Gendered Dimensions and Socio-Cultural Dynamics of Human-Wildlife Conflict: Insights from the Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana

Gendered Dimensions and Socio-Cultural Dynamics of Human-Wildlife Conflict: Insights from the Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Gendered Dimensions and Socio-Cultural Dynamics of Human-Wildlife Conflict: Insights from the Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana Wisdom GALLEY, Brandon P. ANTHONY This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8502605/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 This study adopts a gendered lens to examine the impacts of human wildlife conflict (HWC) at Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana. Drawing upon feminist political ecology and using ethnographic techniques, we explore the unique ways in which men and women are differentially affected by HWC. Our results show that HWC compels men to migrate while women experience an intensified workload due to the absence of their spouses. Also, poaching has become a profitable and more appealing alternative due to crop-raiding. The prosecution of locals for unlawful park access and poaching has exacerbated social strife, disharmony, and hostility between residents and park authorities. Additionally, HWC incurs opportunity costs and undermines community cohesion by disrupting the livelihoods of farmers. Ultimately, the findings of this research are relevant in highlighting the need to prioritize gender issues in HWC; this is a crucial step in the development of measures and interventions that are socially inclusive. Environmental Policy human-wildlife conflict Kakum Conservation Area gender feminist political ecology crop-raiding Ghana Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction This research explores human-wildlife conflict (HWC), more specifically, its gendered and intersectional dimensions. While HWC is a multifaceted global issue, it is more common in developing nations. This is primarily due to factors like poverty, insufficient enforcement of conservation regulations, and widespread corruption, among other reasons (Lamarque et al. 2009 ; Gemeda and Meles 2018 ). According to (Madden 2004 , p.248) HWC occurs, "when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, injure or kill domestic animals, threaten or kill people." HWC presents a substantial obstacle to the preservation of biodiversity, jeopardizes the well-being of communities, and is influenced by a multitude of factors (ecological, political, economic, social, institutional, cultural, and historical elements) (Madden 2004 ). The concept of 'human-wildlife conflict' is subject to debate among scholars. Nevertheless, it has evolved into a pivotal term used to characterize challenging circumstances involving wildlife and humans ( Osei-Owusu and Bakker 2008 ; Lamarque et al. 2009 ; Lewis et al. 2016 ). The impacts of HWC include injuries, death, and crop-raiding (Madden 2004 ; Distefano 2005 ; Woodroffe et al. 2005 ; Anthony et al. 2010 ; Barua et al. 2013 ; Gemeda and Meles 2018 ). Deaths and injuries are the most devastating impact of HWC (Ogra 2008 ; Lamarque et al. 2009 ). Mammalian carnivores and herbivores in certain African and Asian countries are accountable for a significant number of fatal attacks and deaths (Binlinla et al. 2014 ). In developing countries, where subsistence agriculture plays a major role in rural livelihoods, the consequences of HWC are particularly severe. The impact of these effects is intensified by political marginalization, poverty, and unresolved compensation payments (Ayivor et al. 2013 ). In Ghana, HWC has become a significant problem (Binlinla et al. 2014 ; Dakwa et al. 2016 ). The crops most frequently affected by rampaging elephants ( Loxodonta cyclotis ) are cassava, maize, yam, and cocoa (Addo-Boadu 2010 ). The prevalence of HWC in Ghana is due to multiple factors, including the rise in human activities and the demand to convert nearby lands for agricultural use (Akyeampong 2011 ; Appiah-Opoku 2011 ). These factors have unavoidably heightened the probability of residents encountering wildlife, leading to competition between residents and wildlife, as well as escalating hostility between residents and park officials (Addo-Boadu 2010 ). Although various aspects of HWC have been extensively examined both locally (Boafo et al. 2004 ; Osei-Owusu and Bakker 2008 ; Monney et al. 2010 ; Binlinla et al. 2014 ; Dakwa et al. 2016 ) and globally (Hill et al. 2002 ; Dunham et al. 2010 ; Barua et al. 2013 ; Lewis et al. 2016 ; Seoraj-Pillai 2016 ; Silwal et al. 2017 ), the various impacts on men and women have not been thoroughly explored, making this research timely. To comprehend the connections between gender and HWC, a Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) framework is used. The FPE framework offers a distinct approach to examining natural resources from a feminist perspective (Carney 2004 ). According to (Rocheleau et al. 1996 , 4), FPE treats gender as: ‘ a critical variable in shaping resource access and control, interacting with class, caste, race, culture, and ethnicity to shape processes of ecological change, the struggle of men and women to sustain ecologically viable livelihoods, and the prospects of any community for sustainable development .' This theory posits that the environment and gender are intricately interconnected in meaningful ways. According to some feminist scholars, women have been affected more than men by the unequal burdens of environmental problems because roles are assigned based on gender (Jackson 1993 ; Mohai 2014 ). Based on this precedent, some scholars theorize that the consequences related to the conflict between humans and wildlife are greatly influenced by the gendered division of labor (Ogra 2008 ). Thus, the division of labor often dictates the responsibility for specific tasks such as livestock and farm care, natural resource harvesting, and close interaction with wildlife (Mariki 2016 ). It is based on this premise that this research seeks to understand the gendered impacts of HWC. 2. Methodology 2.1. Qualitative Methods Qualitative methods are favored for this research due to their flexibility in data collection and alignment with our philosophical stance emphasizing subjectivity. These methods prioritize gaining insights from the perspective of participants rather than striving for unattainable objectivity, aligning with our paradigm's rejection of singular truths. The data collection process is conducted with a reflexive approach, which is an important aspect of ethnography (Macbeth 2001 ). Reflexivity as argued by scholars (Macbeth 2001 ; Berger 2015 ; Palaganas et al. 2017 ) is important because the researchers’ definitions and meanings are often informed by unique ideological understandings of reality, and both ‘subjects' and researchers are entwined in creating reality based on their intersubjective interpretation of it. Consequently, findings are produced collaboratively between participants and researchers within a unique context (Hellström 2008 ). This viewpoint opposes quantitative research methods, which stresses the distinction between researchers and subjects (Slevitch 2011 ; Levers 2013 ). 2.2. Study area KCA is located in Ghana's Central Region, 30 kilometers northwest of Cape Coast (Fig. 1 ) (Appiah-Opoku 2011 ). KCA is situated between latitudes 5°20′N and 5°40′N and longitudes 1°30′W to 1°51′W (Monney et al. 2010 ), covers an area of 210.76 km 2 (Protected Planet 2024 ), and consists of the Kakum National Park (KNP) and the Assin Attandanso Resource Reserve (AARR). The area is teeming with faunal diversity, including approximately 100 species of mammals, 200 species of birds, and 200,000 to 350,000 species of insects. KCA is subject to the administrative authority of the Central Region of Ghana's Abura–Asebu–Kwamangkese, Twifu Hemang Lower Denkyira, and Assin (North and South) districts (Monney et al. 2010 ). It is widely recognized as a prominent ecotourism destination and was initially designated as a forest reserve during the 1930s. It was subsequently reclassified as a national park and gazetted in 1992. Since then, the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission has overseen the park, with assistance from the Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust. Based on the 2010 national population and housing census of Ghana, the approximate population residing in the villages and hamlets bordering KCA is 9960 (Fiagbomeh 2013 ). The inhabitants of these predominantly rural districts are of various ethnic backgrounds (Twifo, Assin, Denkyera, and Fanti), the majority of whom are thought to have emigrated from the Ashanti Region. Other ethnic groups can be observed alongside the resident ethnicities, such as the Ewes, Krobos, Ga-Adangbes, and Akuapims. The favorable climate and fertile lands necessitated the settlement of these migrant ethnic groups, which were engaged in cocoa and domestic staples (Fiagbomeh 2013 ). The adult population of the region has a high rate of illiteracy. Most communities only have elementary schools that last for six years, and none have high schools or tertiary institutions. Over 70% of the residents in districts where the KCA is located are employed in agriculture, while small-scale agriculture employs over 90% of the population in the communities bordering the KCA (Monney et al. 2010 ). 2.3. Data collection 2.3.1 Participant observation Observations of community members were documented in accordance with the descriptive observations of social settings, activities, and events outlined in The Cultural Ecology of Health and Change (CEHC) workbook (Whitehead 2005 ). Observations were documented in the CEHC workbook, encompassing general descriptions, theoretical insights, and reflective notes. Additionally, fieldwork was meticulously recorded in a personal fieldwork diary, an indispensable element of the data collection procedure as it supplemented our CEHC workbook field notes and functioned as a mechanism for validation. Key informants in two communities—Abrafo and Antwikwaa—hosted us. This allowed us to become acquainted with commonplace occurrences and additionally provided us with a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural and lived realities of our ethnographic hosts. Moreover, by engaging in informal dialogues, participating in communal activities, contributing to agricultural and domestic tasks, and attending ceremonies and social events, successful integration into the community was achieved. By residing with ethnographic hosts, "rich" contextual information regarding the effects of HWC was obtained. This integration also enabled the identification and rectification of inaccuracies, correction of 'facts' acquired through interviews, and a deeper understanding of specific distortions through participant observation. Furthermore, it provided us with access to information that our interlocutors were unwilling to divulge. Effective data collection was achieved through the use of participant observation, as the objective was to observe the participants in their most natural environment possible in order to investigate and comprehend the influence of gender on HWC-related vulnerabilities and impacts. 2.3.2. Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants, opinion leaders, officials of the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission (FC) and individuals affected by HWC. Snowball sampling techniques were used to identify respondents for the interviews. Generally, snowball sampling was utilized to expand and access the social network of respondents. A total of 155 in-depth interviews were conducted in 8 communities: Abrafo, Mfuom, Gyaware, Antwikwaa, Bobi, Afiaso, Tawiah-Nkwantah and Seidukrom. Abrafo was the first community as it is a major settlement and considered the gateway to the park. The other communities were selected after preliminary interviews with park officials and initial assessment of the park's quarterly reports. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed for thematic analysis. 2.3.3. Focus group discussions Focus group discussions were conducted in Mfuom. The objective was to acquire a deeper understanding of the ways in which HWC affects individuals and to identify the spectrum of perspectives, inconsistencies, and differences that exist regarding HWC and gender. According to Colucci ( 2008 ), the composition of the focus group is among the "ethnocultural variables" that must be taken into account. Therefore, to mitigate potential power imbalances and foster an environment conducive to open dialogue and discussion, three focus groups were conducted: (1) exclusively comprised of men (6 men), (2) exclusively comprised of women (6 women), and (3) comprised of both genders (6 men and 6 women). These enabled individuals of both genders to freely articulate their ideas. Communal relations were observed through the focus group discussions. According to O.Nyumba et al. ( 2018 ) participants' and interlocutors' evaluations of one another's experiences offer significant insights into intricate power dynamics. Furthermore, focus group discussions facilitated the clarification and elicitation of information from additional data sources, including participant observation and interviews. 2.4. Data analysis A thematic analysis was conducted to derive significance from the collected data. A comprehensive principle or unified methodology does not exist for performing thematic analysis. Nevertheless, it is a procedure consisting of identifiable metrics. However, it is crucial to underscore that this does not suggest that thematic analysis follows a rigid and sequential progression. Conversely, it is an iterative and non-linear procedure wherein multiple phases may intersect. The performed analysis is founded upon six interdependent phases (Braun and Clarke 2006 ). One of the most critical first steps of the data analysis process is ‘tidying up’ (LeCompte 2000 ), i.e., establishing preliminary assessments and detecting gaps or segments of data by evaluating the adequacy of the gathered data in response to the research inquiries. Additionally, it involves acquainting oneself with the data. For instance, during data collection, trends and themes consistently emerged from participant observation, document analysis, and interviews. While still in the field, transcripts of a portion of the interview data were transcribed and reviewed. This process provided a reliable, though limited, understanding of the diverse patterns present in the dataset. For coding, QDA Miner Lite (v2.0.8) was utilized as the data management application. The comprehensive data collection was encoded, yielding an extensive inventory of codes. This entails the extraction of textual segments from their initial semantic content and the assignment of a distinct code or identifier that most accurately characterizes the essence of the content contained within said segments. Thematic development commenced with the identification of commonalities and patterns, which were then categorized into provisional overarching themes and subthemes. A thorough examination was conducted of the themes and sub-themes to determine whether any of the themes could have been eliminated. This process was undertaken to better organize, streamline, and simplify the data collection. Rather than viewing the themes individually, they were conceptualized as an interconnected network. The correlation between the overarching themes and their corresponding subthemes was then examined. 3. Theoretical perspective Political ecology is a field that primarily deals with the constantly shifting dialectic between society and natural resources (Nam 2018 ). Political ecology has provided a critical lens for examining conservation actors, their networks of power, and their social engagements, thereby elucidating the socio-political consequences of various conservation models. These consequences include the physical and socio-economic displacement of marginalized communities (Kabra 2013 ), the undemocratic management of natural resources, unequal knowledge production, the costs associated with living in proximity to wildlife (Ogra 2008 ; Barua et al. 2013 ), and the formation of socio-ecological identities (Großmann 2017 ). Also, political ecological analyses of protected conservation areas have highlighted significant socio-economic and ecological disruptions. These include large-scale displacement of forest-dependent communities, loss of livelihoods and restricted access to resources, capitalist-driven and increased negative human-wildlife interactions. Scholars of political ecology explore the association of political economy and human-environment interactions and hold the view that environmental problems are interwoven with political structures (Bakker 2003 ; Nam 2018 ). They also examine the role of various actors (such as locals, NGOs, state structures, and international agencies) involved in the control over resources at multiple scales (Zimmerer and Bassett 2003 ; Robbins et al. 2007 ; Truelove 2011 ). Human-wildlife interactions have also emerged as a critical focus within political ecology scholarship. Conservation-led spatial realignments often seek to establish distinct human and wildlife territories. However, such rigid separations are rarely sustained, as both humans and wildlife frequently traverse these boundaries due to factors such as rapid land-use and land tenure changes, infrastructural development, and shifts in wildlife behavior. Consequently, human-wildlife interactions remain a persistent reality, encompassing both positive and negative dimensions—conceptualized as 'coexistence' and 'conflict,' respectively. While conservation policies aspire toward coexistence, conflict remains prevalent, often inflicting harm on both humans and wildlife (Nyhus 2016 ). Political ecologists have critiqued the term 'human-wildlife conflict,' arguing that such conflicts are, in essence, struggles among human groups with unequal power and authority over wildlife and landscape governance (Redpath et al. 2013 ). This power asymmetry generates various forms of encounters between local communities and wildlife. These interactions result in crop and livestock destruction, damage to dwellings, human injuries, and fatalities, exacerbating the vulnerability of already impoverished communities (Treves et al. 2009 ). Political ecology scholars have further demonstrated that the socio-economic repercussions of human-wildlife interactions entail hidden costs that remain unaccounted for and are distributed unequally within communities, disproportionately affecting marginalized social groups (Ogra 2008 ; Barua et al. 2013 ; Galley and Anthony 2024 ). Among these axes of social differentiation, gender plays a crucial role in shaping the nature and impact of human-wildlife interactions. Gender has been widely recognized as a key determinant in patterns of wild resource use and in shaping responses to environmental challenges, including conservation-driven displacement and adaptation strategies (Rocheleau et al. 1996 ). Rejecting the essentialist ecofeminist notion that women are inherently closer to nature, FPE has instead emphasized the role of gender in structuring access to and control over resources, rights and responsibilities in resource management, and collective action for environmental justice (Rocheleau et al. 1996 ; Dempsey and Sundberg 2024 ). Scholarship on FPE is increasingly often examines the bidirectional relationship between gender and human-wildlife interactions—how conservation policies shape gendered experiences and, conversely, how gender influences human-wildlife encounters. The proximity of human settlements to wildlife has distinct implications for men and women, influencing their exposure to risks, coping strategies, and attitudes toward wildlife (Ogra 2008 ). FPE analyses have consistently shown that these implications are asymmetrical, often to the detriment of women. Women disproportionately bear the long-term and uncompensated consequences of wildlife-related damages (Barua et al. 2013 ), and these challenges can exacerbate gender-based violence (Doubleday 2020 ). Given these critical intersections, FPE presents a vital analytical framework for comprehensively understanding the gendered dimensions of human-wildlife interactions and their broader socio-political implications. Feminist scholarship has long established the intricate linkages between household dynamics and the differential control over resources (Elmhirst 2011 ; Nightingale 2011 ). This body of work has also illuminated the struggles surrounding gendered divisions of labor and livelihood security (Sultana 2010 ; Truelove 2011 ; Mollett and Faria 2013 ). Building on these foundational insights, FPE scholars have reconceptualized the physical environment as an extension of the household, recognizing its role not only as a source of material assets but also as a space imbued with cultural, economic, and domestic significance (Rocheleau et al. 1996 ; Ogra 2008 ). Basically, FPE is a branch of Political Ecology that examines nature-society linkages from a gendered perspective. FPE adds a gendered viewpoint and critiques how social inequalities influence environmental challenges. One of the primary differences between FPE and traditional political ecology is the emphasis on how social hierarchies and power relations affect access to and control over natural resources (Vaz-Jones 2018 ). According to FPE scholars, whereas political ecology seeks to explain the complicated relationship between society and nature, conventional political ecology has disregarded the influence of social inequalities, such as those based on gender and race (Elmhirst 2011 ; Mollett and Faria 2013 ). FPE scholars also criticizes the means by which capitalist development models have frequently resulted in the marginalization of vulnerable groups (Elmhirst 2011 ; Truelove 2011 ; Cole 2017 ; Vaz-Jones 2018 ) Proponents of FPE theorize that vulnerabilities and risks associated with the environment (including HWC) are influenced by social factors such as gender. FPE is not only relevant in comprehending how unequal gender relations underpin environmental risks and vulnerabilities, but also builds on political ecology, and draws attention to interactions between gendered power structures and the natural environment (Truelove 2011 ). FPE as a theoretical concept moves away from the more essentializing arguments of ecofeminism and conceptualizes gender as a social construct that influences decision making, access to resources, rights and responsibilities (Elmhirst 2011 ). Using FPE as a framework in analyzing the impacts of HWC helps to understand the connections between gender dynamics, power structures and environmental conservation efforts (Gore and Kahler 2012 ; Mariki 2016 ). This approach shows how traditional gender norms impact access to resources decision making processes and vulnerability to wildlife risks in rural communities. By examining various viewpoints and experiences, we highlight how the most vulnerable individuals frequently bear the burdens and responsibilities of managing HWC. In essence, the use of FPE as a framework not only highlights the economic and cultural aspects of HWC; but also provides valuable insights for creating more inclusive conservation measures in KCA and other HWC hotspots (Ogra 2008 ; Mariki 2016 ). 4. Study Findings The results highlight the gender-specific and broader social ramifications of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) arising from out-migration, a surge in illicit activities, interpersonal conflicts, and the fracturing of social bonds (Table I). Table I. Gendered impacts of HWC at Kakum Conservation Area Social Impact Description Gender Lens Out-migration Displacement of individuals from conflict zones - Disproportionate impact on men as primary providers and women as caretakers Increased workload on remaining household members - Women often take on additional responsibilities in managing households Increase in unlawful activities Rise in poaching, encroachment, etc. - Economic pressures drives men to engage in illegal activities - Women drawn into illegal activities due to vulnerability Disruption of Social Cohesion Breakdown of community ties and trust - Gender inequalities undermine cohesion - Differential access to resources and decision-making processes Education and opportunity costs Disruptions to schooling and future prospects - The education of girls and boys are impacted by HWC - Men face constraints on pursuing livelihood opportunities 4.1. Out-Migration The socio-cultural dynamics in KCA are deeply rooted in patriarchal traditions that shape gendered roles, responsibilities, and power relations. Within this framework, FPE provides a critical lens through which to analyze how intersecting structures including gender, cultural norms, and economic pressures influence HWC and the adaptive strategies of affected communities. Cultural norms in KCA ascribe distinct roles to men and women, reinforcing structural inequities at both the household and communal levels. Women are primarily relegated to domestic responsibilities and informal economic activities. The gendered division of labor is deeply embedded in informal constraints that dictate the types of work available to women and men. Women’s labor remains largely invisible, confined to the private sphere, while men’s labor is associated with the public and economic domains, perpetuating power imbalances. Participants in the study highlighted these disparities: “Here (in this community), many women are involved in trading and also help their spouses in farming. However, men take all the credit when there is a bountiful harvest.” [Female, 48] “Men and women both engage in similar economic duties, and women raise children in addition to their jobs. Our men don’t see how challenging it is because that is what is expected of us.” [Female, 36] These testimonies underscore how the patriarchal division of labor reinforces male dominance in economic decision-making while limiting women’s autonomy and access to resources. The restriction of women’s mobility due to childcare responsibilities and domestic obligations further impedes their participation in conservation and decision-making processes. Women’s exclusion from meetings and training sessions organized by park officials illustrates how gender norms exacerbate vulnerabilities in the context of HWC. In addition, religious doctrines in KCA further entrench patriarchal structures that define acceptable gender roles. As noted by scholars such as Klingorová and Havlíček ( 2015 ), religious institutions historically reinforce traditional gender ideologies that position men as breadwinners and women as submissive caregivers. Christianity, particularly Pentecostalism, promotes a gendered ideology of 'complementarianism' that upholds traditional household structures: “Even the Bible says that the man is the head of the house, and the Bible also encourages us to submit to our husbands. These are not my words but written in the Bible. I am not saying he makes all the decisions, but he leads the household and provides for me and the children.” [Female, 53] Religious discourse thus legitimizes gendered labor divisions, shaping the ways in which men and women perceive their roles within the household and broader community. This religious framework not only sustains male authority in decision-making but also discourages women from challenging entrenched norms, further limiting their agency in addressing the socio-economic impacts of HWC. Also, despite the rigidity of cultural norms, some participants noted gradual shifts in gender roles, particularly among younger generations: “My grandparents told me that in their day, it was uncommon for husbands to cook. However, these days, things are changing gradually because men are increasingly taking up domestic responsibilities like cooking and cleaning.” [Female, 60] “In today’s society, some men and boys do participate in certain home duties. However, there are still some men who continue to think that it is a demotion of their masculinity to be seen performing some domestic chores.” [Male, 58] These emerging changes suggest that socio-cultural perceptions of gender roles are not static but are subject to negotiation and transformation. However, resistance to these shifts persists, particularly regarding men’s involvement in care work. Tasks such as diaper changing, sweeping, and childcare remain highly stigmatized, with men fearing social humiliation. Furthermore, HWC has intensified economic precarity, compelling men to seek alternative income sources, often through migration to urban centers such as Cape Coast, Takoradi, and Accra. The gendered implications of male out-migration are profound, as women are left to manage both household and agricultural responsibilities. Participants expressed frustration over the economic instability caused by wildlife-induced crop destruction: “I am young and love farming, but if things continue like this, I might have to look elsewhere because this is not helping. I cannot waste my youthful years on something that cannot help me.” [Male, 38] “I am only still doing this because there are no opportunities in this village. The day I get a good-paying job, I will stop farming because I do not really benefit. It is a waste of time to work hard only for those animals to destroy everything.” [Male, 45] Male migration often results in increased burdens for women, who must assume additional responsibilities in both agricultural production and household management. These findings align with Hovorka's (2012) exploration of gender-species intersectionality, where she discusses how societal norms assign specific animals and related tasks to particular genders, reinforcing traditional roles and responsibilities. Hovorka's analysis underscores the need to consider gender dynamics in addressing HWC, ensuring that mitigation strategies do not disproportionately impact women. From an FPE perspective, this aligns with Rocheleau et al. ( 1996 ) foundational argument that gender is a critical variable shaping access to and control over resources, intersecting with broader socio-political and economic structures. Feminist political ecologists such as Dianne Rocheleau and Piers Blaikie have long emphasized how environmental challenges, including HWC, are embedded within historical and structural inequalities that disproportionately affect marginalized groups. The gendered division of labor in conservation landscapes, where men often migrate or engage in alternative livelihoods while women assume increased agricultural and domestic burdens, reflects the broader patriarchal structures that limit women’s agency in environmental governance (Elmhirst 2011 ). Moreover, feminist political ecologists critique traditional conservation paradigms that fail to consider gendered labor dynamics, leading to interventions that exacerbate existing inequalities. Consequently, addressing HWC requires a reconceptualization of conservation policies to incorporate gender-sensitive strategies that acknowledge and mitigate these disparities. 4.2. Increase in unlawful activities The rise in poaching as an alternative livelihood strategy for men in communities surrounding KCA underscores the gendered economic vulnerabilities exacerbated by HWC. Within a FPE framework, this phenomenon can be analyzed through the lens of access to resources, and gendered labor structures (Rocheleau et al. 1996 ; Elmhirst 2011 ). As HWC undermines traditional agricultural incomes, men—who are often seen as primary providers—turn to illegal activities such as poaching to sustain their households. This shift not only reflects economic precarity but also the structural inequalities in resource governance that marginalize local communities (Nightingale 2011 ). According to one park official, poaching has become a means of income diversification, with animals being sold to local chop bars . Over the past decade, reports indicate an increase in poaching activities, facilitated by collaborations between local community members and external actors. However, arrests and legal repercussions have intensified tensions between park authorities and local residents. Many farmers perceive that the government prioritizes wildlife conservation over their socio-economic well-being, reinforcing a historical pattern of exclusion in conservation governance. The following accounts illustrate these tensions: "In the past, we sometimes had to close our doors and hide in the offices when we saw them coming in their numbers. These days, our relationship has improved, but there is crop-raiding in many of the surrounding communities and hamlets every year, so there are still a lot of challenges." [Male, 55] "I used to go to their office in Abrafo to argue with them. You can go there and ask of me. We don’t have any benefit from the park. Our children are not employed by the park. Their wildlife destroy our farms and they expect us to be happy. All they care about is the animals." [Female, 48] These sentiments echo broader critiques within FPE, which highlight how conservation policies often reproduce and reinforce socio-economic hierarchies, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups, particularly rural women and men with limited access to formal employment (Dempsey and Sundberg 2024 ). When agricultural revenue declines, poaching becomes a rational economic response, as noted in previous studies on conservation-livelihood conflicts (Wilfred and MacColl 2010 ). The prosecution of men engaged in illegal park entry and poaching further exacerbates social discord, leading to increased hostilities between communities and park officials. Moreover, the governance of conservation spaces remains deeply gendered, influencing who has access to resources and who bears the costs of conservation restrictions. While the closed hunting season is intended to promote sustainable wildlife management, its enforcement is marred by allegations of corruption among park officials. Farmers report instances where rangers conspire with hunters to allow illegal hunting, while simultaneously penalizing others. This perceived corruption erodes trust in conservation authorities and weakens compliance with wildlife regulations, a challenge frequently noted in studies on conservation governance (Duffy 2022 ). "My farm is all I have. When the elephants come and destroy my crops, they do not do anything about it. The animals are allowed to destroy our farms, but we are not allowed to kill them. If you go to the forest to hunt, they will arrest you. They never think about us." [Male, 48] The presence of corruption in conservation governance is a recurring issue that disrupts equitable resource management (Duffy 2022 ). Beyond corruption, unmet expectations and historical injustices continue to strain relationships between wildlife officials and local communities. These tensions align with broader critiques within FPE that emphasize the need for participatory conservation approaches that integrate local knowledge and address power imbalances (Agarwal 2001 ). Currently, the top-down governance model employed in KCA sidelines local agency, reinforcing a conservation paradigm that prioritizes biodiversity protection at the expense of rural livelihoods. The failure to incorporate local voices into decision-making processes deepens the divide between conservation authorities and affected communities (Nightingale 2011 ). Despite these conflicts, there have been instances of collaboration between wildlife officials and local communities, particularly in mitigating crop-raiding incidents. Such cooperation signals an opportunity for a more inclusive and participatory conservation approach, aligning with FPE’s emphasis on co-management and equitable resource governance (Resurrección 2017 ). By recognizing the interdependence of conservation efforts and local livelihoods, both parties can develop community-based early warning systems and deterrents. These participatory strategies can transform conservation from a contested practice to a shared responsibility. Furthermore, the exclusion of communities from conservation decision-making reflects broader institutional failures in conservation policy. Farmers in KCA often lack awareness of existing conservation regulations, such as those outlined in the Wild Animals Preservation Act, 1961 (Act 43). The absence of effective community outreach and participatory education programs exacerbates non-compliance, reinforcing conservation authorities’ perception of local communities as adversarial rather than potential allies in conservation. To address these governance gaps, there is a need for policies that prioritize local engagement, gender-sensitive conservation planning, and the redistribution of conservation benefits to affected communities. Ultimately, addressing these challenges requires a shift toward more participatory, transparent, and just conservation governance. An FPE-informed approach emphasizes the integration of local voices, the recognition of gendered labor dynamics, and the dismantling of exclusionary conservation paradigms. Through enhanced dialogue, mutual respect, and inclusive decision-making, wildlife conservation in KCA can transition from a site of contestation to a model of equitable human-wildlife coexistence. Margulies and Karanth ( 2018 ) examine this phenomenon through a political animal geography lens, illustrating how economic transformations and global market demands can intensify human-wildlife encounters. They argue that neoliberal economic policies and conservation practices often marginalize local communities, leading to increased reliance on illicit activities for survival. In regions where agriculture is compromised by wildlife damage, and alternative livelihoods are scarce, poaching may become a coping mechanism, despite its legal and ethical implications. This finding emphasizes the importance of integrating socio-economic considerations into conservation policies to mitigate unintended consequences. Scholars like Paul Robbins and Raymond Bryant have explored the intersection of political economy and conservation, arguing that neoliberal conservation policies often alienate local communities, pushing them toward informal or illegal economies (Bryant 1998 ; Robbins 2003 ). Robbins’ work on Political Ecology discusses how conservation strategies that prioritize fortress-style protectionism over community livelihoods frequently lead to unintended socio-economic consequences, such as increased reliance on poaching. Similarly, Blaikie and Brookfield’s ( 1987 ) work on the degradation and marginalization thesis suggests that environmental policies often exacerbate socio-economic inequalities, forcing marginalized communities to exploit natural resources unsustainably. In the context of HWC, the criminalization of poaching without addressing its economic drivers reflects a failure to integrate local livelihoods into conservation frameworks. 4.3. Disruption of social cohesion In KCA, crop-raiding emerges as a significant disruptor of community cohesion by destabilizing the social standing and economic security of affected farmers. Within these communities, social relationships are deeply embedded in reciprocal exchanges of resources, labor, and symbolic gestures, which are vital for maintaining socio-cultural networks. As Agarwal ( 1997 ) and Rocheleau et al. ( 1996 ) emphasize, access to and control over resources are deeply gendered and intertwined with social power, influencing one’s ability to engage in communal life. Farmers, particularly those whose livelihoods depend on subsistence agriculture, rely on surplus yields not only for sustenance but also for participation in social obligations such as weddings, outdooring ceremonies, engagements, and funerals. These events, which necessitate financial and material contributions, serve as crucial spaces for reinforcing social ties and communal solidarity. In Ghanaian society, as in many other African contexts, gift-giving is an essential mechanism for fostering social connectedness and sustaining networks of mutual support (Berry 1993 ). Thus, when farmers experience significant crop losses due to wildlife incursions, their capacity to contribute to these social exchanges is severely constrained. As a result, their social standing within the community is diminished, leading to exclusion from crucial relational networks. This phenomenon aligns with Nightingale’s ( 2011 ) assertion that environmental challenges disproportionately affect marginalized individuals, often exacerbating existing inequalities in social mobility and access to community resources. Furthermore, the inability to participate in social obligations due to crop-raiding engenders broader disruptions in communal reciprocity. Food-sharing and resource exchanges, which are key mechanisms of risk-spreading in agrarian societies, become strained when affected farmers cannot reciprocate. This dynamic resonates with the observations of Knight ( 1999 , 632), who noted that in Japan, ‘in raiding garden produce in remote hamlets, monkeys deprive elderly villagers of a symbolically important currency in social exchange.’ Similarly, in the KCA, the loss of agricultural yields undermines the reciprocity-based economic and social safety nets that are crucial for community resilience. Moreover, crop-raiding has significant implications for social mobility. Many farmers are reluctant to leave their fields unguarded, limiting their participation in social events that are integral to reinforcing communal bonds and securing future support networks. As one farmer expressed: “Sometimes I only go to ceremonies and funerals for people to see I was present. I wish I could stay and support my bereaved friends, but I cannot. I have my mind on my crops and have to guard them regularly so that my hard work is not in vain.” [Male, 42] Another farmer echoed similar concerns: “I wish I could attend most ceremonies and show my support. I only go to events in the dry season because by then, I have harvested my crops and do not need to worry about elephants raiding my farm.” [Male, 45] The strain on communal reciprocity and participation exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, particularly for marginalized groups such as women and smallholder farmers, who may already face limited access to alternative livelihood strategies. As Rocheleau et al. ( 1996 ) suggest, environmental governance structures often neglect the socio-cultural dimensions of resource access, further marginalizing those most dependent on subsistence economies. In agrarian communities, resource-sharing functions as a form of social insurance, ensuring that crises—such as illness or food shortages—do not fall disproportionately on individuals. The extended family system in Ghana operates on principles of reciprocity, where kinship networks provide critical economic and emotional support (Berry 1993 ). However, when multiple households experience simultaneous economic distress due to crop-raiding, these networks become overburdened, eroding their efficacy in mitigating socio-economic shocks. This aligns with Arora-Jonsson’s ( 2011 ) critique that environmental disruptions often amplify existing inequalities, as those with fewer resources bear the brunt of the impacts. Ultimately, crop-raiding in the KCA extends beyond ecological concerns, intersecting with gendered and socio-cultural dimensions of access, exclusion, and power relations. By disrupting the intricate web of reciprocal exchanges that underpin social cohesion, human-wildlife conflict exacerbates community fragmentation, disproportionately affecting those already vulnerable within the socio-economic hierarchy. Integrating an FPE perspective into conservation policies is therefore essential to addressing these socio-ecological dynamics in a manner that is both equitable and sustainable. Margulies and Karanth ( 2018 ) discuss how conservation initiatives, when imposed without adequate community involvement, can lead to conflicts over resource access and management. Communities adjacent to protected areas may perceive conservation policies as prioritizing wildlife over human welfare, especially when they suffer losses from crop-raiding without fair compensation or participation in decision-making processes. This dynamic fosters resentment and undermines the legitimacy of conservation efforts. Recognizing the political dimensions of HWC is crucial for developing strategies that balance ecological goals with the rights and needs of local populations. The strained relationships between local communities and park authorities, as revealed in this study, resonate with long-standing political ecology critiques of exclusionary conservation. As West et al. ( 2006 ) argue, many conservation initiatives, particularly in Africa, have been characterized by the “conservation enclosures” phenomenon, where communities are dispossessed of traditional lands and excluded from decision-making. These exclusions create what Neumann ( 1998 ) describes as “imaginative geographies of conservation,” where protected areas are framed as pristine spaces needing protection from local populations, rather than acknowledging them as historical stewards of the land. Political ecologists argue that such models create friction, particularly when conservation policies prioritize wildlife over human welfare, as seen in the increasing hostilities and mistrust between farmers and park officials. The study’s findings align with critiques from scholars like Fairhead and Leach ( 1996 ), who argue that conservation narratives often erase local ecological knowledge and practices, further exacerbating conflicts. These findings necessitate the need to see communities as legitimate stakeholders in decision-making processes, rather than adversaries to conservation efforts. 4.4. Education and Opportunity costs Human capital remains significantly underdeveloped in communities adjacent to the KCA. Despite Ghana’s policy of free elementary education in public schools, hidden costs such as uniforms, school supplies, test fees, and meals remain prohibitive for many households. FPE scholars such as Rocheleau et al. ( 1996 ) emphasize that structural inequalities shape access to education, particularly for marginalized rural populations. In this context, the economic precarity exacerbated by crop-raiding prevents families from affording tuition in private schools, contributing to school absenteeism and limiting children's long-term educational prospects. Beyond financial constraints, the necessity of combating crop-raiding imposes additional labor demands on farming households. The gendered dimensions of labor allocation become particularly evident, as families—including minors—are compelled to engage in field patrolling. According to Elmhirst ( 2011 ), FPE underscores the intersectionality of environmental struggles, where socio-economic vulnerabilities are compounded by gendered labor expectations. In this case, children’s educational trajectories are disrupted as they assist in guarding farms, especially during peak raiding seasons. As participants reported, such labor obligations result in fatigue, school absenteeism, and ultimately, diminished academic performance: “They are going to write the same exams; they cannot perform any better than their friends in the city. It is impossible. We are trapped, our children will drop out of school and not progress, although we all want a better life.” [Female, 40] “I wasn’t the brightest, I wasn’t the worst in school either, but I had to choose between the welfare of my family and school; it wasn’t a difficult decision. I have no regrets; farming is what puts food on the table for the family.” [Male, 45] Similar findings have been documented in other studies, where guarding responsibilities have been linked to poor school attendance and academic underperformance (Mackenzie and Ahabyona 2012 ). This situation underscores what Agarwal ( 1992 ) terms the “gendered costs of environmental degradation,” wherein structural inequalities are reinforced as affected individuals remain trapped in cycles of poverty and economic marginalization. Education, a key enabler of socio-economic mobility, remains inaccessible to many, thereby sustaining long-term inequalities. One of the most significant but often overlooked consequences of HWC is its opportunity cost. Opportunity cost, in this context, refers to the sacrifices made in pursuing crop protection strategies at the expense of other socio-economic and developmental activities. Leach ( 2007 ) highlights that such trade-offs disproportionately affect rural and agrarian populations, further entrenching economic precarity. Many farmers are compelled to monitor their farms overnight, leaving them sleep-deprived and unable to engage effectively in income-generating activities during the day. Additionally, financial resources expended on deterrent measures—such as constructing pepper fences and scarecrows—represent lost investments that could have been redirected towards enhancing agricultural productivity through inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The reliance on conventional, low-cost deterrent strategies, such as guarding, erecting barriers, lighting fires, and using rifles, aligns with broader themes in FPE regarding the intersection of environmental governance and rural livelihood strategies. Studies by Nightingale ( 2011 ) emphasize that community-based adaptations to environmental stressors often emerge from necessity rather than choice. However, as our findings reveal, these conventional deterrence methods are largely ineffective, leading to the habituation of wildlife—especially elephants—to human interventions. Consequently, some farmers attempt pre-emptive deterrence strategies, while others respond reactively after initial raids. For those who can afford it, hiring farm guards offers a partial solution. However, this approach presents its own economic risks. Employing part-time guards constitutes a significant financial burden, particularly given the uncertain effectiveness of human deterrence. Farmers noted that elephants often exhibit fearlessness, rendering hired guards an inadequate safeguard. This reflects a broader critique within FPE scholarship that economic and environmental vulnerabilities are co-constitutive; the financial strain of crop protection strategies ultimately exacerbates long-term livelihood insecurities rather than resolving them (Nightingale 2011 ). In sum, the education and opportunity costs associated with HWC in the KCA region illustrate the deeply entrenched socio-economic and gendered disparities that characterize rural livelihoods. By framing these challenges within an FPE perspective, it becomes evident that addressing HWC requires not only ecological interventions but also systemic socio-economic reforms that alleviate structural inequalities and enhance community resilience. Hodgson (2019) emphasizes the importance of incorporating local knowledge and cultural contexts into conservation practices to foster coexistence. Hodgson's work suggests that effective HWC mitigation should include community-based approaches that address immediate conflicts and contribute to broader developmental goals, ensuring sustainable and equitable outcomes. Finally, the study’s insights into the long-term social and economic implications of HWC—particularly regarding education and opportunity costs—further validate political ecology critiques of conservation-induced vulnerabilities. Some scholars highlight how conservation projects, when designed without local socio-economic considerations, reinforce cycles of poverty and exclusion. The finding that children miss school due to farm guarding or financial constraints echoes Robbins ( 2003 ) argument that environmental governance must be understood within the broader context of social justice and development. Similarly, political ecologists emphasize that conservation interventions should not only aim to protect wildlife but also consider human well-being, particularly in rural and agrarian settings where education and economic mobility are already constrained. The failure to integrate education and sustainable development into conservation policies perpetuates generational cycles of poverty, reinforcing the very vulnerabilities that make communities more susceptible to HWC in the first place. 5. Conclusion This study highlights the intricate connections between gender and the impacts of HWC, revealing how these dynamics shape vulnerabilities and coping mechanisms. The findings demonstrate that women disproportionately bear the burden of increased workloads, while men, faced with economic pressures, are more likely to engage in illicit activities such as poaching. Notably, crop-raiding has intensified the appeal and profitability of poaching, exacerbating tensions between local communities and park authorities. These findings underscore the urgent need for gender-sensitive approaches in HWC research, recognizing that gender is a crucial determinant of vulnerability and resilience in the face of conservation challenges. The persistence of poverty, inadequate compensation mechanisms, and the rising wildlife populations due to conservation successes suggest that HWC will remain a significant challenge to both livelihoods and conservation efforts in the foreseeable future. Therefore, interventions aimed at mitigating HWC must prioritize gender-responsive strategies that address the distinct risks faced by both men and women. By doing so, conservation policies can become more equitable and effective, ensuring that interventions benefit entire communities rather than privileging specific groups. Moreover, this research contributes to broader global agendas, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), by emphasizing the importance of gender equality and the empowerment of women in conservation discourse. While the study’s findings are rooted in the specific socio-cultural and ecological context of the research communities, they hold broader relevance for other African communities grappling with similar HWC-related challenges. The insights generated here offer valuable lessons for shaping more inclusive conservation policies and fostering harmonious human-wildlife coexistence. Ultimately, this study underscores that HWC mitigation strategies must be gender-sensitive, given that men and women experience distinct risks and vulnerabilities. Beyond improving human-park relations in communities surrounding protected areas, such an approach can enhance the fairness and social sustainability of conflict mitigation strategies. Recognizing and integrating gendered dimensions into conservation policies is not merely an ethical imperative but a pragmatic necessity for fostering long-term ecological and social resilience. . Statements and Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the workers of the Forestry Commission and the Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust for their cooperation. Our heartfelt gratitude goes out to all the beautiful families and individuals who accepted us into their homes. Without the help of the Central European University (Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy), this project would not have been possible. We extend our sincerest gratitude to Prof. Guntra Aistara and Prof. Edward Wiafe for their valuable input Author contributions W.G.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing original draft, Writing review and editing. B.P.A.: Validation, Supervision, Writing review and editing. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Funding This research was funded by Central European University. Compliance with ethical standards The study was conducted in accordance with the Ethics approval by the Ethical Research Committee of the Central European University. Data Availability Statement To protect the privacy of the subjects, data will not be available. References Addo-Boadu AM (2010) Human-wildlife conflict management around Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana. Masters thesis. Central European University, Hungary. Agarwal B (1992) The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1):119-158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217 Agarwal B (1997) ''Bargaining'' and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3(1):1-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/135457097338799 Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework.World Development 29(10):1623-1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3 Akyeampong OA (2011) Pro-poor tourism: residents’ expectations, experiences and perceptions in the Kakum National Park Area of Ghana.Journal of Sustainable Tourism19:197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.509508 Anthony BP, Scott P, Antypas A (2010) Sitting on the fence? Policies and practices in managing human-wildlife conflict in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Conservation and Society 8:225–240. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.73812 Appiah-Opoku S (2011) Using protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation and ecotourism: A case study of Kakum National Park in Ghana. Society and Natural Resources24(5):500–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2010.495108 Arora-Jonsson S (2011) Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change 21(2):744-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005 Ayivor JS, Gordon C, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y (2013). Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case study of Digya National Park. Parks 19(1):37–50. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2013.PARKS-19-1.JSA.en Bakker KJ (2003) A political ecology of water privatization. Studies in Political Economy70:35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07078552.2003.11827129 Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S (2013). The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157:309–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014 Berger R (2015) Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 15(2):219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468 Berry SS (1993) No condition is permanent: The social dynamics of agrarian change in sub-Saharan Africa. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Binlinla JK, Voinov A, Oduro W (2014) Analysis of human activities in and around protected areas (PAs): Case of Kakum conservation area in Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 6(7):541–554. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2014.0691 Blaikie P, Brookfield H (1987) Land and degradation and society.London: Methuen & Co Inc. Boafo Y, Dubiure U-F, Danquah EK, Manford M, Nandjui A, Hema EM, Barnes R, Bailey B (2004) Long-term management of crop raiding by elephants around Kakum Conservation Area in southern Ghana. Pachyderm 37:68–72. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bryant RL (1998) Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 22(1):79-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200104 Carney J (2004) Gender conflict in Gambian wetlands. In Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements, ed. R. Peet and M. Watts, 316–335. London: Routledge. Cole S (2017). Water worries: An intersectional feminist political ecology of tourism and water in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 67:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.07.018 Colucci E (2008) On the use of focus groups in cross-cultural research. In Doing cross-cultural research. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 34, ed. P. Liamputtong, 233–252. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_15 Dakwa K, Monney K, Attuquayefio D (2016) Raid range selection by elephants around Kakum Conservation Area: Implications for the identification of suitable mitigating measures. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 8(2):21–31. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2015.0825 Dempsey J, Sundberg J (2024) Political ecology. In Introducing human geographies 4 th ed., ed. K. Dombrowski, M. Goodwin, J. Qian, A. Williams and P. Cloke, 175-186. London, Routledge. Distefano E (2005) Human-wildlife conflict worldwide: Collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Initiative (SARDI). https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/au241e (accessed June 10, 2020). Doubleday KF (2020) Tigers and “good Indian wives”: Feminist political ecology exposing the gender-based violence of human–wildlife conflict in Rajasthan, India. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110(5):1521-1539. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1723396 Duffy R (2022) Crime, security, and illegal wildlife trade: Political ecologies of international conservation. Global Environmental Politics 22(2):23-44. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00645 Dunham KM, Ghiurghi A, Cumbi R, Urbano F (2010) Human–wildlife conflict in Mozambique: a national perspective, with emphasis on wildlife attacks on humans. Oryx 44(2):185–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530999086X Elmhirst R (2011) Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42(2):129–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.006 Fairhead J, Leach M (1996) Misreading the African landscape: Society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic (No. 90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fiagbomeh R (2013) Perceptions of the impacts of nature conservation and ecotourism management: A case study in the Kakum conservation area of Ghana. PhD diss. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-4109 Galley W, Anthony BP (2024) Beyond crop-raiding: Unravelling the broader impacts of human-wildlife conflict on rural communities. Environmental Management 74:590–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02018-9 Gemeda DO, Meles SK (2018) Impacts of human-wildlife conflict in developing countries. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Managemen t 22(8):1233–1238. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v22i8.14 Gore ML, Kahler JS (2012) Gendered risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict: Implications for participatory conservation. PLoS ONE 7(3):e32901. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032901 Großmann K (2017) Gaharu King–Family Queen: Material gendered political ecology of the eaglewood boom in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44(6):1275-1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1341408 Hellström T (2008) Transferability and naturalistic generalization: New generalizability concepts for social science or old wine in new bottles? Quality & Quantity 42:321–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9048-0 Hill CM, Osborn FV, Plumptre AJ (2002) Human-wildlife conflict: Identifying the problem and possible solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Report Series Vol. 1. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Hodgson ID, Redpath SM, Fischer A, Young J (2019) Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts. Journal of Environmental Management 231:1065-1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.023 Hovorka AJ (2012) Women/chickens vs. men/cattle: Insights on gender–species intersectionality. Geoforum 43(4): 875-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.005 Jackson C (1993) Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development. World Development 21(12):1947–1963. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(93)90068-K Kabra A (2013). Conservation-induced displacement: The anatomy of a win–win solution. Social Change 43(4): 533-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085713502592 Klingorová K, Havlíček T (2015) Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions. Moravian Geographical Reports 23(2):2–11. Knight J (1999) Monkeys on the move: The natural symbolism of people-macaque conflict in Japan. The Journal of Asian Studies 58(3):622–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2659114 Lamarque F, Anderson J, Fergusson R, Lagrange M, Osei-Owusu Y, Bakker L (2009) Human-wildlife conflict in Africa: Causes, consequences and management strategies. FAO Forestry Paper 157. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Leach M (2007) Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and Change 38(1):67-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00403.x LeCompte MD (2000) Analyzing qualitative data. Theory Into Practice 39(3):146–154. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_5 Levers M-J. D (2013) Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open 3(4):2158244013517243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243 Lewis AL, Baird TD, Sorice MG (2016) Mobile phone use and human–wildlife conflict in northern Tanzania. Environmental Management 58:117–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0694-2 Macbeth D (2001) On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative Inquiry 7(1):35–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700 Mackenzie CA, Ahabyona P (2012) Elephants in the garden: Financial and social costs of crop raiding. Ecological Economics 75:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.018 Madden F (2004) Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(4):247–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675 Margulies JD, Karanth KK (2018) The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter. Geoforum 95: 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011 Mariki SB (2016) Social impacts of protected areas on gender in West Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Open Journal of Social Sciences 4:220-235. DOI: 10.4236/jss.2016.43028 Mohai P (2014) Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. In Women working in the environment, ed. C. E. Sachs. 215–239. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315061474 Mollett S, Faria C (2013) Messing with gender in feminist political ecology. Geoforum 45:116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.009 Monney KA, Dakwa KB, Wiafe ED (2010) Assessment of crop raiding situation by elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in farms around Kakum conservation area, Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 2(9):243–249. Nam S (2018) Toward everyday practices of gender: Implications of feminist political ecology for gender mainstreaming in Korean ODA. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 24(4):463–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2018.1531812 Neumann RP (1998). Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa (Vol. 4). Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press. Nightingale AJ (2011). Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum 42(2): 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.03.004 Nyhus PJ (2016) Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41(1):143-171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634 O.Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 Ogra MV (2008) Human-wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39(3):1408–1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.12.004 Osei-Owusu Y, Bakker L (2008) Human-wildlife conflict: Elephant - Technical Manual. Wildlife Management Working Paper 11. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Palaganas EC, Sanchez MC, Molintas MVP, Caricativo RD (2017) Reflexivity in qualitative research: A journey of learning. The Qualitative Report 22(2): 426–438. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2552 Protected planet (2024) Kakum. https://www.protectedplanet.net/26460 (accessed 19 June, 2024). Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert RA, Linnell JD, Watt A, Gutierrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(2):100-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021 Resurrección BP (2017) Gender and environment in the Global South: From ‘women, environment, and development’ to feminist political ecology. In Routledge handbook of gender and environment, ed. S. MacGregor, 71-85. London: Routledge. Robbins P (2003) Political ecology in political geography. Political Geography 22(6):641-645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(03)00071-4 Robbins PF, Chhangani AK, Rice J, Trigosa E, Mohnot SM (2007) Enforcement authority and vegetation change at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Management 40:365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0187-9 Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E. (1996). Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences. London: Routledge. Seoraj-Pillai N (2016) Human-wildlife conflict in subsistence and commercial farmers in north-eastern South Africa. PhD diss. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Silwal T, Kolejka J, Bhatta BP, Rayamajhi S, Sharma RP, Poudel BS (2017) When, where and whom: Assessing wildlife attacks on people in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Oryx 51(2):370–377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001489 Slevitch, L (2011) Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: Ontological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 12(1):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2011.541810 Sultana F (2010) Living in hazardous waterscapes: Gendered vulnerabilities and experiences of floods and disasters. Environmental Hazards 9(1):43-53. https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2010.SI02 Treves A, Wallace RB, White S (2009) Participatory planning of interventions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology 23(6):1577-1587. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01242.x Truelove Y (2011) (Re-)Conceptualizing water inequality in Delhi, India through a feminist political ecology framework. Geoforum 42(2):143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.004 Vaz-Jones L (2018) Struggles over land, livelihood, and future possibilities: Reframing displacement through feminist political ecology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43:711–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/695317 West P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006) Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35(1):251-277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308 Whitehead TL (2005) Basic classical ethnographic research methods. Cultural Ecology of Health and Change . Ethnographically Informed Community and Cultural Assessment Research Systems (EICCARS) Working Paper Series no. 2. Wilfred P, MacColl ADC (2010) Income sources and their relation to wildlife poaching in Ugalla ecosystem, Western Tanzania. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 4(12):886–896. Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) People and wildlife - Conflict or co-existence? New York: Cambridge University Press. Zimmerer KS, Bassett TJ (2003) Approaching political ecology: Society, nature, and scale in human-environment studies. In Political ecology: An integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies, ed. K. S. Zimmerer and T. J. Bassett, 1–25. New York: The Guilford Press. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. 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-8502605","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":568541983,"identity":"7212a605-0d9d-4ea5-b890-a7cc224c19d8","order_by":0,"name":"Wisdom GALLEY","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9125-3932","institution":"Central European University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wisdom","middleName":"","lastName":"GALLEY","suffix":""},{"id":568541984,"identity":"c6517ccf-e4e3-4096-aa92-2dd809b31ab6","order_by":1,"name":"Brandon P. ANTHONY","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7033-4936","institution":"Central European University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Brandon","middleName":"P.","lastName":"ANTHONY","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-02 17:42:49","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8502605/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8502605/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99670727,"identity":"5747d49a-da4f-4299-8c09-9d26952a4c7d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-07 06:58:57","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":427314,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"GalleyAnthonyms.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/cb788e2f2789148cf3503608.docx"},{"id":99670723,"identity":"52ea07c5-8ccd-4931-8a9a-92eeefd73d0d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-07 06:58:56","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8502605.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/fce143fe2eb3ba85f8aab47c.json"},{"id":99796769,"identity":"e2035bca-5aa0-4588-8971-7bc3fa7e92ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:43:27","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":165292,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85026050enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/070cc2ac414ea12f97b73aa8.xml"},{"id":99670725,"identity":"c6894a7d-7b3c-4fe4-8dfc-46eb46bdd7cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-07 06:58:57","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":347782,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/eb1568acff8a95c7935e446c.jpeg"},{"id":99796643,"identity":"c744a92b-5bd0-4c03-a8f7-456f50fa4ffa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:43:02","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":129591,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/c9493e552c08d03973356458.png"},{"id":99670724,"identity":"cd330daa-cd36-40ba-9eb9-6e26c6a5f27c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-07 06:58:57","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":163029,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85026050structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/c453dd3b7aeafab5ebc604e3.xml"},{"id":99670728,"identity":"79f32a4d-39d5-4a7c-97ce-07e02f67d2ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-07 06:58:57","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":173805,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/2ff8489ee46981d669d4a1bf.html"},{"id":99670722,"identity":"5d3bea1e-8667-4013-abe9-bdef5dad40fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-07 06:58:56","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":374122,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eKakum Conservation Area in Ghana (inset), major surrounding communities (black), including those in this study (red).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/7549573a8f9e0f36a4f16f99.png"},{"id":99805175,"identity":"3159c820-498f-4d94-8afe-5c748a5420b7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 14:16:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":982928,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8502605/v1/fc3b5349-033a-4bf9-a293-45fa3c8392c0.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eGendered Dimensions and Socio-Cultural Dynamics of Human-Wildlife Conflict: Insights from the Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research explores human-wildlife conflict (HWC), more specifically, its gendered and intersectional dimensions. While HWC is a multifaceted global issue, it is more common in developing nations. This is primarily due to factors like poverty, insufficient enforcement of conservation regulations, and widespread corruption, among other reasons (Lamarque et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Gemeda and Meles \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). According to (Madden \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, p.248) HWC occurs,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\"when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, injure or kill domestic animals, threaten or kill people.\"\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHWC presents a substantial obstacle to the preservation of biodiversity, jeopardizes the well-being of communities, and is influenced by a multitude of factors (ecological, political, economic, social, institutional, cultural, and historical elements) (Madden \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). The concept of 'human-wildlife conflict' is subject to debate among scholars. Nevertheless, it has evolved into a pivotal term used to characterize challenging circumstances involving wildlife and humans ( Osei-Owusu and Bakker \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Lamarque et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Lewis et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe impacts of HWC include injuries, death, and crop-raiding (Madden \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Distefano \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Woodroffe et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Anthony et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Barua et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Gemeda and Meles \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Deaths and injuries are the most devastating impact of HWC (Ogra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Lamarque et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Mammalian carnivores and herbivores in certain African and Asian countries are accountable for a significant number of fatal attacks and deaths (Binlinla et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In developing countries, where subsistence agriculture plays a major role in rural livelihoods, the consequences of HWC are particularly severe. The impact of these effects is intensified by political marginalization, poverty, and unresolved compensation payments (Ayivor et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Ghana, HWC has become a significant problem (Binlinla et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Dakwa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The crops most frequently affected by rampaging elephants (\u003cem\u003eLoxodonta cyclotis\u003c/em\u003e) are cassava, maize, yam, and cocoa (Addo-Boadu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The prevalence of HWC in Ghana is due to multiple factors, including the rise in human activities and the demand to convert nearby lands for agricultural use (Akyeampong \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Appiah-Opoku \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). These factors have unavoidably heightened the probability of residents encountering wildlife, leading to competition between residents and wildlife, as well as escalating hostility between residents and park officials (Addo-Boadu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Although various aspects of HWC have been extensively examined both locally (Boafo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Osei-Owusu and Bakker \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Monney et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Binlinla et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Dakwa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and globally (Hill et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Dunham et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Barua et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lewis et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Seoraj-Pillai \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Silwal et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), the various impacts on men and women have not been thoroughly explored, making this research timely.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo comprehend the connections between gender and HWC, a Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) framework is used. The FPE framework offers a distinct approach to examining natural resources from a feminist perspective (Carney \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). According to (Rocheleau et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e, 4), FPE treats gender as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003ea critical variable in shaping resource access and control, interacting with class, caste, race, culture, and ethnicity to shape processes of ecological change, the struggle of men and women to sustain ecologically viable livelihoods, and the prospects of any community for sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e.'\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theory posits that the environment and gender are intricately interconnected in meaningful ways. According to some feminist scholars, women have been affected more than men by the unequal burdens of environmental problems because roles are assigned based on gender (Jackson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Mohai \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this precedent, some scholars theorize that the consequences related to the conflict between humans and wildlife are greatly influenced by the gendered division of labor (Ogra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the division of labor often dictates the responsibility for specific tasks such as livestock and farm care, natural resource harvesting, and close interaction with wildlife (Mariki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). It is based on this premise that this research seeks to understand the gendered impacts of HWC.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Qualitative Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative methods are favored for this research due to their flexibility in data collection and alignment with our philosophical stance emphasizing subjectivity. These methods prioritize gaining insights from the perspective of participants rather than striving for unattainable objectivity, aligning with our paradigm's rejection of singular truths. The data collection process is conducted with a reflexive approach, which is an important aspect of ethnography (Macbeth \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Reflexivity as argued by scholars (Macbeth \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Berger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Palaganas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) is important because the researchers\u0026rsquo; definitions and meanings are often informed by unique ideological understandings of reality, and both \u0026lsquo;subjects' and researchers are entwined in creating reality based on their intersubjective interpretation of it. Consequently, findings are produced collaboratively between participants and researchers within a unique context (Hellstr\u0026ouml;m \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). This viewpoint opposes quantitative research methods, which stresses the distinction between researchers and subjects (Slevitch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Levers \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Study area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eKCA is located in Ghana's Central Region, 30 kilometers northwest of Cape Coast (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) (Appiah-Opoku \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). KCA is situated between latitudes 5\u0026deg;20\u0026prime;N and 5\u0026deg;40\u0026prime;N and longitudes 1\u0026deg;30\u0026prime;W to 1\u0026deg;51\u0026prime;W (Monney et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), covers an area of 210.76 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (Protected Planet \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and consists of the Kakum National Park (KNP) and the Assin Attandanso Resource Reserve (AARR). The area is teeming with faunal diversity, including approximately 100 species of mammals, 200 species of birds, and 200,000 to 350,000 species of insects. KCA is subject to the administrative authority of the Central Region of Ghana's Abura\u0026ndash;Asebu\u0026ndash;Kwamangkese, Twifu Hemang Lower Denkyira, and Assin (North and South) districts (Monney et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). It is widely recognized as a prominent ecotourism destination and was initially designated as a forest reserve during the 1930s. It was subsequently reclassified as a national park and gazetted in 1992. Since then, the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission has overseen the park, with assistance from the Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the 2010 national population and housing census of Ghana, the approximate population residing in the villages and hamlets bordering KCA is 9960 (Fiagbomeh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The inhabitants of these predominantly rural districts are of various ethnic backgrounds (Twifo, Assin, Denkyera, and Fanti), the majority of whom are thought to have emigrated from the Ashanti Region. Other ethnic groups can be observed alongside the resident ethnicities, such as the Ewes, Krobos, Ga-Adangbes, and Akuapims. The favorable climate and fertile lands necessitated the settlement of these migrant ethnic groups, which were engaged in cocoa and domestic staples (Fiagbomeh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe adult population of the region has a high rate of illiteracy. Most communities only have elementary schools that last for six years, and none have high schools or tertiary institutions. Over 70% of the residents in districts where the KCA is located are employed in agriculture, while small-scale agriculture employs over 90% of the population in the communities bordering the KCA (Monney et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Participant observation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eObservations of community members were documented in accordance with the descriptive observations of social settings, activities, and events outlined in The Cultural Ecology of Health and Change (CEHC) workbook (Whitehead \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Observations were documented in the CEHC workbook, encompassing general descriptions, theoretical insights, and reflective notes. Additionally, fieldwork was meticulously recorded in a personal fieldwork diary, an indispensable element of the data collection procedure as it supplemented our CEHC workbook field notes and functioned as a mechanism for validation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey informants in two communities\u0026mdash;Abrafo and Antwikwaa\u0026mdash;hosted us. This allowed us to become acquainted with commonplace occurrences and additionally provided us with a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural and lived realities of our ethnographic hosts. Moreover, by engaging in informal dialogues, participating in communal activities, contributing to agricultural and domestic tasks, and attending ceremonies and social events, successful integration into the community was achieved. By residing with ethnographic hosts, \"rich\" contextual information regarding the effects of HWC was obtained. This integration also enabled the identification and rectification of inaccuracies, correction of 'facts' acquired through interviews, and a deeper understanding of specific distortions through participant observation. Furthermore, it provided us with access to information that our interlocutors were unwilling to divulge. Effective data collection was achieved through the use of participant observation, as the objective was to observe the participants in their most natural environment possible in order to investigate and comprehend the influence of gender on HWC-related vulnerabilities and impacts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2. Interviews\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants, opinion leaders, officials of the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission (FC) and individuals affected by HWC. Snowball sampling techniques were used to identify respondents for the interviews. Generally, snowball sampling was utilized to expand and access the social network of respondents. A total of 155 in-depth interviews were conducted in 8 communities: Abrafo, Mfuom, Gyaware, Antwikwaa, Bobi, Afiaso, Tawiah-Nkwantah and Seidukrom. Abrafo was the first community as it is a major settlement and considered the gateway to the park. The other communities were selected after preliminary interviews with park officials and initial assessment of the park's quarterly reports. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed for thematic analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3. Focus group discussions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus group discussions were conducted in Mfuom. The objective was to acquire a deeper understanding of the ways in which HWC affects individuals and to identify the spectrum of perspectives, inconsistencies, and differences that exist regarding HWC and gender. According to Colucci (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), the composition of the focus group is among the \"ethnocultural variables\" that must be taken into account. Therefore, to mitigate potential power imbalances and foster an environment conducive to open dialogue and discussion, three focus groups were conducted: (1) exclusively comprised of men (6 men), (2) exclusively comprised of women (6 women), and (3) comprised of both genders (6 men and 6 women). These enabled individuals of both genders to freely articulate their ideas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunal relations were observed through the focus group discussions. According to O.Nyumba et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) participants' and interlocutors' evaluations of one another's experiences offer significant insights into intricate power dynamics. Furthermore, focus group discussions facilitated the clarification and elicitation of information from additional data sources, including participant observation and interviews.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA thematic analysis was conducted to derive significance from the collected data. A comprehensive principle or unified methodology does not exist for performing thematic analysis. Nevertheless, it is a procedure consisting of identifiable metrics. However, it is crucial to underscore that this does not suggest that thematic analysis follows a rigid and sequential progression. Conversely, it is an iterative and non-linear procedure wherein multiple phases may intersect. The performed analysis is founded upon six interdependent phases (Braun and Clarke \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the most critical first steps of the data analysis process is \u0026lsquo;tidying up\u0026rsquo; (LeCompte \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), i.e., establishing preliminary assessments and detecting gaps or segments of data by evaluating the adequacy of the gathered data in response to the research inquiries. Additionally, it involves acquainting oneself with the data. For instance, during data collection, trends and themes consistently emerged from participant observation, document analysis, and interviews. While still in the field, transcripts of a portion of the interview data were transcribed and reviewed. This process provided a reliable, though limited, understanding of the diverse patterns present in the dataset. For coding, QDA Miner Lite (v2.0.8) was utilized as the data management application. The comprehensive data collection was encoded, yielding an extensive inventory of codes. This entails the extraction of textual segments from their initial semantic content and the assignment of a distinct code or identifier that most accurately characterizes the essence of the content contained within said segments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThematic development commenced with the identification of commonalities and patterns, which were then categorized into provisional overarching themes and subthemes. A thorough examination was conducted of the themes and sub-themes to determine whether any of the themes could have been eliminated. This process was undertaken to better organize, streamline, and simplify the data collection. Rather than viewing the themes individually, they were conceptualized as an interconnected network. The correlation between the overarching themes and their corresponding subthemes was then examined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Theoretical perspective","content":"\u003cp\u003ePolitical ecology is a field that primarily deals with the constantly shifting dialectic between society and natural resources (Nam \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Political ecology has provided a critical lens for examining conservation actors, their networks of power, and their social engagements, thereby elucidating the socio-political consequences of various conservation models. These consequences include the physical and socio-economic displacement of marginalized communities (Kabra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), the undemocratic management of natural resources, unequal knowledge production, the costs associated with living in proximity to wildlife (Ogra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Barua et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and the formation of socio-ecological identities (Gro\u0026szlig;mann \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Also, political ecological analyses of protected conservation areas have highlighted significant socio-economic and ecological disruptions. These include large-scale displacement of forest-dependent communities, loss of livelihoods and restricted access to resources, capitalist-driven and increased negative human-wildlife interactions. Scholars of political ecology explore the association of political economy and human-environment interactions and hold the view that environmental problems are interwoven with political structures (Bakker \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Nam \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). They also examine the role of various actors (such as locals, NGOs, state structures, and international agencies) involved in the control over resources at multiple scales (Zimmerer and Bassett \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Robbins et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Truelove \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHuman-wildlife interactions have also emerged as a critical focus within political ecology scholarship. Conservation-led spatial realignments often seek to establish distinct human and wildlife territories. However, such rigid separations are rarely sustained, as both humans and wildlife frequently traverse these boundaries due to factors such as rapid land-use and land tenure changes, infrastructural development, and shifts in wildlife behavior. Consequently, human-wildlife interactions remain a persistent reality, encompassing both positive and negative dimensions\u0026mdash;conceptualized as 'coexistence' and 'conflict,' respectively. While conservation policies aspire toward coexistence, conflict remains prevalent, often inflicting harm on both humans and wildlife (Nyhus \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical ecologists have critiqued the term 'human-wildlife conflict,' arguing that such conflicts are, in essence, struggles among human groups with unequal power and authority over wildlife and landscape governance (Redpath et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This power asymmetry generates various forms of encounters between local communities and wildlife. These interactions result in crop and livestock destruction, damage to dwellings, human injuries, and fatalities, exacerbating the vulnerability of already impoverished communities (Treves et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Political ecology scholars have further demonstrated that the socio-economic repercussions of human-wildlife interactions entail hidden costs that remain unaccounted for and are distributed unequally within communities, disproportionately affecting marginalized social groups (Ogra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Barua et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Galley and Anthony \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Among these axes of social differentiation, gender plays a crucial role in shaping the nature and impact of human-wildlife interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender has been widely recognized as a key determinant in patterns of wild resource use and in shaping responses to environmental challenges, including conservation-driven displacement and adaptation strategies (Rocheleau et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Rejecting the essentialist ecofeminist notion that women are inherently closer to nature, FPE has instead emphasized the role of gender in structuring access to and control over resources, rights and responsibilities in resource management, and collective action for environmental justice (Rocheleau et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Dempsey and Sundberg \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScholarship on FPE is increasingly often examines the bidirectional relationship between gender and human-wildlife interactions\u0026mdash;how conservation policies shape gendered experiences and, conversely, how gender influences human-wildlife encounters. The proximity of human settlements to wildlife has distinct implications for men and women, influencing their exposure to risks, coping strategies, and attitudes toward wildlife (Ogra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). FPE analyses have consistently shown that these implications are asymmetrical, often to the detriment of women. Women disproportionately bear the long-term and uncompensated consequences of wildlife-related damages (Barua et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and these challenges can exacerbate gender-based violence (Doubleday \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Given these critical intersections, FPE presents a vital analytical framework for comprehensively understanding the gendered dimensions of human-wildlife interactions and their broader socio-political implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeminist scholarship has long established the intricate linkages between household dynamics and the differential control over resources (Elmhirst \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Nightingale \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This body of work has also illuminated the struggles surrounding gendered divisions of labor and livelihood security (Sultana \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Truelove \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Mollett and Faria \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Building on these foundational insights, FPE scholars have reconceptualized the physical environment as an extension of the household, recognizing its role not only as a source of material assets but also as a space imbued with cultural, economic, and domestic significance (Rocheleau et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Ogra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasically, FPE is a branch of Political Ecology that examines nature-society linkages from a gendered perspective. FPE adds a gendered viewpoint and critiques how social inequalities influence environmental challenges. One of the primary differences between FPE and traditional political ecology is the emphasis on how social hierarchies and power relations affect access to and control over natural resources (Vaz-Jones \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). According to FPE scholars, whereas political ecology seeks to explain the complicated relationship between society and nature, conventional political ecology has disregarded the influence of social inequalities, such as those based on gender and race (Elmhirst \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Mollett and Faria \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). FPE scholars also criticizes the means by which capitalist development models have frequently resulted in the marginalization of vulnerable groups (Elmhirst \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Truelove \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Cole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Vaz-Jones \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProponents of FPE theorize that vulnerabilities and risks associated with the environment (including HWC) are influenced by social factors such as gender. FPE is not only relevant in comprehending how unequal gender relations underpin environmental risks and vulnerabilities, but also builds on political ecology, and draws attention to interactions between gendered power structures and the natural environment (Truelove \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). FPE as a theoretical concept moves away from the more essentializing arguments of ecofeminism and conceptualizes gender as a social construct that influences decision making, access to resources, rights and responsibilities (Elmhirst \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing FPE as a framework in analyzing the impacts of HWC helps to understand the connections between gender dynamics, power structures and environmental conservation efforts (Gore and Kahler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Mariki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This approach shows how traditional gender norms impact access to resources decision making processes and vulnerability to wildlife risks in rural communities. By examining various viewpoints and experiences, we highlight how the most vulnerable individuals frequently bear the burdens and responsibilities of managing HWC. In essence, the use of FPE as a framework not only highlights the economic and cultural aspects of HWC; but also provides valuable insights for creating more inclusive conservation measures in KCA and other HWC hotspots (Ogra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Mariki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Study Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results highlight the gender-specific and broader social ramifications of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) arising from out-migration, a surge in illicit activities, interpersonal conflicts, and the fracturing of social bonds (Table I).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003eTable I. Gendered impacts of HWC at Kakum Conservation Area\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Impact\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender Lens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOut-migration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisplacement of individuals from conflict zones\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Disproportionate impact on men as primary providers and women as caretakers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased workload on remaining household members\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Women often take on additional responsibilities in managing households\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncrease in unlawful activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRise in poaching, encroachment, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Economic pressures drives men to engage in illegal activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Women drawn into illegal activities due to vulnerability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisruption of Social Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBreakdown of community ties and trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Gender inequalities undermine cohesion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Differential access to resources and decision-making processes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation and opportunity costs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisruptions to schooling and future prospects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- The education of girls and boys are impacted by HWC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Men face constraints on pursuing livelihood opportunities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Out-Migration\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe socio-cultural dynamics in KCA are deeply rooted in patriarchal traditions that shape gendered roles, responsibilities, and power relations. Within this framework, FPE provides a critical lens through which to analyze how intersecting structures including gender, cultural norms, and economic pressures influence HWC and the adaptive strategies of affected communities. Cultural norms in KCA ascribe distinct roles to men and women, reinforcing structural inequities at both the household and communal levels. Women are primarily relegated to domestic responsibilities and informal economic activities. The gendered division of labor is deeply embedded in informal constraints that dictate the types of work available to women and men. Women\u0026rsquo;s labor remains largely invisible, confined to the private sphere, while men\u0026rsquo;s labor is associated with the public and economic domains, perpetuating power imbalances.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants in the study highlighted these disparities:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Here (in this community), many women are involved in trading and also help their spouses in farming. However, men take all the credit when there is a bountiful harvest.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Female, 48]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Men and women both engage in similar economic duties, and women raise children in addition to their jobs. Our men don\u0026rsquo;t see how challenging it is because that is what is expected of us.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Female, 36]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese testimonies underscore how the patriarchal division of labor reinforces male dominance in economic decision-making while limiting women\u0026rsquo;s autonomy and access to resources. The restriction of women\u0026rsquo;s mobility due to childcare responsibilities and domestic obligations further impedes their participation in conservation and decision-making processes. Women\u0026rsquo;s exclusion from meetings and training sessions organized by park officials illustrates how gender norms exacerbate vulnerabilities in the context of HWC.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn addition, religious doctrines in KCA further entrench patriarchal structures that define acceptable gender roles. As noted by scholars such as Klingorov\u0026aacute; and Havl\u0026iacute;ček (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), religious institutions historically reinforce traditional gender ideologies that position men as breadwinners and women as submissive caregivers. Christianity, particularly Pentecostalism, promotes a gendered ideology of \u0026apos;complementarianism\u0026apos; that upholds traditional household structures:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Even the Bible says that the man is the head of the house, and the Bible also encourages us to submit to our husbands. These are not my words but written in the Bible. I am not saying he makes all the decisions, but he leads the household and provides for me and the children.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Female, 53]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligious discourse thus legitimizes gendered labor divisions, shaping the ways in which men and women perceive their roles within the household and broader community. This religious framework not only sustains male authority in decision-making but also discourages women from challenging entrenched norms, further limiting their agency in addressing the socio-economic impacts of HWC.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlso, despite the rigidity of cultural norms, some participants noted gradual shifts in gender roles, particularly among younger generations:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;My grandparents told me that in their day, it was uncommon for husbands to cook. However, these days, things are changing gradually because men are increasingly taking up domestic responsibilities like cooking and cleaning.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Female, 60]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In today\u0026rsquo;s society, some men and boys do participate in certain home duties. However, there are still some men who continue to think that it is a demotion of their masculinity to be seen performing some domestic chores.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 58]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese emerging changes suggest that socio-cultural perceptions of gender roles are not static but are subject to negotiation and transformation. However, resistance to these shifts persists, particularly regarding men\u0026rsquo;s involvement in care work. Tasks such as diaper changing, sweeping, and childcare remain highly stigmatized, with men fearing social humiliation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, HWC has intensified economic precarity, compelling men to seek alternative income sources, often through migration to urban centers such as Cape Coast, Takoradi, and Accra. The gendered implications of male out-migration are profound, as women are left to manage both household and agricultural responsibilities. Participants expressed frustration over the economic instability caused by wildlife-induced crop destruction:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I am young and love farming, but if things continue like this, I might have to look elsewhere because this is not helping. I cannot waste my youthful years on something that cannot help me.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 38]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I am only still doing this because there are no opportunities in this village. The day I get a good-paying job, I will stop farming because I do not really benefit. It is a waste of time to work hard only for those animals to destroy everything.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 45]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale migration often results in increased burdens for women, who must assume additional responsibilities in both agricultural production and household management. These findings align with Hovorka\u0026apos;s (2012) exploration of gender-species intersectionality, where she discusses how societal norms assign specific animals and related tasks to particular genders, reinforcing traditional roles and responsibilities. Hovorka\u0026apos;s analysis underscores the need to consider gender dynamics in addressing HWC, ensuring that mitigation strategies do not disproportionately impact women. From an FPE perspective, this aligns with Rocheleau et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) foundational argument that gender is a critical variable shaping access to and control over resources, intersecting with broader socio-political and economic structures. Feminist political ecologists such as Dianne Rocheleau and Piers Blaikie have long emphasized how environmental challenges, including HWC, are embedded within historical and structural inequalities that disproportionately affect marginalized groups. The gendered division of labor in conservation landscapes, where men often migrate or engage in alternative livelihoods while women assume increased agricultural and domestic burdens, reflects the broader patriarchal structures that limit women\u0026rsquo;s agency in environmental governance (Elmhirst \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, feminist political ecologists critique traditional conservation paradigms that fail to consider gendered labor dynamics, leading to interventions that exacerbate existing inequalities. Consequently, addressing HWC requires a reconceptualization of conservation policies to incorporate gender-sensitive strategies that acknowledge and mitigate these disparities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Increase in unlawful activities\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe rise in poaching as an alternative livelihood strategy for men in communities surrounding KCA underscores the gendered economic vulnerabilities exacerbated by HWC. Within a FPE framework, this phenomenon can be analyzed through the lens of access to resources, and gendered labor structures (Rocheleau et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Elmhirst \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). As HWC undermines traditional agricultural incomes, men\u0026mdash;who are often seen as primary providers\u0026mdash;turn to illegal activities such as poaching to sustain their households. This shift not only reflects economic precarity but also the structural inequalities in resource governance that marginalize local communities (Nightingale \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccording to one park official, poaching has become a means of income diversification, with animals being sold to local \u003cem\u003echop bars\u003c/em\u003e. Over the past decade, reports indicate an increase in poaching activities, facilitated by collaborations between local community members and external actors. However, arrests and legal repercussions have intensified tensions between park authorities and local residents. Many farmers perceive that the government prioritizes wildlife conservation over their socio-economic well-being, reinforcing a historical pattern of exclusion in conservation governance. The following accounts illustrate these tensions:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;In the past, we sometimes had to close our doors and hide in the offices when we saw them coming in their numbers. These days, our relationship has improved, but there is crop-raiding in many of the surrounding communities and hamlets every year, so there are still a lot of challenges.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 55]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;I used to go to their office in Abrafo to argue with them. You can go there and ask of me. We don\u0026rsquo;t have any benefit from the park. Our children are not employed by the park. Their wildlife destroy our farms and they expect us to be happy. All they care about is the animals.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e [Female, 48]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese sentiments echo broader critiques within FPE, which highlight how conservation policies often reproduce and reinforce socio-economic hierarchies, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups, particularly rural women and men with limited access to formal employment (Dempsey and Sundberg \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). When agricultural revenue declines, poaching becomes a rational economic response, as noted in previous studies on conservation-livelihood conflicts (Wilfred and MacColl \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The prosecution of men engaged in illegal park entry and poaching further exacerbates social discord, leading to increased hostilities between communities and park officials.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the governance of conservation spaces remains deeply gendered, influencing who has access to resources and who bears the costs of conservation restrictions. While the closed hunting season is intended to promote sustainable wildlife management, its enforcement is marred by allegations of corruption among park officials. Farmers report instances where rangers conspire with hunters to allow illegal hunting, while simultaneously penalizing others. This perceived corruption erodes trust in conservation authorities and weakens compliance with wildlife regulations, a challenge frequently noted in studies on conservation governance (Duffy \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;My farm is all I have. When the elephants come and destroy my crops, they do not do anything about it. The animals are allowed to destroy our farms, but we are not allowed to kill them. If you go to the forest to hunt, they will arrest you. They never think about us.\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 48]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe presence of corruption in conservation governance is a recurring issue that disrupts equitable resource management (Duffy \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond corruption, unmet expectations and historical injustices continue to strain relationships between wildlife officials and local communities. These tensions align with broader critiques within FPE that emphasize the need for participatory conservation approaches that integrate local knowledge and address power imbalances (Agarwal \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Currently, the top-down governance model employed in KCA sidelines local agency, reinforcing a conservation paradigm that prioritizes biodiversity protection at the expense of rural livelihoods. The failure to incorporate local voices into decision-making processes deepens the divide between conservation authorities and affected communities (Nightingale \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDespite these conflicts, there have been instances of collaboration between wildlife officials and local communities, particularly in mitigating crop-raiding incidents. Such cooperation signals an opportunity for a more inclusive and participatory conservation approach, aligning with FPE\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on co-management and equitable resource governance (Resurrecci\u0026oacute;n \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). By recognizing the interdependence of conservation efforts and local livelihoods, both parties can develop community-based early warning systems and deterrents. These participatory strategies can transform conservation from a contested practice to a shared responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the exclusion of communities from conservation decision-making reflects broader institutional failures in conservation policy. Farmers in KCA often lack awareness of existing conservation regulations, such as those outlined in the Wild Animals Preservation Act, 1961 (Act 43). The absence of effective community outreach and participatory education programs exacerbates non-compliance, reinforcing conservation authorities\u0026rsquo; perception of local communities as adversarial rather than potential allies in conservation. To address these governance gaps, there is a need for policies that prioritize local engagement, gender-sensitive conservation planning, and the redistribution of conservation benefits to affected communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUltimately, addressing these challenges requires a shift toward more participatory, transparent, and just conservation governance. An FPE-informed approach emphasizes the integration of local voices, the recognition of gendered labor dynamics, and the dismantling of exclusionary conservation paradigms. Through enhanced dialogue, mutual respect, and inclusive decision-making, wildlife conservation in KCA can transition from a site of contestation to a model of equitable human-wildlife coexistence.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMargulies and Karanth (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) examine this phenomenon through a political animal geography lens, illustrating how economic transformations and global market demands can intensify human-wildlife encounters. They argue that neoliberal economic policies and conservation practices often marginalize local communities, leading to increased reliance on illicit activities for survival. In regions where agriculture is compromised by wildlife damage, and alternative livelihoods are scarce, poaching may become a coping mechanism, despite its legal and ethical implications. This finding emphasizes the importance of integrating socio-economic considerations into conservation policies to mitigate unintended consequences. Scholars like Paul Robbins and Raymond Bryant have explored the intersection of political economy and conservation, arguing that neoliberal conservation policies often alienate local communities, pushing them toward informal or illegal economies (Bryant \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Robbins \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Robbins\u0026rsquo; work on Political Ecology discusses how conservation strategies that prioritize fortress-style protectionism over community livelihoods frequently lead to unintended socio-economic consequences, such as increased reliance on poaching. Similarly, Blaikie and Brookfield\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) work on the \u003cem\u003edegradation and marginalization thesis\u003c/em\u003e suggests that environmental policies often exacerbate socio-economic inequalities, forcing marginalized communities to exploit natural resources unsustainably. In the context of HWC, the criminalization of poaching without addressing its economic drivers reflects a failure to integrate local livelihoods into conservation frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Disruption of social cohesion\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn KCA, crop-raiding emerges as a significant disruptor of community cohesion by destabilizing the social standing and economic security of affected farmers. Within these communities, social relationships are deeply embedded in reciprocal exchanges of resources, labor, and symbolic gestures, which are vital for maintaining socio-cultural networks. As Agarwal (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) and Rocheleau et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize, access to and control over resources are deeply gendered and intertwined with social power, influencing one\u0026rsquo;s ability to engage in communal life. Farmers, particularly those whose livelihoods depend on subsistence agriculture, rely on surplus yields not only for sustenance but also for participation in social obligations such as weddings, outdooring ceremonies, engagements, and funerals. These events, which necessitate financial and material contributions, serve as crucial spaces for reinforcing social ties and communal solidarity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn Ghanaian society, as in many other African contexts, gift-giving is an essential mechanism for fostering social connectedness and sustaining networks of mutual support (Berry \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, when farmers experience significant crop losses due to wildlife incursions, their capacity to contribute to these social exchanges is severely constrained. As a result, their social standing within the community is diminished, leading to exclusion from crucial relational networks. This phenomenon aligns with Nightingale\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) assertion that environmental challenges disproportionately affect marginalized individuals, often exacerbating existing inequalities in social mobility and access to community resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the inability to participate in social obligations due to crop-raiding engenders broader disruptions in communal reciprocity. Food-sharing and resource exchanges, which are key mechanisms of risk-spreading in agrarian societies, become strained when affected farmers cannot reciprocate. This dynamic resonates with the observations of Knight (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, 632), who noted that in Japan, \u0026lsquo;in raiding garden produce in remote hamlets, monkeys deprive elderly villagers of a symbolically important currency in social exchange.\u0026rsquo; Similarly, in the KCA, the loss of agricultural yields undermines the reciprocity-based economic and social safety nets that are crucial for community resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoreover, crop-raiding has significant implications for social mobility. Many farmers are reluctant to leave their fields unguarded, limiting their participation in social events that are integral to reinforcing communal bonds and securing future support networks. As one farmer expressed:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sometimes I only go to ceremonies and funerals for people to see I was present. I wish I could stay and support my bereaved friends, but I cannot. I have my mind on my crops and have to guard them regularly so that my hard work is not in vain.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 42]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnother farmer echoed similar concerns:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I wish I could attend most ceremonies and show my support. I only go to events in the dry season because by then, I have harvested my crops and do not need to worry about elephants raiding my farm.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 45]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe strain on communal reciprocity and participation exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, particularly for marginalized groups such as women and smallholder farmers, who may already face limited access to alternative livelihood strategies. As Rocheleau et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) suggest, environmental governance structures often neglect the socio-cultural dimensions of resource access, further marginalizing those most dependent on subsistence economies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn agrarian communities, resource-sharing functions as a form of social insurance, ensuring that crises\u0026mdash;such as illness or food shortages\u0026mdash;do not fall disproportionately on individuals. The extended family system in Ghana operates on principles of reciprocity, where kinship networks provide critical economic and emotional support (Berry \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). However, when multiple households experience simultaneous economic distress due to crop-raiding, these networks become overburdened, eroding their efficacy in mitigating socio-economic shocks. This aligns with Arora-Jonsson\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) critique that environmental disruptions often amplify existing inequalities, as those with fewer resources bear the brunt of the impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUltimately, crop-raiding in the KCA extends beyond ecological concerns, intersecting with gendered and socio-cultural dimensions of access, exclusion, and power relations. By disrupting the intricate web of reciprocal exchanges that underpin social cohesion, human-wildlife conflict exacerbates community fragmentation, disproportionately affecting those already vulnerable within the socio-economic hierarchy. Integrating an FPE perspective into conservation policies is therefore essential to addressing these socio-ecological dynamics in a manner that is both equitable and sustainable.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMargulies and Karanth (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) discuss how conservation initiatives, when imposed without adequate community involvement, can lead to conflicts over resource access and management. Communities adjacent to protected areas may perceive conservation policies as prioritizing wildlife over human welfare, especially when they suffer losses from crop-raiding without fair compensation or participation in decision-making processes. This dynamic fosters resentment and undermines the legitimacy of conservation efforts. Recognizing the political dimensions of HWC is crucial for developing strategies that balance ecological goals with the rights and needs of local populations. The strained relationships between local communities and park authorities, as revealed in this study, resonate with long-standing political ecology critiques of exclusionary conservation. As West et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) argue, many conservation initiatives, particularly in Africa, have been characterized by the \u0026ldquo;conservation enclosures\u0026rdquo; phenomenon, where communities are dispossessed of traditional lands and excluded from decision-making. These exclusions create what Neumann (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) describes as \u0026ldquo;imaginative geographies of conservation,\u0026rdquo; where protected areas are framed as pristine spaces needing protection from local populations, rather than acknowledging them as historical stewards of the land. Political ecologists argue that such models create friction, particularly when conservation policies prioritize wildlife over human welfare, as seen in the increasing hostilities and mistrust between farmers and park officials. The study\u0026rsquo;s findings align with critiques from scholars like Fairhead and Leach (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), who argue that conservation narratives often erase local ecological knowledge and practices, further exacerbating conflicts. These findings necessitate the need to see communities as legitimate stakeholders in decision-making processes, rather than adversaries to conservation efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Education and Opportunity costs\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHuman capital remains significantly underdeveloped in communities adjacent to the KCA. Despite Ghana\u0026rsquo;s policy of free elementary education in public schools, hidden costs such as uniforms, school supplies, test fees, and meals remain prohibitive for many households. FPE scholars such as Rocheleau et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that structural inequalities shape access to education, particularly for marginalized rural populations. In this context, the economic precarity exacerbated by crop-raiding prevents families from affording tuition in private schools, contributing to school absenteeism and limiting children\u0026apos;s long-term educational prospects.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBeyond financial constraints, the necessity of combating crop-raiding imposes additional labor demands on farming households. The gendered dimensions of labor allocation become particularly evident, as families\u0026mdash;including minors\u0026mdash;are compelled to engage in field patrolling. According to Elmhirst (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), FPE underscores the intersectionality of environmental struggles, where socio-economic vulnerabilities are compounded by gendered labor expectations. In this case, children\u0026rsquo;s educational trajectories are disrupted as they assist in guarding farms, especially during peak raiding seasons. As participants reported, such labor obligations result in fatigue, school absenteeism, and ultimately, diminished academic performance:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;They are going to write the same exams; they cannot perform any better than their friends in the city. It is impossible. We are trapped, our children will drop out of school and not progress, although we all want a better life.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Female, 40]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I wasn\u0026rsquo;t the brightest, I wasn\u0026rsquo;t the worst in school either, but I had to choose between the welfare of my family and school; it wasn\u0026rsquo;t a difficult decision. I have no regrets; farming is what puts food on the table for the family.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [Male, 45]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimilar findings have been documented in other studies, where guarding responsibilities have been linked to poor school attendance and academic underperformance (Mackenzie and Ahabyona \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This situation underscores what Agarwal (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) terms the \u0026ldquo;gendered costs of environmental degradation,\u0026rdquo; wherein structural inequalities are reinforced as affected individuals remain trapped in cycles of poverty and economic marginalization. Education, a key enabler of socio-economic mobility, remains inaccessible to many, thereby sustaining long-term inequalities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne of the most significant but often overlooked consequences of HWC is its opportunity cost. Opportunity cost, in this context, refers to the sacrifices made in pursuing crop protection strategies at the expense of other socio-economic and developmental activities. Leach (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) highlights that such trade-offs disproportionately affect rural and agrarian populations, further entrenching economic precarity. Many farmers are compelled to monitor their farms overnight, leaving them sleep-deprived and unable to engage effectively in income-generating activities during the day. Additionally, financial resources expended on deterrent measures\u0026mdash;such as constructing pepper fences and scarecrows\u0026mdash;represent lost investments that could have been redirected towards enhancing agricultural productivity through inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe reliance on conventional, low-cost deterrent strategies, such as guarding, erecting barriers, lighting fires, and using rifles, aligns with broader themes in FPE regarding the intersection of environmental governance and rural livelihood strategies. Studies by Nightingale (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that community-based adaptations to environmental stressors often emerge from necessity rather than choice. However, as our findings reveal, these conventional deterrence methods are largely ineffective, leading to the habituation of wildlife\u0026mdash;especially elephants\u0026mdash;to human interventions. Consequently, some farmers attempt pre-emptive deterrence strategies, while others respond reactively after initial raids.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor those who can afford it, hiring farm guards offers a partial solution. However, this approach presents its own economic risks. Employing part-time guards constitutes a significant financial burden, particularly given the uncertain effectiveness of human deterrence. Farmers noted that elephants often exhibit fearlessness, rendering hired guards an inadequate safeguard. This reflects a broader critique within FPE scholarship that economic and environmental vulnerabilities are co-constitutive; the financial strain of crop protection strategies ultimately exacerbates long-term livelihood insecurities rather than resolving them (Nightingale \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn sum, the education and opportunity costs associated with HWC in the KCA region illustrate the deeply entrenched socio-economic and gendered disparities that characterize rural livelihoods. By framing these challenges within an FPE perspective, it becomes evident that addressing HWC requires not only ecological interventions but also systemic socio-economic reforms that alleviate structural inequalities and enhance community resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHodgson (2019) emphasizes the importance of incorporating local knowledge and cultural contexts into conservation practices to foster coexistence. Hodgson\u0026apos;s work suggests that effective HWC mitigation should include community-based approaches that address immediate conflicts and contribute to broader developmental goals, ensuring sustainable and equitable outcomes. Finally, the study\u0026rsquo;s insights into the long-term social and economic implications of HWC\u0026mdash;particularly regarding education and opportunity costs\u0026mdash;further validate political ecology critiques of conservation-induced vulnerabilities. Some scholars highlight how conservation projects, when designed without local socio-economic considerations, reinforce cycles of poverty and exclusion. The finding that children miss school due to farm guarding or financial constraints echoes Robbins (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) argument that environmental governance must be understood within the broader context of social justice and development. Similarly, political ecologists emphasize that conservation interventions should not only aim to protect wildlife but also consider human well-being, particularly in rural and agrarian settings where education and economic mobility are already constrained. The failure to integrate education and sustainable development into conservation policies perpetuates generational cycles of poverty, reinforcing the very vulnerabilities that make communities more susceptible to HWC in the first place.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the intricate connections between gender and the impacts of HWC, revealing how these dynamics shape vulnerabilities and coping mechanisms. The findings demonstrate that women disproportionately bear the burden of increased workloads, while men, faced with economic pressures, are more likely to engage in illicit activities such as poaching. Notably, crop-raiding has intensified the appeal and profitability of poaching, exacerbating tensions between local communities and park authorities. These findings underscore the urgent need for gender-sensitive approaches in HWC research, recognizing that gender is a crucial determinant of vulnerability and resilience in the face of conservation challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe persistence of poverty, inadequate compensation mechanisms, and the rising wildlife populations due to conservation successes suggest that HWC will remain a significant challenge to both livelihoods and conservation efforts in the foreseeable future. Therefore, interventions aimed at mitigating HWC must prioritize gender-responsive strategies that address the distinct risks faced by both men and women. By doing so, conservation policies can become more equitable and effective, ensuring that interventions benefit entire communities rather than privileging specific groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, this research contributes to broader global agendas, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), by emphasizing the importance of gender equality and the empowerment of women in conservation discourse. While the study\u0026rsquo;s findings are rooted in the specific socio-cultural and ecological context of the research communities, they hold broader relevance for other African communities grappling with similar HWC-related challenges. The insights generated here offer valuable lessons for shaping more inclusive conservation policies and fostering harmonious human-wildlife coexistence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, this study underscores that HWC mitigation strategies must be gender-sensitive, given that men and women experience distinct risks and vulnerabilities. Beyond improving human-park relations in communities surrounding protected areas, such an approach can enhance the fairness and social sustainability of conflict mitigation strategies. Recognizing and integrating gendered dimensions into conservation policies is not merely an ethical imperative but a pragmatic necessity for fostering long-term ecological and social resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Statements and Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful to the workers of the Forestry Commission and the Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust for their cooperation. Our heartfelt gratitude goes out to all the beautiful families and individuals who accepted us into their homes. Without the help of the Central European University (Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy), this project would not have been possible. We extend our sincerest gratitude to Prof. Guntra Aistara and Prof. Edward Wiafe for their valuable input\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eW.G.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing original draft, Writing review and editing. B.P.A.: Validation, Supervision, Writing review and editing. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by Central European University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompliance with ethical standards\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the Ethics approval by the Ethical Research Committee of the Central European University.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo protect the privacy of the subjects, data will not be available.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAddo-Boadu AM (2010) Human-wildlife conflict management around Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana. Masters thesis. Central European University, Hungary.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgarwal B (1992) The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1):119-158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgarwal B (1997) \u0026apos;\u0026apos;Bargaining\u0026apos;\u0026apos; and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3(1):1-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/135457097338799\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework.World Development 29(10):1623-1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkyeampong OA (2011) Pro-poor tourism: residents\u0026rsquo; expectations, experiences and perceptions in the Kakum National Park Area of Ghana.Journal of Sustainable Tourism19:197\u0026ndash;213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.509508\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnthony BP, Scott P, Antypas A (2010) Sitting on the fence? Policies and practices in managing human-wildlife conflict in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Conservation and Society 8:225\u0026ndash;240. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.73812\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAppiah-Opoku S (2011) Using protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation and ecotourism: A case study of Kakum National Park in Ghana. Society and Natural Resources24(5):500\u0026ndash;510. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2010.495108\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArora-Jonsson S (2011) Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change 21(2):744-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAyivor JS, Gordon C, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y (2013). Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case study of Digya National Park. Parks 19(1):37\u0026ndash;50. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2013.PARKS-19-1.JSA.en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker KJ (2003) A political ecology of water privatization. Studies in Political Economy70:35\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07078552.2003.11827129\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S (2013). The hidden dimensions of human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157:309\u0026ndash;316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerger R (2015) Now I see it, now I don\u0026rsquo;t: Researcher\u0026rsquo;s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 15(2):219\u0026ndash;234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerry SS (1993) No condition is permanent: The social dynamics of agrarian change in sub-Saharan Africa. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBinlinla JK, Voinov A, Oduro W (2014) Analysis of human activities in and around protected areas (PAs): Case of Kakum conservation area in Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 6(7):541\u0026ndash;554. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2014.0691\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlaikie P, Brookfield H (1987) Land and degradation and society.London: Methuen \u0026amp; Co Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoafo Y, Dubiure U-F, Danquah EK, Manford M, Nandjui A, Hema EM, Barnes R, Bailey B (2004) Long-term management of crop raiding by elephants around Kakum Conservation Area in southern Ghana. Pachyderm 37:68\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBryant RL (1998) Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 22(1):79-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarney J (2004) Gender conflict in Gambian wetlands. In Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements, ed. R. Peet and M. Watts, 316\u0026ndash;335. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCole S (2017). Water worries: An intersectional feminist political ecology of tourism and water in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 67:14\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.07.018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColucci E (2008) On the use of focus groups in cross-cultural research. In Doing cross-cultural research. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 34, ed. P. Liamputtong, 233\u0026ndash;252. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_15\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDakwa K, Monney K, Attuquayefio D (2016) Raid range selection by elephants around Kakum Conservation Area: Implications for the identification of suitable mitigating measures. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 8(2):21\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2015.0825\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDempsey J, Sundberg J (2024) Political ecology. In \u003cem\u003eIntroducing human geographies \u003c/em\u003e4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed., ed. K. Dombrowski, M. Goodwin, J. Qian, A. Williams and P. Cloke, 175-186. London, Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDistefano E (2005) Human-wildlife conflict worldwide: Collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Initiative (SARDI). https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/au241e (accessed June 10, 2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoubleday KF (2020) Tigers and \u0026ldquo;good Indian wives\u0026rdquo;: Feminist political ecology exposing the gender-based violence of human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict in Rajasthan, India. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110(5):1521-1539. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1723396\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuffy R (2022) Crime, security, and illegal wildlife trade: Political ecologies of international conservation. Global Environmental Politics 22(2):23-44. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00645\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunham KM, Ghiurghi A, Cumbi R, Urbano F (2010) Human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict in Mozambique: a national perspective, with emphasis on wildlife attacks on humans. Oryx 44(2):185\u0026ndash;193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530999086X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElmhirst R (2011) Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42(2):129\u0026ndash;132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFairhead J, Leach M (1996) Misreading the African landscape: Society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic (No. 90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiagbomeh R (2013) Perceptions of the impacts of nature conservation and ecotourism management: A case study in the Kakum conservation area of Ghana. PhD diss. Georg-August-Universit\u0026auml;t G\u0026ouml;ttingen, Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-4109\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalley W, Anthony BP (2024) Beyond crop-raiding: Unravelling the broader impacts of human-wildlife conflict on rural communities. Environmental Management 74:590\u0026ndash;608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02018-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGemeda DO, Meles SK (2018) Impacts of human-wildlife conflict in developing countries. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Managemen\u003cem\u003et \u003c/em\u003e22(8):1233\u0026ndash;1238. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v22i8.14\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGore ML, Kahler JS (2012) Gendered risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict: Implications for participatory conservation. PLoS ONE 7(3):e32901. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032901\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGro\u0026szlig;mann K (2017) Gaharu King\u0026ndash;Family Queen: Material gendered political ecology of the eaglewood boom in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44(6):1275-1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1341408\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHellstr\u0026ouml;m T (2008) Transferability and naturalistic generalization: New generalizability concepts for social science or old wine in new bottles? Quality \u0026amp; Quantity 42:321\u0026ndash;337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9048-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHill CM, Osborn FV, Plumptre AJ (2002) Human-wildlife conflict: Identifying the problem and possible solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Report Series Vol. 1. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHodgson ID, Redpath SM, Fischer A, Young J (2019) Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts. Journal of Environmental Management 231:1065-1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHovorka AJ (2012) Women/chickens vs. men/cattle: Insights on gender\u0026ndash;species intersectionality. Geoforum 43(4): 875-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson C (1993) Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development. World Development 21(12):1947\u0026ndash;1963. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(93)90068-K\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKabra A (2013). Conservation-induced displacement: The anatomy of a win\u0026ndash;win solution. Social Change 43(4): 533-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085713502592\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlingorov\u0026aacute; K, Havl\u0026iacute;ček T (2015) Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions. Moravian Geographical Reports 23(2):2\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight J (1999) Monkeys on the move: The natural symbolism of people-macaque conflict in Japan. The Journal of Asian Studies 58(3):622\u0026ndash;647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2659114\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLamarque F, Anderson J, Fergusson R, Lagrange M, Osei-Owusu Y, Bakker L (2009) Human-wildlife conflict in Africa: Causes, consequences and management strategies. FAO Forestry Paper 157. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeach M (2007) Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and Change 38(1):67-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00403.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeCompte MD (2000) Analyzing qualitative data. Theory Into Practice 39(3):146\u0026ndash;154. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevers M-J. D (2013) Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. \u003cem\u003eSage Open\u003c/em\u003e 3(4):2158244013517243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis AL, Baird TD, Sorice MG (2016) Mobile phone use and human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict in northern Tanzania. Environmental Management 58:117\u0026ndash;129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0694-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacbeth D (2001) On \u0026ldquo;reflexivity\u0026rdquo; in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative Inquiry 7(1):35\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMackenzie CA, Ahabyona P (2012) Elephants in the garden: Financial and social costs of crop raiding. Ecological Economics 75:72\u0026ndash;82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMadden F (2004) Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(4):247\u0026ndash;257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMargulies JD, Karanth KK (2018) The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter. Geoforum 95: 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMariki SB (2016) Social impacts of protected areas on gender in West Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Open Journal of Social Sciences 4:220-235. DOI: 10.4236/jss.2016.43028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohai P (2014) Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. In Women working in the environment, ed. C. E. Sachs. 215\u0026ndash;239. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315061474\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMollett S, Faria C (2013) Messing with gender in feminist political ecology. Geoforum 45:116\u0026ndash;125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonney KA, Dakwa KB, Wiafe ED (2010) Assessment of crop raiding situation by elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in farms around Kakum conservation area, Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 2(9):243\u0026ndash;249.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNam S (2018) Toward everyday practices of gender: Implications of feminist political ecology for gender mainstreaming in Korean ODA. Asian Journal of Women\u0026rsquo;s Studies 24(4):463\u0026ndash;488. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2018.1531812\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeumann RP (1998). Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa (Vol. 4). Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNightingale AJ (2011). Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum 42(2): 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.03.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNyhus PJ (2016) Human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41(1):143-171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO.Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9:20\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgra MV (2008) Human-wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39(3):1408\u0026ndash;1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.12.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsei-Owusu Y, Bakker L (2008) Human-wildlife conflict: Elephant - Technical Manual. Wildlife Management Working Paper 11. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalaganas EC, Sanchez MC, Molintas MVP, Caricativo RD (2017) Reflexivity in qualitative research: A journey of learning. \u003cem\u003eThe Qualitative Report\u003c/em\u003e 22(2): 426\u0026ndash;438. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2552\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProtected planet (2024) Kakum. https://www.protectedplanet.net/26460 (accessed 19 June, 2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRedpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert RA, Linnell JD, Watt A, Gutierrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution 28(2):100-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eResurrecci\u0026oacute;n BP (2017) Gender and environment in the Global South: From \u0026lsquo;women, environment, and development\u0026rsquo; to feminist political ecology. In Routledge handbook of gender and environment, ed. S. MacGregor, 71-85. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobbins P (2003) Political ecology in political geography. Political Geography 22(6):641-645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(03)00071-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobbins PF, Chhangani AK, Rice J, Trigosa E, Mohnot SM (2007) Enforcement authority and vegetation change at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Management 40:365\u0026ndash;378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0187-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E. (1996). Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeoraj-Pillai N (2016) Human-wildlife conflict in subsistence and commercial farmers in north-eastern South Africa. PhD diss. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilwal T, Kolejka J, Bhatta BP, Rayamajhi S, Sharma RP, Poudel BS (2017) When, where and whom: Assessing wildlife attacks on people in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. \u003cem\u003eOryx\u003c/em\u003e 51(2):370\u0026ndash;377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001489\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSlevitch, L (2011) Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: Ontological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality \u0026amp; Tourism 12(1):73\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2011.541810\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSultana F (2010) Living in hazardous waterscapes: Gendered vulnerabilities and experiences of floods and disasters. Environmental Hazards 9(1):43-53. https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2010.SI02\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTreves A, Wallace RB, White S (2009) Participatory planning of interventions to mitigate human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology 23(6):1577-1587. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01242.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTruelove Y (2011) (Re-)Conceptualizing water inequality in Delhi, India through a feminist political ecology framework. Geoforum 42(2):143\u0026ndash;152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaz-Jones L (2018) Struggles over land, livelihood, and future possibilities: Reframing displacement through feminist political ecology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43:711\u0026ndash;735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/695317\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWest P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006) Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35(1):251-277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhitehead TL (2005) Basic classical ethnographic research methods. Cultural Ecology of Health and Change\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Ethnographically Informed Community and Cultural Assessment Research Systems (EICCARS) Working Paper Series no. 2. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilfred P, MacColl ADC (2010) Income sources and their relation to wildlife poaching in Ugalla ecosystem, Western Tanzania. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 4(12):886\u0026ndash;896.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) People and wildlife - Conflict or co-existence? New York: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimmerer KS, Bassett TJ (2003) Approaching political ecology: Society, nature, and scale in human-environment studies. In Political ecology: An integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies, ed. K. S. Zimmerer and T. J. Bassett, 1\u0026ndash;25. New York: The Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"293f7d00-779d-45f2-bce1-60c24691e4a0","identifier":"10.13039/501100006061","name":"Central European University","awardNumber":"n/a","order_by":0}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Central European University","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":"human-wildlife conflict, Kakum Conservation Area, gender, feminist political ecology, crop-raiding, Ghana","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8502605/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8502605/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a gendered lens to examine the impacts of human wildlife conflict (HWC) at Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana. Drawing upon feminist political ecology and using ethnographic techniques, we explore the unique ways in which men and women are differentially affected by HWC. Our results show that HWC compels men to migrate while women experience an intensified workload due to the absence of their spouses. Also, poaching has become a profitable and more appealing alternative due to crop-raiding. The prosecution of locals for unlawful park access and poaching has exacerbated social strife, disharmony, and hostility between residents and park authorities. Additionally, HWC incurs opportunity costs and undermines community cohesion by disrupting the livelihoods of farmers. Ultimately, the findings of this research are relevant in highlighting the need to prioritize gender issues in HWC; this is a crucial step in the development of measures and interventions that are socially inclusive.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Gendered Dimensions and Socio-Cultural Dynamics of Human-Wildlife Conflict: Insights from the Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-07 06:58:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8502605/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":"2afa9e06-0c98-4322-a013-5cf4c9d7ed18","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 7th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":60500710,"name":"Environmental Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-07T06:58:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-07 06:58:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8502605","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8502605","identity":"rs-8502605","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}