Policy-Practice Gaps in Conservation Area Governance: Evidence From Selected Conservation Areas in Nigeria

Policy-Practice Gaps in Conservation Area Governance: Evidence From Selected Conservation Areas in Nigeria | 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 Policy-Practice Gaps in Conservation Area Governance: Evidence From Selected Conservation Areas in Nigeria Abdulaziz Hassan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9683993/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Conservation areas are vital landscapes that provide ecological services at local, regional, and global scales. Nigeria took the path of the global trend of establishing conservation areas, with the number increasing from one (1) in 1899 to over 1,000 in the late 1990s, governed by several policies, legislations, and institutions at the national and state levels. Yet their governance remains ineffective. This implies gaps between policy and practice in the governance of conservation areas in Nigeria that remain insufficiently explored and understood. This study examined the effectiveness of governance of three selected conservation areas in Bauchi, Nigeria, using a qualitative approach. Results Seventeen (17) core codes emerged, and seven (7) themes. Governance of conservation areas is a product of complex interrelationships between internal and external factors. The internal factors include inadequate funding, weak institutional capacity, passive participation of neighbouring communities, and low staff motivation; while the external factors include pressure from outside the conservation areas, local livelihood needs, economic forces, and market values of conservation area resources. Cumulative impacts of this result in conflict, non-compliance, continued resource extraction, and weak enforcement. Surprisingly, state agencies/institutions are slowly being substituted by external actors, specifically NOGs, as they are stepping in to substitute state roles/functions in the affairs of the conservation areas. This has a unique finding emerging from the study, which has not been reported by previous studies. Conclusion Overall, governance of conservation areas requires a new dimension of governance framework to safeguard the areas, improve their performance and sustain their ecological services. A context-sensitive conceptual-policy framework was developed to integrate governance, funding, staffing, participation of local communities, and formalised partnership with NGOs. It further offers practical insights for policy and decision makers on the need for inclusive and participatory governance, active participation of local communities in governance, and improved staff welfare. Policy recommendations were made to ensure sustainable conservation outcomes. conservation areas governance Management Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Conservation areas are patches of iconic landscapes distributed across the globe. They play critical roles in biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, regulation of both local and global climate, and support socio-economic support/development (Hockings et al., 2006 ; Watson et al., 2014 ; IUCN, 2024; Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, 2025 ). Conservation areas keep increasing in both number and size, with over 200,000 sites globally documented covering 28.4 million km 2 (Watson et al., 2014 ). In response to the importance of the areas, researchers have developed several frameworks for managing the areas (Thomas and Middleton, 2003 ; Hockings et al, 2006 ; Leverington et al, 2010 ; Addison et al , 2015; Ahmah, 2025 ; Bamidele, 2026 ), while governments and international organisations invest in legal frameworks and resourcing to achieve sustainability goals and biodiversity conservation targets. Nigeria has taken the global trend in establishing and expanding conservation areas, from the first in 1899 to over 1,000 in the late 1990s (Hassan, 2015; Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, 2025 ). They are primarily designed to promote conservation, research, tourism and sustainable resource use (William, 2025 ). However, despite the government’s investments and institutional arrangements, conservation areas are increasingly challenged with biodiversity loss, degradation and declining conservation outcomes. Although empirical evidence reveals that an increasing number of conservation areas are effectively managed (Leverington et al., 2010 ; Nielsen, 2012 ; Laurance et al., 2012 ; Dehmel et al, 2026 ), other studies reveal the contrary (Watson et al, 2014 ; Nwankwo et al., 2023 ; Bamidele, 2026 ), thereby subjecting them to a wide range of management challenges. This led to the shift from an increasing number of conservation areas to determining their governance effectiveness, as mere designation does not guarantee better conservation outcomes. Problem Statement Conservation areas are officially designated areas due to their ecological importance in biodiversity protection and ecological services at both local and global scales. Their governance is vested in state agencies and institutions, supported by investments and budgetary allocation for governance, yet the areas remain ineffectively governed and increasingly threatened by persistent anthropogenic activities (Ahmah, 2025 ; Nwankwo et al., 2023 ; USAID, 2008; FAO, 2010 ) . This suggests the disconnect between policy and practice. Although policies, management plans and legal frameworks exist, the conservation areas continue to be de-reserved or degraded (Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, 2025 ). Globally, Nigeria is ranked first in tree felling (UNEP, 2024), and most of the trees are from conservation areas. Several frameworks and models were developed to guide the management and governance of conservation areas, yet these challenges persist. Several empirical studies reveal ineffectiveness in governance of the areas, as many conservation areas suffer major deficiencies (Ahmah, 2025 ; Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, 2025 ). This indicates a critical gap in the existing frameworks and models due to their “one-size-fits-all” approach. The critical need for context-specific framework/model is necessary for effective governance of the areas. Similarly, the management of conservation areas is top-down, limiting the participation of neighbouring local communities. Their exclusion can lead to conflict and increased anthropogenic activities (Bamidele, 2026 ). Furthermore, there is limited empirical research integrating qualitative insights into theoretical and operational frameworks. As studies emphasise developing more effective frameworks/models for better conservation outcomes, this study, therefore, explores the gap between policy and practice with a view to developing a context-specific framework/model for effective governance of conservation areas that goes beyond conventional frameworks/models to integrate local socio-cultural realities. Theoretical Underpinnings The study is underpinned by Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation and Maslow’s theory of motivation to investigate institutional and behavioural dynamics shaping governance effectiveness of conservation areas in Nigeria. The ladder of participation clearly conceptualises participation into three broad categories. Manipulation and therapy are referred to as non-participation as they are excluded from the decision-making process; informing, consultation, and placation are considered tokenism as stakeholders are informed and consulted, but lack influence; while partnership, delegated power, and citizen control form the citizen power as they exercise different forms of control (Arnstein, 1969 ; Gaber, 2020 ). In many nations of the global south, governance is constrained, leading to a gap between theory and practice. Theoretically, conservation area governance requires institutional capacity, policies, legal framework, management plan, and stakeholder participation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2013 ). The framework is adopted to understand the level of stakeholders' participation in conservation practices. Similarly, Maslow’s theory of motivation conceptualises that an individual’s performance is influenced by good remuneration, incentives, a conducive working environment, and safety (Maslow, 1954 ; 1970 ). In context, it implies that individuals' performance increases when they are rewarded and equipped with the job’s requirements. This theory, therefore, was adopted to investigate the performance of rangers and field staff who are the backbone of law enforcement and monitoring of the conservation areas. With the institutional capacity and supporting requirements provided, this study combined two theoretical perspectives in providing a comprehensive understanding of conservation area governance and its effectiveness. Arnstein’s theory explains the external components, which are local communities' participation, while Maslow’s theory explains the internal component as it affects staff performance. Therefore, conservation area governance should be viewed as a multi-layered framework where institutions motivate staff and allow active participation of local communities, which allows the local communities to have local ownership of conservation initiatives and improve compliance with regulations. This pushes the need for an integrated and context-specific framework that can bridge the gap between policy and practice. Study Area and Methods The study was conducted in Bauchi state of Nigeria, located between Latitude 9 0 30 1 0 11 N and 12 0 30 1 0 11 N and Longitude 8 0 30 1 0 11 E and 11 0 0 1 0 11 E as in Fig. 1. It is the leading state with a high number of conservation areas. The study focuses on conservation areas having governance structure, legal and institutional frameworks for management, which include Yankari Game Reserve, Lame Burra Game Reserve and Sumu Wildlife Park. These areas, cutting across diverse ecological zones, represent iconic landscapes protected for biodiversity conservation, research, ecotourism and local livelihoods. Yankari Game Reserve is located in the South-Central part of Bauchi state, in Alkaleri local government area. Established in 1957, it covers an area of 224,410 hectares in the Sudan Savanna vegetation zone, and is listed under category II of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) management category. Lame Burra Game Reserve is located between latitude 10 0 51 1 N to 11 0 10 1 N and 8 0 82 1 E to 9 0 58 1 E in the western part of the state, cutting across three local government areas, namely: Toro, Ganjuwa and Ningi, covering an area of 205,767 hectares from the guinea and sudan savanna zones. It is listed under category IV of the IUCN management categories. Sumu Wildlife Park is centred between latitude 10 0 40 1 N and 11 0 0 1 N and longitude 9 0 50 1 E and 10 0 0 1 E, adjacent to Lame Burra Game Reserve in Ganjuwa local government area, covering an area of 8,159 hectares. A qualitative research design was adopted to examine the effectiveness of governance of selected conservation areas in Nigeria. The approach allows an in-depth understanding of complex interactions between the institutional/legal framework, social and behavioural dynamics in conservation area governance. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Respondents were drawn from managers of the conservation areas, rangers, representatives of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and stakeholders from the local communities neighbouring the selected conservation areas. The key focus of the interview includes governance structures, resourcing, policy/legal framework, enforcement/implementation, welfare of personnel, and community participation in conservation-related activities and decisions. Participants with adequate knowledge and experience of conservation area governance were used as a criterion to select samples that can provide relevant data for the study using purposive sampling. Sampling continued until the study reached thematic saturation at eleven (11) interviews. Respondents’ consent on recording the interviews varies, where some respondents reject recording their voices despite promising confidentiality, and in that case, interviews were conducted slowly as the researcher took notes of the responses. For the respondents who agreed to recording, the audios were later transcribed for further analysis. All ethical considerations were considered during the data collection process. Data collected were analysed qualitatively in line with the recommendation of (Miles et al, 2014). At the first stage, transcribed data were studied carefully to identify recurring patterns of key terms/codes. The second stage themes were identified based on re-grouping of the codes identified. Finally, the themes were analysed and discussed in line with the theories underpinning the study, and the development of a local context-based framework for effective governance of conservation areas. Results and Discussion Analysis of the qualitative data collected through the interviews was conducted. The findings go beyond the assessment to further provide insight. Conservation outcome is shaped by institutional factors such as policy and state capacity, stakeholder dynamics, and operational capacity, comprising the availability of resources and staff motivation. The analysis was conducted as recommended by (Miles et al, 2014 ), which starts with coding, thematic analysis, interpretation and discussion of findings. The findings were further linked to theories underpinned by the study. Coding Across the interviews conducted by the study, the following recurring codes presented in Table 1 emerged from the respondents. Table 1 Key Codes Generated from the Interview Transcripts S/N Code S/N Code S/N Code 1 Underfunding 7 Non-implementation of management plans 13 NGO dominance (e.g., WCS support) 2 Lack of equipment (vehicles, firearms, uniforms) 8 Illegal activities (Poaching, grazing, logging/deforestation, firewood extraction, boundary encroachment) 14 Weak government commitment 3 Staff shortage 9 Poor infrastructure (patrol tracks, maintenance) 15 Informal collaboration with communities 4 Lack of training 10 Risk to ranger safety 16 Community informants 5 Weak law enforcement 11 Lack of motivation/incentives 17 Lack of structured participation 6 Outdated policies 12 Poor salary Based on the codes generated, the study identified seven themes capturing the whole of the interviews conducted. The thematic analysis is presented as follows: i. Theme One: Structural Governance Failure The findings revealed systematic failure of the governance, as the governance of conservation areas is symbolic rather than functional. This indicates a disconnect between policy and practice in conservation area governance. This is evidenced in the responses of the interview, as a responded states that “management of the conservation areas is not according to the management plan”. This indicates that management plans exist, but their implementation status remains unknown. This is what literature termed as “paper parks” or “shelf documents”, implying that despite the existence of a management plan, it is not implemented nor used as a guide in the governance. This has been re-echoed by another respondent, who states that “there exists a wide gap between what is on white paper and what is on the ground”. Furthermore, the existing laws/policies are those that were put in place since the establishment of the conservation areas. They are outdated as they have not been reviewed since their inception. Until now, there have been penalties that attract only twenty naira (N20.00). With the exchange rate of one dollar to Naira, this penalty attracts as low as $ 0.014. This can subsequently increase the morale of the offenders towards carrying out illegal activities because the penalties are very insignificant. Because if they are to be punished by the laws governing the conservation areas, they have less fear even in the court of law. This exposes the weakness of the institutions governing the conservation areas. ii. Theme Two: Resource Constraints Resource constraints significantly undermine the governance of the conservation areas under study. The respondents consistently raise concerns about underfunding, understaffing, and inadequate essential equipment by the responsible public agencies/institutions. A respondent considers the conservation areas grossly underfunded, as funds received from the government are not capable of meeting 30% of their requirements. This is evidenced in respondents' claims of a lack of equipment such as patrol vehicles, firearms and uniforms. Yankari Game Reserve has only two patrol vehicles as of the time of the study, and rangers are concerned about the inadequacies of equipment, as that threatens their lives. The rangers also raised concerns about staffing, as the staff strength is low. The area, particularly YGR, is 224,410 hectares with only 281 staff, and LBGR is 205,767 hectares with only 47 staff. The staff include all those in the tourism management, administrative staff and rangers. Furthermore, the non-operationalisation/implementation of the management plan, as highlighted by the respondents, may be attributed to financial and institutional constraints, resulting in the gap between policy and practice. This implies that the management of the conservation areas is constrained by resource deprivation, making implementation of management plans and enforcement of regulations difficult. The findings contradict the physiological concept of Maslow’s theory of motivation. iii. Theme Three: Escalating Anthropogenic Pressures The analysis reveals escalating anthropogenic activities in the conservation areas. These include poaching, logging, grazing, and encroachment into the conservation areas due to expanding agricultural activities. Reflecting on the size of the conservation areas, staffing, and the resource constraints, offenders can be tempted to exploit these weaknesses and carry out illegal activities in the areas. This is evidenced in the findings of the interview, where a respondent raises concern about the way communities adjust the cutline/boundary. This implies that illegal actors operate with low risk. iv. Theme Four: Vulnerability and Demotivation Analysis of the data denotes that rangers who enforce regulations and ensure that the conservation areas are adequately protected operate under risk and demoralising conditions. This is evidenced in the respondents' revelations that their salary cannot cater for their basic needs, as it is not enough, and they are not motivated. Furthermore, rangers operate under high-risk conditions because “poachers use higher versions of arms/equipment”. Linking the findings with the motivation theory, it can be concluded that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are absent and eroding, respectively. This can subsequently result in weakened enforcement capacity, reduced performance and morale. Cumulative impacts can have serious implications for conservation outcomes. Reflecting this with the concept of safety in Maslow’s theory of motivation, the rangers are not safe while undertaking conservation activities. v. Theme Five: Substitution of State Functions Findings of the study reveal the substitution of state agencies/institutions by external actors, specifically non-governmental organisations (The Wildlife Conservation Society [WCS]). The WCS steps in to fill the governance gaps in the conservation areas, particularly YGR and LBGR. This is evidenced by the funding and equipment supply by the WCS to the conservation areas, more than the government can provide. This can lead to the tactical withdrawal of the state from the affairs of the conservation areas and leave the areas at the mercy of external dependence. This can threaten the sustainability of the areas. vi. Theme Six: Passive Community Participation Participation of the communities neighbouring the conservation areas appears to be passive and limited to information dissemination through their village or ward head and occasional consultation. This is evidenced in information sharing, occasional empowerment programmes and the use of community members as informants. There is no evidence that communities are involved in decision-making about the conservation areas or influencing those decisions. Relating the findings to Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation, the communities neighbouring the conservation areas experience only Tokenistic engagement, specifically informing and consulting. These two stages of participation are superficial, with no influence on decisions regarding the conservation areas. This explains the breadth and depth of illegal activities in the areas despite the “so-called collaboration”. The communities ought to have a partnership or delegated power status, where they can influence decisions about the conservation areas. vii. Theme Seven: Weak Institutional and Legal Framework Policies governing the conservation areas are outdated and ineffective. This is evident as laws and regulations established in the 1970s to 80s are still in use without review, with minimal penalties for offences. This signifies the ineffectiveness of the policies and regulations. Low penalties for offences imply that there will be low deterrence, and that can subsequently lead to increased illegal activities. Overall, the findings reveal a systematic failure due to weak governance, underfunding, and weak enforcement of regulations. Cumulative impacts paved the way for increased illegal activities in the conservation areas and demotivation of the rangers, thereby producing unwanted/unexpected conservation outcomes. Discussion The study provides empirical evidence that conservation areas in Nigeria are constrained by internal factors, such as institutional and operational, and external factors such as pressure from outside, which are widely reported in the global conservation literature. The piece of empirical evidence also denotes dynamics within the context of Nigeria, specifically highlighting the slow withdrawal of state institutions from conservation responsibilities and rangers' vulnerability, thereby escalating conservation challenges in the areas. The key finding of the study is the gap between policy and what is obtainable on site, indicating a deficit in governance style. Even though conservation areas are guided by national and state policies and a management plan, these policies and plans are either under-implemented or not implemented due to financial and institutional constraints, as reported by the respondents. This finding aligns with the global studies on conservation areas (Bruner et al., 2001 ; Leverington et al., 2010 ), which reveal that conservation areas are sometimes designated, but not protected. This is what literature termed as “paper parks”, as conservation areas exist by name with relevant supporting policies and documents (management plans), but are not really managed. This is a common phenomenon and practice in developing nations of the global south, and is widely documented. Underfunding has been identified by all the respondents as a major constraint undermining the conservation areas. Findings revealed that state funding is insufficient to cater for the operational needs, equipment provision and infrastructure maintenance. Chronic underfunding emerged as a central constraint that can virtually affect all aspects of conservation efforts and processes. This is in line with the findings of Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan ( 2025 ), who argue that inadequate funding yields unwanted outcomes. Inadequate funding is a major challenge that weakens the performance of management agencies and rangers, and becomes an opportunity for the offenders to exploit the resources of the conservation areas at minimal risk. Findings reveal growing dependence of the conservation areas on non-governmental organisations, specifically the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). WCS narrows the gap in funding and capacity building, where it provides funding, equipment and training to rangers of the three conservation areas under study. Involvement of NGOs in conservation activities is considered a support mechanism for better performance and conservation outcomes (Brockington et al., 2008). Surprisingly, in the Nigerian context, NGOs are substituting rather than supplementing state support, roles and functions. These types of findings have not been reported in the global conservation literature. This has serious implications for the long-term sustainability and governance of the conservation areas, as states slowly relinquish management to external forces, thereby making governance externally driven instead of institutionally embedded. A critical issue identified by the study is the poor ranger motivation and operational risk. This can have serious implications for the performance and effectiveness of the conservation areas, thereby producing unwanted conservation outcomes. The rangers operate under hazardous conditions because they are expected to make arrests of offenders. Most of the offenders are from the neighbouring communities, with a few coming from a far distance, and these offenders sometimes possess arms that they used in poaching, which are better than those of the rangers. Their remuneration is very low, and they lack other supporting equipment like vehicles and logistics, which are all expected to come from the institutions/state. Reflecting on the key concepts of Maslow’s theory of motivation, poor salary and unsafe working conditions can directly lead to job dissatisfaction and reduced performance. The finding is consistent with previous research on conservation studies (Moreto et al., 2016), and emphasises improved welfare for staff. This implies that, so long as motivational factors are neglected, a weak enforcement style can definitely become a practice, irrespective of policy improvements. The persistence of anthropogenic activities such as poaching, firewood/timber extraction, grazing, and encroachment by agricultural activities in the conservation areas under study is a reflection of complex interaction between internal factors such as a weak institutional framework, underfunding, understaffing, weak enforcement style, poor motivation, and external factors such as local livelihood needs by the communities around and economic forces. The findings denote that anthropogenic activities are, in some instances, strategically organised, as actors exploit the highlighted shortfalls. This supports the argument of Gibson et al. ( 2005 ) that actors continue with their illegal activities as long as the possibility of detection is low. This implies that the actors respond rationally to enforcement gaps. Community participation in conservation-related activities appeared to be passive, limited to only information sharing through the community or village head, and consultation with the community members where necessary. This form of participation does not allow communities to partake in decision-making or influence decisions. This type of participation is a reflection of informing and tokenism based on Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, signifying a lower level of participation. The low level of participation also explains the widespread and strategic involvement of communities in illegal activities. Finally, weak and outdated legal frameworks, as identified by the study, are an enabling factor for non-compliance with the laws and regulations, due to obsolete laws with weak or ineffective penalties. As long as the illegal activities are economically rewarding and penalties are on the lowest side, conservation efforts are going to be undermined. Overall, the study suggests that poor conservation outcomes are a product of the interaction between multiple internal and external factors, such as a weak legal and institutional framework, resource constraints, low level of staff motivation, passive participation of communities in management and decision-making, and high economic value for conservation area resources/commodities, as presented in Fig. 2 . Policy Implications Empirical evidence from the study suggests the need for systemic and multi-level policy responses to address the challenges undermining conservation areas in Nigeria. This should also be a coordinated intervention targeting governance, funding, enforcement capacity, staffing and staff motivation, and community participation. Firstly, the evidence from the study suggests the need for institutional and legal reform. The reform should ensure that conservation laws are revised to reflect the present socio-economic realities. This can be achieved through upward review of fines and penalties for all the offences. In some instances, a single offence should be punished by a fine and conviction by the court of law. Efforts towards strengthening the institutional capacity should state clearly the roles and responsibilities of each state agency/institution to avoid conflict. This can go a long way in minimising bureaucratic fragmentation and the successful implementation of policies and plans. Furthermore, it can bridge the gap between “policy on paper” and “practice on the ground”, thereby yielding better conservation outcomes. Secondly, the conservation areas require urgent sustainable financing and immediate consideration of diversifying funding sources beyond state allocation. This can be achieved through institutionalising a conservation trust fund, promoting public-private partnerships, and tourism-based revenue generation, among other sources. This is critical in sustaining management and the ease of implementation of plans for conservation success. Adequate financing further motivates staff by providing all necessary equipment, providing a safe environment for operations, and sustaining better salaries/allowances/insurance/training. Thirdly, to drastically reduce anthropogenic activities in the conservation areas, policies should be put in place to provide an enabling environment for inclusive and participatory approaches to planning and governance, such as co-management and community-based conservation, where communities are involved in decision-making. Furthermore, communities should be empowered to meet their local livelihoods without seeking anything from the conservation areas. Fourthly, monitoring and evaluation should be strengthened to improve the performance of the areas and offer innovative means of tackling emerging threats to the conservation areas. This can be achieved through the adoption of advanced digital patrol technology and remote sensing. This can further promote evidence-based decision-making and promote accountability. Enhancing conservation activities requires a shift from a more fragmented, weak/outdated policy to a more state-of-the-art policy that is strict, adequately funded and participatory in approach to governance. Such is essential in ensuring conservation success, sustenance of ecological services at local, regional, national and global scales. Conclusion The study examined governance effectiveness in selected conservation areas in Nigeria. Evidence from the study demonstrates that governance emphasises institutional structures and funding; however, they are inadequate. The governance is also insufficient in accounting for human dimensions, the community’s livelihood, and motivational values of staff, which cumulatively shape conservation outcomes. These further reveal that inadequate funding and capacity constraints are not the sole determinant of weak governance, but also a low level of collaboration with local communities, and limited motivation of rangers. It can be deduced from the findings that active collaboration can enhance compliance, minimise conflict, and promote conservation efforts, while motivation and incentives for staff contribute to better enforcement style, thereby increasing performance and sustainability of the areas. The insights reveal the limitations of the conventional top-down approach to management and suggest an inclusive and participatory approach to governance, which is context-sensitive. The study proposed a holistic and context-sensitive framework that integrates governance, funding, motivation, and local community participation for effective governance of conservation areas. The dual contribution of the study is to both theory and practice, by providing a holistic approach to understanding and improving governance of conservation areas in the Nigerian context and similar nations of the global south. Declarations Ethics approval and consent An introductory letter was sent to state agencies responsible for managing the selected conservation areas. Consent of each participant was sought before the interview, and confidentiality and anonymity were promised. Participation was voluntary. Consent for publication Not Applicable Availability of data and material Data used for this study is available upon request Competing interests The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the content of this article. Funding No funding was received for this study Authors' contributions The author drafted the article, collected the data, analysed it, and discussed the results. Acknowledgements This work has been fully acknowledged Authors' information Abdulaziz Hassan, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Bayero University Kano. My research interests are in Environmental Planning and Governance. I have several publications in those areas in reputable journals, including Sustainable Cities and Society hosted by ScienceDirect, People and Nature hosted by Springer Nature, Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture hosted by Springer, Jurnal Teknologi, and other publishing outlets. I can be reached through this email: [email protected] . References Ahmah, O. K. (2025). Advancing Wildlife Conservation in Nigeria: Integrating Behavioural Ecology and Cutting-Edge Technologies. Zoological Synthesis , 1 (1), 35-40. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners , 35 (4), 216-224. Bamidele, S. (2026). Community‐Led Forest Management and Conservation: Insights From Nigeria's Obudu and Mambilla Mountain Forests. Environmental Policy and Governance , 36 (1), 81-94. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp. Brockington, D., and Igoe, J. (2006). Eviction for conservation: A Global Overview. Conservation and Society , 4(3), 424. Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., and Da Fonseca, G. A. (2001). Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. Science , 291(5501), 125-128. Dehmel, N., Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Jones, N., Booker, F., Lambini, C., ... & Twinamatsiko, M. (2026). Insights from equitable governance assessments in conservation areas around the world. Conservation Biology , 40 (1), e70101. Ebelechukwu, F., & Johnson-Opeseitan, D. I. (2025). Biodiversity Conservation and Business in Nigeria: Evaluating Priorities across Key Business Sectors. Available at SSRN 5364447 . FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment: Country Report, Nigeria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Forestry Department. Gaber, J. (2020). Building “a ladder of citizen participation”: Sherry Arnstein, citizen participation, and model cities. In Learning from Arnstein's Ladder (pp. 13-34). Routledge. Gibson, C. C., Williams, J. T., & Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World development , 33 (2), 273-284. Hassan, A. (2019). Human-Nature Relationship: A Case of Selected Conservation Areas in Nigeria. Adamawa State University Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1). Hassan, A., Johar, F., Rafee, M. and Idris, N. M. (2015). Protected Area Management in Nigeria: A Review. Jurnal Teknologi , 77:15; 31-40. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. 2 nd Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. UK. International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2024). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/ Laurance, W. F., Useche, D. C., Rendeiro, J., Kalka, M., Bradshaw, C. J., Sloan, S. P., ... and Arroyo-Rodriguez, V. (2012). Averting Biodiversity Collapse in Tropical Forest Protected Areas. Nature , 489(7415), 290-294. Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A. and Hockings, M. (2010). A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Environmental Management . 46(5), 685-698. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. Third Edition. New York: Longman. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis . sage. Moreto, W. D. (2016). Occupational stress among law enforcement rangers: Insights from Uganda. Oryx , 50 (4), 646-654. Nielsen, G. (2012). Capacity Development in Protected Area Management. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology . 19(4), 297-310. Nwankwo, O. C., Chukwu, B. A., & Ofor, B. M. (2023). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting and firm value in Nigeria manufacturing firms: The moderating role of firm advantage. Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 9(3), 44–62. Thomas, L. and Middleton, J. (2003). Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Ix + 79pp. United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). UNEP and biodiversity. https://www.unep.org/unep-and biodiversity United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2008. Nigeria Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Assessment: Maximizing Agricultural Revenue in Key Enterprises for Targeted Sites (Markets). Chemonics International Inc. Watson, J. E., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., and Hockings, M. (2014). The Performance and Potential of Protected Areas. Nature , 515(7525), 67-73. William, J. (2025). Assessing Nigeria's efforts in biodiversity conservation. Scientific Reports in Life Sciences , 6 (1), 85-98. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-9683993","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":638852294,"identity":"fd3a217d-ac3d-47bf-84c3-c28d0fb3c403","order_by":0,"name":"Abdulaziz Hassan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bayero University Kano","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdulaziz","middleName":"","lastName":"Hassan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-05-11 20:38:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9683993/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9683993/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109174160,"identity":"4537b3a2-7ffb-4c27-a1db-2ae4e62747fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 09:15:15","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":827332,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of Study Area and Sites\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Adapted from Hassan (2019) and \u003ca href=\"https://www.google.com/search?q=map+of+bauchi+state\u0026amp;sca_esv=0cd8414acae759f0\u0026amp;sxsrf=ANbL-n5aUDwhiTdTfvSglwmn5PGR1-dHEQ%3A1777797515642\u0026amp;fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpUrv6YeyJhXfuYqj4Fj6c1UM_gfiPu45LsYicKAFFSwIAYLGod28eCd7pLU6z-lXFziHSzoRdJRG4VpM1ScdTF29FXqt7anqOM90R_pw_-GBkW3AaPuSAxFiSBtrBmC3RcZdx0BkQK0dILbQbm2wFRjrM01KqUaR5Ljy50C1spEKUK0g8fy3H9Tvf88rPQJQwo9ED3w\u0026amp;aep=1\u0026amp;ntc=1\u0026amp;sa=X\u0026amp;ved=2ahUKEwic5Jvr25yUAxUlREEAHWkBAywQ2J8OegQIChAD\u0026amp;biw=1272\u0026amp;bih=688\u0026amp;dpr=1.5\u0026amp;mstk=AUtExfCoGEnG3fd5sNFWnQkST5cLzwUTOKvgJ0E4I8d6vUBb1-YXE3im1DYg3VJWh5IkMxxJv-h3sjgE19WhXofpBWV-7IhOCOXUMUCZLiz-_qnUDIGugTjIWCjjdlf4hpKk802PVmHpF-SGFgeHqQcFR962X_4ARo4jBbu3wAXlC4z1HIzhEIvM9R8iNzmRK0FspgNgI13yxCC8BHIpl1ZInugKFsxW8nmpfYRmyzAbATrkuJ_0qoHsR3yGKw\u0026amp;csuir=1\u0026amp;udm=50\"\u003emap of Bauchi State - Google Search\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9683993/v1/f9e96d5ecabca0849d65c0b0.png"},{"id":109174185,"identity":"b3a226a3-e324-4820-9aad-4f38606fd12c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 09:15:18","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":999002,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual-Policy Framework Developed Effective Governance of Conservation Areas in Nigeria\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9683993/v1/7ea94a73d9bf7e7ac6eb04fd.png"},{"id":109198692,"identity":"ddd99907-8f74-4066-b0d2-44f573b02dab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 13:29:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1975305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9683993/v1/15383a7a-73da-4e60-8116-dd97b382f403.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Policy-Practice Gaps in Conservation Area Governance: Evidence From Selected Conservation Areas in Nigeria","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eConservation areas are patches of iconic landscapes distributed across the globe. They play critical roles in biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, regulation of both local and global climate, and support socio-economic support/development (Hockings et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Watson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eIUCN, 2024;\u003c/em\u003e Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Conservation areas keep increasing in both number and size, with over 200,000 sites globally documented covering 28.4\u0026nbsp;million km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (Watson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In response to the importance of the areas, researchers have developed several frameworks for managing the areas (Thomas and Middleton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Hockings et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Leverington et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Addison \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e, 2015; Ahmah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Bamidele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), while governments and international organisations invest in legal frameworks and resourcing to achieve sustainability goals and biodiversity conservation targets. Nigeria has taken the global trend in establishing and expanding conservation areas, from the first in 1899 to over 1,000 in the late 1990s (Hassan, 2015; Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). They are primarily designed to promote conservation, research, tourism and sustainable resource use (William, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite the government\u0026rsquo;s investments and institutional arrangements, conservation areas are increasingly challenged with biodiversity loss, degradation and declining conservation outcomes. Although empirical evidence reveals that an increasing number of conservation areas are effectively managed (Leverington et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Nielsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Laurance et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Dehmel et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), other studies reveal the contrary (Watson et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Nwankwo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Bamidele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), thereby subjecting them to a wide range of management challenges. This led to the shift from an increasing number of conservation areas to determining their governance effectiveness, as mere designation does not guarantee better conservation outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProblem Statement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConservation areas are officially designated areas due to their ecological importance in biodiversity protection and ecological services at both local and global scales. Their governance is vested in state agencies and institutions, supported by investments and budgetary allocation for governance, yet the areas remain ineffectively governed and increasingly threatened by persistent anthropogenic activities (Ahmah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Nwankwo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eUSAID, 2008;\u003c/em\u003e FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. This suggests the disconnect between policy and practice. Although policies, management plans and legal frameworks exist, the conservation areas continue to be de-reserved or degraded (Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Globally, Nigeria is ranked first in tree felling (UNEP, 2024), and most of the trees are from conservation areas. Several frameworks and models were developed to guide the management and governance of conservation areas, yet these challenges persist. Several empirical studies reveal ineffectiveness in governance of the areas, as many conservation areas suffer major deficiencies (Ahmah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This indicates a critical gap in the existing frameworks and models due to their \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; approach. The critical need for context-specific framework/model is necessary for effective governance of the areas. Similarly, the management of conservation areas is top-down, limiting the participation of neighbouring local communities. Their exclusion can lead to conflict and increased anthropogenic activities (Bamidele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, there is limited empirical research integrating qualitative insights into theoretical and operational frameworks. As studies emphasise developing more effective frameworks/models for better conservation outcomes, this study, therefore, explores the gap between policy and practice with a view to developing a context-specific framework/model for effective governance of conservation areas that goes beyond conventional frameworks/models to integrate local socio-cultural realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Underpinnings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study is underpinned by Arnstein\u0026rsquo;s Ladder of Participation and Maslow\u0026rsquo;s theory of motivation to investigate institutional and behavioural dynamics shaping governance effectiveness of conservation areas in Nigeria. The ladder of participation clearly conceptualises participation into three broad categories. Manipulation and therapy are referred to as non-participation as they are excluded from the decision-making process; informing, consultation, and placation are considered tokenism as stakeholders are informed and consulted, but lack influence; while partnership, delegated power, and citizen control form the citizen power as they exercise different forms of control (Arnstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; Gaber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In many nations of the global south, governance is constrained, leading to a gap between theory and practice. Theoretically, conservation area governance requires institutional capacity, policies, legal framework, management plan, and stakeholder participation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The framework is adopted to understand the level of stakeholders' participation in conservation practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Maslow\u0026rsquo;s theory of motivation conceptualises that an individual\u0026rsquo;s performance is influenced by good remuneration, incentives, a conducive working environment, and safety (Maslow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e). In context, it implies that individuals' performance increases when they are rewarded and equipped with the job\u0026rsquo;s requirements. This theory, therefore, was adopted to investigate the performance of rangers and field staff who are the backbone of law enforcement and monitoring of the conservation areas. With the institutional capacity and supporting requirements provided, this study combined two theoretical perspectives in providing a comprehensive understanding of conservation area governance and its effectiveness. Arnstein\u0026rsquo;s theory explains the external components, which are local communities' participation, while Maslow\u0026rsquo;s theory explains the internal component as it affects staff performance. Therefore, conservation area governance should be viewed as a multi-layered framework where institutions motivate staff and allow active participation of local communities, which allows the local communities to have local ownership of conservation initiatives and improve compliance with regulations. This pushes the need for an integrated and context-specific framework that can bridge the gap between policy and practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Study Area and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in Bauchi state of Nigeria, located between Latitude 9\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e30\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e0\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003eN and 12\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e30\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e0\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003eN and Longitude 8\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e30\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e0\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e E and 11\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e0\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e0\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003eE as in Fig. 1. It is the leading state with a high number of conservation areas. The study focuses on conservation areas having governance structure, legal and institutional frameworks for management, which include Yankari Game Reserve, Lame Burra Game Reserve and Sumu Wildlife Park. These areas, cutting across diverse ecological zones, represent iconic landscapes protected for biodiversity conservation, research, ecotourism and local livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYankari Game Reserve is located in the South-Central part of Bauchi state, in Alkaleri local government area. Established in 1957, it covers an area of 224,410 hectares in the Sudan Savanna vegetation zone, and is listed under category II of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) management category. Lame Burra Game Reserve is located between latitude 10\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 51\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eN to 11\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 10\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eN and 8\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 82\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eE to 9\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 58\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eE in the western part of the state, cutting across three local government areas, namely: Toro, Ganjuwa and Ningi, covering an area of 205,767 hectares from the guinea and sudan savanna zones. It is listed under category IV of the IUCN management categories. Sumu Wildlife Park is centred between latitude 10\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 40\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eN and 11\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 0\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eN and longitude 9\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 50\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eE and 10\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 0\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eE, adjacent to Lame Burra Game Reserve in Ganjuwa local government area, covering an area of 8,159 hectares.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA qualitative research design was adopted to examine the effectiveness of governance of selected conservation areas in Nigeria. The approach allows an in-depth understanding of complex interactions between the institutional/legal framework, social and behavioural dynamics in conservation area governance. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Respondents were drawn from managers of the conservation areas, rangers, representatives of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and stakeholders from the local communities neighbouring the selected conservation areas. The key focus of the interview includes governance structures, resourcing, policy/legal framework, enforcement/implementation, welfare of personnel, and community participation in conservation-related activities and decisions. Participants with adequate knowledge and experience of conservation area governance were used as a criterion to select samples that can provide relevant data for the study using purposive sampling. Sampling continued until the study reached thematic saturation at eleven (11) interviews. Respondents’ consent on recording the interviews varies, where some respondents reject recording their voices despite promising confidentiality, and in that case, interviews were conducted slowly as the researcher took notes of the responses. For the respondents who agreed to recording, the audios were later transcribed for further analysis. All ethical considerations were considered during the data collection process. Data collected were analysed qualitatively in line with the recommendation of (Miles et al, 2014). At the first stage, transcribed data were studied carefully to identify recurring patterns of key terms/codes. The second stage themes were identified based on re-grouping of the codes identified. Finally, the themes were analysed and discussed in line with the theories underpinning the study, and the development of a local context-based framework for effective governance of conservation areas.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the qualitative data collected through the interviews was conducted. The findings go beyond the assessment to further provide insight. Conservation outcome is shaped by institutional factors such as policy and state capacity, stakeholder dynamics, and operational capacity, comprising the availability of resources and staff motivation. The analysis was conducted as recommended by (Miles et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), which starts with coding, thematic analysis, interpretation and discussion of findings. The findings were further linked to theories underpinned by the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCoding\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross the interviews conducted by the study, the following recurring codes presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e emerged from the respondents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Codes Generated from the Interview Transcripts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS/N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS/N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS/N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderfunding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-implementation of management plans\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGO dominance (e.g., WCS support)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of equipment (vehicles, firearms, uniforms)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIllegal activities (Poaching, grazing, logging/deforestation, firewood extraction, boundary encroachment)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak government commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStaff shortage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor infrastructure (patrol tracks, maintenance)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal collaboration with communities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk to ranger safety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity informants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak law enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of motivation/incentives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of structured participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutdated policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor salary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the codes generated, the study identified seven themes capturing the whole of the interviews conducted. The thematic analysis is presented as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ei. Theme One: Structural Governance Failure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings revealed systematic failure of the governance, as the governance of conservation areas is symbolic rather than functional. This indicates a disconnect between policy and practice in conservation area governance. This is evidenced in the responses of the interview, as a responded states that \u0026ldquo;management of the conservation areas is not according to the management plan\u0026rdquo;. This indicates that management plans exist, but their implementation status remains unknown. This is what literature termed as \u0026ldquo;paper parks\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;shelf documents\u0026rdquo;, implying that despite the existence of a management plan, it is not implemented nor used as a guide in the governance. This has been re-echoed by another respondent, who states that \u0026ldquo;there exists a wide gap between what is on white paper and what is on the ground\u0026rdquo;. Furthermore, the existing laws/policies are those that were put in place since the establishment of the conservation areas. They are outdated as they have not been reviewed since their inception. Until now, there have been penalties that attract only twenty naira (N20.00). With the exchange rate of one dollar to Naira, this penalty attracts as low as \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e0.014. This can subsequently increase the morale of the offenders towards carrying out illegal activities because the penalties are very insignificant. Because if they are to be punished by the laws governing the conservation areas, they have less fear even in the court of law. This exposes the weakness of the institutions governing the conservation areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eii. Theme Two: Resource Constraints\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource constraints significantly undermine the governance of the conservation areas under study. The respondents consistently raise concerns about underfunding, understaffing, and inadequate essential equipment by the responsible public agencies/institutions. A respondent considers the conservation areas grossly underfunded, as funds received from the government are not capable of meeting 30% of their requirements. This is evidenced in respondents' claims of a lack of equipment such as patrol vehicles, firearms and uniforms. Yankari Game Reserve has only two patrol vehicles as of the time of the study, and rangers are concerned about the inadequacies of equipment, as that threatens their lives. The rangers also raised concerns about staffing, as the staff strength is low. The area, particularly YGR, is 224,410 hectares with only 281 staff, and LBGR is 205,767 hectares with only 47 staff. The staff include all those in the tourism management, administrative staff and rangers. Furthermore, the non-operationalisation/implementation of the management plan, as highlighted by the respondents, may be attributed to financial and institutional constraints, resulting in the gap between policy and practice. This implies that the management of the conservation areas is constrained by resource deprivation, making implementation of management plans and enforcement of regulations difficult. The findings contradict the physiological concept of Maslow\u0026rsquo;s theory of motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eiii. Theme Three: Escalating Anthropogenic Pressures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis reveals escalating anthropogenic activities in the conservation areas. These include poaching, logging, grazing, and encroachment into the conservation areas due to expanding agricultural activities. Reflecting on the size of the conservation areas, staffing, and the resource constraints, offenders can be tempted to exploit these weaknesses and carry out illegal activities in the areas. This is evidenced in the findings of the interview, where a respondent raises concern about the way communities adjust the cutline/boundary. This implies that illegal actors operate with low risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eiv. Theme Four: Vulnerability and Demotivation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the data denotes that rangers who enforce regulations and ensure that the conservation areas are adequately protected operate under risk and demoralising conditions. This is evidenced in the respondents' revelations that their salary cannot cater for their basic needs, as it is not enough, and they are not motivated. Furthermore, rangers operate under high-risk conditions because \u0026ldquo;poachers use higher versions of arms/equipment\u0026rdquo;. Linking the findings with the motivation theory, it can be concluded that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are absent and eroding, respectively. This can subsequently result in weakened enforcement capacity, reduced performance and morale. Cumulative impacts can have serious implications for conservation outcomes. Reflecting this with the concept of safety in Maslow\u0026rsquo;s theory of motivation, the rangers are not safe while undertaking conservation activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ev. Theme Five: Substitution of State Functions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings of the study reveal the substitution of state agencies/institutions by external actors, specifically non-governmental organisations (The Wildlife Conservation Society [WCS]). The WCS steps in to fill the governance gaps in the conservation areas, particularly YGR and LBGR. This is evidenced by the funding and equipment supply by the WCS to the conservation areas, more than the government can provide. This can lead to the tactical withdrawal of the state from the affairs of the conservation areas and leave the areas at the mercy of external dependence. This can threaten the sustainability of the areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003evi. Theme Six: Passive Community Participation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipation of the communities neighbouring the conservation areas appears to be passive and limited to information dissemination through their village or ward head and occasional consultation. This is evidenced in information sharing, occasional empowerment programmes and the use of community members as informants. There is no evidence that communities are involved in decision-making about the conservation areas or influencing those decisions. Relating the findings to Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation, the communities neighbouring the conservation areas experience only Tokenistic engagement, specifically informing and consulting. These two stages of participation are superficial, with no influence on decisions regarding the conservation areas. This explains the breadth and depth of illegal activities in the areas despite the \u0026ldquo;so-called collaboration\u0026rdquo;. The communities ought to have a partnership or delegated power status, where they can influence decisions about the conservation areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003evii. Theme Seven: Weak Institutional and Legal Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicies governing the conservation areas are outdated and ineffective. This is evident as laws and regulations established in the 1970s to 80s are still in use without review, with minimal penalties for offences. This signifies the ineffectiveness of the policies and regulations. Low penalties for offences imply that there will be low deterrence, and that can subsequently lead to increased illegal activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings reveal a systematic failure due to weak governance, underfunding, and weak enforcement of regulations. Cumulative impacts paved the way for increased illegal activities in the conservation areas and demotivation of the rangers, thereby producing unwanted/unexpected conservation outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study provides empirical evidence that conservation areas in Nigeria are constrained by internal factors, such as institutional and operational, and external factors such as pressure from outside, which are widely reported in the global conservation literature. The piece of empirical evidence also denotes dynamics within the context of Nigeria, specifically highlighting the slow withdrawal of state institutions from conservation responsibilities and rangers' vulnerability, thereby escalating conservation challenges in the areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe key finding of the study is the gap between policy and what is obtainable on site, indicating a deficit in governance style. Even though conservation areas are guided by national and state policies and a management plan, these policies and plans are either under-implemented or not implemented due to financial and institutional constraints, as reported by the respondents. This finding aligns with the global studies on conservation areas (Bruner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Leverington et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), which reveal that conservation areas are sometimes designated, but not protected. This is what literature termed as \u0026ldquo;paper parks\u0026rdquo;, as conservation areas exist by name with relevant supporting policies and documents (management plans), but are not really managed. This is a common phenomenon and practice in developing nations of the global south, and is widely documented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderfunding has been identified by all the respondents as a major constraint undermining the conservation areas. Findings revealed that state funding is insufficient to cater for the operational needs, equipment provision and infrastructure maintenance. Chronic underfunding emerged as a central constraint that can virtually affect all aspects of conservation efforts and processes. This is in line with the findings of Ebelechukwu and Johnson-Opeseitan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), who argue that inadequate funding yields unwanted outcomes. Inadequate funding is a major challenge that weakens the performance of management agencies and rangers, and becomes an opportunity for the offenders to exploit the resources of the conservation areas at minimal risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings reveal growing dependence of the conservation areas on non-governmental organisations, specifically the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). WCS narrows the gap in funding and capacity building, where it provides funding, equipment and training to rangers of the three conservation areas under study. Involvement of NGOs in conservation activities is considered a support mechanism for better performance and conservation outcomes (Brockington et al., 2008). Surprisingly, in the Nigerian context, NGOs are substituting rather than supplementing state support, roles and functions. These types of findings have not been reported in the global conservation literature. This has serious implications for the long-term sustainability and governance of the conservation areas, as states slowly relinquish management to external forces, thereby making governance externally driven instead of institutionally embedded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA critical issue identified by the study is the poor ranger motivation and operational risk. This can have serious implications for the performance and effectiveness of the conservation areas, thereby producing unwanted conservation outcomes. The rangers operate under hazardous conditions because they are expected to make arrests of offenders. Most of the offenders are from the neighbouring communities, with a few coming from a far distance, and these offenders sometimes possess arms that they used in poaching, which are better than those of the rangers. Their remuneration is very low, and they lack other supporting equipment like vehicles and logistics, which are all expected to come from the institutions/state. Reflecting on the key concepts of Maslow\u0026rsquo;s theory of motivation, poor salary and unsafe working conditions can directly lead to job dissatisfaction and reduced performance. The finding is consistent with previous research on conservation studies (Moreto et al., 2016), and emphasises improved welfare for staff. This implies that, so long as motivational factors are neglected, a weak enforcement style can definitely become a practice, irrespective of policy improvements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe persistence of anthropogenic activities such as poaching, firewood/timber extraction, grazing, and encroachment by agricultural activities in the conservation areas under study is a reflection of complex interaction between internal factors such as a weak institutional framework, underfunding, understaffing, weak enforcement style, poor motivation, and external factors such as local livelihood needs by the communities around and economic forces. The findings denote that anthropogenic activities are, in some instances, strategically organised, as actors exploit the highlighted shortfalls. This supports the argument of Gibson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) that actors continue with their illegal activities as long as the possibility of detection is low. This implies that the actors respond rationally to enforcement gaps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity participation in conservation-related activities appeared to be passive, limited to only information sharing through the community or village head, and consultation with the community members where necessary. This form of participation does not allow communities to partake in decision-making or influence decisions. This type of participation is a reflection of informing and tokenism based on Arnstein\u0026rsquo;s Ladder of Participation, signifying a lower level of participation. The low level of participation also explains the widespread and strategic involvement of communities in illegal activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, weak and outdated legal frameworks, as identified by the study, are an enabling factor for non-compliance with the laws and regulations, due to obsolete laws with weak or ineffective penalties. As long as the illegal activities are economically rewarding and penalties are on the lowest side, conservation efforts are going to be undermined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the study suggests that poor conservation outcomes are a product of the interaction between multiple internal and external factors, such as a weak legal and institutional framework, resource constraints, low level of staff motivation, passive participation of communities in management and decision-making, and high economic value for conservation area resources/commodities, as presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePolicy Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence from the study suggests the need for systemic and multi-level policy responses to address the challenges undermining conservation areas in Nigeria. This should also be a coordinated intervention targeting governance, funding, enforcement capacity, staffing and staff motivation, and community participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, the evidence from the study suggests the need for institutional and legal reform. The reform should ensure that conservation laws are revised to reflect the present socio-economic realities. This can be achieved through upward review of fines and penalties for all the offences. In some instances, a single offence should be punished by a fine and conviction by the court of law. Efforts towards strengthening the institutional capacity should state clearly the roles and responsibilities of each state agency/institution to avoid conflict. This can go a long way in minimising bureaucratic fragmentation and the successful implementation of policies and plans. Furthermore, it can bridge the gap between \u0026ldquo;policy on paper\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;practice on the ground\u0026rdquo;, thereby yielding better conservation outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, the conservation areas require urgent sustainable financing and immediate consideration of diversifying funding sources beyond state allocation. This can be achieved through institutionalising a conservation trust fund, promoting public-private partnerships, and tourism-based revenue generation, among other sources. This is critical in sustaining management and the ease of implementation of plans for conservation success. Adequate financing further motivates staff by providing all necessary equipment, providing a safe environment for operations, and sustaining better salaries/allowances/insurance/training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirdly, to drastically reduce anthropogenic activities in the conservation areas, policies should be put in place to provide an enabling environment for inclusive and participatory approaches to planning and governance, such as co-management and community-based conservation, where communities are involved in decision-making. Furthermore, communities should be empowered to meet their local livelihoods without seeking anything from the conservation areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourthly, monitoring and evaluation should be strengthened to improve the performance of the areas and offer innovative means of tackling emerging threats to the conservation areas. This can be achieved through the adoption of advanced digital patrol technology and remote sensing. This can further promote evidence-based decision-making and promote accountability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnhancing conservation activities requires a shift from a more fragmented, weak/outdated policy to a more state-of-the-art policy that is strict, adequately funded and participatory in approach to governance. Such is essential in ensuring conservation success, sustenance of ecological services at local, regional, national and global scales.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study examined governance effectiveness in selected conservation areas in Nigeria. Evidence from the study demonstrates that governance emphasises institutional structures and funding; however, they are inadequate. The governance is also insufficient in accounting for human dimensions, the community\u0026rsquo;s livelihood, and motivational values of staff, which cumulatively shape conservation outcomes. These further reveal that inadequate funding and capacity constraints are not the sole determinant of weak governance, but also a low level of collaboration with local communities, and limited motivation of rangers. It can be deduced from the findings that active collaboration can enhance compliance, minimise conflict, and promote conservation efforts, while motivation and incentives for staff contribute to better enforcement style, thereby increasing performance and sustainability of the areas. The insights reveal the limitations of the conventional top-down approach to management and suggest an inclusive and participatory approach to governance, which is context-sensitive. The study proposed a holistic and context-sensitive framework that integrates governance, funding, motivation, and local community participation for effective governance of conservation areas. The dual contribution of the study is to both theory and practice, by providing a holistic approach to understanding and improving governance of conservation areas in the Nigerian context and similar nations of the global south.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn introductory letter was sent to state agencies responsible for managing the selected conservation areas. Consent of each participant was sought before the interview, and confidentiality and anonymity were promised. Participation was voluntary.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and material\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData used for this study is available upon request\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the content of this article.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received for this study\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author drafted the article, collected the data, analysed it, and discussed the results.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work has been fully acknowledged\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbdulaziz Hassan, PhD,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eis an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Bayero University Kano. My research interests are in Environmental Planning and Governance. I have several publications in those areas in reputable journals, including Sustainable Cities and Society hosted by ScienceDirect, People and Nature hosted by Springer Nature, Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture hosted by Springer, Jurnal Teknologi, and other publishing outlets. I can be reached through this email: [email protected].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmah, O. K. (2025). Advancing Wildlife Conservation in Nigeria: Integrating Behavioural Ecology and Cutting-Edge Technologies. \u003cem\u003eZoological Synthesis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 35-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Institute of planners\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 216-224.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBamidele, S. (2026). Community‐Led Forest Management and Conservation: Insights From Nigeria\u0026apos;s Obudu and Mambilla Mountain Forests. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Policy and Governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81-94.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrockington, D., and Igoe, J. (2006). Eviction for conservation: A Global Overview. \u003cem\u003eConservation and Society\u003c/em\u003e, 4(3), 424.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., and Da Fonseca, G. A. (2001). Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, 291(5501), 125-128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDehmel, N., Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Jones, N., Booker, F., Lambini, C., ... \u0026amp; Twinamatsiko, M. (2026). Insights from equitable governance assessments in conservation areas around the world. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(1), e70101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEbelechukwu, F., \u0026amp; Johnson-Opeseitan, D. I. (2025). Biodiversity Conservation and Business in Nigeria: Evaluating Priorities across Key Business Sectors. \u003cem\u003eAvailable at SSRN 5364447\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment: Country Report, Nigeria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Forestry Department. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaber, J. (2020). Building \u0026ldquo;a ladder of citizen participation\u0026rdquo;: Sherry Arnstein, citizen participation, and model cities. In \u003cem\u003eLearning from Arnstein\u0026apos;s Ladder\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 13-34). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson, C. C., Williams, J. T., \u0026amp; Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. \u003cem\u003eWorld development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 273-284.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHassan, A. (2019). Human-Nature Relationship: A Case of Selected Conservation Areas in Nigeria. Adamawa State University Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHassan, A., Johar, F., Rafee, M. and Idris, N. M. (2015). Protected Area Management in Nigeria: A Review. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Teknologi\u003c/em\u003e, 77:15; 31-40. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Union for Conservation of Nature. (2024). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaurance, W. F., Useche, D. C., Rendeiro, J., Kalka, M., Bradshaw, C. J., Sloan, S. P., ... and Arroyo-Rodriguez, V. (2012). Averting Biodiversity Collapse in Tropical Forest Protected Areas. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 489(7415), 290-294.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A. and Hockings, M. (2010). A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e. 46(5), 685-698. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. Third Edition. New York: Longman. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., \u0026amp; Saldana, J. (2014). \u003cem\u003eQualitative data analysis\u003c/em\u003e. sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoreto, W. D. (2016). Occupational stress among law enforcement rangers: Insights from Uganda. \u003cem\u003eOryx\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(4), 646-654.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNielsen, G. (2012). Capacity Development in Protected Area Management. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology\u003c/em\u003e. 19(4), 297-310. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNwankwo, O. C., Chukwu, B. A., \u0026amp; Ofor, B. M. (2023). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting and firm value in Nigeria manufacturing firms: The moderating role of firm advantage. Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 9(3), 44\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, L. and Middleton, J. (2003). Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Ix + 79pp. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2024). UNEP and biodiversity. https://www.unep.org/unep-and biodiversity \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2008. Nigeria Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Assessment: Maximizing Agricultural Revenue in Key Enterprises for Targeted Sites (Markets). Chemonics International Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatson, J. E., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., and Hockings, M. (2014). The Performance and Potential of Protected Areas. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, 515(7525), 67-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliam, J. (2025). Assessing Nigeria\u0026apos;s efforts in biodiversity conservation. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports in Life Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 85-98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"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":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"conservation areas, governance, Management","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9683993/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9683993/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConservation areas are vital landscapes that provide ecological services at local, regional, and global scales. Nigeria took the path of the global trend of establishing conservation areas, with the number increasing from one (1) in 1899 to over 1,000 in the late 1990s, governed by several policies, legislations, and institutions at the national and state levels. Yet their governance remains ineffective. This implies gaps between policy and practice in the governance of conservation areas in Nigeria that remain insufficiently explored and understood. This study examined the effectiveness of governance of three selected conservation areas in Bauchi, Nigeria, using a qualitative approach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeventeen (17) core codes emerged, and seven (7) themes. Governance of conservation areas is a product of complex interrelationships between internal and external factors. The internal factors include inadequate funding, weak institutional capacity, passive participation of neighbouring communities, and low staff motivation; while the external factors include pressure from outside the conservation areas, local livelihood needs, economic forces, and market values of conservation area resources. Cumulative impacts of this result in conflict, non-compliance, continued resource extraction, and weak enforcement. Surprisingly, state agencies/institutions are slowly being substituted by external actors, specifically NOGs, as they are stepping in to substitute state roles/functions in the affairs of the conservation areas. This has a unique finding emerging from the study, which has not been reported by previous studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, governance of conservation areas requires a new dimension of governance framework to safeguard the areas, improve their performance and sustain their ecological services. A context-sensitive conceptual-policy framework was developed to integrate governance, funding, staffing, participation of local communities, and formalised partnership with NGOs. It further offers practical insights for policy and decision makers on the need for inclusive and participatory governance, active participation of local communities in governance, and improved staff welfare. Policy recommendations were made to ensure sustainable conservation outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Policy-Practice Gaps in Conservation Area Governance: Evidence From Selected Conservation Areas in Nigeria","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-13 09:10:35","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9683993/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3ed202ef-2ffb-4c7a-9634-e9702fb2e56e","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Rejected","date":"2026-05-13T13:15:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-05-13T03:34:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-05-13T03:34:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Ecological Processes","date":"2026-05-11T20:23:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-13T13:27:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-13 09:10:35","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9683993","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9683993","identity":"rs-9683993","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}