An assessment of local community engagement in wildlife conservation: A case study of the Save Valley Conservancy, South Eastern Zimbabwe

In southern Africa, human and wildlife interactions have significantly increased over the past decade, resulting in complex conservation conflicts. As humans and wildlife share space, stakeholder engagement becomes a critical component of wildlife management and transformative conservation. We analysed the conservation conflicts in the Save Valley Conservancy (SVC) in south‐eastern Zimbabwe. Data were collected between April and May 2020 through focus group discussions and interviews with purposively sampled informants. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were adopted in this study. The results revealed that the absence of an effective, inclusive, integrated multi‐cross‐sectional stakeholder engagement plan is a primary contributing factor to conservation conflicts in the SVC. In conclusion, our study found that community participation in land use decision‐making is limited within the SVC, and this is a general lack of consensus among the community members on viable land use options. This study proposes an integrated, cross‐sectional stakeholder working framework that not only informs conservation practitioners but also fully addresses the prevailing conservation conflict scenarios. These conflicts emanate from the exclusion of humans from protected areas and the encroachment of wildlife in human settlements.


Plain Language Summary
Local community engagement is key in conservation, as it provides a vital connection between communities and their environment.Such engagement promotes sustainable conservation, improves community participation and positively shapes local perception towards the stewardship of natural resources within their surroundings.The study identified a stakeholder engagement matrix that involves all key players in SVC, underscoring every stakeholder's significance and their impact on development in the study area.It suggests that local community engagement in the SVC needs to be enhanced.Furthermore, it advocates for all interested players to be equally involved and participate in all conservation initiatives and development programmes taking place in the SVC.
As the global population continues to grow, there has been increasing pressure to repurpose land for human settlement and agriculture, while at the same time addressing food deficits within local communities.This process has had profound implications for wildlife conservation and local communities, particularly in the Save Valley Conservancy (SVC) in south-eastern Zimbabwe.It has resulted in a decreased space for game, declining wildlife populations and the contentious sharing of limited space between humans and wildlife (Stoldt et al., 2020).In the year 2000, Zimbabwe embarked on a Fast Track Land Reform (FTLR) redistribution programme, an exercise aimed at addressing and rectifying historical land imbalances stemming from colonial practices.This endeavour sought to ensure that most of the landless people were resettled in gazetted farms (Moyo, 2011;Muzvidziwa, 2019).
One of the key aspects of the FTLR programme was an emphasis on direct redistribution, equity, and land for crops, with little attention paid to wildlife management (Rukuni et al., 2006).During the 2000 land reform exercise, parts of the SVC were converted into agricultural land, impacting negatively on wildlife conservation.The attempt to incorporate inherently extensive wildlife management into resettlement schemes runs directly counter to the rhetoric and technical biases of land reform programmes in Zimbabwe (Wolmer et al., 2004).According to Lindsey et al. (2012), 'this intentionally or unintentionally resulted in the 2000 land reforms significantly transforming all the affected areas such as the SVC and in certain circumstances converted wildlife areas into agricultural land'.The formation and evolution of the SVC and other conservancies depended largely on several catalytic and enabling factors, as well as collaborative efforts among various stakeholders (Matseketsa et al., 2019).SVC was formed as a result of a number of circumstances, notably an epic drought (1991)(1992) that brought an end to cattle ranching and agricultural endeavours in the area.Consequently, it was recognized that wildlife management was the only viable enterprise in the area (Mashapa et al., 2021;Moyo, 2011).
Failure to embark on a transformative and integrated conservation approach which prioritizes a multi-stakeholder approach to biodiversity conservation and community engagement will continue to undermine socio-ecological development in the SVC.Wildlife is facing extinction, local communities are entangled in conservation conflicts, agricultural areas lack clear demarcation, human settlements are without defined boundaries, wildlife habitats are not properly designated and privately owned properties, along with their operators, have been left exposed.Local communities in this area mainly rely on dry subsistence farming.Without meaningful engagement between all stakeholders, these communities risk being trapped in a relentless cycle of poverty, with conservation conflicts continuing to escalate as a result (Lindsey et al., 2012;Matseketsa et al., 2019).
The ownership and operational structure of the SVC are now markedly diverse.In its northern part, which was not affected by the land reform, most properties are supported by Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (Kreuter et al., 2010).In the southern region of the SVC, land reform brought significant changes.Large settlements in the western and eastern areas have led to wildlife areas being transformed into crop and livestock spaces (Scoones et al., 2012;Wels, 2000).The other remaining wildlife pockets in the SVC are now under the custodianship of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.However, given the lack of irrigation and semi-arid climate, local communities are now struggling to make a living from agriculture and livestock production.Communities situated in and around wildlife areas remain particularly susceptible to food insecurity and diseases.This, therefore, calls for a transformative stakeholder engagement approach to conservation-one that alleviates the challenges faced by humans and wildlife coexisting in the SVC.
Wildlife conservation efforts need to reduce the decline of species and habitats; key among them is a critical shift from operating under a framework focused predominantly on a narrow set of wildlife interests to a social-ecological paradigm and concomitant approach.This would embrace the interests and participation of local communities and all stakeholders, with an emphasis on restoring, transforming and enhancing biodiversity in the SVC.Existing literature on the SVC has predominantly focused on human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs), wildlife management and adaptation strategies, with scant attention given to local community engagement in wildlife conservation.Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (i) document stakeholder engagement platforms in the SVC, (ii) Practitioner points

| Transformative conservation
This study was anchored on the transformative conservation framework.Transformative conservation, by definition, is a substantial, profound and fundamental change, which requires a paradigm shift in how communities relate to and manage their environment (Massarella et al., 2022).The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services defined transformative change as a fundamental, society-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors and structures, including paradigms, goals and values (Díaz et al., 2019;Kok et al., 2022).
As argued by Mashapa et al. (2021), 'the Transformative Conservation Framework envisages a multistakeholder approach to enhance wildlife conservation in the SVC'.The multi-stakeholder approach in a transformative conservation strategy maintains focus on environmental justice declarations and aims primarily to enable and sustain constructive stakeholder interaction at the local level (Basson et al., 2018;Hovardas, 2021).Many conservation initiatives call for 'transformative change' to counter biodiversity loss, climate change, and injustice (Büscher et al., 2022).In a broad context, the pursuit of biodiversity restoration through transformative conservation and governance is key.Such efforts must be integrative, seeking synergy and minimizing incoherence not only across various sectors, institutions and policy instruments but also aligning with overarching societal goals, including justice and sustainability (Pickering et al., 2022).Biodiversity governance needs to acknowledge socio-ecological complexity, expose existing conditions of injustice, embrace opportunities and achieve equity to overcome challenges in conservation efforts (Bennett and Roth, 2019).
The transformative conservation approach brings fundamental, broad, durable and positive changes to human relationships with nature (Hiller & Fisher, 2023).This framework underscores the fundamental reorganization required within global conservation initiatives to avert ecological catastrophe.Today's conservation community is moving towards more integrative and collaborative approaches to conservation (Fougères et al., 2020).These novel approaches re-evaluate the relationships between nature, society, individuals and risks, considering nature's contributions to people, equity and justice, and sustainable development goals.They are premised on the profound transformation of societal structures, altering relationships between humans as a prerequisite for necessary changes in the human-nature nexus (Martin et al., 2020).Transformative conservation restructures systems to create large geographic, ecological, socioeconomic and demographic scales, and ultimately conserves biodiversity while securing the sustainable and regenerative use of natural resources (Fougères et al., 2020).
For effective implementation of a transformative conservation approach, support from conservation practitioners and stakeholders is crucial.Local community engagement is critical for mobilization and collective action, encompassing those who live and work within conservation areas (Malmer et al., 2020).Engaging local stakeholders is a central feature of many biodiversity conservation and natural resource management projects globally (Fougères et al., 2020;Sterling et al., 2017).This framework is very important, as it acknowledges the diversity of human values and relationships with nature, and defines how nature contributes both directly and indirectly to the livelihoods of local communities (Lundquist et al., 2021).Contemporary wildlife conservation necessitates a shift in both perceptions of and approaches to conflict, coupled with enhanced capacities, to achieve long-lasting success.
An effective, transformative conservation process devotes attention to the dialogue and relationship-building needed to foster dignity, respect and trust among stakeholders.It also supports more effective decision-making and commitment to tangible solutions (Ruano-Chamorro et al., 2022).Therefore, the transformative conservation approach can be understood as a long-term process that requires both individual agency and collective community action to meet food production demands and protect biodiversity (Armitage et al., 2020).Additionally, this approach should be regarded as a strengthening pillar of the socioecological systems, facilitating communities' adaption to global change (Bennett & Roth, 2019;Colloff et al., 2017;Mupepele et al., 2021).Thus, the overall objective of engaging all the stakeholders in the SVC through this transformative approach is to improve the livelihoods of rural communities through sustainable and climate-resilient management of natural resources, which aligns closely with the aims of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Bleischwitz et al., 2018).

| The transformative stakeholder engagement approach
Transformative biodiversity governance must be inclusive, strategic and purposeful, with the aim of focusing on actors that want to influence the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss (Kok et al., 2022).Inclusivity in multi-stakeholder engagement, and sustained and systemic knowledge exchange between stakeholders are critical.All these elements support the codesign and coproduction of integrated, sustainable policies and management plans that reconcile the objectives of multiple landscape actors (Favretto et al., 2021).The underlying hope is that this approach will lead to the achievement of biodiversity goals: resource preservation, coexistence and livelihood improvement, bringing wider benefits to the local communities in the SVC (Durant et al., 2022).Transitioning towards sustainability requires interventions at the system level that address the root causes of unsustainability in existing frameworks.Consequently, it is suggested that a wide range of aspects are addressed.These include institutions, structures, economic and financial systems, policy and regulatory systems and power relations, as well as world views, beliefs, mindsets, lifestyles and values (Luederitz et al., 2017).
Transformation can be guided, for instance, by addressing problem-solving in multi-stakeholder settings and by providing experimental spaces.The learning outcomes gained from experimental activities can then be incorporated into standard practices (Pólvora et al., 2020).Involving multiple stakeholders is essential; however, the decision of who to involve and to what extent is challenging yet acknowledged as of paramount importance.A distinction must be made between involvement and influence: involving stakeholders does not necessarily mean allowing them to influence decision-making (Barletti et al., 2020;Brenner, 2019).Thus, stakeholders can be invited to participate with the understanding that there will be differing levels of expectation regarding their engagement and involvement.The value of involving a wide range of stakeholders, particularly those from diverse backgrounds, is commonly acknowledged when addressing issues of sustainability (Maczka et al., 2021).It is, therefore, important to ensure community involvement and foster collaboration between different actors (Fernandes et al., 2019).Once decisions are made on who to involve and to what extent, one needs a set of appropriate tools for stakeholder involvement: interviews, feedback sessions and dialogue (Islam et al., 2020).In their study, Ndonye et al. (2021) used the same framework in assessing stakeholder engagement and performance of community-based conservation projects in Laikipia Conservation Region Conservancies in Kenya.They observed that conservation projects do not exist in isolation; rather, they operate within a local context populated by communities who hold vested interests in the outcomes of such projects.

| Stakeholder engagement parameters
Environmental problems are typically complex, fraught with uncertainty and span multiple scales, affecting multiple actors and agencies (Baigún & Minotti, 2021).This demands transparent decisionmaking that is adaptable to changing circumstances and embraces a diversity of knowledge systems and values.To achieve this, stakeholder participation is increasingly being sought and incorporated into environmental decision-making processes, from local to international scales (Reed et al., 2018).Stakeholder engagement is usually 'understood as practices the organization undertakes to involve stakeholders in a positive manner in organizational activities' (Boiral & Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017).Stakeholder engagement is traditionally seen as corporate responsibility in action; the more an organization engages with its stakeholders, the more it becomes responsible (Blok, 2019;Reed et al., 2018).Stakeholder engagement in environmental management is a process where stakeholders, that is, those directly or indirectly affected by and able to affect a decision, take active roles in research, planning and actions impacting their lives (Plummer et al., 2017).
Stakeholder engagement describes a range of practices where organizations take a structured approach to consulting with potential stakeholders (Reed et al., 2019).The dimension of inclusive governance suggests focusing on 'empowering and emancipating those whose interests are currently not being met and who represent values that constitute transformative change toward sustainability' (Bidwell & Schweizer, 2021).Engagement is initiated and led by stakeholders and/or publics, communicating with decision-making bodies, often via grassroots networks and social media, to persuade them to make their decision-making processes more transparent and open to participation (Reed et al., 2018).This development towards stronger involvement of nonstate and subnational actors is subject to debate and has at least two dimensions.Empowering stakeholders to join experts in decision-making enables learning, builds relationships, strengthens capacities and fosters the coordination required to address complex environmental problems (Eaton et al., 2021).It requires working with nonstate actors who possess the power and ability to take ownership and provide leadership in biodiversity efforts.Additionally, it involves addressing vested interests that may resist transformative change (Bull et al., 2020).Those leading the process may consult with publics and stakeholders to better understand and represent their views, thereby demonstrating commitment and support.Such engagement can augment their capacity to influence decision-makers or overturn decisions (Reed et al., 2018).
The opposite of stakeholder engagement is the traditional top-down approach, and this is increasingly being replaced by an inclusive multi-stakeholder approach (Conallin et al., 2017).The top-down process is led by governments and their official representatives, supported by scientifically trained specialists, with those affected by the conflict often relegated to the role of data gatherers and passive recipients of information and instructions (Sterling et al., 2017;Van Meerkerk, 2019).Engagement, as initiated in a topdown manner, is led by an organization with decisionmaking power, consulting publics and stakeholders (but retaining control over the final decisions), or simply communicating decisions to them (Reed et al., 2018).Rather than resolve conflict, these topdown approaches have often inflamed conflicts in protected areas, whereas the stakeholder engagement approach mediates controversial conservation issues and has the capacity to avoid, cope with or resolve conservation conflicts (Schoon et al., 2021).A successful stakeholder engagement process requires that the actors possess a cultural affinity, recognize each other's legitimacy, dedicate time to building trust and are willing to accept incremental gains (López-Rodríguez et al., 2020).Issues of power and trust are potential pitfalls that tend to affect a transformative stakeholder engagement approach to conservation challenges.These issues can be addressed if all parties or actors are treated equally, with equal opportunities and participation in the broader multi-stakeholder engagement process (Barletti et al., 2020).

| Study area
This study was conducted in Ward 24 of Chiredzi district, which covers the greater part of the SVC (20°2 2′ S and 31°56′ E) in southeast Zimbabwe (see Lindsey et al., 2009;Matseketsa et al., 2019) for a detailed description of the SVC).The SVC is located in natural agroecological region IV, which is one of the driest regions in Zimbabwe.It occurs at an elevation of 480-620 m, with deciduous woodland savanna, low and variable rainfall (474-540 mm per annum) and poor-quality soils (Lindsey et al., 2009).The SVC is the largest model of amalgamated privately owned ranches devoted to wildlife production in Africa (du Toit & O'Connor, 2017).The original SVC comprised 24 properties with a total area of over 3500 km 2 (Lindsey et al., 2012).These properties are also part of the SVC, which falls into two districts: Bikita in the north (1631 km 2 ) and Chiredzi to the south (1894 km 2 ).The SVC also forms the northern part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (Makumbe et al., 2022).
The SVC is bordered primarily by high-density communal lands (of between 11 and 82 people per km 2 ), with some commercial agriculture to the south and east (Lindsey et al., 2012).The SVC's commercial land is surrounded by communal land, where some 119,000 communal farmers (try to) make a living (Wels, 2000).Under the FTLR Programme, people were settled in some parts of the ward that were previously designated for wildlife conservation.Local communities in the SVC make a living from farming sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), cotton (Gossypium herbaceum) and by rearing livestock.Sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum) and citrus have been successfully cultivated on irrigated land and are key economic drivers in the region (Lindsey et al., 2012;Matseketsa et al., 2019).Low rainfall restricts the land uses to irrigated crop production, commercial cattle and game ranching on extensive privately owned ranches, safari hunting on state land and communal lands, and dry land subsistence farming in the overcrowded communal lands (Mashapa et al., 2021).

| Study design
In this study, a mixed methods approach was adopted, allowing researchers to design a single research study that answers questions about the complex nature of a phenomenon from the perspective of participants and to analyse the relationship between measurable variables (Williams, 2007).Accordingly, the qualitative approach helped in explaining the phenomena, while the quantitative approach was important in examining collected statistical data.Participation in stakeholder analysis is often presented as beneficial and posited as a fairer way to represent a diverse array of views and opinions outside the narrow confines of interest and expertise (Bell et al., 2012).In the study area, a stakeholder analysis was carried out, wherein all actors were put into a matrix which indicated their roles, interests, and levels of influence, thereby justifying their presence in the area (Reed et al., 2009).In this context, a stakeholder participant is defined as an individual, group or organization that may affect, be affected by or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity or outcome of a project, programme or portfolio (Pandi-Perumal et al., 2015).These individuals are brought together to interact and relate to execute the project with the aim of achieving set standards and sharing a common interest in the project's success.This interaction and involvement are, therefore, referred to as 'participation' in this study (Eaton et al., 2021).Table 1 shows a typical stakeholder analysis in the case of the SVC.There are many stakeholders in the study area, including ZimParks, safari operators, individuals, groups, private corporations, trusts and nongovernmental organizations, among others.

| Sample size and data collection
A survey was carried out in Ward 24 of Chiredzi district, and data were collected in April and May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.The researchers followed the COVID-19 restrictions and guidelines, which limited and controlled gatherings during that time.Focus group discussions were held with the seven-member committee (farm chairpersons), 84 randomly selected community members and traditional leaders.Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 key informants (Table 2), who were purposively selected based on their knowledge, background and positions held in | 231 society.These included the Ward Councillor, the government extension staff in relevant departments and village heads.The main focus group discussion was held at the ward centre on the peripheries of the conservancy under Chief Gudo.Participants were randomly selected by picking cards from a hat.The ward centre was chosen because of its convenience to all the participants.Key informants were selected based on their knowledge, background and positions held in society.These included the Ward Councillor, the government extension staff in relevant departments and village heads.All the participants in this study were informed that they were free to withdraw from the research at any time without incurring any prejudice or risks.In lieu of written consent, verbal authorization to carry out and interact with the community in this research study was granted by Chief Gudo, under whose jurisdiction the study area falls.Participants were also assured that their contributions would be strictly used for academic purposes and would remain confidential, with the guarantee that no information would be divulged to anyone outside the research context (Ferreira & Serpa, 2018).Data collected focused on an assessment of the stakeholder engagement platforms available in the SVC, the nature and causes of HWC and the perceptions of community members towards the SVC.To understand the nature and causes of HWC in the SVC, focus group discussions were held in each area (Masapasi, Levanga, Mkwasine Ranch, Chegwite and Senuko).These parameters helped in understanding the transformative conservation in the SVC.Permission to conduct the survey was sought from the Chiredzi Rural District Council and village heads.Secondary data used in this study were collected from the Livestock Production Department in Chiredzi district, which gave us all the data on HWC.This secondary data assisted in tracing the deaths and injuries caused by HWC from 2014 to 2018.This helped to establish the nature and causes of HWC in the SVC and also assess community members' perceptions regarding wildlife conservation and other land uses in the SVC.

| Data analysis
The thematic content analysis method was used to analyse qualitative data in this survey.For thematic content analysis, a six-step process was adopted.The steps were familiarization, coding, generating themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and writing up (Caulfield, 2019).( 1) Familiarization involves data transcription, immersion and taking notes on initial ideas.(2) Coding involves generating initial codes from the data, which identify features of both the semantic and latent content that appear interesting.(3) The process of generating themes requires the collation of codes into preliminary themes.(4) Reviewing themes requires a two-level validation: first, checking themes are consistent with codes and data extracts (Level 1) and, second, assessing their coherence across the entire data set (Level 2).( 5) Defining and naming themes involves refining the specifics of each theme and defining the overall narrative of the analysis.( 6) Writing up the presentation of the found theme is the final step, which is followed by finetuning the overall story to complete the analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006;Humble & Mozelius, 2022).Furthermore, data were analysed through themes that were specifically created to be relevant to the subject under study, such as HWC, stakeholder engagement platforms and community land-use perceptions.The approach is flexible, facilitating the generation of new insights and concepts derived from data patterns.Additionally, a cross-tabulation method was used to analyse the association and frequency of variables.Samal and Dash (2022) used a similar approach when they sought to understand the convergence and divergence of ecotourism, biodiversity, conservation and livelihoods in Peru.

| Stakeholder engagement platforms in the SVC
The results showed limited platforms for community members to participate in stakeholder engagement activities in the SVC.The majority of participants (98% [n = 89]), as shown in Table 3, stated that they had never participated in consultative meetings; only 2% (n = 2) said they had participated in such meetings.Annual planning meetings, Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) meetings and community share ownership meetings were the available stakeholder platforms in the SVC.However, 98% (n = 89) of the participants had no knowledge of these platforms and only 2% (n = 2) were in the know.One hundred percent (n = 91) were unaware of CAMP-FIRE meetings and neither did they (100% [n = 91]) have any knowledge about the existence of community share ownership in the SVC.One of the respondents had this to say: (Respondent 1): We have never been invited to, consulted on or participated in any planning meetings, even at ward level, to talk about the community share ownership.
We are not even aware if those meetings are being conducted.
The results (Table 4) showed that elephants (Loxodonta africana) constituted the most frequently reported problem animals, with 385 reports received from the period 2014-2018.During the same period, a total of 316 reports on lions (Panthera leo) were received.Within these incidents, a total of 15 lions were killed, two people were injured and one person was killed.As another common problem species, a total of 261 reports on buffalo (Syncerus caffer) were recorded within the same period, 2014-2018.Overall, 1201 reports were received, 13 people were killed and 19 were injured.One hundred and eighty-seven cattle were killed, whereas 224 goats and 38 donkeys were killed by wildlife in the SVC within the same period.One operator who was interviewed had this to say: (Interviewee 1): A lasting solution needs to be sought as a matter of urgency so as to curb poaching and encroachment by communities into private properties if we are serious about promoting tourism, improving the livelihoods of local people and conserving our biodiversity.The situation needs intervention as people are settling themselves, closing the corridor, and some communities have settled on traditional wildlife tracks to water sources.

| HWC in the SVC
It was evident that HWC in the SVC were pervasive, and this is caused by a number of factors.Communities in the SVC have no alternative income-generating sources besides exploiting resources within their surroundings.There has been a noted increase in the illegal harvest of mopane trees (Figure 1) to extract charcoal.Domestic animals have been competing for grazing land in the SVC, leading to increased reports of communities losing their livestock to wildlife and human fatalities linked to these conflicts.The increased population in the SVC has seen communities expanding their settlements into areas designated as protected private properties, necessitating the clearance of large tracts of land for settlement (Figure 1).This deforestation has reduced space and natural habitats for wildlife in the SVC.One local farmer interviewed had this to say: (Interviewee 2): I lost 5 of my cattle in one night to lions after they broke into my kraal, and I don't think there are any plans from the park authorities to compensate me.That was my only source of income since we have not received any meaningful rains in this part of the district for the past 3 years.

| Community members' perceptions of the SVC
The majority of community members and traditional leaders, 74% (n = 67) had a negative perception of wildlife conservancy; only 14% (n = 13) had a positive perception and 12% (n = 11) were neutral.Those who had negative perceptions of wildlife conservation said that they were opposed to the idea, because they felt it was a waste of land.They further identified some of the wild animals as threats, both to personal safety and agricultural production, exacerbated by the lack of secure boundaries.
The majority of community members, that is, 48% (n = 53), preferred the land to be used for crop production, whereas 21% (n = 24) pointed out that they preferred a mixed-use approach and 6% (n = 7) favoured ranching.None of the community | 233 members reported that they wanted the land to be used for wildlife conservancy.The views of traditional leaders on land use were closely aligned with those of community members.The majority of traditional leaders, 57% (n = 4), would like the land to be used for crop production, whereas 4% (n = 2) said that they preferred mixed land use and 1% (n = 1) preferred ranching.Of the key informants, 10% (n = 11) advocated that the land should be used for wildlife conservancy.A minority of 4% (n = 4) opted for ranching and another 4% (n = 4) supported a mixed land use approach, whereas only 1% (n = 1) suggested that it should be used for crop production.During the focus group discussions, one community member had this to say: (Respondent 2): We regard wildlife conservancy as a waste of land.We are proposing that that the land be divided amongst ourselves for settlement and cultivation as we are  not benefiting from wildlife; our crops are destroyed by elephants-year in and year out, thus why we are having poor yields.

| DISCUSSION
This study established that community participation in wildlife conservation projects in the SVC is very limited.The two traditional leaders, who reported their participation in the consultative meetings, explained it was a singular occurrence and that there was no proper structure to coordinate meetings.Stakeholder engagement in the SVC can only be realized if community members are provided with opportunities to discuss issues with wildlife conservancy operators.Engagement fosters a mutual understanding and is instrumental in addressing a plethora of challenges present in the study area.The participation of a diverse group of people in a systemic process of collecting, discussing, and analysing scenarios builds shared understanding (Lawrence et al., 2022).Stakeholder engagement is not only key; it is the critical missing ingredient in addressing conservation conflicts, which have been so rampant in the SVC.Achieving biodiversity conservation within the SVC may prove difficult if there are still pockets where communities and wildlife cannot coexist in harmony.Human settlements in the park threaten conservation efforts, and mixed views on the proposed game fence have been observed.Some protected areas remain settled or have recently been partially settled by people with prior claims on the area (Muboko & Bradshaw, 2018).The study also determined that there was no effective communication strategy between stakeholders in the study area.The infrequent consultative and planning meetings have registered poor attendance, thus affecting community participation, which could help in resolving conservation conflicts in the SVC.It is essential to ensure that communities and other stakeholders are made aware of every programme and planning meeting.The attendance and contribution of every stakeholder are vital for achieving a shared view and common understanding of the main issues affecting development in the SVC.The lack of an effective communication strategy in the SVC has also affected decision-making processes, as communities are unaware of reporting and governing structures.There is a need to facilitate a working framework delineating the organizational hierarchy and reporting procedure in the SVC.The current organizational structure in the SVC, as revealed by this study, is marked by a level of ambiguity that obscures the division of labour and leadership roles in biodiversity protection and social development.
This study recorded that HWCs are prevalent in the SVC, a phenomenon mainly attributed to the coexistence and consequent competition between wildlife and human populations for the scarce resources available.Conflicts between humans and wildlife have occurred since the dawn of humanity.Most HWCs stem from differences in land use practices between various stakeholder groups, especially where the wildlife in question is a resource that can be exploited for economic or cultural benefit, or where the conservation of wildlife is at odds with human population growth or development pressure.In Africa, these conflicts have become more frequent and severe over recent decades as a result of human population growth, extension of transport routes and expansion of agricultural and industrial activities, which together have led to increased human encroachment on previously wild and uninhabited areas (Mekonen, 2020).Large areas of woodland, once habitats for wildlife, have been cleared for subsistence farming within the SVC.Frequently, wildlife poses a direct threat to the lives of people irking out an existence in or close to their natural habitats.Consequently, wildlife is perceived to have little value outside the protected areas, and it tends to dwindle or disappear either through active persecution, loss of habitat or competition with livestock.HWCs occur around the edges of protected areas where there are frequent human and wild animal interactions.This is exemplified by the SVC, where reports of human-wildlife confrontations are increasing (Matseketsa et al., 2019).
The removal of portions of the perimeter fence by the settler farmers has greatly increased HWC in neighbouring communal lands.In the SVC, the conflict is evidenced by fatal encounters between humans and wildlife, crop damage and livestock depredation.In response to crop damage, several elephant bulls are culled in problem-animal control operations every year, significantly reducing potential revenues from trophy hunting.Settler farmers living in the conservancy have abandoned traditional (conflict-reducing) husbandry techniques employed effectively elsewhere.As the lion population increases, complaints of livestock losses appear to be increasing in frequency, resulting in the risk of predators being poisoned by affected farmers (Lindsey et al., 2012;Mashapa et al., 2021).
Expansion for agricultural purposes and the growth in human population are key contributing factors to HWC in the SVC (Matseketsa et al., 2019).HWCs are one of the biggest obstacles to community-based natural resource management in Zimbabwe.The 1999 land reform, which resulted in the resettlement of indigenous local people on former White-owned commercial farms, as well as game safari land and sections of protected areas, has intensified these conflicts.Crop damage caused by wildlife can inflict substantial financial losses for farmers and, at the same time, create negative attitudes towards wildlife and conservation efforts.Such sentiments may result in negative interactions with wildlife, culminating in increased HWCs (Gross et al., 2018).
Emphasizing and building shared understandings of fundamental assumptions regarding wildlife conservation could enhance the participatory process, improve ecological understanding and aid conservation success (Heisel et al., 2021).In the SVC, only a small fraction of the population realize the benefits derived from wildlife conservation, a situation that has strained relationships in the community.The nature of this perceived poor relationship is attributed to a host of factors, key among them being the absence of wildlife-related benefits and the escalation of wildlife-induced costs, which are crucial in determining local community support for conservation (Matseketsa et al., 2019).Identifying solutions for the successful coexistence of humans and wildlife requires an understanding of both environmental and social dimensions (König et al., 2020(König et al., , 2021)).Being semiarid, the SVC has no viable crop cultivation activity that can be carried out without irrigation.This leaves cattle ranching and wildlife conservation as the most favourable alternatives, underscoring the need to consider and engage community support for these options (Matseketsa et al., 2019).
This study revealed the need to educate all stakeholders on the importance of wildlife conservation, particularly emphasizing its positive contributions to the country's Gross Domestic Product.It also highlighted how communities could directly and indirectly benefit from such conservation initiatives.Local people's knowledge about natural resource conservation is influenced by education and awareness programmes, as well as the services and benefits they receive from conservation-related projects.Wildlife conservation efforts have done little to address poverty within communities, and this is contributing to the negative perceptions people have towards such initiatives.Members of the interviewed communities raised a number of issues, including restricted access to natural resources, no employment opportunities within the park and stray elephants raiding their crops.Reports provide evidence of the local communities' animosity towards parks, with many people dismissing the poverty alleviation benefits as an illusion.This feeling is exacerbated given the huge social capital loss resulting from involuntary relocation and the spike in HWCs.
Our findings corroborate those of Mbereko et al. (2017), who also made similar observations that some institutions involved in the management of the protected areas are failing to promote the participation of the local community in decisionmaking processes.This has often led to communities holding opposing views from other stakeholders on wildlife conservation in the SVC.Our study showed that communities in the SVC continue to have negative perceptions towards wildlife, steadfastly maintaining that coexistence with wildlife is unachievable.
Communities situated adjacent to protected areas often bear a disproportionate share of the costs of conservation, but they may also derive benefits from the proximity to these protected zones (Matseketsa et al., 2018).The extent to which local communities benefit or incur costs as a result of residing next to protected areas is of interest to conservationists and policy-makers.Local communities need to be involved from the planning phase of community-based tourism projects, which are meant to benefit them socio-economically, while also empowering them to participate actively in the conservation of local environmental assets (Hlengwa & Maruta, 2020).All players in the SVC need to find common ground and an engagement platform where each and every stakeholder, big or small, is regarded as key and is allowed to be heard, given equal opportunities to participate in and contribute to the development of communities, and promote wildlife conservation.
The study found that communities in the SVC perceive a lack of benefits from local wildlife.Hence, there is a need to start regular engagements and consultative meetings with these communities.Furthermore, initiating and implementing programmes and projects that are sensitive to the specific challenges faced by communities in the area is recommended.Failure to link conservation and development in the SVC may not be without consequences.The long-term future of the core protected areas within the SVC is likely to be compromised or threatened unless those living on the park's edges are consulted, involved and invited to participate fully in the planning and implementation processes of wildlife and biodiversity conservation.
In light of the severe loss of biodiversity, soaring reports of HWC, failure to co-exist, no consensus on conservation, unimproved livelihoods and insufficient efforts to promote conservation in the SVC, this study advocates for a more integrated and inclusive approach to address the challenges in SVC.Inclusivity fosters the meaningful participation of new or previously unacknowledged and/or underrepresented human and nonhuman voices.Inclusivity values diverse contributions that drive change and advocates for shared leadership to ensure sustained and equitable outcomes.Narrative approaches can complement objective scientific perceptions of biodiversity with insights entangled with human emotion, significance and cultural context.(Sterling et al., 2017;Wyborn et al., 2020).The findings in this study foster coexistence between local communities and wildlife while strengthening existing socioecological mechanisms, pathways and traditional ecological knowledge systems integral to natural resource management.

| CONCLUSION
The study concludes that there is little involvement of community members as key stakeholders in issues of conservation in the SVC, given the limited platforms for participation.HWC is still pervasive and community members have negative perceptions towards wildlife conservation.Views are not shared and there are no links between the community members and the wildlife conservation projects in the SVC.Although some platforms do exist, this study established that the majority of community members are not aware and/or are not invited to such platforms to enable them to participate.Given this, the SVC's activities are viewed negatively by community members and regarded as a waste of land that could be used for farming activities.This study highlights the paramount importance of active participation by community members in wildlife conservation initiatives.Such involvement is essential for communities to fully embrace and support all plans and implementation processes towards sustainability in the SVC.Without substantial participation by community members, wildlife conservation initiatives are likely to fail.One of the major challenges in the SVC, as illustrated in this study, is HWCs, which are mainly caused by a lack of shared understanding and vision.There is a necessity for enhanced engagement of community members regarding wildlife conservation.This can be realized by having regular consultative planning and review meetings with key stakeholders, recognizing and respecting each other's roles, interests and contributions.Further, there is a need for community engagement regarding the issue of boundaries in the SVC.Future studies must focus on other factors to improve community participation and alter local communities' negative perceptions of the SVC.

F
I G U R E 1 (a) A disturbed cattle owner standing beside his cow, which had fallen victim to lions in the Save Valley Conservancy (SVC).(b) An arrested poacher in the SVC.(c) Charcoal bags in a truck ready for sale after being extracted from mopane trees in the SVC.(d) Land being cleared for farming and settlement in the SVC.(e) Burning mopane trees to extract charcoal in the SVC.Photo credit: Authors (this study).
Stakeholder engagement matrix for the SVC.
TA B L E 1 TA B L E 2 Sample size and data collection methods.
TA B L E 3 Engagement platforms in the SVC and responses by participants.
TA B L E 4 Deaths and injuries caused by wildlife.Source: Chiredzi District Livestock Production Department, 2022, Human and Wildlife Conflict Data-Chiredzi Rural Development Council -Environment Department, 2022. Note: