and Natural Resources 34(5):571–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1852636

Lazdinis, M., P. Angelstam, and H. Pülzl. 2019. Towards sustainable forest management in the European Union through polycentric forest governance and an integrated landscape approach. Landscape Ecology 34(7):173–1749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00864-1

Lejano, R. P., and F. F. de Castro. 2014. Norm, network, and commons: the invisible hand of community. Environmental Science and Policy 36:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.012

Lenggenhager, L., and M. Ramutsindela. 2021. Property killed a peace park dream: the entanglement of property, politics and conservation along the Gariep. Land Use Policy 105:105392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105392

Lesser, P., G. Poelzer, K. Gugerell, M. Tost, and D. Franks. 2023. Exploring scale in social licence to operate: European perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 384:135552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135552

Levin, N., M. Beger, J. Maina, T. McClanahan, and S. Kark. 2018. Evaluating the potential for transboundary management of marine biodiversity in the Western Indian Ocean. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 25(1):62–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2017.1417167

Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. L. Redman, S. H. Schneider, and W. W. Taylor. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513–1516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004

Liu, J., Z. Ouyang, and H. Miao. 2010. Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: a case study in China. Journal of Environmental Management 91(11):2254–2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.007

Mahlalela, L. S., D. Jourdain, E. D. Mungatana, and T. H. Lundhede. 2022. Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini. Ecological Economics 197:107439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107439

Martin, A., B. Coolsaet, E. Corbera, N. M. Dawson, J. A. Fraser, I. Lehmann, and I. Rodriguez. 2016. Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition. Biological Conservation 197:254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021

Massé, F. 2016. The political ecology of human-wildlife conflict: producing wilderness, insecurity, and displacement in the Limpopo National Park. Conservation and Society 14(2):100–111. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.186331

Matseketsa, G., B. B. Mukamuri, N. Muboko, and E. Gandiwa. 2019. An assessment of local people’s support to private wildlife conservation: a case of Save Valley Conservancy and fringe Communities, Zimbabwe. Scientifica 2019:2534614. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2534614

Michler, L. M., A. C. Treydte, H. Hayat, and S. Lemke. 2019. Marginalised herders: social dynamics and natural resource use in the fragile environment of the Richtersveld National Park, South Africa. Environmental Development 29:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2018.12.001

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.

Morinière, L. C. E., and M. Hamza. 2012. Environment and mobility: a view from four discourses. AMBIO 41(8):795–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0333-y

Mpofu, E., V. Radinger-Peer, W. Musakwa, M. Penker, and K. Gugerell. 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

Mpofu, E., V. Radinger-Peer, W. Musakwa, M. Penker, and K. Gugerell. 2025. Cultural and empowerment priorities amid tensions in knowledge systems and resource allocation: insights from the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Ecology and Society 30(1):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15729-300109

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 8(2):62–79.

Mugo, T., I. Visseren-Hamakers, and R. van der Duim. 2022. Landscape governance through partnerships: lessons from Amboseli, Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30(10):2391–2409. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1834563

Muhar, A., C. M. Raymond, R. J. G. van den Born, N. Bauer, K. Böck, M. Braito, A. Buijs, C. Flint, W. T. de Groot, C. D. Ives, T. Mitrofanenko, T. Plieninger, C. Tucker, and C. J. van Riper. 2018. A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61(5–6):756–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1327424

Musakwa, W., T. Gumbo, G. Paradza, E. Mpofu, N. A. Nyathi, and N. B. Selamolela. 2020a. Partnerships and stakeholder participation in the management of national parks: experiences of the Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. Land 9(11):399. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110399

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

Mutanga, C. N., N. Muboko, and E. Gandiwa. 2017. Protected area staff and local community viewpoints: a qualitative assessment of conservation relationships in Zimbabwe. PLOS ONE 12(5):e0177153. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177153

Mutsaka, F., and M. Mogomotsi. 2024. Zimbabwe and Namibia will kill scores of elephants to feed people facing drought. The Associated Press, 18 September.

Neumann, R. P. 2002. Imposing wilderness: struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520929036

Ngouhouo Poufoun, J., J. Abildtrup, D. J. Sonwa, and P. Delacote. 2016. The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape. Ecological Economics 126:70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.004

Norton, B. G. 2012. The ways of wickedness: analyzing messiness with messy tools. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(4):447–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9333-3

Ntuli, H., A. Sundström, M. Sjöstedt, E. Muchapondwa, S. C. Jagers, and A. Linell. 2021. Understanding the drivers of subsistence poaching in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: what matters for community wildlife conservation? Ecology and Society 26(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12201-260118

Nyaupane, G. P., S. Poudel, and A. York. 2020. Governance of protected areas: an institutional analysis of conservation, community livelihood, and tourism outcomes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30(11):2686–2705. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1858089

Omoding, J., G. Walters, S. Carvalho, M. Cracco, C. D. Langoya, K. G. Kiyingi, C. Kumar, F. Reinhard, E. Ssenyonjo, and L. Twinomuhangi. 2020. Implementing a landscape approach in the Agoro-Agu region of Uganda. Park 26(1):99–110. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PARKS-26-1JO.en

Perry, L. R., T. P. Moorhouse, K. Jacobsen, A. J. Loveridge, and D. W. Macdonald. 2022. More than a feeling: cognitive beliefs and positive—but not negative—affect predict overall attitudes toward predators. Conservation Science and Practice 4(2):e548. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.584

Pooley, S., M. Barua, W. Beinart, A. Dickman, G. Holmes, J. Lorimer, A. J. Loveridge, D. W. Macdonald, G. Marvin, S. Redpath, C. Sillero-Zubiri, A. Zimmermann, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2017. An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations: improving human-predator relations. Conservation Biology 31(3):513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12859

Ranger, S., J. O. Kenter, R. Bryce, G. Cumming, T. Dapling, E. Lawes, and P. B. Richardson. 2016. Forming shared values in conservation management: an interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosystem Services 21:344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.016

Reed, J., J. Barlow, R. Carmenta, J. van Vianen, and T. Sunderland. 2019. Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile climate, conservation and development objectives in tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation 238:108229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108229

Reed, J., J. van Vianen, E. L. Deakin, J. Barlow, and T. Sunderland. 2016. Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Global Change Biology 22(7):2540–2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284

Riggs, R. A., R. Achdiawan, A. Adiwinata, A. K. Boedhihartono, A. Kastanya, J. D. Langston, H. Priyadi, M. Ruiz-Pérez, J. Sayer, and A. Tjiu. 2021. Governing the landscape: potential and challenges of integrated approaches to landscape sustainability in Indonesia. Landscape Ecology 36(8):2409–2426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01255-1

Rogan, M. S., G. Distiller, G. A. Balme, R. T. Pitman, G. K. H. Mann, S. M. Dubay, G. M. Whittington‐Jones, L. H. Thomas, J. Broadfield, T. Knutson, and M. J. O’Riain. 2022. Troubled spots: human impacts constrain the density of an apex predator inside protected areas. Ecological Applications 32(4):e2551. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2551

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

Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., J. Reed, and T. Sunderland. 2018. From synergy to complexity: the trend toward integrated value chain and landscape governance. Environmental Management 62(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0

Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., L. Willemen, and M. K. McCall. 2021. Spatial tools for integrated and inclusive landscape governance: toward a new research agenda. Environmental Management 68(5):611–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01547-x

Ruano‐Chamorro, C., G. G. Gurney, and J. E. Cinner. 2022. Advancing procedural justice in conservation. Conservation Letters 15(3):e12861. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12861

Salerno, J., K. Andersson, K. M. Bailey, T. Hilton, K. K. Mwaviko, I. D. Simon, C. Bracebridge, L. J. Mangewa, A. Nicholas, H. Rutabanzibwa, and J. Hartter. 2021. More robust local governance suggests positive effects of long‐term community conservation. Conservation Science and Practice 3(1):e297. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.297

Sandbrook, C., J. A. Fisher, G. Holmes, R. Luque-Lora, and A. Keane. 2019. The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nature Sustainability 2(4):316–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5

Sarkar, D., S. Bortolamiol, J. F. Gogarten, J. Hartter, R. Hou, W. Kagoro, P. Omeja, C. Tumwesigye, and C. A. Chapman. 2022. Exploring multiple dimensions of conservation success: long‐term wildlife trends, anti‐poaching efforts and revenue sharing in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Animal Conservation 25(4):532–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12765

Sayer, A. 2013. Power, sustainability and well being. An outsider’s view. Pages 167–180 in E. Shove and N. Spurling, editors. Sustainable practices: social theory and climate change. Routledge, London, UK.

Scheidel, A., L. Temper, F. Demaria, and J. Martínez-Alier. 2018. Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability: an overview and conceptual framework. Sustainability Science 13(3):585–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0

Schmolck, P. 2021. The QMethod page. Munich, Germany. http://schmolck.org/qmethod/

Schön, D. A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York, New York, USA.

Seghezzo, L., G. Sneegas, W. Jepson, C. Brannstrom, S. Beckner, and K. Lee. 2024. The use and potential of Q method in environmental planning and management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 67(12):2721–2747. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2023.2207727

Seijo, F., M. M. Godoy, D. Guglielmin, C. Ciampoli, S. Ebright, O. Picco, and G. Defossé. 2020. Conflicting frames about ownership and land use drive wildfire ignitions in a protected conservation area. Environmental Management 65(4):448–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01265-w

Seoraj-Pillai, N., and N. Pillay. 2016. A meta-analysis of human-wildlife conflict: South African and global perspectives. Sustainability 9(1):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010034

Shackleton, R. T., G. Walters, J. Bluwstein, H. Djoudi, L. Fritz, F. Lafaye de Micheaux, T. Loloum, V. T. H. Nguyen, M. Rann Andriamahefazafy, S. S. Sithole, and C. A. Kull. 2023. Navigating power in conservation. Conservation Science and Practice 5:e12877. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12877

Shereni, N. C., and J. Saarinen. 2021. Community perceptions on the benefits and challenges of community-based natural resources management in Zimbabwe. Development Southern Africa 38(6):879–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2020.1796599

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

Stenner, P., S. Watts, and M. Worrell. 2008. Q methodology. Pages 215-239 in C. Willig and W. Stanton-Rogers, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. SAGE, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927.n13

Stirnemann, R. L., I. A. Stirnemann, D. Abbot, D. Biggs, and R. Heinsohn. 2018. Interactive impacts of by-catch take and elite consumption of illegal wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation 27(4):931–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1473-y

Sultan, H., W. Rashid, J. Shi, I. ur Rahim, M. Nafees, E. Bohnett, S. Rashid, M. T. Khan, I. A. Shah, H. Han, and A. Ariza-Montes. 2022. Horizon scan of transboundary concerns impacting snow leopard landscapes in Asia. Land 11(2):248. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020248

Thondhlana, G., S. Redpath, P. Vedeld, L. van Eeden, U. Pascual, K. Sherren, and C. Murata. 2020. Non-material costs of wildlife conservation to local people and their implications for conservation interventions. Biological Conservation 246:108578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108578

Turnhout, E., and A. Purvis. 2020. Biodiversity and species extinction: categorisation, calculation, and communication. Griffith Law Review 29(4):669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204

van den Hove, S. 2006. Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23(1):10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.09.001

van de Water, A., E. Di Minin, and R. Slotow. 2022a. Human-elephant coexistence through aligning conservation with societal aspirations. Global Ecology and Conservation 37:e02165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02165

van de Water, A., M. Henley, L. Bates, and R. Slotow. 2022b. The value of elephants: a pluralist approach. Ecosystem Services 58:101488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101488

van Eeden, L., C. Dickman, M. Crowther, and T. Newsome. 2021. A theory of change for promoting coexistence between dingoes and livestock production. Conservation Science and Practice 3(3):e304. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.304

van Hulst, M., and D. Yanow. 2016. From policy “frames” to “framing”: theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. American Review of Public Administration 46(1):92–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014533142

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

West, P., J. Igoe, and D. Brockington. 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35(1):251–277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308

White, P. C. L., and A. I. Ward. 2010. Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human-wildlife conflicts. Wildlife Research 37(8):623–629. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10191

Wolmer, W. 2005. Wilderness gained, wilderness lost: wildlife management and land occupations in Zimbabwe’s southeast lowveld. Journal of Historical Geography 31(2):260–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2004.12.022

Zabala, A. 2014. qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. R Journal 6(2):163–173. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-032

Zimmermann, A., N. Albers, and J. O. Kenter. 2022. Deliberating our frames: how members of multi-stakeholder initiatives use shared frames to tackle within-frame conflicts over sustainability issues. Journal of Business Ethics 178(3):757–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04789-1

ZimStat. 2012. Population census 2012: demographic and selected socio-economic indicators. National Statistics Agency, Harare, Zimbabwe. http://www.zimstat.co.zw/