The Opportunity Costs of Conservation: A Political Ecology Perspective on Wildlife Protection and Rural Livelihoods in Boabeng–Fiema, Ghana

The Opportunity Costs of Conservation: A Political Ecology Perspective on Wildlife Protection and Rural Livelihoods in Boabeng–Fiema, Ghana | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Opportunity Costs of Conservation: A Political Ecology Perspective on Wildlife Protection and Rural Livelihoods in Boabeng–Fiema, Ghana Prince Owusu, Audrey Darley Sackitey, Samuel Gyekye, Derrick Werekoh Asaah, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8481938/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Wildlife conservation initiatives increasingly intersect with rural livelihoods, often producing uneven social and economic outcomes. Using a political ecology framework, this study examines the opportunity costs of wildlife protection and the governance dynamics shaping conservation outcomes at the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in Ghana. Drawing on qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions conducted across seven communities surrounding the BFMS, the study analyzes how conservation-related costs and benefits are distributed, and how power, authority, and cultural narratives influence decision-making and community responses. The findings reveal that while BFMS has contributed to biodiversity conservation, cultural preservation, and tourism development, these benefits are unevenly distributed and frequently bypass households most affected by conservation restrictions. Farmers, especially smallholders, migrants, and those farming near the sanctuary boundary experience significant livelihood opportunity costs through crop destruction by monkeys, limits on forest use, and the absence of compensation mechanisms. At the same time, revenues generated from ecotourism do not adequately offset the costs borne by farmers. Although conservation at BFMS operates through a hybrid of formal state regulations and traditional belief systems, decision-making power remains concentrated among state actors, management bodies, and select traditional elites, limiting meaningful community participation. While cultural narratives and taboos help sustain compliance, they also obscure power asymmetries that shift conservation burdens onto rural households. Policymakers should recognize that effective conservation depends not only on ecological outcomes but also on social justice, highlighting the importance of equitable benefit-sharing, inclusive governance, livelihood-sensitive conservation strategies, and strong institutional support for community-led conservation in rural resource-conserving contexts globally. Political Ecology Wildlife Conservation Livelihood Opportunity Costs Ecotourism Monkeys Figures Figure 1 Introduction Across the Global South, ecotourism has re-emerged as a dominant conservation and rural development strategy, promoted as a means of simultaneously protecting biodiversity and alleviating poverty. Advocates portray ecotourism as a “win–win” model that links environmental protection with livelihood enhancement and community participation (Saxena et al., 2011 ; Razzano, 2024 ). In Africa, this narrative has gained particular traction amid declining wildlife populations and shrinking public conservation budgets. However, critical scholarship increasingly questions this optimistic framing, demonstrating that ecotourism often generates new social tensions, land-use conflicts, and livelihood disruptions for rural communities living in and around protected areas (Butcher, 2007 ; Weaver, 2007 ). These tensions reveal that conservation is not merely a technical or ecological exercise, but a deeply political process embedded in struggles over access, authority, and resource control. Political ecology provides a useful lens for interrogating these dynamics by foregrounding power relations, social differentiation, and the uneven distribution of conservation costs and benefits. Studies across Africa show that wildlife protection frequently externalizes livelihood opportunity costs such as crop losses, restricted access to land, and human–wildlife conflict onto rural farmers, while conservation benefits accrue to state institutions, tourism elites, or external actors (Muchapondwa and Ntuli, 2024 ; Manoa, 2022 ; Kareri, 2021 ). Similar patterns have been documented globally, from national parks in East Africa to protected landscapes in Latin America and Southeast Asia, where conservation has displaced communities or constrained customary resource use in the name of global environmental goals (Redford, 2007 ; Vayda, 2021 ; Wakild et al., 2025 ). Political ecology scholarship thus challenges the depoliticized narrative of community-based conservation by revealing how conservation governance reproduces inequality through asymmetrical power relations. Historically, African societies employed complex religio-cultural systems such as taboos, totems, sacred groves, and closed seasons to regulate human–environment relations and conserve critical species (Osei, 2023 ). While scholars debate whether these systems were intentionally conservationist or primarily spiritual in nature, there is broad agreement that they played a significant role in shaping sustainable resource use (Kala, 2017 ; Blankson, 2021 ). Colonial and postcolonial conservation regimes, however, largely supplanted these systems with centralized, exclusionary protected-area models that restricted local livelihoods and redefined customary lands as state property. Across Africa, these approaches generated resistance, encroachment, and persistent human–wildlife conflict, undermining both conservation outcomes and rural welfare (Simasiku et al., 2024 ; Trust et al., 2024 ). The Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in Ghana represents a distinctive conservation landscape where traditional beliefs and formal conservation institutions intersect. Established in 1927, the sanctuary protects the black-and-white colobus ( Colobus vellerosus ) and mona monkey ( Cercopithecus campbelli ), which are revered as “children of the gods” and buried with human-like rituals upon death (Amankwah et al., 2021 ). Previous studies have examined BFMS from multiple angles, including human–monkey conflict (Agyei et al., 2019 ), residents’ dependence on ecotourism (Yeboah et al., 2020 ), the blending of traditional and introduced conservation systems (Attuquayefio & Gyampoh, 2010 ), and institutional synergies in wildlife governance (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018 ; 2019 ). Other works have explored ecotourism’s postcolonial dimensions (Eshun, 2011 ), livelihood impacts and conflicts (Owusu, 2009 ), and the challenges of balancing human and wildlife interests (Arko-Achemfuor, 2021 ). Despite this growing body of literature, a critical knowledge gap remains. Existing studies largely emphasize conservation effectiveness, tourism potential, institutional collaboration, or conflict management, but pay little attention to the political ecology of opportunity costs, specifically, how livelihood losses are distributed across social groups and how power relations shape who benefits and who bears the burdens of conservation. Little empirical work have explicitly examined how traditional authorities, community institutions, and state actors mediate conservation rules and enforcement at BFMS, or how these processes reproduce rural inequalities over time (Yeboah et al., 2020 ). This study fills this gap by applying a political ecology lens to examine wildlife protection at Boabeng–Fiema, focusing on the uneven livelihood opportunity costs borne by rural farmers across different social groups, as well as the power relations and governance structures that shape conservation rules, enforcement practices, and decision-making processes. Analytical Framework: Political Ecology This study adopts political ecology as its analytical framework to examine how wildlife conservation at the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) shapes access to resources and livelihood outcomes through historically embedded power relations. Political ecology integrates ecological concerns with political economy to explain the dynamic interactions between society and land-based resources, as well as inequalities within and between social groups (Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987). From a political economy perspective, neo-Marxist scholars argue that environmental governance and resource use are mediated by broader political and economic forces, including state authority and capitalist relations, which often marginalize rural producers and constrain livelihood options (Blaikie, 1985; Robbins, 2019). In the case of BFMS, conservation rules and forest land-use restrictions generate livelihood opportunity costs such as crop losses and property damage by the monkeys, that are unevenly distributed across social groups. The framework further draws on post-structural social theory to analyze how conservation is legitimized through dominant discourses and cultural narratives. Political ecology emphasizes that perceptions of nature and wildlife are not shaped solely by ecological knowledge, but also by narratives produced and reinforced by powerful institutions, including the state, conservation agencies, and traditional authorities (Fairhead & Leach, 1996; Escobar, 1998). At Boabeng–Fiema, spiritual and moral framings of monkeys as sacred function as governance mechanisms that encourage compliance and normalize livelihood sacrifices, often depoliticizing conservation-induced losses and limiting open contestation. Power is central to this analysis and is understood from an actor-oriented perspective as the capacity of some actors to influence the actions and access of others, even in the face of resistance (Ribot & Peluso, 2003). Conservation power is exercised through both formal institutions (laws, enforcement practices) and informal structures (traditional authority, norms and sanctions), which are historically produced but continually negotiated through human agency (Long, 2003). The main argument guiding this framework is that wildlife conservation at BFMS redistributes access, authority, and livelihood risks in ways that privilege ecological protection and symbolic conservation benefits, while disproportionately burdening rural farmers, thereby reinforcing existing rural inequalities and shaping the long-term legitimacy of conservation governance. Methodology The study was conducted in seven communities surrounding the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) , namely Boabeng, Fiema, Bomini, Senya, Akrodwa No. 1, Tanko, and Busunya , all located in the Nkoranza North District of the Bono East Region of Ghana (figure 1) . BFMS is one of Ghana’s most prominent ecotourism destinations and occupies an area of approximately 1.9 km² (192 ha) within a larger sacred forest landscape. Established in 1927 , the sanctuary is home to over 1,000 monkeys , predominantly the black-and-white colobus ( Colobus vellerosus ) and mona monkey ( Cercopithecus campbelli lowei ) , which are protected through a combination of traditional beliefs and formal conservation arrangements (Attuquayefio & Gyampoh, 2010; Eshun, 2011). In the early 2000s, BFMS was incorporated into Ghana’s Community-Based Ecotourism Project under the auspices of the Nature Conservation Research Centre, with support from USAID, further formalizing conservation and tourism governance in the area (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018). Ecologically, BFMS lies within the forest–savanna transitional zone , characterized by a mosaic of original forest, degraded forest, woodland, and savanna vegetation. The area experiences a mean annual temperature of about 26°C and annual rainfall of approximately 1,250 mm , with a major rainy season from March to June and a minor one in September, followed by dry seasons between November and February (Attuquayefio & Gyampoh, 2010). The sanctuary is culturally significant, particularly to the twin communities of Boabeng and Fiema, where monkeys are revered as sacred beings and embedded in local cosmology and ritual practices. Surrounding communities maintain diverse livelihood systems, dominated by subsistence farming, petty trading, and increasing engagement with ecotourism-related activities (Yeboah et al., 2020). Governance of the sanctuary involves a complex interaction between traditional authorities, community institutions, and state agencies, making BFMS a critical site for examining the political ecology of wildlife conservation, livelihood opportunity costs, and power-laden environmental governance (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018; Eshun, 2011). Research Design This study adopts a qualitative research design to explore the political ecology of wildlife conservation and rural livelihoods at the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary. A qualitative approach is suitable for investigating complex social–ecological interactions, power relations, and governance processes that cannot be adequately captured through quantitative measures alone. According to Maxwell (2008), qualitative research is appropriate when the aim is to understand meanings, processes, and contextual dynamics from the perspectives of social actors. Similarly, Peterson (2019) emphasizes that qualitative designs are essential for unpacking institutional practices, lived experiences, and the socially constructed nature of environmental problems which are key concerns of political ecology. Given that this study seeks to analyze livelihood opportunity costs and governance arrangements, a qualitative design enables in-depth engagement with farmers, traditional authorities, and institutional actors. The use of a qualitative design is further justified by empirical precedent in wildlife conservation and ecotourism research in Ghana and beyond. Several studies examining conservation–livelihood dynamics and governance at Boabeng–Fiema have successfully employed qualitative or mixed qualitative approaches to capture local experiences, institutional complexity, and power relations (Eshun, 2011; Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018). Specifically, Arko-Achemfuor (2021) utilized qualitative methods to examine the balance between wildlife protection and human interests at BFMS, demonstrating the value of interpretive approaches for understanding conservation conflicts and sustainability challenges. Building on this tradition, the present study employs a qualitative design to provide insights into how conservation governance shapes unequal livelihood outcomes in wildlife-protected landscapes. Data Collection Procedure and Sampling Approach The study relied on both primary and secondary data to address the research objectives. Primary data were collected using qualitative methods, specifically semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs), while secondary data were obtained through a review of relevant policy documents, reports, and scholarly literature to provide contextual and analytical information. A total of 77 semi-structured interviews were conducted across the seven study communities. The interview guide was organized into four thematic sections, aligned with the study objectives, covering livelihood impacts of conservation, human–wildlife interactions, governance arrangements, and conservation discourses. Data collection was facilitated by an indigenous community member who supported access, interpretation, and trust-building during field engagement. In addition to individual interviews, seven FGDs (one in each community) were conducted, with each group comprising 7–10 participants representing diverse social categories, including farmers, migrants, youth, women, men, and opinion leaders. The FGDs were moderated by trained facilitators in the local languages, supported by an assistant responsible for note-taking and audio recording. Discussions were held in open and non-coercive settings to encourage free expression, and all perspectives, including dissenting views, were documented to capture intra-community diversity. The study employed purposive to select participants with relevant knowledge and lived experience of conservation and livelihoods and snowball sampling for the identification of hard-to-reach and less-visible stakeholders through community referral networks, including traditional authorities, wildlife officers, BFMS Management Board members, tour guides, district-level officials, and affected farmers. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached, indicated by repetition of key themes and no emergence of new substantive insights (Nyumba et al., 2018). Ethical protocols were strictly observed, with prior community entry, informed consent, confidentiality assurances, and voluntary participation. Pre-test of Research Instruments A pre-test of the data collection instruments was conducted in Bonte, a neighboring community with socio-economic and ecological characteristics similar to the study sites. The pre-test aimed to assess the clarity, validity, and reliability of the interview and FGD guides, as well as to test data collection, recording, and analysis procedures. This process enabled the early identification of ambiguous or leading questions, potential misunderstandings, and logistical challenges, leading to revisions that improved the clarity and relevance of the instruments. The pre-test therefore strengthened the overall quality and robustness of the data collection process prior to the main fieldwork. Data Analysis The data collected from the interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and completeness, after which they were systematically coded to identify patterns, categories, and emerging themes consistent with the study’s objectives. A thematic analysis approach was employed to organize, interpret, and present the data, following the analytical framework proposed by Kiger and Varpio (2020). During the analysis, attention was given to identifying key items of interest, such as livelihood opportunity costs associated with wildlife conservation, power relations and governance arrangements, access to and control over conservation benefits, and variations in experiences across social groups. Results Livelihood Opportunity Costs Arising from Wildlife Conservation and Human–Wildlife Conflict The findings of the study indicate that respondents generally acknowledged the ecological and cultural significance of the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS), noting its role in protecting wildlife, conserving forest resources, and maintaining the aesthetic and symbolic value of the local environment. However, these perceived conservation benefits were accompanied by substantial livelihood opportunity costs , especially for farming households located near the sanctuary boundaries. Participants reported that monkeys, especially the mona monkeys frequently invaded farms and households, destroying food crops, stored produce, and household items. Despite the recurrence and severity of these losses, respondents emphasized that no compensation mechanisms existed from either government agencies or sanctuary authorities. As a result, households absorbed these losses directly, undermining food security, reducing farm incomes, and constraining their ability to invest in agriculture or diversify livelihoods. Key informants further explained that conservation rules and cultural taboos surrounding the monkeys effectively removed any local capacity to respond to crop damage, reinforcing a sense of powerlessness among affected farmers. Monkeys were widely described as being beyond reproach, with strong sanctions both formal and informal against harming them, even when they caused extensive damage. As one key informant explained: “Here, when the monkeys destroy your crops, you cannot do anything at all. You are not allowed to harm them, chase them violently, or trap them. Even if your entire farm is destroyed, you must keep quiet because the monkeys are protected by our traditions. The irony is that the same monkeys are used to protect the forest, but the burden of that protection is carried by farmers alone. When your food is gone, nobody comes to ask how you will feed your family.” (R2, Male, 45 years, Boabeng) Another respondent elaborated on how conservation has reshaped everyday economic activities and restricted livelihood practices beyond farming: “The monkeys have become a tool to stop people from touching the forest and even from doing normal trading. You cannot dry food outside, you cannot sell fruits or food items openly, because the monkeys will come and destroy everything. They enter homes, scatter things, and spoil food, yet there is no compensation. People are told that this sacrifice is for conservation, but in reality, it is the poor farmer who pays the price every season.” (KI, Male, 39 years, Fiema) These findings show that while wildlife conservation at BFMS is widely recognized as environmentally valuable, it generates persistent and uncompensated livelihood losses that are normalized through conservation rules and cultural narratives. Unequal Distribution of Conservation Costs and Benefits Across Different Social Groups The results show that although a formal benefit-sharing system exists within the governance structure of the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS), the distribution of conservation benefits remains highly uneven and poorly aligned with the costs borne by local residents. The sanctuary generates revenue primarily through tourist entrance fees and income from the guesthouse, which are administered through governance arrangements involving state agencies, management committees, and traditional authorities. However, respondents emphasized that these revenues do not translate into mechanisms that offset livelihood losses, especially farm-level crop destruction and household damages caused by monkeys. Farmers, especially those cultivating farms close to the sanctuary boundary experience recurrent and direct opportunity costs, yet remain largely excluded from meaningful benefit allocation, including compensation schemes or livelihood support. The burden of conservation costs was not experienced uniformly across social groups. Women farmers , who are primarily responsible for food crop production and household food security, reported heavier losses due to monkey raids on cassava, maize, plantain, and vegetables. For many women, these losses directly reduced household consumption and petty trading income. As one female farmer explained: “ When the monkeys enter my farm, it is not just crops they destroy, it is food for my children and money for daily needs. Men may farm farther away, but my food crops are close to the forest, and no one considers that loss. We hear about tourism money, but I have not received any yet for the damages they cause to my crops.” (R31, Female, 46 years, Senya) Similarly, migrant farmers and smaller landholders described heightened vulnerability. Lacking strong customary land rights and representation within traditional governance structures, some farmers reported strict enforcement of conservation rules without corresponding access to benefits or decision-making platforms. One migrant respondent noted that compliance was driven by fear rather than shared incentives: “As a migrant, I am expected to obey all the conservation rules just like everyone else, and any mistake can easily be reported or punished. Yet when the monkeys destroy my crops, there is no system that recognizes my loss or offers support. We are expected to comply, but we are mostly not included when decisions are made or when benefits are shared.” (R19, Male, 38 years, Bomini) This uneven burden was further reinforced by the spatial location of farms. Respondents with farmlands closer to the sanctuary boundary reported more frequent crop destruction and higher opportunity costs than those located farther away, yet benefit-sharing arrangements did not account for this differential exposure. At the same time, governance processes remained centralized, with farmers, especially women, migrants, and youth excluded from decisions concerning revenue use, compensation priorities, and conflict mitigation. Respondents expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and accountability in benefit distribution, which deepened perceptions of injustice and marginalization. As one participant observed: “They say the sanctuary generates income, but farmers are rarely involved in deciding how that money is spent. Those who bear the heaviest losses have little influence over decisions. People are not against conservation but they simply want fairness and visible benefits that acknowledge the sacrifices they make.” (R11, Male, 27 years, Akrodwa No.1) These experiences reflect how conservation costs and benefits are socially differentiated and politically mediated, rather than evenly distributed. This uneven distribution reinforces existing rural inequalities and highlights how conservation governance, rather than being neutral, operates through power relations that shape who bears costs, who benefits, and who has a voice in decision-making. Power, Authority, and Governance in Wildlife Conservation Decision-Making The findings reveal an interplay of formal and informal governance structures in the management of the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS). Formal wildlife regulations, such as the Wildlife Conservation Regulation of 1971 , the 1994 Forest & Wildlife Policy , and the 2012 revised Forest & Wildlife Policy , establish legal protections for the colobus and mona monkeys and restrict activities like hunting and farming within the sanctuary’s core forest (1.92 km²) . Local by-laws, including the 1975 legislation and the BFMS Constitution enforced by the Management Committee, further prohibit tree cutting, bush burning, and other forms of habitat destruction within this core area. However, the study found that while monkeys within and outside the core forest receive protection, forests and trees outside the core area are largely unprotected , leaving peripheral areas vulnerable to degradation. At the same time, taboos, spiritual beliefs, and traditional authority continue to play a key role in regulating behavior, reinforcing compliance with conservation practices and shaping community perceptions of the sanctuary. Despite the presence of multiple actors including the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission, district government officials, the management committee and board, and traditional leaders such as chiefs and priests, key informants highlighted persistent challenges in participatory decision-making, transparency, and inclusivity . Communities often feel excluded from major governance decisions, with limited avenues to contribute their knowledge or voice concerns. Conflicts occasionally arise when formal regulations and local expectations diverge, especially in relation to resource use outside the core forest. One community member explained: “Decisions about the sanctuary are mostly taken by the management committee and officials from the Forestry Commission. Chiefs and elders are consulted, but ordinary people like us rarely have a say. Sometimes we are only told what has been decided. If there is a problem, for example when a tree outside the core forest is cut or damaged, we cannot influence the outcome. The rules exist, but we are often left out of both discussion and implementation, even though we live with the consequences every day.” (R7, Male, 55 years, Akrodwa No.1) Another key informant emphasized the limitations in governance and the challenges of integrating formal and informal systems : “The sanctuary has many laws and by-laws, but putting them into practice is not always straightforward. Officials may not always be present, and local customs sometimes conflict with formal regulations. Chiefs and priests enforce taboos, but they cannot control everything, especially in areas outside the core forest. Decision-making is complicated, and sometimes people just feel powerless because the rules are made far from us. Good governance requires consultation, fairness, and transparency, but these are not always followed.” (KI, Male, 52 years, Fiema) The results show that while BFMS governance combines formal legal frameworks and traditional authorities, power is unevenly distributed , and community participation in decision-making is sometimes limited. Conservation Discourses, Cultural Narratives, and Community Responses The study found that conservation at the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) remains strongly shaped by cultural narratives, spiritual beliefs, and local taboos , which continue to guide community interactions with the forest and wildlife. Monkeys are regarded as sacred and taboos strictly prohibit harming them. These beliefs have contributed to the preservation of forest biodiversity, protection of ecosystem services such as rainfall regulation, soil fertility, and shade provision, and the maintenance of local cultural heritage . Community members reported strict adherence to these norms, they no longer take firewood or other resources from the forest, reflecting a deeply internalized conservation ethic. However, challenges persist , including poor road networks limiting tourist access, encroachment, frequent bush fires, and limited support from the central government and district assembly in developing infrastructure or management capacity. The monkeys themselves now pose additional management challenges as their population grows and troops expand into surrounding communities, forming new territories due to their territorial nature. Community responses reflected a mixture of pride, adaptation, and concern . While residents value the ecological and cultural benefits of the sanctuary, they also highlighted the practical difficulties in managing the forest and protecting livelihoods. One community leader explained: “Our culture has helped preserve the forest and the monkeys for generations. We do not take firewood or any resources from the sanctuary. The monkeys are now becoming too many, and they are spreading to other communities because two troops cannot live together in the same area, they need space. Everyone in the community acts as a fire volunteer because bush fires can destroy everything. We need fire sensors and protective equipment to help manage this, but there is little support from the government or district assembly. Without proper tools and infrastructure, it is difficult to protect both the forest and our livelihoods.” (R10, Male, 55 years, Boabeng) Another key informant highlighted both the successes and limitations of the conservation regime: “People respect the monkeys and the forest because of tradition, and this has preserved biodiversity, rainfall, and our culture. But there are challenges: tourists have nowhere to stay because there are no proper hotels, and bush fires threaten the forest every year. The community does its best, but without external support, it is hard to manage these problems. The sanctuary benefits everyone in theory, but in practice, we face the costs and risks daily.” (KI, Male, 49 years, Boabeng) The findings illustrate that cultural and spiritual discourses are central to sustaining conservation , yet structural challenges including population pressures among monkeys, bush fires, poor infrastructure, and insufficient institutional support require additional interventions. Discussion Livelihood Trade-offs and Unequal Burdens of Conservation The findings of this study highlight that livelihood opportunity costs borne by rural farmers at the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) are substantial and socially differentiated, reflecting broader patterns documented in political ecology scholarship. Households endure direct losses from crop destruction, property damage, and restrictions on land use, yet receive little or no direct compensation for these costs. These burdens are not evenly distributed with farmers cultivating food crops near the sanctuary boundary, women responsible for household food provisioning, small landholders, and migrant farmers experiencing disproportionately higher losses and fewer coping options. This imbalance between costs and benefits aligns with Kansky et al. (2016), who argue that wildlife tolerance is contingent on whether conservation-related costs are offset by tangible benefits or incentives. In the absence of such mechanisms, conservation compliance becomes fragile. Similar livelihood burdens associated with ecotourism and wildlife protection in Ghana have been documented by Owusu (2009) and Yeboah et al. (2020), who show that rural farmers often absorb conservation costs without proportional returns. From a political ecology perspective, these outcomes reveal how conservation policies and governance structures can reproduce inequality by prioritizing ecological and institutional objectives over differentiated livelihood realities (Blaikie, 1985; Bixler et al., 2015; Arko-Green, 2016). The study further reveals that although benefit-sharing mechanisms at BFMS exist in principle, they are poorly aligned with the lived experiences and opportunity costs of farmers. Revenue from tourist entrance fees and guesthouse operations is largely controlled by formal management bodies and traditional authorities, while farmers remain excluded from compensation schemes and decision-making processes (Attuquayefio & Gyampoh, 2010; Agyei et al., 2019). This exclusion is not merely economic but institutional, as those who bear the highest conservation risks have limited voice in how benefits are allocated. Such dynamics reflect findings across African conservation landscapes, where communities adjacent to protected areas shoulder ecological and economic costs while benefits accrue to administrative elites, tourism operators, or external actors (Barrow & Fabricius, 2002; Suich, 2013). Political ecology interprets this pattern as a structural imbalance rooted in historical authority, land tenure systems, and uneven access to power, which determines whose livelihoods are protected and whose are rendered expendable in the name of conservation (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2019; Blankson, 2021). Comparable opportunity-cost dynamics are evident in wildlife conservation contexts globally. In Kenya’s Maasai conservancies, pastoralists experience livestock losses and restricted mobility with limited compensation, while in Nepal’s buffer zones, smallholder farmers bear crop and forest access losses despite contributing to conservation success (Nkedianye et al., 2020; Subedi et al., 2020). Similarly, Braczkowski et al. (2023) demonstrate that the world’s poorest populations disproportionately bear the costs of coexisting with large carnivores, owing to heightened economic vulnerability to livestock predation. Their analysis indicates that, on average, households in developing countries experience an approximately eightfold higher potential economic burden from carnivore-related losses compared to those in wealthier regions. As in BFMS, these cases show that conservation effectiveness depends not only on ecological indicators but also on how costs, benefits, and decision-making authority are distributed across social groups. The BFMS case thus reinforces broader debates on equitable conservation by demonstrating that wildlife management strategies must explicitly recognize socially differentiated opportunity costs, integrate local knowledge, and provide targeted livelihood support to those most affected (Eshun, 2011; Yeboah, Boakye, Kulega, & Baidoo, 2020). Without such measures, conservation initiatives risk deepening rural inequalities and generating compliance rooted in coercion rather than shared incentives which is an outcome that political ecology scholarship consistently warns undermines long-term sustainability (Yeboah-Assiamah, Muller, & Domfeh, 2018; Arko-Achemfuor, 2021). How Cultural Narratives and Governance Structures Shape Conservation Outcomes The findings show that conservation outcomes at the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) are shaped by a dynamic interaction between cultural narratives and formal governance structures, a central concern of political ecology. Deeply rooted spiritual beliefs and taboos that regard monkeys as sacred have played a critical role in ensuring long-term compliance with wildlife protection, even in the absence of constant state enforcement. Similar patterns have been observed in other regions where indigenous belief systems support conservation, such as sacred groves in India and community forests in parts of East Africa, where cultural norms regulate access and extraction more effectively than formal rules alone (Rath and Ormsby, 2020; Ormsby and Bhagwat, 2010; Ming’ate and Bollig, 2016). In line with post-structural political ecology, these findings highlight how environmental meanings and discourses produced by traditional authorities shape local perceptions of nature, reinforcing conservation practices while also legitimizing restrictions on resource use (Svarstad et al., 2018). At BFMS, cultural narratives have thus contributed positively to biodiversity conservation, forest preservation, and the maintenance of local identity, demonstrating the ecological effectiveness of culturally embedded governance systems (Attuquayefio & Gyampoh, 2010; Arko-Achemfuor, 2021). However, the study also reveals that formal governance structures and power relations significantly condition how these cultural systems operate, often producing exclusionary outcomes. Decision-making authority at BFMS is concentrated among state agencies, management committees, and select traditional elites, with limited meaningful participation of ordinary community members and farmers. This reflect findings from wildlife governance cases in southern Africa and Southeast Asia, where conservation institutions draw legitimacy from local customs while simultaneously centralizing control and marginalizing less powerful actors (Duffy, 2006; Dressler and Roth, 2011). Political ecology interprets this as a manifestation of unequal power embedded in institutional arrangements, where access to decision-making and benefits is shaped by historical structures, state authority, and elite interests (Blaikie, 1985; Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018). At BFMS, while traditional leaders help enforce taboos and rules, many residents reported exclusion from deliberations on sanctuary management, revenue use, and responses to emerging challenges such as bush fires and monkey population expansion, revealing governance gaps that undermine equity and accountability. Community responses to these intersecting cultural and governance dynamics reflect both agency and constraint. Residents actively comply with conservation rules, volunteer in fire control efforts, and refrain from extracting forest resources, demonstrating strong stewardship and local commitment. Yet, the lack of institutional support such as fire sensors, protective equipment, infrastructure development, and transparent engagement limits their capacity to manage risks effectively. Comparable experiences have been documented in Nepal’s community forestry programs and Kenya’s wildlife conservancies, where communities bear conservation responsibilities but lack adequate technical and financial backing from the state (Nkedianye et al., 2020; Subedi et al., 2020). This highlights how power operates not only through coercion but also through responsibility without support, shifting conservation burdens downward while benefits and authority remain centralized (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2019; Amankwah et al., 2025). The BFMS case shows that while cultural narratives can sustain conservation, equitable and effective outcomes depend on governance structures that recognize community agency, redistribute power, and align institutional support with local conservation labor. Conclusion This study has shown that wildlife conservation at the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary is sustained through a complex interplay of cultural beliefs, formal state regulations, and local governance arrangements, but these same dynamics also generate significant livelihood trade-offs for rural households. While conservation has delivered ecological benefits, cultural preservation, and national and international recognition, the costs, particularly crop destruction, restricted forest use, and foregone livelihood opportunities are disproportionately borne by farmers and less powerful social groups. These outcomes reflect unequal power relations that shape access to resources, decision-making, and benefits. Traditional taboos and spiritual narratives have been effective in promoting compliance and biodiversity protection, yet their integration into formal governance has also enabled the state and conservation authorities to externalize conservation costs onto communities without adequate compensation. Consequently, conservation at BFMS, though ecologically successful, remains socially uneven and risks eroding long-term community support if livelihood concerns and governance inequities remain unaddressed. To address these challenges, policy interventions should combine equitable benefit-sharing, inclusive governance, and livelihood-sensitive conservation. At the local and district levels, governments and sanctuary management bodies should establish transparent benefit-sharing and compensation schemes for crop and property losses, while supporting alternative livelihoods such as agroforestry, small-scale tourism enterprises, or handicrafts to diversify income for farmers and community members. Governance reforms should ensure meaningful participation of farmers, women, youth, and migrants in decision-making, moving beyond token inclusion. Targeted investments such as fire detection systems, protective equipment for volunteers, basic infrastructure, and community-run ecotourism facilities should be implemented through collaborative institutional mechanisms linking state agencies, traditional authorities, and community associations, while simultaneously supporting alternative livelihood options for affected farmers such as climate-resilient agriculture, agroforestry, value-added processing, and off-farm income opportunities to offset conservation-related opportunity costs. Also, indigenous ecological knowledge should be formally recognized and integrated into conservation planning, with safeguards to prevent elite capture and ensure cultural narratives empower rather than exclude local stakeholders. These measures provide applicable lessons for shaping conservation approaches that are fairer, more effective, and socially sustainable across rural landscapes globally. Declarations Human Ethics and Consent to Participate Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all respondents were adequately informed about the purpose of the research prior to data collection. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and they were assured of anonymity and confidentiality. Declaration of interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.” Data Availability The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Author contributions Conceptualization: Prince Owusu Methodology: Prince Owusu, Samuel Gyekye; Formal analysis and investigation: Prince Owusu, Audrey Darley Sackitey, Samuel Gyekye; Writing – original draft preparation: Prince Owusu; Writing – review and editing: Prince Owusu, Audrey Darley Sackitey, Samuel Gyekye, Derrick Werekoh Asaah, Benjamin Wiafe Asare. References Agyei, F. Y., Afrifa, A. B., & Agyei-Ohemeng, J. (2019). Human-monkey conflict and community wildlife management: the case of Boabeng-fiema monkey sanctuary and fringed communities in Ghana. Int J Biosci, 14(6), 302-11. Amankwah, A. A., Kouassi, E. K., Porembski, S., Quaye-Ballard, J. A., Zrehon, M. W., Mendy, P. A., ... & Adu-Bredu, S. (2025). Forest conservation practices: Insights of local communities near wildlife-protected areas in Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS), 126(2), 151-158. Amankwah, A. A., Quaye-Ballard, J. A., Koomson, B., Amankwah, R. K., Awotwi, A., Kankam, B. O., ... & Adu-Bredu, S. (2021). Deforestation in forest-savannah transition zone of Ghana: Boabeng-Fiema monkey sanctuary. Global Ecology and Conservation, 25, e01440. Arko-Achemfuor, A. (2021). Balancing the interests of wildlife and humans resulting in sustainable ecotourism: the case of Boabeng-Fiema monkeys’ sanctuary, Ghana. In From Polarisation to Multispecies Relationships: Re-Generation of the Commons in the Era of Mass Extinctions (pp. 519-536). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Attuquayefio, D. K. S., & Gyampoh, S. (2010). The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey sanctuary, Ghana: a case for blending traditional and introduced wildlife conservation systems. West African Journal of Applied Ecology, 17(1). Barrow, E., & Fabricius, C. (2002). Do rural people really benefit from protected areas- rhetoric or reality?. Parks, 12(2), 67-79. Bixler, R. P., Dell'Angelo, J., Mfune, O., & Roba, H. (2015). The political ecology of participatory conservation: institutions and discourse. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 164-182. Blaikie, P. (1985). The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. Routledge. Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. Routledge. Blankson, E. K. K. (2021). Traditional Ecological Institutions and Natural Resource Governance-A Study of Selected Traditional Communities in Ghana. Technium Soc. Sci. J., 24, 623. Braczkowski, A. R., O’Bryan, C. J., Lessmann, C., Rondinini, C., Crysell, A. P., Gilbert, S., ... & Biggs, D. (2023). The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict. Communications Biology, 6(1), 182. Butcher, J. (2007). Ecotourism, NGOs and development: A critical analysis. Routledge. Dressler, W., & Roth, R. (2011). The good, the bad, and the contradictory: neoliberal conservation governance in rural Southeast Asia. World Development, 39(5), 851-862. 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. Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of political ecology, 5(1), 53-82. Eshun, G. (2011). Ecotourism development in Ghana: a postcolonial study with focus on Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary and Kakum National Park (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester). Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape: society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic (No. 90). Cambridge University Press. Green, K. E. (2016). A political ecology of scaling: Struggles over power, land and authority. Geoforum, 74, 88-97. Kala, C. P. (2017). Conservation of nature and natural resources through spirituality. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 5(2), 24-34. Kansky, R., Kidd, M., & Knight, A. T. (2016). A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation, 201, 137-145. Kareri, M. D. (2021). Parks and People: Expropriation of Nature and Multispecies Alienation in Nthongoni, Eastern Kenya. Conservation and Society, 19(4), 248-258. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical teacher, 42(8), 846-854. Long, N. (2003). Development sociology: actor perspectives. Routledge. Manoa, D. O. (2022). A Comparative Analysis of Opportunity, Transaction and Health Costs of Human-wildlife Conflict in Amboseli and Mt. Kenya Ecosystems, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods, 2(7). Ming’ate, F. L. M., & Bollig, M. (2016). Local rules and their enforcement in the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve co-management arrangement in Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History, 105(1), 1-19. Muchapondwa, E., & Ntuli, H. (2024). Managing trade-offs between communities’ welfare and nature conservation: the case of wildlife management systems in and outside protected areas in Africa. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 16. Nkedianye, D. K., Ogutu, J. O., Said, M. Y., Kifugo, S. C., de Leeuw, J., Van Gardingen, P., & Reid, R. S. (2020). Comparative social demography, livelihood diversification and land tenure among the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania. Pastoralism, 10(1), 17. Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and evolution, 9(1), 20-32. Ormsby, A. A., & Bhagwat, S. A. (2010). Sacred forests of India: a strong tradition of community-based natural resource management. Environmental Conservation, 37(3), 320-326. Osei, B. K. (2023). Indigenous Religio-Cultural Practices and Management of the Volta River in Akwamu Traditional Area, Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghana). Owusu, F. (2009). Conflict and livelihood impact of ecotourism in Ghana: a case study of Tano-Boase and Boabeng-Fiema. Peterson, J. S. (2019). Presenting a qualitative study: A reviewer’s perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 147-158. Rath, S., & Ormsby, A. A. (2020). Conservation through traditional knowledge: a review of research on the sacred groves of Odisha, India. Human Ecology, 48(4), 455-463. Razzano, C. (2024). Which role of local communities in Eco-Tourism? Land, governance, culture and other matters in Tanzania conservation and tourism. The case of Enduimet Community Wildlife Management Areas. Redford, K. H., & Fearn, E. (Eds.). (2007). Protected areas and human displacement: a conservation perspective (Vol. 29). New York: Wildlife Conservation Society. Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural sociology, 68(2), 153-181. Robbins, P. (2019). Political ecology: A critical introduction. John Wiley & Sons. Saxena, K. G., Maikhuri, R. K., & Rao, K. S. (2011). Ecotourism in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve: a win-win option for environmental conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Biosphere Reserves in the Mountains of the World, 77. Simasiku, I. N., Temu, B. J., & Nyamoga, G. Z. (2024). Assessment of conflicts under human-wildlife interactions: An application of the conservation conflict transformation model in communities adjacent to Nyerere National Park, Tanzania. Science of The Total Environment, 951, 175890. Subedi, P., Joshi, R., Poudel, B., & Lamichhane, S. (2020). Status of human-wildlife conflict and assessment of crop damage by wild animals in buffer zone area of Banke National Park, Nepal. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, 9(2), 196-206. Suich, H. (2013). The effectiveness of economic incentives for sustaining community based natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 31, 441-449. Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T. A., & Overå, R. (2018). Power theories in political ecology. Trust, B. H., Chimonyo, V. G., Sibanda, T., & Matangi, D. (2024). Understanding Human-wildlife conflict and its impact on agroecology transition in Zimbabwe. Vayda, B. (2021). Displacement for conservation: Livelihood adaptations to national parks in East Africa. Wakild, E., Freitas, F., & Leal, C. (2025). Porous Conservation: The Complex History of Residents in National Parks in Latin America. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1-11. Weaver, D. (2007). Sustainable tourism. Routledge. Yeboah, T., Afram, C. S., Quampah, B., & Kulega, A. (2020). Adaptation to risks related to ecotourism: development at Boabeng in the Bono East Region, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 105-121. Yeboah, T., Boakye, K. A. A., Kulega, A., & Baidoo, A. Assessment Of Residents’Level Of Dependence On Ecotourism At Boabeng In Ghana. Yeboah-Assiamah, E., Muller, K., & Domfeh, K. A. (2018). ‘Complex crisis’ and the rise of collaborative natural resource governance: institutional trajectory of a wildlife governance experience in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(5), 2205-2224. Yeboah-Assiamah, E., Muller, K., & Domfeh, K. A. (2019). Two sides of the same coin: formal and informal institutional synergy in a case study of wildlife governance in Ghana. Society & natural resources, 32(12), 1364-1382. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 05 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 07 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 07 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8481938","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":571069594,"identity":"104aa166-c663-4156-875d-58c22d5930c1","order_by":0,"name":"Prince Owusu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Prince","middleName":"","lastName":"Owusu","suffix":""},{"id":571069595,"identity":"c264c6a1-7ed1-4903-a883-0d5edfbf0241","order_by":1,"name":"Audrey Darley Sackitey","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Audrey","middleName":"Darley","lastName":"Sackitey","suffix":""},{"id":571069597,"identity":"be00cf5e-c53d-4bb5-bff3-fb1a0e5b5b22","order_by":2,"name":"Samuel Gyekye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Samuel","middleName":"","lastName":"Gyekye","suffix":""},{"id":571069598,"identity":"76df98f1-548a-47bb-8482-a95892c8e824","order_by":3,"name":"Derrick Werekoh Asaah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Derrick","middleName":"Werekoh","lastName":"Asaah","suffix":""},{"id":571069601,"identity":"ee331e19-8ba7-4e77-9752-2c3a8945354a","order_by":4,"name":"Benjamin Wiafe Asare","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Benjamin","middleName":"Wiafe","lastName":"Asare","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-30 13:53:27","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8481938/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8481938/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100367339,"identity":"01299fb6-d55d-4c5a-a06a-90d7045230bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:56:58","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":223252,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"BoabengFiemaManuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/04fd8823c82ef5c64008041c.docx"},{"id":100127469,"identity":"c144441a-71bd-4c39-98ad-0ea8dc4489f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 09:36:13","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7258,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c2c1325699ae4858b5fa608c612ffed8.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/03e314a8765fa788e91d04d1.json"},{"id":100367812,"identity":"4986986b-4c70-4fd4-978b-931f33868a0d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:21","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":102437,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c2c1325699ae4858b5fa608c612ffed81enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/02c385fb3aa077d8d49114f1.xml"},{"id":100127472,"identity":"8d06fc12-5a05-40f5-a15e-27dc9014636d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 09:36:13","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":150053,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/6a1d4c7ec8e93defb6279209.png"},{"id":100127470,"identity":"23a297bd-70f8-4331-a885-38b1b44360ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 09:36:13","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":99995,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c2c1325699ae4858b5fa608c612ffed81structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/6c429bebbef502984f74f7fa.xml"},{"id":100127473,"identity":"f7830bf5-0894-464d-887c-c39cc2f55790","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 09:36:13","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":107308,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/9d64500eec1a5f22dfac5b18.html"},{"id":100127467,"identity":"d4044614-2de0-4402-8fad-54d99bd38d96","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 09:36:13","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":193509,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMap of the Study Area Showing the Selected District \u0026nbsp;and Communities\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/be0e90ea0b1ac339c4be69a6.jpeg"},{"id":100382469,"identity":"c3bb5ac5-fc0a-4b12-8bce-7097b04678ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 10:42:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1539353,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8481938/v1/df846fb4-aa20-4472-81ac-70db054103e1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Opportunity Costs of Conservation: A Political Ecology Perspective on Wildlife Protection and Rural Livelihoods in Boabeng–Fiema, Ghana","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcross the Global South, ecotourism has re-emerged as a dominant conservation and rural development strategy, promoted as a means of simultaneously protecting biodiversity and alleviating poverty. Advocates portray ecotourism as a \u0026ldquo;win\u0026ndash;win\u0026rdquo; model that links environmental protection with livelihood enhancement and community participation (Saxena et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Razzano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In Africa, this narrative has gained particular traction amid declining wildlife populations and shrinking public conservation budgets. However, critical scholarship increasingly questions this optimistic framing, demonstrating that ecotourism often generates new social tensions, land-use conflicts, and livelihood disruptions for rural communities living in and around protected areas (Butcher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Weaver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). These tensions reveal that conservation is not merely a technical or ecological exercise, but a deeply political process embedded in struggles over access, authority, and resource control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical ecology provides a useful lens for interrogating these dynamics by foregrounding power relations, social differentiation, and the uneven distribution of conservation costs and benefits. Studies across Africa show that wildlife protection frequently externalizes livelihood opportunity costs such as crop losses, restricted access to land, and human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict onto rural farmers, while conservation benefits accrue to state institutions, tourism elites, or external actors (Muchapondwa and Ntuli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Manoa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kareri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Similar patterns have been documented globally, from national parks in East Africa to protected landscapes in Latin America and Southeast Asia, where conservation has displaced communities or constrained customary resource use in the name of global environmental goals (Redford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Vayda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Wakild et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Political ecology scholarship thus challenges the depoliticized narrative of community-based conservation by revealing how conservation governance reproduces inequality through asymmetrical power relations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistorically, African societies employed complex religio-cultural systems such as taboos, totems, sacred groves, and closed seasons to regulate human\u0026ndash;environment relations and conserve critical species (Osei, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). While scholars debate whether these systems were intentionally conservationist or primarily spiritual in nature, there is broad agreement that they played a significant role in shaping sustainable resource use (Kala, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Blankson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Colonial and postcolonial conservation regimes, however, largely supplanted these systems with centralized, exclusionary protected-area models that restricted local livelihoods and redefined customary lands as state property. Across Africa, these approaches generated resistance, encroachment, and persistent human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict, undermining both conservation outcomes and rural welfare (Simasiku et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Trust et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in Ghana represents a distinctive conservation landscape where traditional beliefs and formal conservation institutions intersect. Established in 1927, the sanctuary protects the black-and-white colobus (\u003cem\u003eColobus vellerosus\u003c/em\u003e) and mona monkey (\u003cem\u003eCercopithecus campbelli\u003c/em\u003e), which are revered as \u0026ldquo;children of the gods\u0026rdquo; and buried with human-like rituals upon death (Amankwah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Previous studies have examined BFMS from multiple angles, including human\u0026ndash;monkey conflict (Agyei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), residents\u0026rsquo; dependence on ecotourism (Yeboah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the blending of traditional and introduced conservation systems (Attuquayefio \u0026amp; Gyampoh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), and institutional synergies in wildlife governance (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Other works have explored ecotourism\u0026rsquo;s postcolonial dimensions (Eshun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), livelihood impacts and conflicts (Owusu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), and the challenges of balancing human and wildlife interests (Arko-Achemfuor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this growing body of literature, a critical knowledge gap remains. Existing studies largely emphasize conservation effectiveness, tourism potential, institutional collaboration, or conflict management, but pay little attention to the political ecology of opportunity costs, specifically, how livelihood losses are distributed across social groups and how power relations shape who benefits and who bears the burdens of conservation. Little empirical work have explicitly examined how traditional authorities, community institutions, and state actors mediate conservation rules and enforcement at BFMS, or how these processes reproduce rural inequalities over time (Yeboah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This study fills this gap by applying a political ecology lens to examine wildlife protection at Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema, focusing on the uneven livelihood opportunity costs borne by rural farmers across different social groups, as well as the power relations and governance structures that shape conservation rules, enforcement practices, and decision-making processes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Analytical Framework: Political Ecology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts political ecology as its analytical framework to examine how wildlife conservation at the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) shapes access to resources and livelihood outcomes through historically embedded power relations. Political ecology integrates ecological concerns with political economy to explain the dynamic interactions between society and land-based resources, as well as inequalities within and between social groups (Blaikie \u0026amp; Brookfield, 1987). From a political economy perspective, neo-Marxist scholars argue that environmental governance and resource use are mediated by broader political and economic forces, including state authority and capitalist relations, which often marginalize rural producers and constrain livelihood options (Blaikie, 1985; Robbins, 2019). In the case of BFMS, conservation rules and forest land-use restrictions generate livelihood opportunity costs such as crop losses and property damage by the monkeys, that are unevenly distributed across social groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe framework further draws on post-structural social theory to analyze how conservation is legitimized through dominant discourses and cultural narratives. Political ecology emphasizes that perceptions of nature and wildlife are not shaped solely by ecological knowledge, but also by narratives produced and reinforced by powerful institutions, including the state, conservation agencies, and traditional authorities (Fairhead \u0026amp; Leach, 1996; Escobar, 1998). At Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema, spiritual and moral framings of monkeys as sacred function as governance mechanisms that encourage compliance and normalize livelihood sacrifices, often depoliticizing conservation-induced losses and limiting open contestation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePower is central to this analysis and is understood from an actor-oriented perspective as the capacity of some actors to influence the actions and access of others, even in the face of resistance (Ribot \u0026amp; Peluso, 2003). Conservation power is exercised through both formal institutions (laws, enforcement practices) and informal structures (traditional authority, norms and sanctions), which are historically produced but continually negotiated through human agency (Long, 2003). The main argument guiding this framework is that wildlife conservation at BFMS redistributes access, authority, and livelihood risks in ways that privilege ecological protection and symbolic conservation benefits, while disproportionately burdening rural farmers, thereby reinforcing existing rural inequalities and shaping the long-term legitimacy of conservation governance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in \u003cstrong\u003eseven communities surrounding the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS)\u003c/strong\u003e, namely \u003cstrong\u003eBoabeng, Fiema, Bomini, Senya, Akrodwa No. 1, Tanko, and Busunya\u003c/strong\u003e, all located in the \u003cstrong\u003eNkoranza North District of the Bono East Region of Ghana (figure 1)\u003c/strong\u003e. BFMS is one of Ghana\u0026rsquo;s most prominent ecotourism destinations and occupies an area of approximately \u003cstrong\u003e1.9 km\u0026sup2; (192 ha)\u003c/strong\u003e within a larger sacred forest landscape. Established in \u003cstrong\u003e1927\u003c/strong\u003e, the sanctuary is home to over \u003cstrong\u003e1,000 monkeys\u003c/strong\u003e, predominantly the \u003cstrong\u003eblack-and-white colobus (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eColobus vellerosus\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003emona monkey (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCercopithecus campbelli lowei\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e, which are protected through a combination of traditional beliefs and formal conservation arrangements (Attuquayefio \u0026amp; Gyampoh, 2010; Eshun, 2011). In the early 2000s, BFMS was incorporated into Ghana\u0026rsquo;s \u003cstrong\u003eCommunity-Based Ecotourism Project\u003c/strong\u003e under the auspices of the Nature Conservation Research Centre, with support from USAID, further formalizing conservation and tourism governance in the area (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEcologically, BFMS lies within the \u003cstrong\u003eforest\u0026ndash;savanna transitional zone\u003c/strong\u003e, characterized by a mosaic of original forest, degraded forest, woodland, and savanna vegetation. The area experiences a \u003cstrong\u003emean annual temperature of about 26\u0026deg;C\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eannual rainfall of approximately 1,250 mm\u003c/strong\u003e, with a major rainy season from March to June and a minor one in September, followed by dry seasons between November and February (Attuquayefio \u0026amp; Gyampoh, 2010). The sanctuary is culturally significant, particularly to the twin communities of Boabeng and Fiema, where monkeys are revered as sacred beings and embedded in local cosmology and ritual practices. Surrounding communities maintain diverse livelihood systems, dominated by subsistence farming, petty trading, and increasing engagement with ecotourism-related activities (Yeboah et al., 2020). Governance of the sanctuary involves a complex interaction between traditional authorities, community institutions, and state agencies, making BFMS a critical site for examining the political ecology of wildlife conservation, livelihood opportunity costs, and power-laden environmental governance (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018; Eshun, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a qualitative research design to explore the political ecology of wildlife conservation and rural livelihoods at the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary. A qualitative approach is suitable for investigating complex social\u0026ndash;ecological interactions, power relations, and governance processes that cannot be adequately captured through quantitative measures alone. According to Maxwell (2008), qualitative research is appropriate when the aim is to understand meanings, processes, and contextual dynamics from the perspectives of social actors. Similarly, Peterson (2019) emphasizes that qualitative designs are essential for unpacking institutional practices, lived experiences, and the socially constructed nature of environmental problems which are key concerns of political ecology. Given that this study seeks to analyze livelihood opportunity costs and governance arrangements, a qualitative design enables in-depth engagement with farmers, traditional authorities, and institutional actors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of a qualitative design is further justified by empirical precedent in wildlife conservation and ecotourism research in Ghana and beyond. Several studies examining conservation\u0026ndash;livelihood dynamics and governance at Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema have successfully employed qualitative or mixed qualitative approaches to capture local experiences, institutional complexity, and power relations (Eshun, 2011; Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018). Specifically, Arko-Achemfuor (2021) utilized qualitative methods to examine the balance between wildlife protection and human interests at BFMS, demonstrating the value of interpretive approaches for understanding conservation conflicts and sustainability challenges. Building on this tradition, the present study employs a qualitative design to provide insights into how conservation governance shapes unequal livelihood outcomes in wildlife-protected landscapes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Procedure and Sampling Approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study relied on both primary and secondary data to address the research objectives. Primary data were collected using qualitative methods, specifically semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs), while secondary data were obtained through a review of relevant policy documents, reports, and scholarly literature to provide contextual and analytical information. A total of 77 semi-structured interviews were conducted across the seven study communities. The interview guide was organized into four thematic sections, aligned with the study objectives, covering livelihood impacts of conservation, human\u0026ndash;wildlife interactions, governance arrangements, and conservation discourses. Data collection was facilitated by an indigenous community member who supported access, interpretation, and trust-building during field engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to individual interviews, seven FGDs (one in each community) were conducted, with each group comprising 7\u0026ndash;10 participants representing diverse social categories, including farmers, migrants, youth, women, men, and opinion leaders. The FGDs were moderated by trained facilitators in the local languages, supported by an assistant responsible for note-taking and audio recording. Discussions were held in open and non-coercive settings to encourage free expression, and all perspectives, including dissenting views, were documented to capture intra-community diversity. The study employed purposive to select participants with relevant knowledge and lived experience of conservation and livelihoods and \u0026nbsp; snowball sampling for the identification of \u0026nbsp;hard-to-reach and less-visible stakeholders through community referral networks, including traditional authorities, wildlife officers, BFMS Management Board members, tour guides, district-level officials, and affected farmers. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached, indicated by repetition of key themes and no emergence of new substantive insights (Nyumba et al., 2018). Ethical protocols were strictly observed, with prior community entry, informed consent, confidentiality assurances, and voluntary participation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-test of Research Instruments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA pre-test of the data collection instruments was conducted in Bonte, a neighboring community with socio-economic and ecological characteristics similar to the study sites. The pre-test aimed to assess the clarity, validity, and reliability of the interview and FGD guides, as well as to test data collection, recording, and analysis procedures. This process enabled the early identification of ambiguous or leading questions, potential misunderstandings, and logistical challenges, leading to revisions that improved the clarity and relevance of the instruments. The pre-test therefore strengthened the overall quality and robustness of the data collection process prior to the main fieldwork.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data collected from the interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and completeness, after which they were systematically coded to identify patterns, categories, and emerging themes consistent with the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives. A thematic analysis approach was employed to organize, interpret, and present the data, following the analytical framework proposed by Kiger and Varpio (2020). During the analysis, attention was given to identifying key items of interest, such as livelihood opportunity costs associated with wildlife conservation, power relations and governance arrangements, access to and control over conservation benefits, and variations in experiences across social groups.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLivelihood Opportunity Costs Arising from Wildlife Conservation and Human\u0026ndash;Wildlife Conflict\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the study indicate that respondents generally acknowledged the ecological and cultural significance of the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS), noting its role in protecting wildlife, conserving forest resources, and maintaining the aesthetic and symbolic value of the local environment. However, these perceived conservation benefits were accompanied by substantial \u003cstrong\u003elivelihood opportunity costs\u003c/strong\u003e, especially for farming households located near the sanctuary boundaries. Participants reported that monkeys, especially the mona monkeys frequently invaded farms and households, destroying food crops, stored produce, and household items. Despite the recurrence and severity of these losses, respondents emphasized that \u003cstrong\u003eno compensation mechanisms\u003c/strong\u003e existed from either government agencies or sanctuary authorities. As a result, households absorbed these losses directly, undermining food security, reducing farm incomes, and constraining their ability to invest in agriculture or diversify livelihoods.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey informants further explained that conservation rules and cultural taboos surrounding the monkeys effectively removed any local capacity to respond to crop damage, reinforcing a sense of powerlessness among affected farmers. Monkeys were widely described as being beyond reproach, with strong sanctions both formal and informal against harming them, even when they caused extensive damage. As one key informant explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Here, when the monkeys destroy your crops, you cannot do anything at all. You are not allowed to harm them, chase them violently, or trap them. Even if your entire farm is destroyed, you must keep quiet because the monkeys are protected by our traditions. The irony is that the same monkeys are used to protect the forest, but the burden of that protection is carried by farmers alone. When your food is gone, nobody comes to ask how you will feed your family.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(R2, Male, 45 years, Boabeng)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother respondent elaborated on how conservation has reshaped everyday economic activities and restricted livelihood practices beyond farming:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The monkeys have become a tool to stop people from touching the forest and even from doing normal trading. You cannot dry food outside, you cannot sell fruits or food items openly, because the monkeys will come and destroy everything. They enter homes, scatter things, and spoil food, yet there is no compensation. People are told that this sacrifice is for conservation, but in reality, it is the poor farmer who pays the price every season.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(KI, Male, 39 years, Fiema)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings show that while wildlife conservation at BFMS is widely recognized as environmentally valuable, it generates \u003cstrong\u003epersistent and uncompensated livelihood losses\u003c/strong\u003e that are normalized through conservation rules and cultural narratives.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnequal Distribution of Conservation Costs and Benefits Across Different Social Groups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results show that although a formal benefit-sharing system exists within the governance structure of the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS), the distribution of conservation benefits remains highly uneven and poorly aligned with the costs borne by local residents. The sanctuary generates revenue primarily through tourist entrance fees and income from the guesthouse, which are administered through governance arrangements involving state agencies, management committees, and traditional authorities. However, respondents emphasized that these revenues do not translate into mechanisms that offset livelihood losses, especially farm-level crop destruction and household damages caused by monkeys. Farmers, especially those cultivating farms close to the sanctuary boundary experience recurrent and direct opportunity costs, yet remain largely excluded from meaningful benefit allocation, including compensation schemes or livelihood support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe burden of conservation costs was not experienced uniformly across social groups. \u003cstrong\u003eWomen farmers\u003c/strong\u003e, who are primarily responsible for food crop production and household food security, reported heavier losses due to monkey raids on cassava, maize, plantain, and vegetables. For many women, these losses directly reduced household consumption and petty trading income. As one female farmer explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhen the monkeys enter my farm, it is not just crops they destroy, it is food for my children and money for daily needs. Men may farm farther away, but my food crops are close to the forest, and no one considers that loss. We hear about tourism money, but I have not received any yet for the damages they cause to my crops.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(R31, Female, 46 years, Senya)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, \u003cstrong\u003emigrant farmers and smaller landholders\u003c/strong\u003e described heightened vulnerability. Lacking strong customary land rights and representation within traditional governance structures, some farmers reported strict enforcement of conservation rules without corresponding access to benefits or decision-making platforms. One migrant respondent noted that compliance was driven by fear rather than shared incentives:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;As a migrant, I am expected to obey all the conservation rules just like everyone else, and any mistake can easily be reported or punished. Yet when the monkeys destroy my crops, there is no system that recognizes my loss or offers support. We are expected to comply, but we are mostly not included when decisions are made or when benefits are shared.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(R19, Male, 38 years, Bomini)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis uneven burden was further reinforced by the spatial location of farms. Respondents with farmlands \u003cstrong\u003ecloser to the sanctuary boundary\u003c/strong\u003e reported more frequent crop destruction and higher opportunity costs than those located farther away, yet benefit-sharing arrangements did not account for this differential exposure. At the same time, governance processes remained centralized, with farmers, especially women, migrants, and youth excluded from decisions concerning revenue use, compensation priorities, and conflict mitigation. Respondents expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and accountability in benefit distribution, which deepened perceptions of injustice and marginalization. As one participant observed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;They say the sanctuary generates income, but farmers are rarely involved in deciding how that money is spent. Those who bear the heaviest losses have little influence over decisions. People are not against conservation but they simply want fairness and visible benefits that acknowledge the sacrifices they make.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003e(R11, Male, 27 years, Akrodwa No.1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese experiences reflect how conservation costs and benefits are socially differentiated and politically mediated, rather than evenly distributed. This uneven distribution reinforces existing rural inequalities and highlights how conservation governance, rather than being neutral, operates through power relations that shape who bears costs, who benefits, and who has a voice in decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePower, Authority, and Governance in Wildlife Conservation Decision-Making\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal an \u003cstrong\u003einterplay of formal and informal governance structures\u003c/strong\u003e in the management of the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS). Formal wildlife regulations, such as the \u003cstrong\u003eWildlife Conservation Regulation of 1971\u003c/strong\u003e, the \u003cstrong\u003e1994 Forest \u0026amp; Wildlife Policy\u003c/strong\u003e, and the \u003cstrong\u003e2012 revised Forest \u0026amp; Wildlife Policy\u003c/strong\u003e, establish legal protections for the colobus and mona monkeys and restrict activities like hunting and farming within the sanctuary\u0026rsquo;s \u003cstrong\u003ecore forest (1.92 km\u0026sup2;)\u003c/strong\u003e. Local by-laws, including the 1975 legislation and the \u003cstrong\u003eBFMS Constitution\u003c/strong\u003e enforced by the Management Committee, further prohibit tree cutting, bush burning, and other forms of habitat destruction within this core area. However, the study found that while monkeys within and outside the core forest receive protection, \u003cstrong\u003eforests and trees outside the core area are largely unprotected\u003c/strong\u003e, leaving peripheral areas vulnerable to degradation. At the same time, \u003cstrong\u003etaboos, spiritual beliefs, and traditional authority\u003c/strong\u003e continue to play a key role in regulating behavior, reinforcing compliance with conservation practices and shaping community perceptions of the sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the presence of multiple actors including the \u003cstrong\u003eWildlife Division of the Forestry Commission, district government officials, the management committee and board, and traditional leaders such as chiefs and priests,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ekey informants highlighted persistent challenges in \u003cstrong\u003eparticipatory decision-making, transparency, and inclusivity\u003c/strong\u003e. Communities often feel excluded from major governance decisions, with limited avenues to contribute their knowledge or voice concerns. Conflicts occasionally arise when formal regulations and local expectations diverge, especially in relation to resource use outside the core forest. One community member explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Decisions about the sanctuary are mostly taken by the management committee and officials from the Forestry Commission. Chiefs and elders are consulted, but ordinary people like us rarely have a say. Sometimes we are only told what has been decided. If there is a problem, for example when a tree outside the core forest is cut or damaged, we cannot influence the outcome. The rules exist, but we are often left out of both discussion and implementation, even though we live with the consequences every day.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(R7, Male, 55 years, Akrodwa No.1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother key informant emphasized the \u003cstrong\u003elimitations in governance and the challenges of integrating formal and informal systems\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The sanctuary has many laws and by-laws, but putting them into practice is not always straightforward. Officials may not always be present, and local customs sometimes conflict with formal regulations. Chiefs and priests enforce taboos, but they cannot control everything, especially in areas outside the core forest. Decision-making is complicated, and sometimes people just feel powerless because the rules are made far from us. Good governance requires consultation, fairness, and transparency, but these are not always followed.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(KI, Male, 52 years, Fiema)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results show that while BFMS governance combines formal legal frameworks and traditional authorities, \u003cstrong\u003epower is unevenly distributed\u003c/strong\u003e, and community participation in decision-making is sometimes limited.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConservation Discourses, Cultural Narratives, and Community Responses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study found that conservation at the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) remains strongly shaped by \u003cstrong\u003ecultural narratives, spiritual beliefs, and local taboos\u003c/strong\u003e, which continue to guide community interactions with the forest and wildlife. Monkeys are regarded as sacred and taboos strictly prohibit harming them. These beliefs have contributed to the \u003cstrong\u003epreservation of forest biodiversity, protection of ecosystem services such as rainfall regulation, soil fertility, and shade provision, and the maintenance of local cultural heritage\u003c/strong\u003e. Community members reported strict adherence to these norms, they no longer take firewood or other resources from the forest, reflecting a deeply internalized conservation ethic. However, \u003cstrong\u003echallenges persist\u003c/strong\u003e, including poor road networks limiting tourist access, encroachment, frequent bush fires, and limited support from the central government and district assembly in developing infrastructure or management capacity. The monkeys themselves now pose additional management challenges as their population grows and troops expand into surrounding communities, forming new territories due to their territorial nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommunity responses reflected a mixture of \u003cstrong\u003epride, adaptation, and concern\u003c/strong\u003e. While residents value the ecological and cultural benefits of the sanctuary, they also highlighted the practical difficulties in managing the forest and protecting livelihoods. One community leader explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Our culture has helped preserve the forest and the monkeys for generations. We do not take firewood or any resources from the sanctuary. The monkeys are now becoming too many, and they are spreading to other communities because two troops cannot live together in the same area, they need space. Everyone in the community acts as a fire volunteer because bush fires can destroy everything. We need fire sensors and protective equipment to help manage this, but there is little support from the government or district assembly. Without proper tools and infrastructure, it is difficult to protect both the forest and our livelihoods.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(R10, Male, 55 years, Boabeng)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother key informant highlighted both the successes and limitations of the conservation regime:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;People respect the monkeys and the forest because of tradition, and this has preserved biodiversity, rainfall, and our culture. But there are challenges: tourists have nowhere to stay because there are no proper hotels, and bush fires threaten the forest every year. The community does its best, but without external support, it is hard to manage these problems. The sanctuary benefits everyone in theory, but in practice, we face the costs and risks daily.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(KI, Male, 49 years, Boabeng)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings illustrate that \u003cstrong\u003ecultural and spiritual discourses are central to sustaining conservation\u003c/strong\u003e, yet structural challenges including population pressures among monkeys, bush fires, poor infrastructure, and insufficient institutional support require additional interventions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLivelihood Trade-offs and Unequal Burdens of Conservation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study highlight that livelihood opportunity costs borne by rural farmers at the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) are substantial and socially differentiated, reflecting broader patterns documented in political ecology scholarship. Households endure direct losses from crop destruction, property damage, and restrictions on land use, yet receive little or no direct compensation for these costs. These burdens are not evenly distributed with farmers cultivating food crops near the sanctuary boundary, women responsible for household food provisioning, small landholders, and migrant farmers experiencing disproportionately higher losses and fewer coping options. This imbalance between costs and benefits aligns with Kansky et al. (2016), who argue that wildlife tolerance is contingent on whether conservation-related costs are offset by tangible benefits or incentives. In the absence of such mechanisms, conservation compliance becomes fragile. Similar livelihood burdens associated with ecotourism and wildlife protection in Ghana have been documented by Owusu (2009) and Yeboah et al. (2020), who show that rural farmers often absorb conservation costs without proportional returns. From a political ecology perspective, these outcomes reveal how conservation policies and governance structures can reproduce inequality by prioritizing ecological and institutional objectives over differentiated livelihood realities (Blaikie, 1985; Bixler et al., 2015; Arko-Green, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study further reveals that although benefit-sharing mechanisms at BFMS exist in principle, they are poorly aligned with the lived experiences and opportunity costs of farmers. Revenue from tourist entrance fees and guesthouse operations is largely controlled by formal management bodies and traditional authorities, while farmers remain excluded from compensation schemes and decision-making processes (Attuquayefio \u0026amp; Gyampoh, 2010; Agyei et al., 2019). This exclusion is not merely economic but institutional, as those who bear the highest conservation risks have limited voice in how benefits are allocated. Such dynamics reflect findings across African conservation landscapes, where communities adjacent to protected areas shoulder ecological and economic costs while benefits accrue to administrative elites, tourism operators, or external actors (Barrow \u0026amp; Fabricius, 2002; Suich, 2013). Political ecology interprets this pattern as a structural imbalance rooted in historical authority, land tenure systems, and uneven access to power, which determines whose livelihoods are protected and whose are rendered expendable in the name of conservation (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2019; Blankson, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparable opportunity-cost dynamics are evident in wildlife conservation contexts globally. In Kenya\u0026rsquo;s Maasai conservancies, pastoralists experience livestock losses and restricted mobility with limited compensation, while in Nepal\u0026rsquo;s buffer zones, smallholder farmers bear crop and forest access losses despite contributing to conservation success (Nkedianye et al., 2020; Subedi et al., 2020). Similarly, Braczkowski et al. (2023) demonstrate that the world\u0026rsquo;s poorest populations disproportionately bear the costs of coexisting with large carnivores, owing to heightened economic vulnerability to livestock predation. Their analysis indicates that, on average, households in developing countries experience an approximately eightfold higher potential economic burden from carnivore-related losses compared to those in wealthier regions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs in BFMS, these cases show that conservation effectiveness depends not only on ecological indicators but also on how costs, benefits, and decision-making authority are distributed across social groups. The BFMS case thus reinforces broader debates on equitable conservation by demonstrating that wildlife management strategies must explicitly recognize socially differentiated opportunity costs, integrate local knowledge, and provide targeted livelihood support to those most affected (Eshun, 2011; Yeboah, Boakye, Kulega, \u0026amp; Baidoo, 2020). Without such measures, conservation initiatives risk deepening rural inequalities and generating compliance rooted in coercion rather than shared incentives which is an outcome that political ecology scholarship consistently warns undermines long-term sustainability (Yeboah-Assiamah, Muller, \u0026amp; Domfeh, 2018; Arko-Achemfuor, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHow Cultural Narratives and Governance Structures Shape Conservation Outcomes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings show that conservation outcomes at the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) are shaped by a dynamic interaction between cultural narratives and formal governance structures, a central concern of political ecology. Deeply rooted spiritual beliefs and taboos that regard monkeys as sacred have played a critical role in ensuring long-term compliance with wildlife protection, even in the absence of constant state enforcement. Similar patterns have been observed in other regions where indigenous belief systems support conservation, such as sacred groves in India and community forests in parts of East Africa, where cultural norms regulate access and extraction more effectively than formal rules alone (Rath and Ormsby, 2020; Ormsby and Bhagwat, 2010; Ming\u0026rsquo;ate and Bollig, 2016). In line with post-structural political ecology, these findings highlight how environmental meanings and discourses produced by traditional authorities shape local perceptions of nature, reinforcing conservation practices while also legitimizing restrictions on resource use (Svarstad et al., 2018). At BFMS, cultural narratives have thus contributed positively to biodiversity conservation, forest preservation, and the maintenance of local identity, demonstrating the ecological effectiveness of culturally embedded governance systems (Attuquayefio \u0026amp; Gyampoh, 2010; Arko-Achemfuor, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the study also reveals that formal governance structures and power relations significantly condition how these cultural systems operate, often producing exclusionary outcomes. Decision-making authority at BFMS is concentrated among state agencies, management committees, and select traditional elites, with limited meaningful participation of ordinary community members and farmers. This reflect findings from wildlife governance cases in southern Africa and Southeast Asia, where conservation institutions draw legitimacy from local customs while simultaneously centralizing control and marginalizing less powerful actors (Duffy, 2006; Dressler and Roth, 2011). Political ecology interprets this as a manifestation of unequal power embedded in institutional arrangements, where access to decision-making and benefits is shaped by historical structures, state authority, and elite interests (Blaikie, 1985; Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2018). At BFMS, while traditional leaders help enforce taboos and rules, many residents reported exclusion from deliberations on sanctuary management, revenue use, and responses to emerging challenges such as bush fires and monkey population expansion, revealing governance gaps that undermine equity and accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommunity responses to these intersecting cultural and governance dynamics reflect both agency and constraint. Residents actively comply with conservation rules, volunteer in fire control efforts, and refrain from extracting forest resources, demonstrating strong stewardship and local commitment. Yet, the lack of institutional support such as fire sensors, protective equipment, infrastructure development, and transparent engagement limits their capacity to manage risks effectively. Comparable experiences have been documented in Nepal\u0026rsquo;s community forestry programs and Kenya\u0026rsquo;s wildlife conservancies, where communities bear conservation responsibilities but lack adequate technical and financial backing from the state (Nkedianye et al., 2020; Subedi et al., 2020). This highlights how power operates not only through coercion but also through responsibility without support, shifting conservation burdens downward while benefits and authority remain centralized (Yeboah-Assiamah et al., 2019; Amankwah et al., 2025). The BFMS case shows that while cultural narratives can sustain conservation, equitable and effective outcomes depend on governance structures that recognize community agency, redistribute power, and align institutional support with local conservation labor.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has shown that wildlife conservation at the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary is sustained through a complex interplay of cultural beliefs, formal state regulations, and local governance arrangements, but these same dynamics also generate significant livelihood trade-offs for rural households. While conservation has delivered ecological benefits, cultural preservation, and national and international recognition, the costs, particularly crop destruction, restricted forest use, and foregone livelihood opportunities are disproportionately borne by farmers and less powerful social groups. These outcomes reflect unequal power relations that shape access to resources, decision-making, and benefits. Traditional taboos and spiritual narratives have been effective in promoting compliance and biodiversity protection, yet their integration into formal governance has also enabled the state and conservation authorities to externalize conservation costs onto communities without adequate compensation. Consequently, conservation at BFMS, though ecologically successful, remains socially uneven and risks eroding long-term community support if livelihood concerns and governance inequities remain unaddressed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, policy interventions should combine equitable benefit-sharing, inclusive governance, and livelihood-sensitive conservation. At the local and district levels, governments and sanctuary management bodies should establish transparent benefit-sharing and compensation schemes for crop and property losses, while supporting alternative livelihoods such as agroforestry, small-scale tourism enterprises, or handicrafts to diversify income for farmers and community members. Governance reforms should ensure meaningful participation of farmers, women, youth, and migrants in decision-making, moving beyond token inclusion. Targeted investments such as fire detection systems, protective equipment for volunteers, basic infrastructure, and community-run ecotourism facilities should be implemented through collaborative institutional mechanisms linking state agencies, traditional authorities, and community associations, while simultaneously supporting alternative livelihood options for affected farmers such as climate-resilient agriculture, agroforestry, value-added processing, and off-farm income opportunities to offset conservation-related opportunity costs. Also, indigenous ecological knowledge should be formally recognized and integrated into conservation planning, with safeguards to prevent elite capture and ensure cultural narratives empower rather than exclude local stakeholders. These measures provide applicable lessons for shaping conservation approaches that are fairer, more effective, and socially sustainable across rural landscapes globally.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuman Ethics and Consent to Participate Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all respondents were adequately informed about the purpose of the research prior to data collection. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and they were assured of anonymity and confidentiality.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003erelationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: Prince Owusu\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Methodology: Prince Owusu, Samuel Gyekye;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Formal analysis and investigation: Prince Owusu, Audrey Darley Sackitey, Samuel Gyekye;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Writing \u0026ndash; original draft preparation: Prince Owusu;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Writing \u0026ndash; review and editing: Prince Owusu, Audrey Darley Sackitey, Samuel Gyekye, Derrick Werekoh Asaah, Benjamin Wiafe Asare.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAgyei, F. Y., Afrifa, A. B., \u0026amp; Agyei-Ohemeng, J. (2019). Human-monkey conflict and community wildlife management: the case of Boabeng-fiema monkey sanctuary and fringed communities in Ghana. Int J Biosci, 14(6), 302-11.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmankwah, A. A., Kouassi, E. K., Porembski, S., Quaye-Ballard, J. A., Zrehon, M. W., Mendy, P. A., ... \u0026amp; Adu-Bredu, S. (2025). Forest conservation practices: Insights of local communities near wildlife-protected areas in Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS), 126(2), 151-158.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmankwah, A. A., Quaye-Ballard, J. A., Koomson, B., Amankwah, R. K., Awotwi, A., Kankam, B. O., ... \u0026amp; Adu-Bredu, S. (2021). Deforestation in forest-savannah transition zone of Ghana: Boabeng-Fiema monkey sanctuary. Global Ecology and Conservation, 25, e01440.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArko-Achemfuor, A. (2021). Balancing the interests of wildlife and humans resulting in sustainable ecotourism: the case of Boabeng-Fiema monkeys\u0026rsquo; sanctuary, Ghana. In From Polarisation to Multispecies Relationships: Re-Generation of the Commons in the Era of Mass Extinctions (pp. 519-536). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAttuquayefio, D. K. S., \u0026amp; Gyampoh, S. (2010). The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey sanctuary, Ghana: a case for blending traditional and introduced wildlife conservation systems. West African Journal of Applied Ecology, 17(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarrow, E., \u0026amp; Fabricius, C. (2002). Do rural people really benefit from protected areas- rhetoric or reality?. Parks, 12(2), 67-79.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBixler, R. P., Dell\u0026apos;Angelo, J., Mfune, O., \u0026amp; Roba, H. (2015). The political ecology of participatory conservation: institutions and discourse. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 164-182.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlaikie, P. (1985). The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlaikie, P., \u0026amp; Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlankson, E. K. K. (2021). Traditional Ecological Institutions and Natural Resource Governance-A Study of Selected Traditional Communities in Ghana. Technium Soc. Sci. J., 24, 623.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraczkowski, A. R., O\u0026rsquo;Bryan, C. J., Lessmann, C., Rondinini, C., Crysell, A. P., Gilbert, S., ... \u0026amp; Biggs, D. (2023). The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict. Communications Biology, 6(1), 182.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eButcher, J. (2007). Ecotourism, NGOs and development: A critical analysis. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDressler, W., \u0026amp; Roth, R. (2011). The good, the bad, and the contradictory: neoliberal conservation governance in rural Southeast Asia. World Development, 39(5), 851-862.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDuffy, 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.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEscobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of political ecology, 5(1), 53-82.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEshun, G. (2011). Ecotourism development in Ghana: a postcolonial study with focus on Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary and Kakum National Park (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFairhead, J., \u0026amp; Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape: society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic (No. 90). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGreen, K. E. (2016). A political ecology of scaling: Struggles over power, land and authority. Geoforum, 74, 88-97.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKala, C. P. (2017). Conservation of nature and natural resources through spirituality. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 5(2), 24-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKansky, R., Kidd, M., \u0026amp; Knight, A. T. (2016). A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation, 201, 137-145.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKareri, M. D. (2021). Parks and People: Expropriation of Nature and Multispecies Alienation in Nthongoni, Eastern Kenya. Conservation and Society, 19(4), 248-258.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKiger, M. E., \u0026amp; Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical teacher, 42(8), 846-854.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLong, N. (2003). Development sociology: actor perspectives. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eManoa, D. O. (2022). A Comparative Analysis of Opportunity, Transaction and Health Costs of Human-wildlife Conflict in Amboseli and Mt. Kenya Ecosystems, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods, 2(7).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMing\u0026rsquo;ate, F. L. M., \u0026amp; Bollig, M. (2016). Local rules and their enforcement in the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve co-management arrangement in Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History, 105(1), 1-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMuchapondwa, E., \u0026amp; Ntuli, H. (2024). Managing trade-offs between communities\u0026rsquo; welfare and nature conservation: the case of wildlife management systems in and outside protected areas in Africa. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 16.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNkedianye, D. K., Ogutu, J. O., Said, M. Y., Kifugo, S. C., de Leeuw, J., Van Gardingen, P., \u0026amp; Reid, R. S. (2020). Comparative social demography, livelihood diversification and land tenure among the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania. Pastoralism, 10(1), 17.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., \u0026amp; Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and evolution, 9(1), 20-32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrmsby, A. A., \u0026amp; Bhagwat, S. A. (2010). Sacred forests of India: a strong tradition of community-based natural resource management. Environmental Conservation, 37(3), 320-326.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOsei, B. K. (2023). Indigenous Religio-Cultural Practices and Management of the Volta River in Akwamu Traditional Area, Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghana).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOwusu, F. (2009). Conflict and livelihood impact of ecotourism in Ghana: a case study of Tano-Boase and Boabeng-Fiema.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeterson, J. S. (2019). Presenting a qualitative study: A reviewer\u0026rsquo;s perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 147-158.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRath, S., \u0026amp; Ormsby, A. A. (2020). Conservation through traditional knowledge: a review of research on the sacred groves of Odisha, India. Human Ecology, 48(4), 455-463.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRazzano, C. (2024). Which role of local communities in Eco-Tourism? Land, governance, culture and other matters in Tanzania conservation and tourism. The case of Enduimet Community Wildlife Management Areas.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRedford, K. H., \u0026amp; Fearn, E. (Eds.). (2007). Protected areas and human displacement: a conservation perspective (Vol. 29). New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRibot, J. C., \u0026amp; Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural sociology, 68(2), 153-181.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRobbins, P. (2019). Political ecology: A critical introduction. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaxena, K. G., Maikhuri, R. K., \u0026amp; Rao, K. S. (2011). Ecotourism in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve: a win-win option for environmental conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Biosphere Reserves in the Mountains of the World, 77.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimasiku, I. N., Temu, B. J., \u0026amp; Nyamoga, G. Z. (2024). Assessment of conflicts under human-wildlife interactions: An application of the conservation conflict transformation model in communities adjacent to Nyerere National Park, Tanzania. Science of The Total Environment, 951, 175890.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSubedi, P., Joshi, R., Poudel, B., \u0026amp; Lamichhane, S. (2020). Status of human-wildlife conflict and assessment of crop damage by wild animals in buffer zone area of Banke National Park, Nepal. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, 9(2), 196-206.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSuich, H. (2013). The effectiveness of economic incentives for sustaining community based natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 31, 441-449.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSvarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T. A., \u0026amp; Over\u0026aring;, R. (2018). Power theories in political ecology.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTrust, B. H., Chimonyo, V. G., Sibanda, T., \u0026amp; Matangi, D. (2024). Understanding Human-wildlife conflict and its impact on agroecology transition in Zimbabwe.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVayda, B. (2021). Displacement for conservation: Livelihood adaptations to national parks in East Africa.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWakild, E., Freitas, F., \u0026amp; Leal, C. (2025). Porous Conservation: The Complex History of Residents in National Parks in Latin America. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1-11.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeaver, D. (2007). Sustainable tourism. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYeboah, T., Afram, C. S., Quampah, B., \u0026amp; Kulega, A. (2020). Adaptation to risks related to ecotourism: development at Boabeng in the Bono East Region, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 105-121.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYeboah, T., Boakye, K. A. A., Kulega, A., \u0026amp; Baidoo, A. Assessment Of Residents\u0026rsquo;Level Of Dependence On Ecotourism At Boabeng In Ghana.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYeboah-Assiamah, E., Muller, K., \u0026amp; Domfeh, K. A. (2018). \u0026lsquo;Complex crisis\u0026rsquo; and the rise of collaborative natural resource governance: institutional trajectory of a wildlife governance experience in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(5), 2205-2224.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYeboah-Assiamah, E., Muller, K., \u0026amp; Domfeh, K. A. (2019). Two sides of the same coin: formal and informal institutional synergy in a case study of wildlife governance in Ghana. Society \u0026amp; natural resources, 32(12), 1364-1382.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"european-journal-of-wildlife-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ejwr","sideBox":"Learn more about [European Journal of Wildlife Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/10344)","snPcode":"10344","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10344/3","title":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Political Ecology, Wildlife Conservation, Livelihood, Opportunity Costs, Ecotourism, Monkeys","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8481938/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8481938/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWildlife conservation initiatives increasingly intersect with rural livelihoods, often producing uneven social and economic outcomes. Using a political ecology framework, this study examines the opportunity costs of wildlife protection and the governance dynamics shaping conservation outcomes at the Boabeng\u0026ndash;Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in Ghana. Drawing on qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions conducted across seven communities surrounding the BFMS, the study analyzes how conservation-related costs and benefits are distributed, and how power, authority, and cultural narratives influence decision-making and community responses. The findings reveal that while BFMS has contributed to biodiversity conservation, cultural preservation, and tourism development, these benefits are unevenly distributed and frequently bypass households most affected by conservation restrictions. Farmers, especially smallholders, migrants, and those farming near the sanctuary boundary experience significant livelihood opportunity costs through crop destruction by monkeys, limits on forest use, and the absence of compensation mechanisms. At the same time, revenues generated from ecotourism do not adequately offset the costs borne by farmers. Although conservation at BFMS operates through a hybrid of formal state regulations and traditional belief systems, decision-making power remains concentrated among state actors, management bodies, and select traditional elites, limiting meaningful community participation. While cultural narratives and taboos help sustain compliance, they also obscure power asymmetries that shift conservation burdens onto rural households. Policymakers should recognize that effective conservation depends not only on ecological outcomes but also on social justice, highlighting the importance of equitable benefit-sharing, inclusive governance, livelihood-sensitive conservation strategies, and strong institutional support for community-led conservation in rural resource-conserving contexts globally.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Opportunity Costs of Conservation: A Political Ecology Perspective on Wildlife Protection and Rural Livelihoods in Boabeng–Fiema, Ghana","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-13 09:36:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8481938/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"308216856075300284584441602037609569309","date":"2026-04-22T11:14:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-27T12:17:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"293909496886620646289727669552172231055","date":"2026-02-10T04:23:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"204127078765891763942730608806812039311","date":"2026-02-05T14:48:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-05T13:29:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-07T19:55:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-07T19:54:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","date":"2025-12-30T13:43:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"european-journal-of-wildlife-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ejwr","sideBox":"Learn more about [European Journal of Wildlife Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/10344)","snPcode":"10344","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10344/3","title":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1df357be-3cd8-4182-ace1-c97610b6b9b1","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-05T13:38:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-13 09:36:08","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8481938","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8481938","identity":"rs-8481938","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}