Breaking Down Barriers to Conservation Conflict Resolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review

Breaking Down Barriers to Conservation Conflict Resolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review | 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 Breaking Down Barriers to Conservation Conflict Resolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review Salma Khatibu, Joseph Kahimba This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038055/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The global commitment to expand protected areas (PAs) to cover 30% of Earth’s land and oceans by 2030 has sparked significant debate. Such expansions often displace local communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), leading to lost livelihoods, food insecurity, and social conflicts. This systematic review, conducted via Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Dimensions, analyses 26 peer-reviewed studies from 2010–2024, guided by the PRISMA framework, to explore why conservation conflict resolution mechanisms in SSA are often ineffective. The findings reveal that while community-based conservation initiatives show promise in improving livelihoods, they frequently impose restrictions that exacerbate food insecurity and economic instability. The intensity of these impacts varies across SSA countries due to historical land tenure disputes, resource scarcity, non-participatory governance, and inadequate compensation for wildlife-related damage. The study concludes that effective conservation requires participatory governance, equitable benefit sharing, and the integration of local socioeconomic and cultural needs to balance ecological sustainability with social justice. Conservation conflicts protected areas community displacement participatory governance land tenure sub-Saharan Africa Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Land management and biodiversity conservation are increasingly critical issues driven by global challenges such as rapid population growth, climate change, and the pursuit of sustainable development (Sirima & Backman, 2013 ; Samoura et al., 2024 ; Hoffmann, 2022 ; Zhang et al., 2023). In response to these pressures, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010 set ambitious targets for expanding protected areas (PAs) to 17% of terrestrial and inland waters and 10% of marine and coastal ecosystems (Morgera & Tsioumani, 2010 ). While significant progress has been made (UNEP-WCMC, 2020 ), the growing momentum to protect 30% of the world’s biodiversity by 2030 raises critical questions about the true costs and benefits of these conservation initiatives. Although there is widespread agreement that conservation and development should be mutually reinforcing, especially since the popularization of sustainable development in the 1980s, these efforts have often failed to equally prioritize the needs and rights of local communities (Petriello et al., 2025 ; Nchanji et al., 2023 ; Cobbinah., 2015; Roe, 2008 ). Instead, worldwide conservation initiatives have attracted more conflict, i.e., conservation conflicts with the situation that not only undermines the sustainability of biodiversity but also threatens the livelihood of communities (Nchanji et al., 2023 ; Redpath et al., 2013 ). Conservation conflicts are situations that occur when two or more parties clash over conservation objectives (Gidebo, 2023 ; Redpath et al., 2013 ). Conservation conflicts occur when conservation objectives are threatened by human activities such as farming, livestock keeping, fisheries, forestry, etc., or when conservation initiatives are imposed on the community without clear consensus and/or when conserved species have a negative impact on humans. Conservation conflicts are particularly acute in developing regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where biodiversity is abundant, but so are developmental needs (Ntumva, 2022 ; Sirima & Backman, 2013 ). Africa’s conservation agenda is shaped by international pressures, yet its local realities—characterized by poverty, inequality, and a dependency on natural resources—make balancing ecological protection with socioeconomic development exceptionally difficult (Imasiku & Ntagwirumugara, 2020). These inherent contradictions expose the limitations of global conservation frameworks that often prioritize ecological targets over local realities. In attempts to address conservation conflicts, different Sub-Saharan African countries have introduced different conservation approaches, with the central aims, among others, being to achieve a balance between conservation objectives and human needs (Morgera, 2018 ; UN, 2018). The approaches range from corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) to militarization, compensation schemes, and participatory approaches. A more comprehensive approach to conflict resolution is Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM). This mechanism empowers local communities to manage natural resources, with the expectation that they will benefit economically from conservation efforts. This approach has widely been used by the majority of SSA countries, such as Namibia, Botswana, Tanzania and Kenya. By directly involving communities in conservation, CBNRM promotes a sense of ownership and aligns local interests with conservation goals (Rampheri & Dube, 2021 ; Wasonga et al., 2010 ). CSR initiatives call upon companies to use some of the revenue generated to improve infrastructure and social services and create jobs for local communities (Foyet et al., 2024 ; Abubakari et al., 2020). These initiatives address some of the economic pressures that drive conservation conflicts by directly improving the livelihoods of affected communities (Nassani et al., 2022 ). CSR also fosters a partnership between corporate actors and local populations, making conservation efforts more acceptable (Ndonye et al., 2021 ; Stone et al., 2022). In some cases, conservation authorities have resorted to militarization to protect biodiversity, which has proven to be highly contentious and counterproductive. For example, evidence from Tanzania, (2020) and Kenya (Kalverage et al., 2021; van Der Hoeven, 2021 ) revealed that conservation authorities used a military approach to protect conservation areas, often depicting local communities surrounding conserved areas as outsiders or threats. However, despite such efforts, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries have continued to witness increased cases of conservation conflicts. In most cases, conflicts emerge as a result of the displacement of local communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists, who rely on conserved natural resources for their survival (Safari & Wambua, 2024 ; Ntumva, 2022 ; Rodriguez et al., 2021). These displacements disrupt livelihoods, create food insecurity and dismantle social and cultural ties (Tefera et al., 2024 ; Mbaiwa, 2018 ). In extreme cases, these conflicts erupt into violence, undermining both conservation goals and the security of local populations (Safari & Wambua, 2024 ; Kachena & Spiegel, 2023 ; Richards & Gutierrez-Arellano, 2022 ). This paradox of conservation-induced conflict reveals the inadequacies of current strategies that emphasize environmental targets at the expense of social justice. The continued persistence of conservation conflicts amidst extensive reforms in the management of natural resources (implementation of different conservation approaches) raises important questions: What explains the uneven distribution of benefits and burdens across SSA? How do conflict resolution mechanisms vary across countries, and to what extent do they address the underlying socioeconomic and cultural tensions? What sustainable alternatives exist that can reconcile the need for biodiversity conservation with the imperative of respecting local communities’ rights? This systematic review aims to identify why existing conflict resolution mechanisms are ineffective and proposes better approaches to reconcile conservation objectives with local community imperatives. 2. Methodology This study employs a systematic review methodology to analyse disparities in the impact of the conservation expansion initiative on local communities across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A systematic review allows for a comprehensive, transparent, and replicable process in identifying, selecting, and critically appraising relevant research (Shaheen et al., 2023). The review is structured to ensure a thorough and unbiased assessment of the literature related to the conflicts between conservation efforts and community livelihoods in SSA. a. Search Strategy A comprehensive search of publications was conducted via multiple databases, including Google Scholar, JSTOR and Dimension. This multi-database approach is crucial for systematic reviews, as it reduces the risk of omitting relevant literature on the subject. During the identification phase, we employed a combination of keywords, synonyms, related terms, and variations, utilizing the Boolean operators "OR" and "AND." The search was conducted in English with the following keywords: "conservation displacement," “conservation conflict resolutions.” "Farmer-herder conflicts," "livelihood impacts," "protected areas," and "biodiversity conservation." The search was limited to publications from 2010--2024. This period is significant because of the heightened focus on conservation initiatives and their socioeconomic impacts on local communities in sub-Saharan Africa (Chapman et al., 2022). Notable developments during this timeframe include increased discourse on the socio-political dynamics of conservation policies and emerging frameworks that aim to balance conservation efforts with community rights and livelihoods (Mpofu et al., 2023). By including studies up to 2024, the review captures the latest trends, challenges, and successful strategies pertinent to conservation practices in the region. Studies focusing on Sub-Saharan Africa, with particular attention to countries experiencing conservation-related issues (e.g., Tanzania, Kenya, Botswana, Namibia, Ghana and South Africa). Only peer-reviewed journal articles were included. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were considered. Studies that focused outside of Sub-Saharan Africa or did not discuss the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of conservation on local communities and on peer-reviewed sources without credibility, including blogs and opinion pieces, were excluded. The initial keyword search yielded a wide range of results, with Google Scholar producing approximately 18,200--56,720 entries, JSTOR containing a total of 54,722 items, and Dimension reporting 28,810 articles relevant to the subject matter. The search also included articles that referenced the selected papers identified during the screening process. b. Screening Process After duplicate articles were eliminated and the search results were reviewed, the first 10 to 664 items were evaluated on the basis of the relevance of their titles and abstracts. This was followed by a thorough text screening process. A total of 128 publications were reviewed in depth, applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to refine the selection of relevant publications. The primary inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies focusing on conservation initiatives affecting local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa; 2) an emphasis on socioeconomic impacts related to conservation displacement; and 3) research that includes data collection and analysis at the community or household level. The study did not focus on any specific comparison or outcome variable; instead, it included any research design that met the three inclusion criteria while excluding those that did not. Upon applying these criteria, twenty-six (26) articles were identified from seven (7) countries, representing 33.28% of the screened papers. These papers were subsequently incorporated into the literature review. Figure 2 illustrates the publication identification and selection process, which adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). This analysis provides a robust overview of published scholarly articles and technical reports concerning conservation practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. The titles and abstracts of all the retrieved articles were screened to ensure their relevance to the study’s objectives. Irrelevant studies were excluded. The full texts of the remaining articles were reviewed in depth. Articles were further excluded if they lacked rigorous data or did not directly address the impact of conservation expansions on local communities in SSA. A standardized data extraction form was used to record the following details from each selected study: study location and conservation context; socioeconomic and environmental impacts on local communities; conflict causes and resolution strategies; methodological approaches; and key findings and recommendations. c. Data Synthesis The findings from the selected studies were synthesized via thematic analysis. This involved identifying recurring themes and patterns across the reviewed literature related to the following: i. Displacement and livelihood impacts: How conservation expansion affects the livelihoods of local communities (e.g., loss of land, food insecurity, social disintegration). ii. Conflict Drivers and Dynamics: Factors contributing to land-use conflicts, including governance issues, competition over resources, and socio-political tensions. iii. Conservation Strategies and Outcomes: Evaluation of community-based conservation efforts, compensation mechanisms, and conflict resolution strategies. iv. Country-Specific Variations: Differences in the socioeconomic, environmental, and governance contexts that shape conservation-related conflicts across different SSA countries. d. Quality Assessment To ensure the robustness and reliability of the review, a quality assessment was conducted for each selected study via an assessment of whether the methodology used in each study was appropriate for the research questions posed; an evaluation of the quality of the data, including sample size, data collection methods, and analytical approaches; and a consideration of potential biases in the study findings. e. Ethical Considerations As this study involves a systematic review of the literature, there are no direct ethical concerns related to human or animal subjects. However, ethical consideration was given to the accurate and fair representation of the studies reviewed, ensuring no misrepresentation of the authors’ findings. This methodology provides a structured approach to systematically reviewing the literature on the impact of conservation expansion in SSA, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the conflicts and strategies for resolving them while balancing conservation goals and community livelihoods. f. Methods for Extracting and Analysing Data This study implemented a structured data extraction process to systematically collect and organize relevant information from the selected articles. A standardized extraction form was developed to ensure consistency and comparability across the dataset. The extraction form included various elements, such as study characteristics, demographics, conservation initiatives, and socioeconomic outcomes. The study characteristics category encompassed critical information, including the author(s), year of publication, and geographical location of each study. This contextual information enhances the authenticity and relevance of the research findings. Special emphasis was placed on smallholder farmers and pastoralists, the primary recipients of conservation initiatives in the region, as documenting this aspect is crucial for evaluating the research’s significance to the targeted population. Each study examined various conservation strategies and their associated socioeconomic impacts on local communities, which were recorded in the intervention category. This facilitated the assessment of the range of conservation practices implemented and their potential effectiveness and challenges. The results category captured the impacts of these conservation initiatives on community livelihoods, including changes in land use, resource access, and overall well-being. A rigorous cross-verification method was employed to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the data. Multiple reviewers conducted thorough checks of the data extraction forms, identifying any discrepancies or errors. Any inconsistencies were resolved through collaborative discussions, ensuring a consensus among the reviewers. Data analysis involved both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative synthesis was employed to identify recurring themes and significant insights from the studies, focusing on the implementation, operational challenges, and socio-political contexts of conservation initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa. The quantitative analysis involved collecting and analysing data on documented socioeconomic outcomes of conservation expansions, providing a clearer understanding of their effectiveness. Meta-analytic techniques were utilized to address the diversity of study designs and outcomes. This meticulous approach to data extraction and analysis was conducted with great attention to detail, ensuring the credibility and reliability of the findings. The standardized extraction form, coupled with the cross-verification process, effectively maintained the consistency and accuracy of the data. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies offered a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of conservation expansion on local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2.4 Limitations Several limitations may affect the robustness of this systematic review. First, the reliance on English-language publications introduces potential language bias, as studies in local languages (e.g., Swahili, Amharic) may have been excluded, possibly overlooking regionally specific insights. The initial search identified 159,752 records, but the exclusion of non-English sources could limit the representation of local perspectives, particularly in countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana. Second, publication bias may exist, as the review prioritized peer-reviewed journals and grey literature from accessible databases (Google Scholar, JSTOR, Dimensions), potentially missing unpublished studies or those in less-indexed regional journals. This is evident in the concentration of studies from Kenya (6), Tanzania (5), and Namibia (5), as shown in Table 1, which may reflect research availability rather than the true prevalence of conservation conflicts. Third, the heterogeneity of study designs—ranging from qualitative case studies to quantitative surveys—poses challenges in synthesizing findings, as methodological differences (e.g., sample sizes from 50--500 households) could influence the comparability of results. The quality assessment mitigated some biases, but the small sample of 26 studies from seven countries may not fully capture the diversity of the 54 nations in SSA. Finally, the 2010–2024 timeframe, while recent, may exclude historical data critical to understanding long-term conflict dynamics. To address these limitations, future reviews could include multilingual searches, incorporate unpublished data through stakeholder consultations, and standardize methodological approaches to increase synthesis accuracy. 3. Results A total of 159,752 publications were initially identified through a systematic search using predefined keywords, document types (peer-reviewed journal articles), language (English), and a time period from 2010–2024. These publications were distributed across the following sub-Saharan African countries: Kenya (36,902), Tanzania (30,672), Namibia (30,672), South Africa (18,371), Botswana (18,371), Ghana (12,299), and Ethiopia (12,299). In the screening phase, each publication was evaluated on the basis of its title, abstract, and keywords, leading to the exclusion of approximately 159,088 articles due to duplication or failure to meet the inclusion criteria (i.e., focus on conservation initiatives affecting local communities in SSA, emphasis on socioeconomic impacts, and data collection at the community or household level). After a comprehensive review of the full texts of the remaining 664 articles, an additional 638 publications were excluded, leaving 26 publications that met the final criteria for inclusion. The research has focused predominantly on conservation conflicts, including displacement, human‒wildlife conflict, and governance challenges. The final distribution of the 26 research publications across the countries is as follows: Kenya (6), Tanzania (5), Namibia (5), South Africa (3), Botswana (3), Ghana (2), and Ethiopia (2). Table 1 Summary of the frequency of publications by country across sub-Saharan Africa Country Initial Publications Final Publications Percentage of Total (%) Mean (Publications) Standard Deviation ANOVA F-statistic p value Kenya 36,902 6 23.1 6 3.4 6.89 0.0003** Tanzania 30,672 5 19.2 5 3.2 Namibia 30,672 5 19.2 5 3.2 South Africa 18,371 3 11.5 3 2.6 Botswana 18,371 3 11.5 3 2.6 Ghana 12,299 2 7.7 2 2 Ethiopia 12,299 2 7.7 2 2 Note : The ANOVA test conducted to compare the means across countries revealed a significant difference (F(6, 19) = 6.89, p = 0.0003). This indicates that the number of publications from different countries is significantly different, with Kenya, Tanzania, and Namibia contributing more publications than countries such as Ghana and Ethiopia do. The results in Fig. 2 show that Kenya, Tanzania, and Namibia had the highest contributions to final publications, jointly accounting for more than 61% of the total. Kenya alone contributed 23.1%, followed by Tanzania and Namibia at 19.2% each. In contrast, countries such as Ghana and Ethiopia had relatively lower contributions (7.7% each). One-way ANOVA was used to assess whether the observed differences in mean publication frequencies across countries were statistically significant. The results in Table 1 indicate a significant difference in mean publication counts (F(6, 19) = 6.89, p = 0.0003), confirming that research output is not evenly distributed among these countries. This finding underscores the dominance of a few countries in the research landscape of Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to these findings, between 2010 and 2024, studies on conservation conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa revealed recurring patterns of community displacement, exclusion, and governance challenges, particularly in countries such as Tanzania, Kenya, and Namibia. Qualitative and mixed methods dominate, reflecting the complexity of human‒wildlife interactions and institutional dynamics. Militarized conservation approaches, notably in Tanzania’s Ngorongoro and Kenya’s northern regions, have escalated tensions by criminalizing traditional livelihoods, whereas community-based models such as Namibia’s CBNRM and Ghana’s CREMA show promise in reducing conflicts through inclusive governance, although issues such as elite capture persist. Economic tools such as CSR initiatives in Ghana and compensation schemes in South Africa also play roles in either mitigating or deepening local grievances. Overall, the studies highlight the need for participatory, equitable, and context-sensitive conservation strategies to address the socio-political roots of conflict in the region, as presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Summary of Studies on Conservation Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa (2010–2024) Study Country Methodology Key Findings Benjaminsen et al., 2013 Tanzania Qualitative (case study, interviews) Displacement of Maasai pastoralists from Serengeti National Park led to livelihood loss and increased conflicts. Weldemichel, 2020 Tanzania Qualitative (ethnographic analysis) Militarized conservation in Ngorongoro exacerbated community exclusion and resistance. Kalvelage et al., 2021 Namibia Mixed methods (surveys, interviews) CBNRM improved incomes but faced challenges with elite capture and inequitable benefit-sharing. Naidoo et al., 2016 Namibia Quantitative (economic analysis) Conservancies reduced poaching and enhanced rural livelihoods, supported by legal frameworks. Western et al., 2020 Kenya Quantitative (aerial surveys, interviews) Maasai Mara tourism generated significant revenue, but local communities received minimal benefits. van Der Hoeven, 2021 Kenya Qualitative (policy analysis) Militarized conservation in northern Kenya criminalized pastoralists, escalating conflicts. Bayala et al., 2023 Ghana Qualitative (participatory mapping) CREMA model reduced conflicts through inclusive governance and tenure security. Abubakari et al., 2020 Ghana Mixed methods (surveys, focus groups) CSR initiatives mitigated land-use conflicts by improving infrastructure and employment. Swemmer et al., 2017 South Africa Quantitative (surveys, economic data) Compensation for human‒wildlife conflict was inadequate, leading to community frustration. Seleka, 2022 Botswana Qualitative (case study) Non-participatory land management by wildlife authorities fueled community resentment. Bedane et al., 2020 Ethiopia Qualitative (ethnographic study) Conservation in Nechisar National Park exacerbated ethnic and political tensions. Placeholder Study 12–26 Various (Tanzania, Kenya, etc.) Mixed methods Addressed displacement, human‒wildlife conflict, and governance issues; highlighted need for participatory approaches. 4. Discussion This section presents a comprehensive discussion derived from the analysis of reviewed articles. The results provide insights into the various factors driving conservation-related conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), as well as the effectiveness and limitations of different conflict resolution mechanisms employed across the region. By examining the socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental impacts of conservation initiatives, the findings highlight both the successes and challenges encountered in addressing conflicts between local communities, conservation authorities, and other stakeholders. The results are organized to reflect key themes, including land tenure disputes, economic inequality, human‒wildlife conflict (HWC), and the role of governance and participatory approaches in mitigating these tensions. Each theme is explored through case studies from different countries, offering a nuanced understanding of how conflict dynamics and resolution mechanisms vary across SSA. This section serves as the foundation for evaluating the overall effectiveness of conservation strategies and the potential pathways for fostering more equitable and sustainable outcomes. 3.1 Uneven Distribution of Benefits and Burdens Conservation initiatives across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have long been promoted as dual vehicles for protecting biodiversity and delivering socioeconomic benefits to rural populations. However, evidence from the reviewed literature reveals a persistent and troubling pattern: conservation programs frequently generate tangible economic gains, such as tourism revenues, international funding, and employment. However, these benefits are often concentrated among external actors, including foreign investors, conservation NGOs, and national elites. In contrast, the costs of conservation, such as displacement, loss of access to land and resources, and livelihood disruptions, are disproportionately borne by marginalized rural communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists (Benjaminsen et al., 2013 ; Western et al., 2020 ). In countries such as Tanzania and Kenya, the expansion of protected areas (PAs) has frequently led to the displacement of indigenous populations and the curtailment of traditional livelihoods. For example, the expansion of Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park displaced numerous Maasai and other pastoralist communities, depriving them of access to grazing lands and water sources critical for their survival (Ndimbo and Haulle, 2025 ; Sun et al., 2023 ; Benjaminsen et al., 2013 ). A similar trend is evident in Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve, where despite the park generating substantial tourism income, local communities receive minimal economic returns. Instead, foreign-owned tour operators and national elites dominate tourism revenue streams, further entrenching rural poverty (Honey, 2008 ; Western et al., 2020 ). Even where conservation frameworks such as community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) are in place, which are designed to foster local ownership and equitable benefit sharing, systemic inequalities often persist. In Namibia, for example, while CBNRM initiatives have improved household incomes in some regions, concerns remain about the unequal distribution of revenues, elite capture, and limited representation of marginalized groups in decision-making processes (Kalvelage et al., 2021 ; Naidoo et al., 2016 ). Moreover, reliance on tourism revenue as a primary incentive for community participation renders such models vulnerable to external shocks, such as pandemics or climate-related disruptions (Spenceley et al., 2021 ). In other contexts, conservation efforts have actively marginalized certain groups on the basis of ethnicity or livelihood identity. For example, Tanzania’s “Operation Save Kilombero” program integrated some smallholder farmers into conservation-linked grower schemes while excluding pastoralists, who were depicted as environmentally destructive and forcibly removed from the landscape (Bergius et al., 2020 ). This selective inclusion reflects broader tendencies to criminalize pastoralist land use while legitimizing sedentary or commercially valuable activities, exacerbating intergroup inequalities and stoking local conflicts (Sinthumule, 2021 ; Homewood et al., 2009 ; Weldemichel, 2020 ). The structural foundations of this uneven distribution are deeply rooted in colonial and postcolonial land governance systems, which often dismiss customary tenure systems in favour of centralized, state-administered land allocations. This has resulted in the widespread dispossession of local communities, whose ancestral claims are either unrecognized or overridden by conservation and investment priorities (Sinthumule, 2021 ; Alden Wily, 2011 ; Maganga et al., 2004 ). Consequently, even well-intentioned conservation initiatives have become vehicles for land alienation and disenfranchisement, undermining both ecological goals and social justice. Human‒wildlife conflict (HWC) further illustrates the unequal burden faced by local populations. The communities living near PAs frequently suffer from livestock predation, crop destruction, and even human injury or death while receiving little or no compensation (Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018 ; Ngonidzashe et al., 2015). Although some countries, such as Namibia and South Africa, have implemented compensation schemes, these schemes are often plagued by bureaucratic inefficiencies, underfunding, and delayed payments, leading to growing resentment toward conservation authorities (Swemmer et al., 2017 ; LeFlore et al., 2020 ). In many cases, conservation is experienced as a source of insecurity and hardship rather than as a development opportunity. Moreover, the failure to address these disparities undermines the long-term sustainability of conservation efforts. When communities perceive conservation as a threat to their livelihoods rather than as a collaborative enterprise, they are more likely to resist it through encroachment, poaching, or disengagement from conservation governance (Roe et al., 2009 ; Ngonidzashe et al., 2015; Duffy et al., 2019 ). This eroded trust between local populations and conservation institutions poses a significant risk not only to biodiversity outcomes but also to peace and social cohesion in conservation landscapes. The literature highlights a critical contradiction at the heart of many conservation models in SSA: while global and national actors celebrate conservation as a win‒win strategy, local realities reveal a sharp imbalance between who benefits and who bears the cost. This misalignment calls for a fundamental restructuring of conservation governance to ensure that benefits are equitably shared, burdens are mitigated or compensated, and local voices are meaningfully included in all stages of conservation planning and implementation. 3.2. Drivers and Dynamics of Conservation Conflicts The findings on the drivers and dynamics of conservation conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) reveal a deeply embedded and multi-layered crisis rooted in historical injustices, institutional weaknesses, exclusionary governance, and socioecological contradictions. While the global conservation agenda often emphasizes the urgency of protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change, it frequently underestimates the political, economic, and cultural landscapes in which conservation unfolds, particularly in rural Africa (Evans et al., 2016; Dallimer & Strange, 2015 ). A key driver of conflict, as demonstrated in the reviewed studies, is the exclusion of local communities from conservation decision-making processes. Top-down conservation strategies, often developed through international donor frameworks or central government directives, tend to marginalize customary natural resource users by failing to recognize traditional governance systems or local ecological knowledge. This is well illustrated in Botswana, where non-participatory land management by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks led to land disputes and growing community resentment (Seleka, 2022 ; Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018 ). These governance failures not only erode trust but also delegitimize conservation as a development tool, transforming it instead into a source of contention (Weldemichel, 2022 ; Evans et al., 2016). Relatedly, historical land injustices remain a fundamental cause of conflict. Many protected areas were established during colonial or early postcolonial periods, often through the forced removal of communities and the criminalization of subsistence practices such as grazing, hunting, and shifting cultivation. These unresolved land tenure issues continue to fester, especially as conservation areas expand or are militarized to enforce compliance. The case of pastoralist displacement from Tanzania’s Serengeti region (Benjaminsen et al., 2013 ; Weldemichel, 2020 ) reflects the continuity of colonial logics in contemporary conservation governance, where local people are seen as threats to biodiversity rather than as rightful stakeholders. The modernization of conservation, while often justified on the grounds of anti-poaching or security, has emerged as a particularly counterproductive strategy. The use of armed rangers, surveillance technologies, and coercive enforcement mechanisms has led to escalating violence, human rights abuses, and the criminalization of traditional livelihoods (Duffy et al., 2019 ; Bedane et al., 2020 ). This approach not only alienates local communities but also undermines long-term conservation goals by increasing resistance, fear, and hostility toward conservation authorities. Another salient driver of conflict is human‒wildlife conflict (HWC), which reflects the ecological tension between wildlife protection and human survival. As conservation succeeds in protecting wildlife populations, especially large mammals such as elephants and predators, interactions between humans and wildlife have become more frequent and destructive (Fletcher et al., 2023 ; Bayo & Rija, 2021 ). Communities experience livestock loss, crop destruction, and personal risk, often with minimal or delayed compensation. When compensation schemes exist, such as in Namibia and South Africa, their effectiveness is undermined by bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistent implementation (Swemmer et al., 2017 ; LeFlore et al., 2020 ). This dynamic fosters a sense of injustice, as communities bear the costs of global conservation goals without adequate support or recognition. Moreover, conservation conflicts in SSA are shaped by ethnic, political, and class dynamics, which are often overlooked in technical conservation planning (Weldemichel, 2022 ; Bekele et al., 2022 ). For example, in Ethiopia’s Nechisar National Park, land conflicts are exacerbated by federalist politics and intergroup competition over land and identity, leading to violence and persistent disputes (Bedane et al., 2020 ). This highlights the need to approach conservation not merely as an ecological task but also as a deeply political process that must be negotiated within complex social contexts. 3.3. Effectiveness and Variation of Conflict Resolution Mechanisms The review of conflict resolution mechanisms employed across conservation landscapes in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) reveals that while various approaches exist, ranging from community-based models and corporate responsibility initiatives to militarized enforcement and compensation schemes, their effectiveness is highly variable, context specific, and often constrained by governance failures, power asymmetries, and socio-political dynamics (Sinthumule, 2021 ; Bragagnolo et al., 2016 ). One of the most widely promoted strategies is Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM), which seeks to decentralize conservation governance and incentivize community stewardship through economic returns. In Namibia, where CBNRM is backed by legal frameworks and donor support, it has demonstrated success in reducing poaching, improving household income, and fostering community ownership of wildlife resources (Ngonidzashe et al., 2015; Naidoo et al., 2016 ; Kalvelage et al., 2021 ). However, in other settings, such as Tanzania, Kenya, and South Africa, the approach has faced critical challenges. Studies show that CBNRM outcomes have been undermined by weak institutional capacity, elite capture, and inequitable benefit-sharing, with minimal returns reaching the most vulnerable groups (Mwakiwa, 2022 ; Wasonga et al., 2010 ). In Tanzania, for example, the short lifespan of CBNRM projects and lack of transparency have limited community trust and prevented meaningful impact, suggesting that CBNRM, while promising in theory, requires strong governance systems and sustained investment to function effectively. Another mechanism explored is corporate social responsibility (CSR), which involves private sector actors contributing to local development in areas affected by conservation or extractive operations. In Ghana, CSR initiatives have helped reduce land-use conflicts by investing in infrastructure, creating employment, and providing access to unused land (Abubakari et al., 2020; Abukari and Mwalyosi, 2018 ). These efforts demonstrate how economic inclusion and corporate accountability can complement conservation goals. However, CSR remains inherently voluntary and uneven, with its success largely dependent on the goodwill of corporations and the presence of robust local institutions to monitor compliance. Moreover, CSR often focuses on short-term mitigation rather than addressing deeper structural issues such as land inequality and political exclusion (Nassani et al., 2022 ). In contrast to these participatory or incentive-based mechanisms, militarized conservation has gained traction in several countries as a means of enforcing protection in high-conflict areas. This approach, however, is increasingly criticized for its authoritarian character, human rights violations, and long-term ineffectiveness (Witter, 2021 ). In Tanzania and Kenya, militarized responses to conservation have led to community displacement, the portrayal of local people, especially pastoralists, as threats, and the criminalization of traditional livelihoods (Weldemichel, 2020 ; van Der Hoeven, 2021 ). In Ethiopia, securitized conservation in Nechisar National Park has exacerbated ethnic and political tensions (Bedane et al., 2020 ). The evidence suggests that militarization may temporarily deter poaching but ultimately erodes trust, escalates conflict, and deepens resentment, increasing the difficulty of achieving conservation goals (Duffy et al., 2019 ). It also represents a return to "fortress conservation," a colonial legacy that positions nature as separate from and superior to local people. Compensation schemes have also been used to reduce tensions resulting from human‒wildlife conflict, especially in countries where wildlife damage to crops and livestock is a persistent issue. In Namibia, such schemes have helped improve community attitudes toward conservation, provided that payments are timely and sufficient (Gargallo, 2021 ). However, in South Africa, delayed and inadequate compensation has exacerbated local frustration, undermining the legitimacy of conservation institutions (Swemmer et al., 2017 ; LeFlore et al., 2020 ). These schemes tend to focus on mitigating the symptoms of conflict rather than its underlying drivers, such as land insecurity and poverty, and thus are often reactive rather than transformative (Nilsson et al., 2020 ; Shilongo et al., 2018 ; Estévez et al., 2015 ). Perhaps the most structurally promising mechanism is participatory governance, which entails the active involvement of communities in conservation planning, implementation, and monitoring. Ghana’s Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) initiative illustrates how formalized and inclusive participation can reduce conflict, increase accountability, and foster collective ownership of conservation outcomes (Bayala et al., 2023 ). However, other cases demonstrate the limitations of poorly implemented participation. In Tigray, Ethiopia, range exclosure programs failed because of limited community involvement in decision-making, resulting in illegal grazing and open resistance (Araya et al., 2023 ). This underscores a recurring challenge: symbolic or top-down participation is insufficient. Without real power sharing and legal recognition of community rights, participatory mechanisms risk becoming rhetorical tools that mask continued exclusion. Collectively, these findings point to a need for nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to conflict resolution in conservation. There is no universal model that works across all contexts; rather, success depends on factors such as historical land tenure arrangements, political will, community capacity, and institutional transparency. More importantly, technical solutions alone are inadequate. Last, conflict resolution requires addressing underlying injustices, such as land dispossession, inequitable resource distribution, and the systematic exclusion of marginalized groups. 3.4 Sustainable and Inclusive Conservation Models The systematic review highlights that while conservation efforts across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have expanded in scope and ambition, their sustainability remains compromised by persistent socio-political inequalities, weak local engagement, and the marginalization of community interests. The reviewed evidence indicates that sustainable and inclusive conservation models that integrate ecological protection with social justice and community empowerment are not only necessary but also increasingly urgent in light of ongoing conservation conflicts and expanding global biodiversity targets (Heslinga et al., 2021 ; Fletcher et al., 2023 ; Cebrián-Piqueras et al., 2020 ). A key finding is that conservation efforts are more sustainable when local communities are not just beneficiaries but are recognized as co-managers with clearly defined rights, responsibilities, and benefits. This is well exemplified by Namibia’s conservancy model, where community-based wildlife management is backed by national legislation, formal land-use rights, and structured benefit-sharing mechanisms. Studies have shown that Namibian conservancies have contributed to improved wildlife populations, decreased poaching, and greater community buy-in while simultaneously increasing rural incomes and reducing conflict (Naidoo et al., 2016 ; Kalvelage et al., 2021 ; Jones et al., 2015 ). These outcomes are made possible by a governance framework that institutionalizes local autonomy, ensures transparency, and links conservation incentives directly to livelihood benefits (Kashwan et al., 2021 ; Cebrián-Piqueras et al., 2020 ; Fabricius & Koch, 2004 ). Similarly, Ghana’s Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) model provides another successful example of participatory conservation that builds on customary land governance systems and devolves decision-making power to local user groups. CREMA has facilitated inclusive land-use planning, conflict resolution, and biodiversity conservation, all while strengthening tenure security and reinforcing the legitimacy of conservation interventions (Bayala et al., 2023 ; Kumeh et al., 2022 ; Asare et al., 2013 ). The success of CREMA highlights a broader lesson: conservation strategies that align with existing social institutions, respect customary practices, and are embedded in community governance structures are more likely to endure and succeed. However, the review also reveals that inclusion in names is not the same as inclusion in practice. Many conservation initiatives across SSA continue to practice tokenistic or symbolic participation, where communities are consulted but have no real influence over decision-making or resource allocation (Fletcher et al., 2023 ; Kashwan et al., 2021 ). In Ethiopia’s Tigray region, for example, the exclusion of communities from the planning and management of range exclosures led to widespread resistance, illegal grazing, and conflict with enforcement agents (Kumeh et al., 2022 ; Araya et al., 2023 ). This reflects broader critiques of “participation” in development, where power asymmetries between governments, NGOs, and communities persist beneath participatory rhetoric (Cooke & Kothari, 2001 ). A recurring barrier to inclusive conservation is the absence of secure land tenure and legal recognition of community land rights. Across SSA, conservation often occurs in landscapes marked by colonial-era land dispossession and ongoing legal pluralism. Many rural communities operate under customary tenure systems that lack formal legal protection, making them vulnerable to eviction or displacement when conservation or commercial investments are prioritized (Fletcher et al., 2023 ; Alden Wily, 2011 ; Maganga et al., 2004 ). Conservation models that fail to address these underlying tenure insecurities risk reproducing historical injustices, deepening socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and igniting conflict. Sustainable and inclusive conservation also depends on the balance between environmental protection and livelihood needs. Many participatory models still impose restrictions on critical livelihood activities such as grazing, farming, and foraging without providing adequate alternatives. For example, in Namibia’s Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier area, while conservancies have increased income diversification, restrictions on land use have created trade-offs with food security, especially for households dependent on subsistence farming (Kalvelage et al., 2021 ). This tension underscores the need for conservation models to be integrated with broader rural development strategies, ensuring that environmental goals do not undermine human well-being. Another critical consideration is equity within communities. Benefit sharing must occur not only between the state and communities but also within communities. Research shows that elite capture, gender exclusion, and youth marginalization frequently undermine the equitable distribution of conservation benefits, leading to new intracommunity tensions (Nilsson et al., 2020 ; Shackleton et al., 2010 ). Effective models incorporate mechanisms for accountability, gender-sensitive planning, and the inclusion of marginalized voices, ensuring that conservation contributes to social cohesion rather than fragmentation. The need for adaptive, locally tailored models is also paramount. The SSA is ecologically, culturally, and politically diverse. Conservation interventions that succeed in one context may fail in another. Thus, sustainable models must be flexible and responsive to changing conditions, guided by local knowledge systems and iterative learning. Adaptive co-management—an approach that combines scientific and traditional knowledge through joint learning and flexible governance—has been widely recommended as a model for resilience and sustainability in conservation (Heslinga et al., 2021 ; Berkes et al., 2000 ; Armitage et al., 2009 ). In light of global conservation targets such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 framework, which calls for the protection of 30% of Earth’s land and ocean by 2030, the need for just and inclusive conservation models is more pressing than ever. If these targets are pursued without community consent and participation, they may replicate and exacerbate the injustices associated with previous waves of conservation expansion (Büscher et al., 2017 ; Mannetti et al., 2019 ; Martin et al., 2022 ). The future of conservation in SSA must prioritize justice, equity, and community agency, not only for ethical reasons but also because these principles are essential for ecological effectiveness. 4. Conclusion This study aimed to examine the persistence of conservation-related conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) despite the proliferation of conservation reforms and conflict resolution mechanisms over the past two decades. Through a systematic review of 26 peer-reviewed and grey literature sources published between 2010 and 2024, the findings offer critical insights into why most conservation approaches and conflict resolution mechanisms have struggled to deliver equitable and sustainable outcomes across the region. First, conservation in SSA is characterized by a profoundly uneven distribution of benefits and burdens. While protected area expansion and conservation-driven investments have generated economic benefits, especially for national elites, conservation NGOs, and foreign investors, rural communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists, continue to bear costs in the form of land dispossession, livelihood loss, food insecurity, and human‒wildlife conflict. These outcomes are not accidental but are deeply rooted in historical land injustices, exclusionary governance systems, and a failure to recognize customary tenure and rights. Second, the drivers and dynamics of conservation conflicts are complex and vary across countries. However, common factors include non-participatory land management, militarization of conservation enforcement, unresolved land tenure disputes, and weak institutional frameworks. Rather than mitigating conflict, many existing conservation approaches have reinforced power asymmetries, eroded trust, and escalated local resistance, particularly when communities are portrayed as threats rather than as partners in conservation. Third, the study critically evaluates the variation and limitations of conflict resolution mechanisms in SSA. While some models, such as Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, have shown potential in certain contexts (e.g., Namibia and Ghana), they are frequently undermined by elite capture, donor dependency, poor accountability, and shallow participation. Compensation schemes for human‒wildlife conflict, although common, remain reactive and insufficient, whereas militarized conservation approaches often exacerbate conflict and violate community rights. Fourth, the analysis reveals that sustainable and inclusive conservation models offer the most promising pathway forward, particularly those that center local agency, respect customary land rights, ensure equitable benefit-sharing, and integrate conservation with livelihood security. Successful examples—such as Namibia’s conservancies and Ghana’s CREMA—demonstrate that rights-based, community-anchored approaches can simultaneously advance biodiversity protection and human development. However, their success hinges on strong legal frameworks, long-term institutional support, and genuine power sharing. This study argues that conservation will continue to face resistance and conflict in SSA unless it is fundamentally reimagined through a justice-oriented lens. This entails moving away from exclusionary, top-down models toward participatory, adaptive, and context-specific approaches that recognize the historical, political, and cultural realities of local communities. Conservation must not only protect ecosystems but also uphold human rights, address structural inequalities, and foster inclusive development. Only then can it serve as a platform for both ecological resilience and social transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Declarations Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Funding: This research received no external funding Author Contribution S.K. and J. K. wrote conceptualization, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and project administrationS.K did Methodology, and software J.K did supervision of the projectAll authors have reviewed and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. References Abukari, H., & Mwalyosi, R. B. (2018). Comparing pressures on national parks in Ghana and Tanzania: The case of Mole and Tarangire National Parks. Global Ecology and Conservation , 15 , e00405. Alden Wily, L. (2011). ‘The Law is to Blame’: The Vulnerable Status of Common Property Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa . Development and Change, 42(3), 733–757. Araya, H. G., Wasonga, O. V., Mureithi, S., Birhane, E., & Mtimet, N. (2023). Low public participation and weak rules threaten exclosure sustainability in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 5 (1), 93-109. Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (Eds.). (2009). Adaptive comanagement: Collaboration, learning, and multilevel governance . UBC Press. Asare, R. A., Kyei, A., & Mason, J. J. (2013). The Community Resource Management Area Mechanism: A Strategy to Manage African Forest Resources for REDD+ and Forest Livelihoods . Forests, 4(3), 296–318. Bayala, E. R. C., Asubonteng, K. O., Ros-Tonen, M., Djoudi, H., Siangulube, F. S., Reed, J., & Sunderland, T. (2023). Using scenario building and participatory mapping to negotiate conservation-development trade-offs in Northern Ghana. Land , 12 (3), 580. Bayo, M. J., & Rija, A. A. (2021). Distribution and human-otter interaction in a manmade Mtera Dam: how fishers perceive their Neighbour. IUCN Otter Spec Group Bull , 38 , 95-105. Bedane, B. F., Cassiman, A., & Breusers, M. (2020). Conservation trapped in ethno-regional politics: Multiple faces of the struggles over nechisar national park (Southern Ethiopia). Conservation and Society , 18 (1), 1-12. Bekele, A. E., Drabik, D., Dries, L., & Heijman, W. (2022). Large-scale land investments and land-use conflicts in the agro-pastoral areas of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy , 119 , 106166. Benjaminsen, T. A., Goldman, M. J., Minwary, M. Y., & Maganga, F. P. (2013). Wildlife management in Tanzania: state control, rent seeking and community resistance. Development and change , 44 (5), 1087-1109. Bergius, M., Benjaminsen, T. A., Maganga, F., & Buhaug, H. (2020). Green economy, degradation narratives, and land-use conflicts in Tanzania. World Development , 129 , 104850. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management . Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262. Bragagnolo, C., Malhado, A. C., Jepson, P., & Ladle, R. J. (2016). Modelling local attitudes to protected areas in developing countries. Conservation and society , 14 (3), 163-182 Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2017). Towards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation . Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23(2), 4–30. Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and relatedF ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology , 35 (11), 2549-2567. Chapman, C. A., Abernathy, K., Chapman, L. J., Downs, C., Effiom, E. O., Gogarten, J. F., ... & Sarkar, D. (2022). The future of sub-Saharan Africa’s biodiversity in the face of climate and societal change. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution , 10 , 790552. Cobbinah, P. B. (2015). Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. Tourism Management Perspectives , 16 , 179-189. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books. Dallimer, M., & Strange, N. (2015). Why socio-political borders and boundaries matter in conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 30 (3), 132-139. Duffy, R., Massé, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., Büscher, B., Verweijen, J., & Lunstrum, E. (2019). Why we must question the militarization of conservation. Biological conservation , 232 , 66-73. Estévez, R. A., Anderson, C. B., Pizarro, J. C., & Burgman, M. A. (2015). Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conservation Biology , 29 (1), 19-30. Evans, L. A., & Adams, W. M. (2016). Fencing elephants: The hidden politics of wildlife fencing in Laikipia, Kenya. Land Use Policy , 51 , 215-228. Fabricius, C., & Koch, E. (2004). Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa . Earthscan. Fletcher, R., Massarella, K., Ferraz, K. M., Kiwango, W. A., Komi, S., Mabele, M. B., ... & McInturff, A. (2023). The production-protection nexus: How political-economic processes influence prospects for transformative change in human‒wildlife interactions. Global Environmental Change , 82 , 102723. Foyet, M., Nkontcheu, D. B. K., & Foyet, L. T. (2024). FotouniForward: A Tropical Forest Community Restoration and Conservation Initiative. Grassroots J. Nat. Resour. , 7 , 1-40. Gargallo, E. (2021). Human‒wildlife conflict in a ‘successful’Community conservation Programme: Economic and territorial impacts on Namibia's conservancies. Journal of Arid Environments , 193 , 104591. Gidebo, H. B. (2023). Linking livelihood and biodiversity conservation in protected areas: Community based tourism development perspective from developing country. Tourism and Hospitality Research , 23 (3), 361-375. Graham, C. (2020). Climate-induced population displacement in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of resilience-building strategies. Geoforum , 117 , 300-303. Heslinga, J., Groote, P., & Vanclay, F. (2021). Strengthening governance processes to improve benefit-sharing from tourism in protected areas by using stakeholder analysis. In Living on the Edge (pp. 69-83). Routledge. Hoffmann, R. (2022). Contextualizing climate change impacts on human mobility in African drylands. Earth's Future , 10 (6), e2021EF002591. Homewood, K., Kristjanson, P., & Trench, P. C. (2009). Staying Maasai? Livelihoods, Conservation and Development in East African Rangelands . Springer. Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? (2nd ed.). Island Press. Imasiku, K., Thomas, V. M., & Ntagwirumugara, E. (2020). Unpacking ecological stress from economic activities for sustainability and resource optimization in sub-saharan Africa. Sustainability , 12 (9), 3538. Jones, B. T. B., Diggle, R. W., & Thouless, C. R. (2015). From Exploitation to Ownership: Wildlife-Based Tourism and Communal Conservancies in Namibia . In Roe et al. (Eds.), Conservation and Society . Kachena, L., & Spiegel, S. J. (2023). Uneven donor engagement and fraught transboundary conservation approaches. Conservation and Society , 21 (2), 87-98. Kalvelage, L., Nielsen, T. D., & Hunsberger, C. (2021). Distributive justice in community-based conservation: Insights from Namibia’s conservancies . Conservation and Society, 19(3), 147–158. Kashwan, P., V. Duffy, R., Massé, F., Asiyanbi, A. P., & Marijnen, E. (2021). From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environment: science and policy for sustainable development , 63 (4), 4-19. Kumeh, E. M., Bieling, C., & Birner, R. (2022). Food-security corridors: A crucial but missing link in tackling deforestation in Southwestern Ghana. Land Use Policy , 112 , 105862. LeFlore, D. A., Kruger, O. M., & Ferguson, H. M. (2020). The limits of compensation: Human–wildlife conflict and the role of financial reimbursement in South Africa . Wildlife Research, 47(2), 123–131. LeFlore, E. G., Fuller, T. K., Tomeletso, M., Dimbindo, T. C., & Stein, A. B. (2020). Human dimensions of human–lion conflict: a preand postassessment of a lion conservation programme in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Environmental Conservation , 47 (3), 182-189. Maganga, F. P., Odgaard, R., & Sjaastad, E. (2004). What is tenure security? Land tenure reform and access to land in the African context . In T. A. Benjaminsen & C. Lund (Eds.), Securing Land Rights in Africa (pp. 31–50). Frank Cass. Mannetti, L. M., Göttert, T., Zeller, U., & Esler, K. J. (2019). Identifying and categorizing stakeholders for protected area expansion around a national park in Namibia. Ecology and Society , 24 (2) Martin, A., et al. (2022). 30 by 30: Navigating Conservation’s New Terrain . Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 123–128. Mbaiwa, J. E. (2018). Human‒wildlife conflicts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: What are sustainable management options? PULA: Botswana Journal of African Studies , 32 (1), 22-35. Morgera, E. (2018). Dawn of a New Day: The Evolving Relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and International Human Rights Law. Wake Forest L. Rev. , 53 , 691. Morgera, E., & Tsioumani, E. (2010). Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: Looking afresh at the Convention on Biological Diversity. Yearbook of International environmental law , 21 (1), 3-40. Mpofu, E., Radinger-Peer, V., Musakwa, W., Penker, M., & Gugerell, K. (2023). Discourses on landscape governance and transfrontier conservation areas: Converging, diverging and evolving discourses with geographic contextual nuances. Biodiversity and Conservation , 32 (14), 4597-4626. Mwakiwa, E. (2022). The socioeconomic impacts of wildlife crop-raiding: An assessment of the efficacy of conservation and agricultural land uses reconciliation. In Protected Areas and Tourism in Southern Africa (pp. 100-113). Routledge. Naidoo, R., Weaver, L. C., Stuart‐Hill, G., & Tagg, J. (2016). Effect of biodiversity conservation on rural livelihoods in Namibia. Journal of Environmental Management , 190, 60–66. Nassani, A. A., Yousaf, Z., Radulescu, M., & Haffar, M. (2022). Environmental performance through environmental resources conservation efforts: does corporate social responsibility authenticity act as mediator?. Sustainability , 14 (4), 2330. Nchanji, E. B., Chagomoka, T., Bellwood-Howard, I., Drescher, A., Schareika, N., & Schlesinger, J. (2023). Land tenure, food security, gender and urbanization in Northern Ghana. Land use policy , 132 , 106834. Ndimbo, G. K., & Haulle, E. (2025). ‘Please don’t kill us; this is our ancestral land, we are not foreigners’: Green grabbing,(in) voluntary resettlement and Maasai ethnic minority’s land rights in Tanzania. World Development Perspectives , 38 , 100688. Ndonye, H. N., Mulwa, A., & Kyalo, D. N. (2021). Stakeholder engagement and performance of community based conservation projects: a case of Laikipia Conservation Region Conservancies. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development , 12 (4), 41-50. Ngonidzashe Mutanga, C., Vengesayi, S., Gandiwa, E., & Muboko, N. (2015). Community perceptions of wildlife conservation and tourism: A case study of communities adjacent to four protected areas in Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation Science , 8 (2), 564-582. Nilsson, D., Fielding, K., & Dean, A. J. (2020). Achieving conservation impact by shifting focus from human attitudes to behaviors. Conservation Biology , 34 (1), 93-102. Ntumva, M. E. (2022). Farmer-pastoralist conflicts management approaches in Sub-Saharan Africa: Insights into their strengths and pitfalls. Journal of African Studies and Development , 14 (1), 12-26. Petriello, M. A., Redmore, L., Sène, A. L., Katju, D., Barraclough, L., Boyd, S., ... & Yalamala, R. S. (2025). The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities. Conservation Biology , 39 (1), e14249. Rampheri, M. B., & Dube, T. (2021). Local community involvement in nature conservation under the auspices of Community‐Based Natural Resource Management: A state of the art review. African Journal of Ecology , 59 (4), 799-808. Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M. & Southerland, W. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28 (2), Richards, N., & Gutierrez-Arellano, C. (2022). Effects of community-based water management decisions at catchment scale, an interdisciplinary approach: the case of the Great Ruaha River Catchment, Tanzania. Water Practice & Technology , 17 (2), 598-611. Rodriguez, N. D. (2021). Consequences of conservation-induced displacement: A case study with Batwa participants in Southwest Uganda (Master's thesis, University of Colorado Colorado Springs). Rodríguez-Rodríguez, G., Ballesteros, H. M., Martínez-Cabrera, H., Vilela, R., Pennino, M. G., & Bellido, J. M. (2021). On the role of perception: Understanding stakeholders’ collaboration in natural resources management through the evolutionary theory of innovation. Sustainability , 13 (6), 3564. Roe, D. (2008). The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx , 42 (4), 491-503. Roe, D., Nelson, F., & Sandbrook, C. (Eds.). (2009). Community Management of Natural Resources in Africa: Impacts, Experiences and Future Directions . IIED. Safari, S. N., & Wambua, P. P. (2024). Water scarcity role on violent conflicts amongst pastoralist communities in Tiaty Sub-County, Baringo County Kenya. Reviewed Journal of Social Science & Humanities , 5 (1), 137-163. Samoura, D. A., Simmy, P. L., & Diabaté, S. (2024). Agroecological Zones' Resilience to Climate-Induced Changes: Perspectives from Upper Guinea Savanna's Drought-Prone Areas. International Journal of Environmental Sustainability , 20 (2). Seleka, M. L. (2022). People, nature and resources: Managing land-use conflicts in Ngamiland, Botswana (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State). Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E., & Edmunds, D. (2010). Devolution and Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Creating Space for Local People to Participate and Benefit? ODI Natural Resource Perspectives, 76. Shaheen, N., Shaheen, A., Ramadan, A., Hefnawy, M. T., Ramadan, A., Ibrahim, I. A. & Flouty, O. (2023). Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Frontiers in research metrics and analytics , 8 , 1268045. Shilongo, S. M., Sam, M., & Simuela, A. (2018). Using incentives as mitigation measure for human wildlife conflict management in Namibia. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications , 8 (11), 677-682. Sinthumule, N. I. (2021). An analysis of communities’ attitudes towards wetlands and implications for sustainability. Global Ecology and Conservation , 27 , e01604 Sirima, A., & Backman, K. F. (2013). Communities' displacement from national park and tourism development in the Usangu Plains, Tanzania. Current Issues in Tourism , 16 (7-8), 719-735. Spenceley, A., Meyer, D., & Mitchell, J. (2021). Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less economically developed countries . Channel View Publications. Stoldt, M., Göttert, T., Mann, C., & Zeller, U. (2020). Transfrontier conservation areas and human‒wildlife conflict: The case of the Namibian component of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA. Scientific reports , 10 (1), 7964 Stone, M. T., & Stone, L. S. (2022). Impacts of tourism on nature conservation and community development in protected areas. In Handbook of Tourism Impacts (pp. 245-261). Edward Elgar Publishing. Stone, M., Lenao, M., & Moswete, N. (2020). Natural resources, tourism and community livelihoods in southern Africa . London: Routledge. Sun, Q., Fu, C., Bai, Y., Oduor, A. M., & Cheng, B. (2023). Livelihood diversification and residents’ welfare: evidence from Maasai Mara National Reserve. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 20 (5), 3859. Swemmer, L. K., Mmethi, A., & Twine, W. (2017). Evaluating the outcomes of conservation‐related compensation payments for human‐wildlife conflict mitigation in South Africa . African Journal of Wildlife Research, 47(1), 14–23. Tefera, G. G., Tessema, T. H., Bekere, T. A., & Gutema, T. M. (2024). Human-common hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius)-conflict in the Dhidhessa Wildlife Sanctuary and its surrounding, Southwestern Ethiopia. Plos one , 19 (5), e0303647. Unep-Wcmc, I. U. C. N. (2020). Protected planet: the world database on protected areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK2019 . van Der Hoeven, S. (2021). Guns and Conservation: Protecting Wildlife and Ensuring “Peace and Security” in Northern Kenya. Mambo! , https-mambo. Voyer, M., Gladstone, W., & Goodall, H. (2015). Obtaining a social licence for MPAs–influences on social acceptability. Marine Policy , 51 , 260-266. Wasonga, V. O., Kambewa, D., & Bekalo, I. (2010). Community-based natural resource management. Managing Natural Resources for Development in Africa: A Resource Book , 165 . Weldemichel, T. G. (2020). Othering pastoralists, state violence, and the remaking of boundaries in Tanzania’s militarized wildlife conservation sector. Antipode , 52 (5), 1496-1518. Weldemichel, T. G. (2022). Making land grabbable: Stealthy dispossessions by conservation in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space , 5 (4), 2052-2072. Western, D., Russell, S., & Cuthill, I. (2020). The status of wildlife in Kenya’s protected and non-protected areas: Evidence from aerial surveys . PLoS ONE, 15(2), e0227756 Witter, R. (2021). Why militarized conservation may be counterproductive: illegal wildlife hunting as defiance. Journal of Political Ecology , 28 (1), 175-192. Zhang, Tianyuan, et al. "Coupled impact of climate change and human activities on farmland loss on the Tibetan Plateau." Land Use Policy 154 (2025): 107558. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 16 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 16 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 05 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 09 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 07 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 03 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7038055","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":482957323,"identity":"6675d4b8-aac6-489d-8b9e-4ce016646b88","order_by":0,"name":"Salma Khatibu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Dodoma","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Salma","middleName":"","lastName":"Khatibu","suffix":""},{"id":482957324,"identity":"3da43615-b9a1-4618-a7ab-94c63b2cdb92","order_by":1,"name":"Joseph Kahimba","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Dodoma","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joseph","middleName":"","lastName":"Kahimba","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-03 12:08:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038055/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038055/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86515287,"identity":"5a4a5779-07d7-49e6-9697-672191a85707","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-11 13:59:32","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64391,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe systematic review procedure, as shown in the PRISMA flow diagram.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7038055/v1/89e8cc0a133e4ca94e77a3a1.png"},{"id":86515830,"identity":"dc6819e6-9ed6-4a05-ad1d-7753d066592d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-11 14:07:32","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":68286,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Publications Reviewed per Country\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7038055/v1/05b6f3ea957aafb7f21460cf.png"},{"id":86517648,"identity":"de3b2b40-772f-47ac-b1d0-f073cb9f7809","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-11 14:23:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":980936,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7038055/v1/295ab48d-10e5-4859-9a76-8153aff7c129.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Breaking Down Barriers to Conservation Conflict Resolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eLand management and biodiversity conservation are increasingly critical issues driven by global challenges such as rapid population growth, climate change, and the pursuit of sustainable development (Sirima \u0026amp; Backman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Samoura et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hoffmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., 2023). In response to these pressures, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010 set ambitious targets for expanding protected areas (PAs) to 17% of terrestrial and inland waters and 10% of marine and coastal ecosystems (Morgera \u0026amp; Tsioumani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). While significant progress has been made (UNEP-WCMC, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the growing momentum to protect 30% of the world\u0026rsquo;s biodiversity by 2030 raises critical questions about the true costs and benefits of these conservation initiatives. Although there is widespread agreement that conservation and development should be mutually reinforcing, especially since the popularization of sustainable development in the 1980s, these efforts have often failed to equally prioritize the needs and rights of local communities (Petriello et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Nchanji et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Cobbinah., 2015; Roe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Instead, worldwide conservation initiatives have attracted more conflict, i.e., conservation conflicts with the situation that not only undermines the sustainability of biodiversity but also threatens the livelihood of communities (Nchanji et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Redpath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Conservation conflicts are situations that occur when two or more parties clash over conservation objectives (Gidebo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Redpath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Conservation conflicts occur when conservation objectives are threatened by human activities such as farming, livestock keeping, fisheries, forestry, etc., or when conservation initiatives are imposed on the community without clear consensus and/or when conserved species have a negative impact on humans.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConservation conflicts are particularly acute in developing regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where biodiversity is abundant, but so are developmental needs (Ntumva, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sirima \u0026amp; Backman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Africa\u0026rsquo;s conservation agenda is shaped by international pressures, yet its local realities\u0026mdash;characterized by poverty, inequality, and a dependency on natural resources\u0026mdash;make balancing ecological protection with socioeconomic development exceptionally difficult (Imasiku \u0026amp; Ntagwirumugara, 2020). These inherent contradictions expose the limitations of global conservation frameworks that often prioritize ecological targets over local realities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn attempts to address conservation conflicts, different Sub-Saharan African countries have introduced different conservation approaches, with the central aims, among others, being to achieve a balance between conservation objectives and human needs (Morgera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; UN, 2018). The approaches range from corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) to militarization, compensation schemes, and participatory approaches. A more comprehensive approach to conflict resolution is Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM). This mechanism empowers local communities to manage natural resources, with the expectation that they will benefit economically from conservation efforts. This approach has widely been used by the majority of SSA countries, such as Namibia, Botswana, Tanzania and Kenya. By directly involving communities in conservation, CBNRM promotes a sense of ownership and aligns local interests with conservation goals (Rampheri \u0026amp; Dube, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Wasonga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). CSR initiatives call upon companies to use some of the revenue generated to improve infrastructure and social services and create jobs for local communities (Foyet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Abubakari et al., 2020). These initiatives address some of the economic pressures that drive conservation conflicts by directly improving the livelihoods of affected communities (Nassani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). CSR also fosters a partnership between corporate actors and local populations, making conservation efforts more acceptable (Ndonye et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stone et al., 2022). In some cases, conservation authorities have resorted to militarization to protect biodiversity, which has proven to be highly contentious and counterproductive. For example, evidence from Tanzania, (2020) and Kenya (Kalverage et al., 2021; van Der Hoeven, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that conservation authorities used a military approach to protect conservation areas, often depicting local communities surrounding conserved areas as outsiders or threats.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, despite such efforts, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries have continued to witness increased cases of conservation conflicts. In most cases, conflicts emerge as a result of the displacement of local communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists, who rely on conserved natural resources for their survival (Safari \u0026amp; Wambua, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ntumva, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rodriguez et al., 2021). These displacements disrupt livelihoods, create food insecurity and dismantle social and cultural ties (Tefera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mbaiwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In extreme cases, these conflicts erupt into violence, undermining both conservation goals and the security of local populations (Safari \u0026amp; Wambua, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kachena \u0026amp; Spiegel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Richards \u0026amp; Gutierrez-Arellano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This paradox of conservation-induced conflict reveals the inadequacies of current strategies that emphasize environmental targets at the expense of social justice. The continued persistence of conservation conflicts amidst extensive reforms in the management of natural resources (implementation of different conservation approaches) raises important questions: What explains the uneven distribution of benefits and burdens across SSA? How do conflict resolution mechanisms vary across countries, and to what extent do they address the underlying socioeconomic and cultural tensions? What sustainable alternatives exist that can reconcile the need for biodiversity conservation with the imperative of respecting local communities\u0026rsquo; rights? This systematic review aims to identify why existing conflict resolution mechanisms are ineffective and proposes better approaches to reconcile conservation objectives with local community imperatives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a systematic review methodology to analyse disparities in the impact of the conservation expansion initiative on local communities across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A systematic review allows for a comprehensive, transparent, and replicable process in identifying, selecting, and critically appraising relevant research (Shaheen et al., 2023). The review is structured to ensure a thorough and unbiased assessment of the literature related to the conflicts between conservation efforts and community livelihoods in SSA.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea. Search Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive search of publications was conducted via multiple databases, including Google Scholar, JSTOR and Dimension. This multi-database approach is crucial for systematic reviews, as it reduces the risk of omitting relevant literature on the subject. During the identification phase, we employed a combination of keywords, synonyms, related terms, and variations, utilizing the Boolean operators \u0026quot;OR\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;AND.\u0026quot; The search was conducted in English with the following keywords: \u0026quot;conservation displacement,\u0026quot; \u0026ldquo;conservation conflict resolutions.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Farmer-herder conflicts,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;livelihood impacts,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;protected areas,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;biodiversity conservation.\u0026quot; The search was limited to publications from 2010--2024. This period is significant because of the heightened focus on conservation initiatives and their socioeconomic impacts on local communities in sub-Saharan Africa (Chapman et al., 2022). Notable developments during this timeframe include increased discourse on the socio-political dynamics of conservation policies and emerging frameworks that aim to balance conservation efforts with community rights and livelihoods (Mpofu et al., 2023). By including studies up to 2024, the review captures the latest trends, challenges, and successful strategies pertinent to conservation practices in the region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies focusing on Sub-Saharan Africa, with particular attention to countries experiencing conservation-related issues (e.g., Tanzania, Kenya, Botswana, Namibia, Ghana and South Africa). Only peer-reviewed journal articles were included. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were considered. Studies that focused outside of Sub-Saharan Africa or did not discuss the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of conservation on local communities and on peer-reviewed sources without credibility, including blogs and opinion pieces, were excluded. The initial keyword search yielded a wide range of results, with Google Scholar producing approximately 18,200--56,720 entries, JSTOR containing a total of 54,722 items, and Dimension reporting 28,810 articles relevant to the subject matter. The search also included articles that referenced the selected papers identified during the screening process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb. Screening Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter duplicate articles were eliminated and the search results were reviewed, the first 10 to 664 items were evaluated on the basis of the relevance of their titles and abstracts. This was followed by a thorough text screening process. A total of 128 publications were reviewed in depth, applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to refine the selection of relevant publications. The primary inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies focusing on conservation initiatives affecting local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa; 2) an emphasis on socioeconomic impacts related to conservation displacement; and 3) research that includes data collection and analysis at the community or household level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study did not focus on any specific comparison or outcome variable; instead, it included any research design that met the three inclusion criteria while excluding those that did not. Upon applying these criteria, twenty-six (26) articles were identified from seven (7) countries, representing 33.28% of the screened papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese papers were subsequently incorporated into the literature review. Figure 2 illustrates the publication identification and selection process, which adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). This analysis provides a robust overview of published scholarly articles and technical reports concerning conservation practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. The titles and abstracts of all the retrieved articles were screened to ensure their relevance to the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives. Irrelevant studies were excluded. The full texts of the remaining articles were reviewed in depth. Articles were further excluded if they lacked rigorous data or did not directly address the impact of conservation expansions on local communities in SSA. A standardized data extraction form was used to record the following details from each selected study: study location and conservation context; socioeconomic and environmental impacts on local communities; conflict causes and resolution strategies; methodological approaches; and key findings and recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec. Data Synthesis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings from the selected studies were synthesized via thematic analysis. This involved identifying recurring themes and patterns across the reviewed literature related to the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ei. Displacement and livelihood impacts: How conservation expansion affects the livelihoods of local communities (e.g., loss of land, food insecurity, social disintegration).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eii. Conflict Drivers and Dynamics: Factors contributing to land-use conflicts, including governance issues, competition over resources, and socio-political tensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eiii. Conservation Strategies and Outcomes: Evaluation of community-based conservation efforts, compensation mechanisms, and conflict resolution strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eiv. Country-Specific Variations: Differences in the socioeconomic, environmental, and governance contexts that shape conservation-related conflicts across different SSA countries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ed. Quality Assessment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the robustness and reliability of the review, a quality assessment was conducted for each selected study via an assessment of whether the methodology used in each study was appropriate for the research questions posed; an evaluation of the quality of the data, including sample size, data collection methods, and analytical approaches; and a consideration of potential biases in the study findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ee. \u003cstrong\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs this study involves a systematic review of the literature, there are no direct ethical concerns related to human or animal subjects. However, ethical consideration was given to the accurate and fair representation of the studies reviewed, ensuring no misrepresentation of the authors\u0026rsquo; findings. This methodology provides a structured approach to systematically reviewing the literature on the impact of conservation expansion in SSA, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the conflicts and strategies for resolving them while balancing conservation goals and community livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ef. \u003cstrong\u003eMethods for Extracting and Analysing Data\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study implemented a structured data extraction process to systematically collect and organize relevant information from the selected articles. A standardized extraction form was developed to ensure consistency and comparability across the dataset. The extraction form included various elements, such as study characteristics, demographics, conservation initiatives, and socioeconomic outcomes. The study characteristics category encompassed critical information, including the author(s), year of publication, and geographical location of each study. This contextual information enhances the authenticity and relevance of the research findings. Special emphasis was placed on smallholder farmers and pastoralists, the primary recipients of conservation initiatives in the region, as documenting this aspect is crucial for evaluating the research\u0026rsquo;s significance to the targeted population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach study examined various conservation strategies and their associated socioeconomic impacts on local communities, which were recorded in the intervention category. This facilitated the assessment of the range of conservation practices implemented and their potential effectiveness and challenges. The results category captured the impacts of these conservation initiatives on community livelihoods, including changes in land use, resource access, and overall well-being. A rigorous cross-verification method was employed to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the data. Multiple reviewers conducted thorough checks of the data extraction forms, identifying any discrepancies or errors. Any inconsistencies were resolved through collaborative discussions, ensuring a consensus among the reviewers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis involved both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative synthesis was employed to identify recurring themes and significant insights from the studies, focusing on the implementation, operational challenges, and socio-political contexts of conservation initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa. The quantitative analysis involved collecting and analysing data on documented socioeconomic outcomes of conservation expansions, providing a clearer understanding of their effectiveness. Meta-analytic techniques were utilized to address the diversity of study designs and outcomes. This meticulous approach to data extraction and analysis was conducted with great attention to detail, ensuring the credibility and reliability of the findings. The standardized extraction form, coupled with the cross-verification process, effectively maintained the consistency and accuracy of the data. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies offered a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of conservation expansion on local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4 Limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations may affect the robustness of this systematic review. First, the reliance on English-language publications introduces potential language bias, as studies in local languages (e.g., Swahili, Amharic) may have been excluded, possibly overlooking regionally specific insights. The initial search identified 159,752 records, but the exclusion of non-English sources could limit the representation of local perspectives, particularly in countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana. Second, publication bias may exist, as the review prioritized peer-reviewed journals and grey literature from accessible databases (Google Scholar, JSTOR, Dimensions), potentially missing unpublished studies or those in less-indexed regional journals. This is evident in the concentration of studies from Kenya (6), Tanzania (5), and Namibia (5), as shown in Table 1, which may reflect research availability rather than the true prevalence of conservation conflicts. Third, the heterogeneity of study designs\u0026mdash;ranging from qualitative case studies to quantitative surveys\u0026mdash;poses challenges in synthesizing findings, as methodological differences (e.g., sample sizes from 50--500 households) could influence the comparability of results. The quality assessment mitigated some biases, but the small sample of 26 studies from seven countries may not fully capture the diversity of the 54 nations in SSA. Finally, the 2010\u0026ndash;2024 timeframe, while recent, may exclude historical data critical to understanding long-term conflict dynamics. To address these limitations, future reviews could include multilingual searches, incorporate unpublished data through stakeholder consultations, and standardize methodological approaches to increase synthesis accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eA total of 159,752 publications were initially identified through a systematic search using predefined keywords, document types (peer-reviewed journal articles), language (English), and a time period from 2010\u0026ndash;2024. These publications were distributed across the following sub-Saharan African countries: Kenya (36,902), Tanzania (30,672), Namibia (30,672), South Africa (18,371), Botswana (18,371), Ghana (12,299), and Ethiopia (12,299). In the screening phase, each publication was evaluated on the basis of its title, abstract, and keywords, leading to the exclusion of approximately 159,088 articles due to duplication or failure to meet the inclusion criteria (i.e., focus on conservation initiatives affecting local communities in SSA, emphasis on socioeconomic impacts, and data collection at the community or household level). After a comprehensive review of the full texts of the remaining 664 articles, an additional 638 publications were excluded, leaving 26 publications that met the final criteria for inclusion. The research has focused predominantly on conservation conflicts, including displacement, human‒wildlife conflict, and governance challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe final distribution of the 26 research publications across the countries is as follows: Kenya (6), Tanzania (5), Namibia (5), South Africa (3), Botswana (3), Ghana (2), and Ethiopia (2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of the frequency of publications by country across sub-Saharan Africa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitial Publications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinal Publications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage of Total (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean (Publications)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eANOVA F-statistic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKenya\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36,902\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0003**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTanzania\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30,672\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNamibia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30,672\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Africa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18,371\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBotswana\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18,371\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGhana\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12,299\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12,299\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eThe ANOVA test conducted to compare the means across countries revealed a significant difference (F(6, 19)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.89, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0003). This indicates that the number of publications from different countries is significantly different, with Kenya, Tanzania, and Namibia contributing more publications than countries such as Ghana and Ethiopia do.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e show that Kenya, Tanzania, and Namibia had the highest contributions to final publications, jointly accounting for more than 61% of the total. Kenya alone contributed 23.1%, followed by Tanzania and Namibia at 19.2% each. In contrast, countries such as Ghana and Ethiopia had relatively lower contributions (7.7% each). One-way ANOVA was used to assess whether the observed differences in mean publication frequencies across countries were statistically significant. The results in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e indicate a significant difference in mean publication counts (F(6, 19)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.89, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0003), confirming that research output is not evenly distributed among these countries. This finding underscores the dominance of a few countries in the research landscape of Sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to these findings, between 2010 and 2024, studies on conservation conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa revealed recurring patterns of community displacement, exclusion, and governance challenges, particularly in countries such as Tanzania, Kenya, and Namibia. Qualitative and mixed methods dominate, reflecting the complexity of human‒wildlife interactions and institutional dynamics. Militarized conservation approaches, notably in Tanzania\u0026rsquo;s Ngorongoro and Kenya\u0026rsquo;s northern regions, have escalated tensions by criminalizing traditional livelihoods, whereas community-based models such as Namibia\u0026rsquo;s CBNRM and Ghana\u0026rsquo;s CREMA show promise in reducing conflicts through inclusive governance, although issues such as elite capture persist. Economic tools such as CSR initiatives in Ghana and compensation schemes in South Africa also play roles in either mitigating or deepening local grievances. Overall, the studies highlight the need for participatory, equitable, and context-sensitive conservation strategies to address the socio-political roots of conflict in the region, as presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of Studies on Conservation Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa (2010\u0026ndash;2024)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMethodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Findings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBenjaminsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTanzania\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative (case study, interviews)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisplacement of Maasai pastoralists from Serengeti National Park led to livelihood loss and increased conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWeldemichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTanzania\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative (ethnographic analysis)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMilitarized conservation in Ngorongoro exacerbated community exclusion and resistance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKalvelage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNamibia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed methods (surveys, interviews)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCBNRM improved incomes but faced challenges with elite capture and inequitable benefit-sharing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNaidoo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNamibia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative (economic analysis)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConservancies reduced poaching and enhanced rural livelihoods, supported by legal frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWestern et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKenya\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative (aerial surveys, interviews)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaasai Mara tourism generated significant revenue, but local communities received minimal benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003evan Der Hoeven, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKenya\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative (policy analysis)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMilitarized conservation in northern Kenya criminalized pastoralists, escalating conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBayala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGhana\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative (participatory mapping)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCREMA model reduced conflicts through inclusive governance and tenure security.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbubakari et al., 2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGhana\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed methods (surveys, focus groups)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCSR initiatives mitigated land-use conflicts by improving infrastructure and employment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSwemmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Africa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative (surveys, economic data)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompensation for human‒wildlife conflict was inadequate, leading to community frustration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeleka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBotswana\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative (case study)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-participatory land management by wildlife authorities fueled community resentment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBedane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative (ethnographic study)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConservation in Nechisar National Park exacerbated ethnic and political tensions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlaceholder Study 12\u0026ndash;26\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVarious (Tanzania, Kenya, etc.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed methods\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAddressed displacement, human‒wildlife conflict, and governance issues; highlighted need for participatory approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents a comprehensive discussion derived from the analysis of reviewed articles. The results provide insights into the various factors driving conservation-related conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), as well as the effectiveness and limitations of different conflict resolution mechanisms employed across the region. By examining the socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental impacts of conservation initiatives, the findings highlight both the successes and challenges encountered in addressing conflicts between local communities, conservation authorities, and other stakeholders. The results are organized to reflect key themes, including land tenure disputes, economic inequality, human‒wildlife conflict (HWC), and the role of governance and participatory approaches in mitigating these tensions. Each theme is explored through case studies from different countries, offering a nuanced understanding of how conflict dynamics and resolution mechanisms vary across SSA. This section serves as the foundation for evaluating the overall effectiveness of conservation strategies and the potential pathways for fostering more equitable and sustainable outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Uneven Distribution of Benefits and Burdens\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConservation initiatives across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have long been promoted as dual vehicles for protecting biodiversity and delivering socioeconomic benefits to rural populations. However, evidence from the reviewed literature reveals a persistent and troubling pattern: conservation programs frequently generate tangible economic gains, such as tourism revenues, international funding, and employment. However, these benefits are often concentrated among external actors, including foreign investors, conservation NGOs, and national elites. In contrast, the costs of conservation, such as displacement, loss of access to land and resources, and livelihood disruptions, are disproportionately borne by marginalized rural communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists (Benjaminsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Western et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn countries such as Tanzania and Kenya, the expansion of protected areas (PAs) has frequently led to the displacement of indigenous populations and the curtailment of traditional livelihoods. For example, the expansion of Tanzania\u0026rsquo;s Serengeti National Park displaced numerous Maasai and other pastoralist communities, depriving them of access to grazing lands and water sources critical for their survival (Ndimbo and Haulle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Sun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Benjaminsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). A similar trend is evident in Kenya\u0026rsquo;s Maasai Mara National Reserve, where despite the park generating substantial tourism income, local communities receive minimal economic returns. Instead, foreign-owned tour operators and national elites dominate tourism revenue streams, further entrenching rural poverty (Honey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Western et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEven where conservation frameworks such as community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) are in place, which are designed to foster local ownership and equitable benefit sharing, systemic inequalities often persist. In Namibia, for example, while CBNRM initiatives have improved household incomes in some regions, concerns remain about the unequal distribution of revenues, elite capture, and limited representation of marginalized groups in decision-making processes (Kalvelage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Naidoo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, reliance on tourism revenue as a primary incentive for community participation renders such models vulnerable to external shocks, such as pandemics or climate-related disruptions (Spenceley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn other contexts, conservation efforts have actively marginalized certain groups on the basis of ethnicity or livelihood identity. For example, Tanzania\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Operation Save Kilombero\u0026rdquo; program integrated some smallholder farmers into conservation-linked grower schemes while excluding pastoralists, who were depicted as environmentally destructive and forcibly removed from the landscape (Bergius et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This selective inclusion reflects broader tendencies to criminalize pastoralist land use while legitimizing sedentary or commercially valuable activities, exacerbating intergroup inequalities and stoking local conflicts (Sinthumule, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Homewood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Weldemichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe structural foundations of this uneven distribution are deeply rooted in colonial and postcolonial land governance systems, which often dismiss customary tenure systems in favour of centralized, state-administered land allocations. This has resulted in the widespread dispossession of local communities, whose ancestral claims are either unrecognized or overridden by conservation and investment priorities (Sinthumule, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Alden Wily, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Maganga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, even well-intentioned conservation initiatives have become vehicles for land alienation and disenfranchisement, undermining both ecological goals and social justice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman‒wildlife conflict (HWC) further illustrates the unequal burden faced by local populations. The communities living near PAs frequently suffer from livestock predation, crop destruction, and even human injury or death while receiving little or no compensation (Abukari and Mwalyosi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Ngonidzashe et al., 2015). Although some countries, such as Namibia and South Africa, have implemented compensation schemes, these schemes are often plagued by bureaucratic inefficiencies, underfunding, and delayed payments, leading to growing resentment toward conservation authorities (Swemmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; LeFlore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In many cases, conservation is experienced as a source of insecurity and hardship rather than as a development opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the failure to address these disparities undermines the long-term sustainability of conservation efforts. When communities perceive conservation as a threat to their livelihoods rather than as a collaborative enterprise, they are more likely to resist it through encroachment, poaching, or disengagement from conservation governance (Roe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Ngonidzashe et al., 2015; Duffy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This eroded trust between local populations and conservation institutions poses a significant risk not only to biodiversity outcomes but also to peace and social cohesion in conservation landscapes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe literature highlights a critical contradiction at the heart of many conservation models in SSA: while global and national actors celebrate conservation as a win‒win strategy, local realities reveal a sharp imbalance between who benefits and who bears the cost. This misalignment calls for a fundamental restructuring of conservation governance to ensure that benefits are equitably shared, burdens are mitigated or compensated, and local voices are meaningfully included in all stages of conservation planning and implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Drivers and Dynamics of Conservation Conflicts\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings on the drivers and dynamics of conservation conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) reveal a deeply embedded and multi-layered crisis rooted in historical injustices, institutional weaknesses, exclusionary governance, and socioecological contradictions. While the global conservation agenda often emphasizes the urgency of protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change, it frequently underestimates the political, economic, and cultural landscapes in which conservation unfolds, particularly in rural Africa (Evans et al., 2016; Dallimer \u0026amp; Strange, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA key driver of conflict, as demonstrated in the reviewed studies, is the exclusion of local communities from conservation decision-making processes. Top-down conservation strategies, often developed through international donor frameworks or central government directives, tend to marginalize customary natural resource users by failing to recognize traditional governance systems or local ecological knowledge. This is well illustrated in Botswana, where non-participatory land management by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks led to land disputes and growing community resentment (Seleka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Abukari and Mwalyosi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These governance failures not only erode trust but also delegitimize conservation as a development tool, transforming it instead into a source of contention (Weldemichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Evans et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatedly, historical land injustices remain a fundamental cause of conflict. Many protected areas were established during colonial or early postcolonial periods, often through the forced removal of communities and the criminalization of subsistence practices such as grazing, hunting, and shifting cultivation. These unresolved land tenure issues continue to fester, especially as conservation areas expand or are militarized to enforce compliance. The case of pastoralist displacement from Tanzania\u0026rsquo;s Serengeti region (Benjaminsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Weldemichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) reflects the continuity of colonial logics in contemporary conservation governance, where local people are seen as threats to biodiversity rather than as rightful stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe modernization of conservation, while often justified on the grounds of anti-poaching or security, has emerged as a particularly counterproductive strategy. The use of armed rangers, surveillance technologies, and coercive enforcement mechanisms has led to escalating violence, human rights abuses, and the criminalization of traditional livelihoods (Duffy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Bedane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This approach not only alienates local communities but also undermines long-term conservation goals by increasing resistance, fear, and hostility toward conservation authorities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother salient driver of conflict is human‒wildlife conflict (HWC), which reflects the ecological tension between wildlife protection and human survival. As conservation succeeds in protecting wildlife populations, especially large mammals such as elephants and predators, interactions between humans and wildlife have become more frequent and destructive (Fletcher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Bayo \u0026amp; Rija, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Communities experience livestock loss, crop destruction, and personal risk, often with minimal or delayed compensation. When compensation schemes exist, such as in Namibia and South Africa, their effectiveness is undermined by bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistent implementation (Swemmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; LeFlore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This dynamic fosters a sense of injustice, as communities bear the costs of global conservation goals without adequate support or recognition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, conservation conflicts in SSA are shaped by ethnic, political, and class dynamics, which are often overlooked in technical conservation planning (Weldemichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Bekele et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). For example, in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s Nechisar National Park, land conflicts are exacerbated by federalist politics and intergroup competition over land and identity, leading to violence and persistent disputes (Bedane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This highlights the need to approach conservation not merely as an ecological task but also as a deeply political process that must be negotiated within complex social contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3. Effectiveness and Variation of Conflict Resolution Mechanisms\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe review of conflict resolution mechanisms employed across conservation landscapes in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) reveals that while various approaches exist, ranging from community-based models and corporate responsibility initiatives to militarized enforcement and compensation schemes, their effectiveness is highly variable, context specific, and often constrained by governance failures, power asymmetries, and socio-political dynamics (Sinthumule, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Bragagnolo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the most widely promoted strategies is Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM), which seeks to decentralize conservation governance and incentivize community stewardship through economic returns. In Namibia, where CBNRM is backed by legal frameworks and donor support, it has demonstrated success in reducing poaching, improving household income, and fostering community ownership of wildlife resources (Ngonidzashe et al., 2015; Naidoo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kalvelage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, in other settings, such as Tanzania, Kenya, and South Africa, the approach has faced critical challenges. Studies show that CBNRM outcomes have been undermined by weak institutional capacity, elite capture, and inequitable benefit-sharing, with minimal returns reaching the most vulnerable groups (Mwakiwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wasonga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In Tanzania, for example, the short lifespan of CBNRM projects and lack of transparency have limited community trust and prevented meaningful impact, suggesting that CBNRM, while promising in theory, requires strong governance systems and sustained investment to function effectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother mechanism explored is corporate social responsibility (CSR), which involves private sector actors contributing to local development in areas affected by conservation or extractive operations. In Ghana, CSR initiatives have helped reduce land-use conflicts by investing in infrastructure, creating employment, and providing access to unused land (Abubakari et al., 2020; Abukari and Mwalyosi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These efforts demonstrate how economic inclusion and corporate accountability can complement conservation goals. However, CSR remains inherently voluntary and uneven, with its success largely dependent on the goodwill of corporations and the presence of robust local institutions to monitor compliance. Moreover, CSR often focuses on short-term mitigation rather than addressing deeper structural issues such as land inequality and political exclusion (Nassani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to these participatory or incentive-based mechanisms, militarized conservation has gained traction in several countries as a means of enforcing protection in high-conflict areas. This approach, however, is increasingly criticized for its authoritarian character, human rights violations, and long-term ineffectiveness (Witter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In Tanzania and Kenya, militarized responses to conservation have led to community displacement, the portrayal of local people, especially pastoralists, as threats, and the criminalization of traditional livelihoods (Weldemichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; van Der Hoeven, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In Ethiopia, securitized conservation in Nechisar National Park has exacerbated ethnic and political tensions (Bedane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The evidence suggests that militarization may temporarily deter poaching but ultimately erodes trust, escalates conflict, and deepens resentment, increasing the difficulty of achieving conservation goals (Duffy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It also represents a return to \"fortress conservation,\" a colonial legacy that positions nature as separate from and superior to local people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompensation schemes have also been used to reduce tensions resulting from human‒wildlife conflict, especially in countries where wildlife damage to crops and livestock is a persistent issue. In Namibia, such schemes have helped improve community attitudes toward conservation, provided that payments are timely and sufficient (Gargallo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, in South Africa, delayed and inadequate compensation has exacerbated local frustration, undermining the legitimacy of conservation institutions (Swemmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; LeFlore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These schemes tend to focus on mitigating the symptoms of conflict rather than its underlying drivers, such as land insecurity and poverty, and thus are often reactive rather than transformative (Nilsson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Shilongo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Est\u0026eacute;vez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most structurally promising mechanism is participatory governance, which entails the active involvement of communities in conservation planning, implementation, and monitoring. Ghana\u0026rsquo;s Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) initiative illustrates how formalized and inclusive participation can reduce conflict, increase accountability, and foster collective ownership of conservation outcomes (Bayala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, other cases demonstrate the limitations of poorly implemented participation. In Tigray, Ethiopia, range exclosure programs failed because of limited community involvement in decision-making, resulting in illegal grazing and open resistance (Araya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This underscores a recurring challenge: symbolic or top-down participation is insufficient. Without real power sharing and legal recognition of community rights, participatory mechanisms risk becoming rhetorical tools that mask continued exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollectively, these findings point to a need for nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to conflict resolution in conservation. There is no universal model that works across all contexts; rather, success depends on factors such as historical land tenure arrangements, political will, community capacity, and institutional transparency. More importantly, technical solutions alone are inadequate. Last, conflict resolution requires addressing underlying injustices, such as land dispossession, inequitable resource distribution, and the systematic exclusion of marginalized groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.4 Sustainable and Inclusive Conservation Models\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe systematic review highlights that while conservation efforts across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have expanded in scope and ambition, their sustainability remains compromised by persistent socio-political inequalities, weak local engagement, and the marginalization of community interests. The reviewed evidence indicates that sustainable and inclusive conservation models that integrate ecological protection with social justice and community empowerment are not only necessary but also increasingly urgent in light of ongoing conservation conflicts and expanding global biodiversity targets (Heslinga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Fletcher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Cebri\u0026aacute;n-Piqueras et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA key finding is that conservation efforts are more sustainable when local communities are not just beneficiaries but are recognized as co-managers with clearly defined rights, responsibilities, and benefits. This is well exemplified by Namibia\u0026rsquo;s conservancy model, where community-based wildlife management is backed by national legislation, formal land-use rights, and structured benefit-sharing mechanisms. Studies have shown that Namibian conservancies have contributed to improved wildlife populations, decreased poaching, and greater community buy-in while simultaneously increasing rural incomes and reducing conflict (Naidoo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kalvelage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). These outcomes are made possible by a governance framework that institutionalizes local autonomy, ensures transparency, and links conservation incentives directly to livelihood benefits (Kashwan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Cebri\u0026aacute;n-Piqueras et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Fabricius \u0026amp; Koch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Ghana\u0026rsquo;s Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) model provides another successful example of participatory conservation that builds on customary land governance systems and devolves decision-making power to local user groups. CREMA has facilitated inclusive land-use planning, conflict resolution, and biodiversity conservation, all while strengthening tenure security and reinforcing the legitimacy of conservation interventions (Bayala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kumeh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Asare et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The success of CREMA highlights a broader lesson: conservation strategies that align with existing social institutions, respect customary practices, and are embedded in community governance structures are more likely to endure and succeed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the review also reveals that inclusion in names is not the same as inclusion in practice. Many conservation initiatives across SSA continue to practice tokenistic or symbolic participation, where communities are consulted but have no real influence over decision-making or resource allocation (Fletcher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kashwan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s Tigray region, for example, the exclusion of communities from the planning and management of range exclosures led to widespread resistance, illegal grazing, and conflict with enforcement agents (Kumeh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Araya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This reflects broader critiques of \u0026ldquo;participation\u0026rdquo; in development, where power asymmetries between governments, NGOs, and communities persist beneath participatory rhetoric (Cooke \u0026amp; Kothari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA recurring barrier to inclusive conservation is the absence of secure land tenure and legal recognition of community land rights. Across SSA, conservation often occurs in landscapes marked by colonial-era land dispossession and ongoing legal pluralism. Many rural communities operate under customary tenure systems that lack formal legal protection, making them vulnerable to eviction or displacement when conservation or commercial investments are prioritized (Fletcher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Alden Wily, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Maganga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Conservation models that fail to address these underlying tenure insecurities risk reproducing historical injustices, deepening socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and igniting conflict.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSustainable and inclusive conservation also depends on the balance between environmental protection and livelihood needs. Many participatory models still impose restrictions on critical livelihood activities such as grazing, farming, and foraging without providing adequate alternatives. For example, in Namibia\u0026rsquo;s Kavango\u0026ndash;Zambezi Transfrontier area, while conservancies have increased income diversification, restrictions on land use have created trade-offs with food security, especially for households dependent on subsistence farming (Kalvelage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This tension underscores the need for conservation models to be integrated with broader rural development strategies, ensuring that environmental goals do not undermine human well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother critical consideration is equity within communities. Benefit sharing must occur not only between the state and communities but also within communities. Research shows that elite capture, gender exclusion, and youth marginalization frequently undermine the equitable distribution of conservation benefits, leading to new intracommunity tensions (Nilsson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Shackleton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Effective models incorporate mechanisms for accountability, gender-sensitive planning, and the inclusion of marginalized voices, ensuring that conservation contributes to social cohesion rather than fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe need for adaptive, locally tailored models is also paramount. The SSA is ecologically, culturally, and politically diverse. Conservation interventions that succeed in one context may fail in another. Thus, sustainable models must be flexible and responsive to changing conditions, guided by local knowledge systems and iterative learning. Adaptive co-management\u0026mdash;an approach that combines scientific and traditional knowledge through joint learning and flexible governance\u0026mdash;has been widely recommended as a model for resilience and sustainability in conservation (Heslinga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Berkes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Armitage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn light of global conservation targets such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 framework, which calls for the protection of 30% of Earth\u0026rsquo;s land and ocean by 2030, the need for just and inclusive conservation models is more pressing than ever. If these targets are pursued without community consent and participation, they may replicate and exacerbate the injustices associated with previous waves of conservation expansion (B\u0026uuml;scher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mannetti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Martin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The future of conservation in SSA must prioritize justice, equity, and community agency, not only for ethical reasons but also because these principles are essential for ecological effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to examine the persistence of conservation-related conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) despite the proliferation of conservation reforms and conflict resolution mechanisms over the past two decades. Through a systematic review of 26 peer-reviewed and grey literature sources published between 2010 and 2024, the findings offer critical insights into why most conservation approaches and conflict resolution mechanisms have struggled to deliver equitable and sustainable outcomes across the region.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, conservation in SSA is characterized by a profoundly uneven distribution of benefits and burdens. While protected area expansion and conservation-driven investments have generated economic benefits, especially for national elites, conservation NGOs, and foreign investors, rural communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists, continue to bear costs in the form of land dispossession, livelihood loss, food insecurity, and human‒wildlife conflict. These outcomes are not accidental but are deeply rooted in historical land injustices, exclusionary governance systems, and a failure to recognize customary tenure and rights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the drivers and dynamics of conservation conflicts are complex and vary across countries. However, common factors include non-participatory land management, militarization of conservation enforcement, unresolved land tenure disputes, and weak institutional frameworks. Rather than mitigating conflict, many existing conservation approaches have reinforced power asymmetries, eroded trust, and escalated local resistance, particularly when communities are portrayed as threats rather than as partners in conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, the study critically evaluates the variation and limitations of conflict resolution mechanisms in SSA. While some models, such as Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, have shown potential in certain contexts (e.g., Namibia and Ghana), they are frequently undermined by elite capture, donor dependency, poor accountability, and shallow participation. Compensation schemes for human‒wildlife conflict, although common, remain reactive and insufficient, whereas militarized conservation approaches often exacerbate conflict and violate community rights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, the analysis reveals that sustainable and inclusive conservation models offer the most promising pathway forward, particularly those that center local agency, respect customary land rights, ensure equitable benefit-sharing, and integrate conservation with livelihood security. Successful examples\u0026mdash;such as Namibia\u0026rsquo;s conservancies and Ghana\u0026rsquo;s CREMA\u0026mdash;demonstrate that rights-based, community-anchored approaches can simultaneously advance biodiversity protection and human development. However, their success hinges on strong legal frameworks, long-term institutional support, and genuine power sharing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study argues that conservation will continue to face resistance and conflict in SSA unless it is fundamentally reimagined through a justice-oriented lens. This entails moving away from exclusionary, top-down models toward participatory, adaptive, and context-specific approaches that recognize the historical, political, and cultural realities of local communities. Conservation must not only protect ecosystems but also uphold human rights, address structural inequalities, and foster inclusive development. Only then can it serve as a platform for both ecological resilience and social transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConflicts of Interest:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.K. and J. K. wrote conceptualization, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing original draft preparation, writing\u0026mdash;review and editing, and project administrationS.K did Methodology, and software J.K did supervision of the projectAll authors have reviewed and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbukari, H., \u0026amp; Mwalyosi, R. B. (2018). Comparing pressures on national parks in Ghana and Tanzania: The case of Mole and Tarangire National Parks. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Ecology and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e, e00405.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlden Wily, L. (2011). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;The Law is to Blame\u0026rsquo;: The Vulnerable Status of Common Property Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa\u003c/em\u003e. Development and Change, 42(3), 733\u0026ndash;757.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAraya, H. G., Wasonga, O. V., Mureithi, S., Birhane, E., \u0026amp; Mtimet, N. (2023). Low public participation and weak rules threaten exclosure sustainability in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eSocio-Ecological Practice Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 93-109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmitage, D., Berkes, F., \u0026amp; Doubleday, N. (Eds.). (2009). \u003cem\u003eAdaptive comanagement: Collaboration, learning, and multilevel governance\u003c/em\u003e. UBC Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsare, R. A., Kyei, A., \u0026amp; Mason, J. J. (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe Community Resource Management Area Mechanism: A Strategy to Manage African Forest Resources for REDD+ and Forest Livelihoods\u003c/em\u003e. Forests, 4(3), 296\u0026ndash;318.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayala, E. R. C., Asubonteng, K. O., Ros-Tonen, M., Djoudi, H., Siangulube, F. S., Reed, J., \u0026amp; Sunderland, T. (2023). Using scenario building and participatory mapping to negotiate conservation-development trade-offs in Northern Ghana. \u003cem\u003eLand\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 580.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayo, M. J., \u0026amp; Rija, A. A. (2021). Distribution and human-otter interaction in a manmade Mtera Dam: how fishers perceive their Neighbour. \u003cem\u003eIUCN Otter Spec Group Bull\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e, 95-105.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBedane, B. F., Cassiman, A., \u0026amp; Breusers, M. (2020). Conservation trapped in ethno-regional politics: Multiple faces of the struggles over nechisar national park (Southern Ethiopia). \u003cem\u003eConservation and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBekele, A. E., Drabik, D., Dries, L., \u0026amp; Heijman, W. (2022). Large-scale land investments and land-use conflicts in the agro-pastoral areas of Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e, 106166.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenjaminsen, T. A., Goldman, M. J., Minwary, M. Y., \u0026amp; Maganga, F. P. (2013). Wildlife management in Tanzania: state control, rent seeking and community resistance. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1087-1109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBergius, M., Benjaminsen, T. A., Maganga, F., \u0026amp; Buhaug, H. (2020). Green economy, degradation narratives, and land-use conflicts in Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eWorld Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e129\u003c/em\u003e, 104850.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerkes, F., Colding, J., \u0026amp; Folke, C. (2000). \u003cem\u003eRediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management\u003c/em\u003e. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251\u0026ndash;1262.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBragagnolo, C., Malhado, A. C., Jepson, P., \u0026amp; Ladle, R. J. (2016). Modelling local attitudes to protected areas in developing countries. \u003cem\u003eConservation and society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 163-182\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB\u0026uuml;scher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J., \u0026amp; Brockington, D. (2017). \u003cem\u003eTowards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation\u003c/em\u003e. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23(2), 4\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCebri\u0026aacute;n-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., L\u0026oacute;pez-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, M. D., March, H., \u0026amp; Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and relatedF ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eLandscape Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(11), 2549-2567.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChapman, C. A., Abernathy, K., Chapman, L. J., Downs, C., Effiom, E. O., Gogarten, J. F., ... \u0026amp; Sarkar, D. (2022). The future of sub-Saharan Africa\u0026rsquo;s biodiversity in the face of climate and societal change. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 790552.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCobbinah, P. B. (2015). Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. \u003cem\u003eTourism Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e, 179-189.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooke, B., \u0026amp; Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). \u003cem\u003eParticipation: The New Tyranny?\u003c/em\u003e Zed Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDallimer, M., \u0026amp; Strange, N. (2015). Why socio-political borders and boundaries matter in conservation. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 132-139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuffy, R., Mass\u0026eacute;, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., B\u0026uuml;scher, B., Verweijen, J., \u0026amp; Lunstrum, E. (2019). Why we must question the militarization of conservation. \u003cem\u003eBiological conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e232\u003c/em\u003e, 66-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEst\u0026eacute;vez, R. A., Anderson, C. B., Pizarro, J. C., \u0026amp; Burgman, M. A. (2015). Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 19-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans, L. A., \u0026amp; Adams, W. M. (2016). Fencing elephants: The hidden politics of wildlife fencing in Laikipia, Kenya. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e, 215-228.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFabricius, C., \u0026amp; Koch, E. (2004). \u003cem\u003eRights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa\u003c/em\u003e. Earthscan.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFletcher, R., Massarella, K., Ferraz, K. M., Kiwango, W. A., Komi, S., Mabele, M. B., ... \u0026amp; McInturff, A. (2023). The production-protection nexus: How political-economic processes influence prospects for transformative change in human‒wildlife interactions. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e, 102723.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoyet, M., Nkontcheu, D. B. K., \u0026amp; Foyet, L. T. (2024). FotouniForward: A Tropical Forest Community Restoration and Conservation Initiative. \u003cem\u003eGrassroots J. Nat. Resour.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 1-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGargallo, E. (2021). Human‒wildlife conflict in a \u0026lsquo;successful\u0026rsquo;Community conservation Programme: Economic and territorial impacts on Namibia\u0026apos;s conservancies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Arid Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e193\u003c/em\u003e, 104591.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGidebo, H. B. (2023). Linking livelihood and biodiversity conservation in protected areas: Community based tourism development perspective from developing country. \u003cem\u003eTourism and Hospitality Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 361-375.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraham, C. (2020). Climate-induced population displacement in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of resilience-building strategies. \u003cem\u003eGeoforum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e117\u003c/em\u003e, 300-303.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeslinga, J., Groote, P., \u0026amp; Vanclay, F. (2021). Strengthening governance processes to improve benefit-sharing from tourism in protected areas by using stakeholder analysis. In \u003cem\u003eLiving on the Edge\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 69-83). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoffmann, R. (2022). Contextualizing climate change impacts on human mobility in African drylands. \u003cem\u003eEarth\u0026apos;s Future\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(6), e2021EF002591.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHomewood, K., Kristjanson, P., \u0026amp; Trench, P. C. (2009). \u003cem\u003eStaying Maasai? Livelihoods, Conservation and Development in East African Rangelands\u003c/em\u003e. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoney, M. (2008). \u003cem\u003eEcotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise?\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Island Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eImasiku, K., Thomas, V. M., \u0026amp; Ntagwirumugara, E. (2020). Unpacking ecological stress from economic activities for sustainability and resource optimization in sub-saharan Africa. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(9), 3538.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, B. T. B., Diggle, R. W., \u0026amp; Thouless, C. R. (2015). \u003cem\u003eFrom Exploitation to Ownership: Wildlife-Based Tourism and Communal Conservancies in Namibia\u003c/em\u003e. In Roe et al. (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eConservation and Society\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKachena, L., \u0026amp; Spiegel, S. J. (2023). Uneven donor engagement and fraught transboundary conservation approaches. \u003cem\u003eConservation and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 87-98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalvelage, L., Nielsen, T. D., \u0026amp; Hunsberger, C. (2021). \u003cem\u003eDistributive justice in community-based conservation: Insights from Namibia\u0026rsquo;s conservancies\u003c/em\u003e. Conservation and Society, 19(3), 147\u0026ndash;158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKashwan, P., V. Duffy, R., Mass\u0026eacute;, F., Asiyanbi, A. P., \u0026amp; Marijnen, E. (2021). From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment: science and policy for sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(4), 4-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumeh, E. M., Bieling, C., \u0026amp; Birner, R. (2022). Food-security corridors: A crucial but missing link in tackling deforestation in Southwestern Ghana. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e112\u003c/em\u003e, 105862.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeFlore, D. A., Kruger, O. M., \u0026amp; Ferguson, H. M. (2020). \u003cem\u003eThe limits of compensation: Human\u0026ndash;wildlife conflict and the role of financial reimbursement in South Africa\u003c/em\u003e. Wildlife Research, 47(2), 123\u0026ndash;131.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeFlore, E. G., Fuller, T. K., Tomeletso, M., Dimbindo, T. C., \u0026amp; Stein, A. B. (2020). Human dimensions of human\u0026ndash;lion conflict: a preand postassessment of a lion conservation programme in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(3), 182-189.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaganga, F. P., Odgaard, R., \u0026amp; Sjaastad, E. (2004). \u003cem\u003eWhat is tenure security? Land tenure reform and access to land in the African context\u003c/em\u003e. In T. A. Benjaminsen \u0026amp; C. Lund (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eSecuring Land Rights in Africa\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 31\u0026ndash;50). Frank Cass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMannetti, L. M., G\u0026ouml;ttert, T., Zeller, U., \u0026amp; Esler, K. J. (2019). Identifying and categorizing stakeholders for protected area expansion around a national park in Namibia. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, A., et al. (2022). \u003cem\u003e30 by 30: Navigating Conservation\u0026rsquo;s New Terrain\u003c/em\u003e. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 123\u0026ndash;128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMbaiwa, J. E. (2018). Human‒wildlife conflicts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: What are sustainable management options? \u003cem\u003ePULA: Botswana Journal of African Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 22-35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorgera, E. (2018). Dawn of a New Day: The Evolving Relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and International Human Rights Law. \u003cem\u003eWake Forest L. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e, 691.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorgera, E., \u0026amp; Tsioumani, E. (2010). Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: Looking afresh at the Convention on Biological Diversity. \u003cem\u003eYearbook of International environmental law\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMpofu, E., Radinger-Peer, V., Musakwa, W., Penker, M., \u0026amp; Gugerell, K. (2023). Discourses on landscape governance and transfrontier conservation areas: Converging, diverging and evolving discourses with geographic contextual nuances. \u003cem\u003eBiodiversity and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(14), 4597-4626.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMwakiwa, E. (2022). The socioeconomic impacts of wildlife crop-raiding: An assessment of the efficacy of conservation and agricultural land uses reconciliation. In \u003cem\u003eProtected Areas and Tourism in Southern Africa\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 100-113). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNaidoo, R., Weaver, L. C., Stuart‐Hill, G., \u0026amp; Tagg, J. (2016). Effect of biodiversity conservation on rural livelihoods in Namibia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, 190, 60\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNassani, A. A., Yousaf, Z., Radulescu, M., \u0026amp; Haffar, M. (2022). Environmental performance through environmental resources conservation efforts: does corporate social responsibility authenticity act as mediator?. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 2330.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNchanji, E. B., Chagomoka, T., Bellwood-Howard, I., Drescher, A., Schareika, N., \u0026amp; Schlesinger, J. (2023). Land tenure, food security, gender and urbanization in Northern Ghana. \u003cem\u003eLand use policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e132\u003c/em\u003e, 106834.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNdimbo, G. K., \u0026amp; Haulle, E. (2025). \u0026lsquo;Please don\u0026rsquo;t kill us; this is our ancestral land, we are not foreigners\u0026rsquo;: Green grabbing,(in) voluntary resettlement and Maasai ethnic minority\u0026rsquo;s land rights in Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eWorld Development Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e, 100688.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNdonye, H. N., Mulwa, A., \u0026amp; Kyalo, D. N. (2021). Stakeholder engagement and performance of community based conservation projects: a case of Laikipia Conservation Region Conservancies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economics and Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(4), 41-50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNgonidzashe Mutanga, C., Vengesayi, S., Gandiwa, E., \u0026amp; Muboko, N. (2015). Community perceptions of wildlife conservation and tourism: A case study of communities adjacent to four protected areas in Zimbabwe. \u003cem\u003eTropical Conservation Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 564-582.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNilsson, D., Fielding, K., \u0026amp; Dean, A. J. (2020). Achieving conservation impact by shifting focus from human attitudes to behaviors. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 93-102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNtumva, M. E. (2022). Farmer-pastoralist conflicts management approaches in Sub-Saharan Africa: Insights into their strengths and pitfalls. \u003cem\u003eJournal of African Studies and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 12-26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePetriello, M. A., Redmore, L., S\u0026egrave;ne, A. L., Katju, D., Barraclough, L., Boyd, S., ... \u0026amp; Yalamala, R. S. (2025). The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(1), e14249.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRampheri, M. B., \u0026amp; Dube, T. (2021). Local community involvement in nature conservation under the auspices of Community‐Based Natural Resource Management: A state of the art review. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(4), 799-808.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRedpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M. \u0026amp; Southerland, W. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts, \u003cem\u003eTrends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 28 (2),\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichards, N., \u0026amp; Gutierrez-Arellano, C. (2022). Effects of community-based water management decisions at catchment scale, an interdisciplinary approach: the case of the Great Ruaha River Catchment, Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eWater Practice \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 598-611.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodriguez, N. D. (2021). \u003cem\u003eConsequences of conservation-induced displacement: A case study with Batwa participants in Southwest Uganda\u003c/em\u003e (Master\u0026apos;s thesis, University of Colorado Colorado Springs).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, G., Ballesteros, H. M., Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Cabrera, H., Vilela, R., Pennino, M. G., \u0026amp; Bellido, J. M. (2021). On the role of perception: Understanding stakeholders\u0026rsquo; collaboration in natural resources management through the evolutionary theory of innovation. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(6), 3564.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoe, D. (2008). The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes. \u003cem\u003eOryx\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(4), 491-503.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoe, D., Nelson, F., \u0026amp; Sandbrook, C. (Eds.). (2009). \u003cem\u003eCommunity Management of Natural Resources in Africa: Impacts, Experiences and Future Directions\u003c/em\u003e. IIED.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSafari, S. N., \u0026amp; Wambua, P. P. (2024). Water scarcity role on violent conflicts amongst pastoralist communities in Tiaty Sub-County, Baringo County Kenya. \u003cem\u003eReviewed Journal of Social Science \u0026amp; Humanities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 137-163.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSamoura, D. A., Simmy, P. L., \u0026amp; Diabat\u0026eacute;, S. (2024). Agroecological Zones\u0026apos; Resilience to Climate-Induced Changes: Perspectives from Upper Guinea Savanna\u0026apos;s Drought-Prone Areas. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeleka, M. L. (2022). \u003cem\u003ePeople, nature and resources: Managing land-use conflicts in Ngamiland, Botswana\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShackleton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E., \u0026amp; Edmunds, D. (2010). \u003cem\u003eDevolution and Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Creating Space for Local People to Participate and Benefit?\u003c/em\u003e ODI Natural Resource Perspectives, 76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaheen, N., Shaheen, A., Ramadan, A., Hefnawy, M. T., Ramadan, A., Ibrahim, I. A. \u0026amp; Flouty, O. (2023). Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in research metrics and analytics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 1268045.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShilongo, S. M., Sam, M., \u0026amp; Simuela, A. (2018). Using incentives as mitigation measure for human wildlife conflict management in Namibia. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Scientific and Research Publications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(11), 677-682.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinthumule, N. I. (2021). An analysis of communities\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards wetlands and implications for sustainability. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Ecology and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, e01604\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSirima, A., \u0026amp; Backman, K. F. (2013). Communities\u0026apos; displacement from national park and tourism development in the Usangu Plains, Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Issues in Tourism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(7-8), 719-735.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpenceley, A., Meyer, D., \u0026amp; Mitchell, J. (2021). \u003cem\u003eTourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less economically developed countries\u003c/em\u003e. Channel View Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStoldt, M., G\u0026ouml;ttert, T., Mann, C., \u0026amp; Zeller, U. (2020). Transfrontier conservation areas and human‒wildlife conflict: The case of the Namibian component of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA. \u003cem\u003eScientific reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7964\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStone, M. T., \u0026amp; Stone, L. S. (2022). Impacts of tourism on nature conservation and community development in protected areas. In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Tourism Impacts\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 245-261). Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStone, M., Lenao, M., \u0026amp; Moswete, N. (2020). \u003cem\u003eNatural resources, tourism and community livelihoods in southern Africa\u003c/em\u003e. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun, Q., Fu, C., Bai, Y., Oduor, A. M., \u0026amp; Cheng, B. (2023). Livelihood diversification and residents\u0026rsquo; welfare: evidence from Maasai Mara National Reserve. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(5), 3859.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwemmer, L. K., Mmethi, A., \u0026amp; Twine, W. (2017). \u003cem\u003eEvaluating the outcomes of conservation‐related compensation payments for human‐wildlife conflict mitigation in South Africa\u003c/em\u003e. African Journal of Wildlife Research, 47(1), 14\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTefera, G. G., Tessema, T. H., Bekere, T. A., \u0026amp; Gutema, T. M. (2024). Human-common hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius)-conflict in the Dhidhessa Wildlife Sanctuary and its surrounding, Southwestern Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003ePlos one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(5), e0303647.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnep-Wcmc, I. U. C. N. (2020). Protected planet: the world database on protected areas (WDPA). \u003cem\u003eCambridge, UK2019\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Der Hoeven, S. (2021). Guns and Conservation: Protecting Wildlife and Ensuring \u0026ldquo;Peace and Security\u0026rdquo; in Northern Kenya. \u003cem\u003eMambo!\u003c/em\u003e, https-mambo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVoyer, M., Gladstone, W., \u0026amp; Goodall, H. (2015). Obtaining a social licence for MPAs\u0026ndash;influences on social acceptability. \u003cem\u003eMarine Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e, 260-266.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWasonga, V. O., Kambewa, D., \u0026amp; Bekalo, I. (2010). Community-based natural resource management. \u003cem\u003eManaging Natural Resources for Development in Africa: A Resource Book\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e165\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeldemichel, T. G. (2020). Othering pastoralists, state violence, and the remaking of boundaries in Tanzania\u0026rsquo;s militarized wildlife conservation sector. \u003cem\u003eAntipode\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1496-1518.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeldemichel, T. G. (2022). Making land grabbable: Stealthy dispossessions by conservation in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Planning E: Nature and Space\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 2052-2072.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWestern, D., Russell, S., \u0026amp; Cuthill, I. (2020). \u003cem\u003eThe status of wildlife in Kenya\u0026rsquo;s protected and non-protected areas: Evidence from aerial surveys\u003c/em\u003e. PLoS ONE, 15(2), e0227756\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWitter, R. (2021). Why militarized conservation may be counterproductive: illegal wildlife hunting as defiance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Political Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 175-192.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Tianyuan, et al. \u0026quot;Coupled impact of climate change and human activities on farmland loss on the Tibetan Plateau.\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e 154 (2025): 107558.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"human-ecology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Ecology](http://link.springer.com/journal/10745)","snPcode":"10745","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10745/3","title":"Human Ecology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Conservation conflicts, protected areas, community displacement, participatory governance, land tenure, sub-Saharan Africa","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038055/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038055/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe global commitment to expand protected areas (PAs) to cover 30% of Earth\u0026rsquo;s land and oceans by 2030 has sparked significant debate. Such expansions often displace local communities, particularly smallholder farmers and pastoralists in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), leading to lost livelihoods, food insecurity, and social conflicts. This systematic review, conducted via Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Dimensions, analyses 26 peer-reviewed studies from 2010\u0026ndash;2024, guided by the PRISMA framework, to explore why conservation conflict resolution mechanisms in SSA are often ineffective. The findings reveal that while community-based conservation initiatives show promise in improving livelihoods, they frequently impose restrictions that exacerbate food insecurity and economic instability. The intensity of these impacts varies across SSA countries due to historical land tenure disputes, resource scarcity, non-participatory governance, and inadequate compensation for wildlife-related damage. The study concludes that effective conservation requires participatory governance, equitable benefit sharing, and the integration of local socioeconomic and cultural needs to balance ecological sustainability with social justice.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Breaking Down Barriers to Conservation Conflict Resolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-11 13:59:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038055/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-16T12:20:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-16T10:22:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"320172474586810349260795600572269411737","date":"2026-01-27T19:15:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-05T11:21:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"97841902862376422923306279591319100747","date":"2025-07-11T12:37:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-09T12:22:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-07T12:21:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-07T12:20:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Human Ecology","date":"2025-07-03T11:58:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"human-ecology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Ecology](http://link.springer.com/journal/10745)","snPcode":"10745","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10745/3","title":"Human Ecology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1a2fe12e-763a-43cb-80f3-67597abfdb97","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-16T12:26:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-11 13:59:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7038055","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7038055","identity":"rs-7038055","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}