Abstract
Human–Wildlife Conflict (HWC) remains a critical environmental and socio-economic challenge, undermining conservation objectives and rural livelihoods, particularly in communities situated adjacent to protected areas. In Namibia, recurrent livestock predation has contributed to the decline of large predator populations, as affected farmers often resort to retaliatory killings. This study investigates how farmers’ attitudes toward wildlife managers shape patterns of HWC within the Sheya shUushona Conservancy. Drawing on a qualitative research design, the study employed in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and secondary data sources to capture the nuanced social dynamics influencing conflict management. The main participants in the study were farmers. HWC event books at the conservancy office were used to purposively identify and select farmers who had reported HWC incidents in the preceding five years at the time of data collection. Participants were selected from different HWC hotspot areas across the conservancy. A total of 65 participants took part in the study. Thematic data analysis was used to analyse the collected data. Findings reveal that the relationship between farmers and wildlife managers is characterized by significant distrust driven by key factors including slow response times by wildlife managers to conflict incidents, dissatisfaction with the offset-payment compensation scheme, a perceived lack of tangible benefits from wildlife, the deteriorating condition of boundaries with the national park, and the expansion of human settlements into conservation areas. These localized institutional and social drivers exacerbate tensions and undermine collaborative conservation efforts. The study underscores the importance of localized context and trust in governance approaches to effectively mitigate HWC at the nexus of communities and protected areas.
1 Introduction
Human–Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is one of the threats facing wildlife conservation and community livelihoods worldwide (Feldmeier et al., 2024; Nicholson et al., 2023; Teixeira et al., 2021). HWC occurs when the behaviors and needs of wildlife species overlap with the needs of humans, leading to negative direct and indirect impacts (Salerno et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2020). Various social-ecological and cultural factors shape HWC. For instance, disputes between groups with different interests in wildlife management can influence HWC intensity (Bhatia et al., 2020; Pooley et al., 2016). Farming communities may prioritize protecting their livelihoods and livestock from wildlife damage, whereas wildlife authorities focus on conserving wildlife populations (Bhatia et al., 2020; Treves and Santiago-Ávila, 2020). Although community involvement in wildlife management is a key component of community-based conservation programs, conventional HWC mitigation approaches often overlook the communities’ socio–cultural characteristics (Cockerill and Hagerman, 2020; Göttert and Starik, 2022). Furthermore, key decisions about wildlife conservation tend to exclude communities affected by HWC. This can negatively affect the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures (Carter et al., 2025).
HWC impacts vary across communities and geographical contexts (Braczkowski et al., 2023; Göttert and Starik, 2022). For instance, in Europe, North America, and Australia, common forms of conflict include wildlife–vehicle collisions, property damage, and attacks on people or pets (Delisle et al., 2024; Göttert and Starik, 2022). In the United States, white-tailed deer are a major source of HWC, with deer–vehicle collisions in Indiana associated with substantial economic losses, 3,270 human injuries, and 43 fatalities between 2003 and 2022 (Curtis, 2020; Delisle et al., 2024).
In Africa, rural communities often experience the highest costs of crop raiding, livestock predation, and human attacks by large predators like lions (Panthera leo) and crocodiles (Crocodylidae), as well as other large mammals, such as hippopotamus (Hippopotmus amphibius) and elephants (Loxodonta africana) (Gayo, 2025; Chomba et al., 2012). HWC is most prevalent in communities living near protected areas (Baral et al., 2021; Nicholson et al., 2023). In Namibia, frequent HWC incidents occur in conservancies (MET, 2018). A conservancy is an established community-based natural resources management institution in customary land tenure that gives local communities conditional use rights over wildlife (Mosimane et al., 2014; Nakanyala et al., 2022). Between 2020 and 2022, crocodiles contributed to 770 HWC incidents in conservancies along river systems in the Zambezi, Kunene, Kavango East, and Kavango West regions (NACSO, 2023). On the other hand, elephants accounted for 174 HWC incidents in Uukwaluudhi Conservancy during the same period. Hyenas (Hyaenidae) and lions (Panthera leo) each were associated with a total of 2,778 and 695 incidents in different parts of the country between 2020 and 2022, respectively (NACSO, 2023). These HWC patterns demonstrate the species-specific and geographically varied nature of the conflict. It is against this background that sustainable HWC mitigation requires context-specific solutions that consider local social-ecological factors influencing HWC.
HWC contributes to the decline of large predator populations worldwide (Mwampeta et al., 2021; Nicholson et al., 2023). For example, Bauer et al. (2022) reported that lions are categorized as vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List globally, largely due to HWC. In addition, retaliatory killings around the Waza and Queen Elizabeth National Parks in Cameroon and Uganda, respectively, contributed significantly to the decline in lion populations over the past three decades (Braczkowski et al., 2020; Tumenta et al., 2013). Hence, it is important for researchers and wildlife authorities to find long-term HWC mitigation strategies to reduce the impacts of HWC on large predator populations in the world.
HWC management in Namibia is largely integrated into the CBNRM program, which was adopted in the 1990s to promote wildlife conservation, community participation in natural resource management programs, and local benefits from sustainable resource use (Gargallo, 2020; Lendelvo et al., 2024). The CBNRM program grants communities in communal areas conditional rights over wildlife and tourism (Klataske, 2017; Lindsey et al., 2013). Conservancies cover over 166,000 km2 of Namibia’s total land (see Figure 1). In communal land, conservancies are established through agreements between the government and local communities. Communities accept wildlife conservation and tourism as new land uses in their areas (Long and Jones, 2004; MET, 2018). Likewise, the government commits to providing communities with wildlife conservation services, including mitigating HWC by responding to HWC incidents and wildlife removal to prevent livestock loss (Lendelvo et al., 2024). In this study, the term wildlife managers refers to government officials from the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Tourism (MEFT), a government department responsible for wildlife conservation in Namibia.
Map of communal conservancies in Namibia. Source: https://nacso.org.na/maps/.
Since its inception, the CBNRM program has achieved notable successes across Namibia, including the recovery and growth of wildlife populations. For example, the total elephant population increased from approximately 7,600 in 1995 to 23,600 in 2016 (Lendelvo et al., 2024; NACSO, 2023). The CBNRM program has also contributed to improved local livelihoods through income generation and employment opportunities in conservancy offices, wildlife management, and tourism-related enterprises (NACSO, 2023). However, despite the successes, HWC remains a serious challenge in the CBNRM program.
In order to reduce the effects of HWC, the Namibian government introduced the Human–Wildlife Conflict Self-Reliance Scheme (HWCSRS), which partially offsets wildlife–related losses incurred by farmers (Table 1). The Game Product Trust Fund (GPTF), a public fund within MEFT that reinvests revenue from wildlife products in wildlife conservation and rural development in Namibia, provides funds to conservancies for HWCSRS (MET, 2018). Wildlife managers play an important role in the administration of the HWCSRS scheme, including participating in review committees that evaluate offset payment applications. Farmers must meet specific eligibility requirements and comply with established procedures to qualify for offset payments under the scheme. For example, payments may be denied when livestock losses are attributed to negligence in protecting livestock. Furthermore, farmers must report HWC incidents within 24 h of occurrence. Wildlife managers are responsible for investigating HWC incidents and documenting their findings. When wildlife managers are unavailable, conservancy game guards, who are locally recruited to monitor wildlife within conservancies, may also undertake these tasks. Farmers must also provide proof of ownership of the livestock lost and submit supporting documentation, including identification documents, bank confirmation letters, cattle ear tags, a declaration from veterinary authorities, and a police declaration statement (MET, 2018).
LivestockOld offset payment value in N$Old offset payment value in US$Current offset payment value in N$Current offset payment value in US$Cattle3,000.00200.008,000.00533.00Goat500.0033.00800.0053.00Sheep700.0046.00800.0053.00Donkey500.0033.001,000.0066.00Horse800.0053.001,500.00100.00Pig700.0046.001,000.0066.00
Offset payment values for different livestock species killed in HWCs in Namibia (MEFT, 2024).
The exchange rate of 1US$ to 15.00 N$ was used to convert the currencies.
Farming communities surrounding Etosha National Park experience HWC incidents (Mendelsohn et al., 2022; Lendelvo et al., 2024). Previous studies, including Gargallo (2021), Luetkemeier et al. (2023), and Hauptfleisch et al. (2024), have identified several factors contributing to HWC in these communities, including limited benefits from wildlife, inadequate compensation, competing land uses, and community attitudes toward wildlife. However, these studies have paid little attention to how these factors shape community attitudes toward wildlife managers and their tolerance of wildlife species involved in HWC. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess how farmers’ attitudes toward wildlife managers influenced HWC caused by lions and hyenas in Sheya shUushona Conservancy, Namibia.
The study was guided by a conceptual framework by Dickman (2010). It suggests that various social and ecological factors may influence HWC. The social factors include people’s values and beliefs about wildlife species, degree of vulnerability and wealth, inequality and power, as well as distrust and animosity in the relationships between communities and wildlife managers. In addition, the ecological factors include the physical environmental characteristics of an area, human behavior for asset protection and management, land use, and management methods, as well as behavior and management of conflict–causing wildlife species Dickman, (2010). Specifically, the paper focuses on distrust and animosity as social factors influencing HWC. (Dickman 2010) argues that relationships between communities and wildlife managers can intensify HWC. Such relationships are often characterized by distrust between the parties. Communities living near protected areas may have negative attitudes toward wildlife managers when wildlife causes damage, particularly when wildlife is perceived as protected by wildlife managers. The rationale for selecting distrust and animosity as factors to investigate in this study was informed by emerging literature suggesting that disputes between groups with divergent interests and unequal power relations in wildlife management are often framed as HWC. Consequently, HWC mitigation strategies should address human attitudes and behaviors alongside ecological interventions (Bhatia et al., 2020; Pooley et al., 2016).
The study contributes to the academic discourse on HWC, particularly within the context of CBNRM in Namibia. Strategically, it generates evidence that can inform MEFT and other relevant stakeholders in developing effective HWC mitigation strategies and policy frameworks aimed at reducing HWC impacts. The evidence generated by this study can also support government agencies, conservancies, and NGOs in promoting coexistence between large predators and farming communities. Such coexistence is critical for the long-term conservation of predator populations within the study area and other communal conservancies in Namibia. Moreover, reducing livestock predation can help protect household livelihoods, strengthen food security, and contribute to poverty reduction among affected communities.
2 Materials and methods2.1 Study area
This study was conducted in the Sheya shUushona Conservancy (see Figure 2). The conservancy is located in the Omusati region in North-Central Namibia and covers an area of approximately 5 066 km2 of communal land, made up of village settlements and wildlife core areas. The conservancy borders the northern side of the Etosha National Park and was registered in September 2005 (NACSO, 2023).
A map of the Sheya shUushona Conservancy and surrounding areas. Source: Jona Heita.
The rationale for selecting Sheya shUushona Conservancy as a study area is based on several considerations. It borders Etosha National Park, and it is among the conservancies characterized by a high incidence of HWC in the country. For example, about 503 livestock were killed in HWC between 2018 and 2022 (NACSO, 2023). The CBNRM framework promotes collaboration between communities and MEFT in HWC mitigation (MET, 2018). This makes Sheya shUushona Conservancy a relevant institutional context for assessing how the farmers’ attitudes toward wildlife managers influence HWC.
Sheya shUushona Conservancy has a population of approximately 35, 360 people who belong to the Aawambo ethnic group (NACSO, 2023). People in the conservancy depend on subsistence livestock and crop farming. Livestock, especially cattle, is culturally considered a sign of wealth and a source of meat and milk, and provides income for household needs (Mbenzi, 2021; Namibia Statistics Agency, 2011). Some inhabitants depend on income from small businesses as well as government social grant schemes (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2011). In addition, the climate in the conservancy is characterized by a semi-arid climate with average annual rainfall ranging from 400 to 450 mm, and varies seasonally. The annual rainfall season runs from early December to April, while the dry season occurs from May to November (Mendelsohn et al., 2022). The vegetation structure consists of thick forests of shrubby savanna dominated by Mopane trees (Colophospermum mopane). Some Acacia trees (Acacia) also grow in the area (Mendelsohn et al., 2022).
The Sheya shUushona Conservancy is home to different wildlife species, including hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), steenbok (Raphicerus campestris), and springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis). Furthermore, hyena, lion, and jackal (Lupulella mesomelas) are also found in the conservancy (NACSO, 2015). Despite the potential tourist attractions, the conservancy generates relatively low income from tourism activities compared to other conservancies in the country. For instance, in 2023, Sheya shUushona Conservancy generated a total income of about N$ 838 946.00 (US$ 52,410.00), while Kasika and Anabeb conservancies recorded total income of over N$3.4 million (US$ 212,403.00) each in the same period (MEFT, 2024).
2.2 Research design
The study employed a qualitative research design to explore participants’ lived experiences, perspectives, behaviors, emotions, and views regarding HWC (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Denzin et al., 2024; Veal, 2017). This approach was appropriate because HWC is shaped not only by wildlife-related damage but also by complex social, cultural, and economic factors (Dickman, 2010). A qualitative design therefore enabled an in-depth exploration of farmers’ experiences and perspectives and provided a deeper understanding of the factors influencing HWC in the conservancy. It was particularly suitable for examining a complex phenomenon that requires contextual understanding beyond existing empirical evidence (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Rahman, 2017).
2.3 Study sample
This study employed both primary and secondary data sources. Primary data were collected from 65 participants, comprising 40 farmers, 20 cattle herders, three wildlife managers, one official from Sheya shUushona Conservancy, and one representative of a local NGO, the Namibia Development Trust (NDT). The primary target population consisted of farmers from several villages identified as HWC hotspots within the conservancy. HWC event books at the conservancy office were used to purposively identify and select 40 farmers who had reported HWC incidents during the five years preceding data collection. The cattle herders, wildlife managers, conservancy, and NDT representatives were also purposively selected based on their roles and knowledge of wildlife management in the study area.
Secondary data were obtained from multiple sources, including HWC event books from the Sheya shUushona Conservancy office, relevant government documents, and HWC records obtained from the Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO). These secondary sources provided contextual information on HWC patterns and incidents and were used to complement the primary data collected during the study.
2.4 Research instruments
The study employed in-depth interviews and focus group discussions to collect qualitative data from participants. The triangulation of methods enabled the study to obtain diverse perspectives and strengthen the credibility of the findings (Moon, 2019; Rose and Johnson, 2020). For instance, in-depth interviews allowed probing of participants’ responses on HWC experiences in greater depth. The in-depth interviews also enabled participants to propose solutions to HWC in the area. Participants in the in-depth interviews included farmers, cattle herders, wildlife managers, and representatives of Sheya shUushona Conservancy and NDT. On the other hand, focus group discussions allowed participants to share views, generating insights that may not have emerged through individual interviews alone (Moon, 2019; Rose and Johnson, 2020). The method also enabled participants to seek clarification and articulate the motivations underlying their views on HWC. The interaction among participants therefore provided additional information for understanding HWC in the area. Participation in the focus group discussions was restricted to farmers.
Both the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were guided by interview guides that consisted of predetermined open-ended questions. Using open-ended questions provided flexibility to probe emerging issues while maintaining consistency across interviews and focus group discussions. The interview guides were developed based on key themes related to interactions between farmers and wildlife managers, experiences of HWC, and wildlife management practices. The research instruments were developed and reviewed in consultation with academically qualified specialists in the field of HWC to enhance credibility and ensure that the questions were relevant to the study objective.
2.5 Data collection
The data used in this study were collected in Sheya shUushona Conservancy between March 2020 and July 2024. The fieldwork was conducted through the following procedures. Before commencing the data collection process, the researcher contacted relevant gatekeepers, defined as individuals or institutions responsible for granting access and permission to conduct research in the study area, in accordance with the recommendations of Moser and Korstjens (2018) and Alase (2017). The gatekeepers contacted in this study included the MEFT regional office in Ongwediva, Sheya shUushona Conservancy office, Okahao regional councilor, and traditional leaders. The pilot process to test the interview guide was conducted on a small number of farmers during the first two days of the fieldwork, as advised by Queirós et al. (2017) and Newing et al. (2011).
The data collection process was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved in-depth interviews with farmers, cattle herders, wildlife managers, and officials from Sheya shUushona Conservancy and NDT. The second phase involved focus group discussions with farmers. This approach enabled the researcher to explore issues that emerged during the individual in-depth interviews and further examine them through group discussions with farmers. At the beginning of each in-depth interview, the researcher introduced the study topic and clearly explained its purpose to participants. This was intended to minimize potential emotional responses and avoid creating unrealistic expectations, particularly among farmers regarding possible outcomes from participating in the study (Queirós et al., 2017 and Newing et al., 2011). The researcher also collected demographic information from farmers and documented their personal experiences of HWC to provide contextual information for interpreting their responses.
In-depth interviews with farmers were conducted at their homes in Oshiwambo language, while the interview with the conservancy official was conducted in Oshiwambo at the conservancy office. Interviews with wildlife managers and the NDT official were conducted in English at their respective offices. Each in-depth interview lasted between 30 and 90 min. The two focus group discussions were conducted in Amarika and Amega villages, which were identified as HWC hotspots within the conservancy. Participants were purposively recruited from farmers who had previously participated in the in-depth interviews. The focus group discussions were conducted in Oshiwambo and moderated by the researcher, who also recorded key points emerging from the discussions. The discussions were guided by themes derived from the interview guides used during the in-depth interviews, allowing for further exploration and clarification of issues raised during the individual interviews. At the beginning of each focus group discussion, participants introduced themselves, after which the researcher explained the topic, purpose of the study, and rationale for their participation. The focus group discussions conducted at Amarika lasted 1 h and 25 min, whereas the session at Amega lasted 1 h and 9 min.
2.6 Data analysis
Thematic analysis was used to analyze data generated from the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Thematic analysis enables researchers to examine and interpret qualitative data by identifying patterns and themes that provide deeper insights into the phenomenon under investigation (Moser and Korstjens, 2018).
Audio recordings from the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Interviews conducted in Oshiwambo were translated into English during transcription. Consistent with the recommendations of Moser and Korstjens (2018), the first two in-depth interviews were transcribed during fieldwork. This process enabled the researcher to identify potential weaknesses in the interview guides and make appropriate adjustments to subsequent interviews.
Data analysis followed an inductive approach, whereby themes were derived from the data (Azungah, 2018; Creswell and Poth, 2018). The transcripts were broken down into smaller units of meaning and coded using Atlas.ti 25. Codes were grouped into broader categories and themes based on their similarities and relevance to the study objective. This process facilitated the identification of factors shaping the relationship between wildlife managers and farmers in the conservancy. Each household represented by an individual farmer was treated as the unit of analysis.
Qualitative researchers must maintain methodological rigor and quality throughout all stages of the research process (Abdalla et al., 2018; Carminati, 2018; Rose and Johnson, 2020). To enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings, this study employed several quality assurance measures. First, the findings were grounded in extensive fieldwork conducted by the researcher, including visits to selected sites where HWC incidents had occurred within the conservancy. Direct engagement with these sites provided contextual insights that complemented participants’ accounts. Second, methodological triangulation was employed by using both in-depth interviews and focus group discussions to collect and compare data from participants. Finally, preliminary findings were presented to community members to validate the research findings and determine whether the researcher’s interpretations of the data accurately reflected the participants’ own experiences of HWC in the conservancy, without changing participants’ responses or collecting additional data.
3 Results
The key findings of the study were that the relationship between wildlife managers and farmers was characterized by distrust and negative attitudes caused by the following factors, namely: wildlife managers’ untimely response to HWCs, absence of wildlife-related benefits, dilapidated state of the Etosha National Park fence, and human settlement expansions into conservation area.
3.1 Wildlife managers’ untimely response to HWCs
The study revealed that farmers perceived the response of wildlife managers to reported HWC incidents and the removal of dangerous predators as inconsistent and untimely. This delay contributed to the loss of trust in wildlife managers among the farmers when faced with dangerous situations. For example, a farmer explained the delay of multiple days in response to HWC:
“After reporting lions in the area, wildlife managers would come after some days. But even if they come, they will ask you unnecessary questions about where the reported predators might be located. This would be days after the lions were reported to them. How would we know their current locations now?” (F2).
The farmers were willing to report HWCs and call for assistance from wildlife managers as required by the national policy on HWC management. However, the lack of resources, such as cars and fuel, was a serious challenge for the wildlife managers to respond to HWCs in the conservancy. For example, a farmer shared:
“We tried to call them in the past few days. We also tried to get information on any possible way we could use to see them, but we did not see them. We even called their office, but we were told to wait. They told us that they did not have fuel in their cars” (F17).
The farmers alleged that the wildlife managers did not respond to HWC incidents with the same urgency as they responded to poaching incidents. In the latter cases, responses were reported to be timely, and resources such as helicopters were deployed. One farmer stated:
“The only time we see wildlife managers is when there is an incident of rhino poaching. Wildlife managers’ reaction is very slow but if there is a poaching incident, they come in 4 or even 5 cars, which we don’t understand where these cars eventually come from….” (F6).
A wildlife manager echoed the challenge posed by insufficient resources in responding to HWC incidents due to budget constraints:
“I think it is straight forward that budget, vehicles, fuel, those types of things. The availability of that……” (SWM).
The perceived mismatch in resource allocation by wildlife managers led the farmers to believe that wildlife managers did not want to deploy resources to HWC incidents because wildlife managers prioritized wildlife conservation over their livestock. These unfavorable experiences made farmers lose trust in wildlife managers valuing losses in the conservancies in the same manner as losses of wildlife.
The farmers were asked to explain how the untimely response by wildlife managers to HWC incidents influenced their actions against predators involved in livestock predation. The distrust caused by wildlife managers’ delay in responding to the HWC motivated the farmers to retaliate against the predators to protect their livestock. A farmer explained:
“Personally, if I find a hyena or lion killing my livestock, I will attack it. At least we make efforts to report these predators to wildlife managers, but they never show up” (F16).
When the farmers take action against the predators, it also creates a mutual distrust of the wildlife managers toward the community. In order to reduce HWC and the issues of untimely responses, some farmers suggested that the government should deploy wildlife management teams to form stations at different HWC hotspots in the conservancy:
“The government that deals with wildlife managers should do something. What I really want is a camp in this area, one here and one on the way to Okakewa. So, when they hear the sounds during the night or during the day, they will be where the lions pass and when they see them, they will decide whether to kill them or not” (F1).
The suggestion to establish sub-stations indicates that the farmers want the increased presence of wildlife managers to proactively reduce HWC in the area and potentially improve the relationship between the parties. In support, the wildlife managers asserted that if their office had enough resources, they would consider establishing sub-stations, as it would reduce HWC incidents in the area.
3.2 Farmers’ negative attitudes toward the offset payment scheme
The farmers appreciated the HWCSRS scheme. However, they were disappointed with the amount of money offered, which contributed to negative attitudes among the farmers toward wildlife managers. For instance, the farmers criticized the offset payments as minimal compared to the market value of livestock. Hence, they could not use it to replace their livestock killed by predators. A farmer explained:
“The problem is that it is expensive to buy livestock now. The compensation that we get from the government for a cow is the same market value as for a goat. One goat in Kaokoland costs about N$ 2,800.00. If we are receiving N$3,000.00 for a cow, I think it is not right. It is a big loss. The government is really pulling us down” (F10).
Although the farmers expressed negative attitudes toward the offset payment scheme, the wildlife managers argued that it is important to consider the sustainability of the scheme. A wildlife manager explained how the government may not be able to afford to run the scheme in the future:
“I think one must look at the sustainability, you know. Where is the money coming from? That money paid to the farmers directly comes from the GPTF. The GPTF gets only so much money in a year. There are no other sources of money that can be used for this purpose. We do get project support through the Community Conservation Fund of Namibia (CCFN) and KfW [German Development Bank]. They have given some money toward the Self Reliance Scheme, but I can tell you that now as we stand now, most of the money has come through the GPTF” (SWM).
The study established that the offset payments offered to the farmers for livestock loss in HWC incidents contributed to farmers’ negative attitudes toward wildlife managers and influenced their actions to take retaliatory actions against such predators. A farmer shared:
“I will definitely shoot it (hyena). If a cow is killed, the little money that you will get is not enough to buy another cow. Therefore, I suggest that they should compensate up to 80% of the value of the animal. This should be done based on the market value of the animal. Alternatively, they should start replacing a cow that has been killed by predators with another cow” (F6).
The farmers suggested that the government should introduce livestock replacement as an alternative form of compensation instead of financial compensation. A farmer who lost five cattle to lions stated:
“Yes, if they give me five calves, I will accept them. Even if they are too young, I will just accept them because I can see that they do not have money or what I don’t know… If they cannot afford a large amount of money for compensation, they should just offer calves. We will take them. Me, I am ready to raise them” (F1).
This finding highlights the significance of livestock to their livelihoods. Replacing livestock supports long–term herd recovery, compared to financial compensation, which is insufficient to purchase equivalent livestock. However, the senior wildlife manager disapproved of this suggestion by arguing that it was not sustainable to manage because of the huge number of livestock killed by predators throughout the country. He stated that:
“Oh, it is very difficult. Where are you going to get these things [livestock] from?” (SWM).
The government cannot afford to sustain a livestock replacement initiative to address HWCs in the country.
3.3 Absence of wildlife-related benefits
This study found that the farmers did not perceive tangible benefits from wildlife. Nevertheless, the farmers acknowledged that wildlife was important for tourism, which generates income for the government to construct schools, roads, and hospitals. However, this income did not benefit them directly. In a focus group discussion at Amega, one of the farmers stated:
“I think even if a hyena contributes to the country’s wealth, which is the government’s process to build schools. But to me, it doesn’t bring anything because it is killing our animals. The millions are just going to the government, while you don’t have anything. You wanted to make money from your cow, but it was killed” (F33).
The lack of direct benefits from wildlife contributed to farmers’ negative attitudes toward wildlife managers. A lack of perceived ownership also caused negative attitudes among participants. The farmers with high levels of education expressed positive attitudes toward wildlife conservation, arguing that it was important to conserve predators despite HWCs. For example, a farmer with a university degree explained:
“I really understand that wild animals are important in Namibia’s economy, community, and generations to come because if the wild animals aren’t there or foreigners from Europe for instance, coming to Namibia, we will get money from them as they are viewing wild animals and they pay to the government. I think they are important. We also have school learners who visit, for instance, Okashana [Etosha National Park] so that they know that this is a hyena and so forth, which is important. We use these things in the schools so that we know what animal it is, which is why they don’t need to be destroyed, but need the conservancy to educate the community and help us understand how we should coexist with wild animals” (F2).
The Sheya shUushona official confirmed that the conservancy did not generate more direct benefits from wildlife tourism for the local people due to several reasons. For instance, the construction of the Sheya shUushona Lodge did not materialize. It was abandoned (see Figure 3) due to local disputes in which some community members perceived the development as a way to take away their land:
“The situation was caused by some of the people in the community who blocked our programs. All our tourism development plans did not materialize…. We had good plans to do something about tourism development” (SUCO).
Abandoned swimming pool at Sheya shUushona Conservancy Lodge (Source: Jona Heita, photograph taken on 11.03.2020).
Furthermore, the study found that it was difficult for the conservancy to conduct trophy-hunting tourism to benefit people in the area successfully. An official explained:
“The problem is that when we have elephants in the area, there is no client. When the client is available, elephants might have moved away because they are not permanent residents here. They move around from Angola and come here seasonally” (SUCO).
The finding suggests that most high-value wildlife species, such as lions and elephants, are seasonal, and they use their corridors to pass through the conservancy. Likewise, most predators moved in and out of Etosha National Park through open spaces of broken fence by elephants and warthogs (Phacochoerus), as supported by Mfune et al. (2013) and Gargallo (2021).
3.4 The dilapidated state of the Etosha National Park fence and human settlement expansions into conservation areas
The study revealed that the farmers held strong perceptions that the wildlife managers failed to adequately maintain the fence of Etosha National Park (see Figure 4), which contributed to HWCs in the conservancy and mistrust between the parties. A farmer shared:
“They should repair the fence to the same level it was during the previous government before independence. We did not see any wildlife in the area then. But when our own new government took over, it came with this poor fence. Now, wild animals live among us. They have nowhere to go, there is no fence, and it is all open. They should fix their fence so that it becomes strong, and they collect their wildlife animals back to the park” (F9).
The section of the Etosha National Park fence broken by elephants (Source: Jona Heita, photograph taken on 22.10.2021).
This finding suggests a belief that strong fencing in the past effectively reduced HWC in the area. The current situation results from inadequate boundary management by wildlife managers, which allows wildlife to move freely in and out of the park. The finding further suggests that it was the government’s responsibility to repair the broken fence.
While the wildlife managers admitted that the Etosha National Park fence contributed to HWCs in the area, they cautioned that inappropriate land-use practices also increased exposure to wildlife. The increased human population also contributed to the conflict. The farmers need to change their attitudes about settling in proximity to the Etosha National Park. A wildlife manager stated:
“Things are not up to standard. But it does not help if you graze your cattle right against the Etosha fence or build your crop fields right against the Etosha fence and expect that you are not going to get reactions from wildlife. People graze their cattle sometimes in the park” (SWM).
The finding suggests that repairing the fence of the park would be effective in mitigating HWC, only if appropriate land use practices are enforced by preventing human settlement in areas adjacent to the park.
The study also found that human expansion toward wildlife areas contributed to distrust between the parties. According to the farmers, the wildlife managers blamed them for encroaching on areas meant for wildlife conservation. Blaming farmers for encroaching on wildlife areas created an impression that it is justified for wildlife to cause them damage, and that the farmers did not deserve assistance from wildlife managers. Therefore, they expressed negative attitudes toward wildlife managers. For example, a farmer stated:
“I do not think wildlife managers have a good relationship with the farmers or understand the farmers’ needs. Sometimes, they also tell us that we are the ones who went to wildlife areas” (F17).
This study found evidence that some of the farmers settled less than one kilometer from the Etosha National Park fence, while others erected fences against the fence of the park (see Figure 5).
A fence constructed against the Etosha National Park fence in Sheya shUushona Conservancy (Source: Jona Heita, photograph taken on 22.10.2021).
As shown in Table 2, the Sheya shUushona Conservancy falls under three regional constituencies (Okahao, Otamanzi, and Ruacana), which experienced population growth in recent years (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2011, 2023).
Regional constituencyPopulation in 2011Population in 2023Otamanzi constituency13,49516,399Okahao constituency18,73424,909Ruacana constituency14,85727,261
Population increases in three constituencies in Sheya shUushona Conservancy (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2011, 2023).
As a result, more people encroached on the wildlife areas on uninhabited land, seeking land for crop production and livestock grazing. It also increased the interactions between people, livestock, and predators, especially in areas near Etosha National Park.
4 Discussion
This study aimed to assess how the farmers’ attitudes toward wildlife managers influenced HWC in Sheya shUushona Conservancy. The findings indicate that distrust between farmers and wildlife managers was caused by wildlife managers’ untimely response to HWC incidents, farmers’ negative attitudes toward the offset payment scheme, lack of wildlife–related benefits, the dilapidated state of the Etosha National Park fence, and human settlement expansions into conservation areas in the conservancy.
This study revealed that due to inadequate resources, wildlife managers did not respond in time to HWC incidents, contributing to HWC and distrust in the relationship between communities and wildlife managers. Effective HWC mitigation depends on the availability of staff, equipment, and other logistical support, which the wildlife managers did not possess and therefore negatively affected the relationship between the parties. Previous HWC studies such as Luetkemeier et al. (2023), Viollaz et al. (2021), and Dunnink et al. (2020) noted that farmers’ negative attitudes toward wildlife managers were linked to the untimely response to HWC reports. However, these studies did not assess how untimely responses to HWC incidents influenced farmers’ potential actions toward predators responsible for livestock predation, including retaliatory responses, as identified in the present study. Similarities in the findings in the studies could be attributed to comparable farmers’ perceived expectations for urgent response from wildlife managers.
Allocating resources to rhino and elephant poaching incidents created the perception among the farmers that wildlife managers are resourceful, but do not want to use their resources when predators kill livestock. Rather, the perception is that wildlife managers only care about wildlife and not people’s livelihoods. Furthermore, the findings concur with arguments by Braczkowski et al. (2023) and Luetkemeier et al. (2023), who claim that charismatic high-profile wildlife species such as lions, rhinos, and elephants are highly valued and legally protected by wildlife managers. While high-value species need to be protected, this perception that wildlife is valued more than livelihoods by wildlife managers leads to community frustration and distrust, as noted in the studies by Noga et al. (2018) in Botswana and Broekhuis et al. (2020) in the Maasai Mara, Kenya, due to similar local dynamics such as farmers’ investment in livestock. This study not only identified misallocation of resources to mitigate HWC, but also assessed how this factor influenced farmers’ attitudes toward wildlife managers in the conservancy.
This study also found that farmers were dissatisfied with the offset payment scheme. The monetary compensation was not fair and was misaligned with livelihood needs, as it offered lower payments than the market value of livestock. The finding reflects the economic importance of cattle to the farmers. In addition, it suggests the HWCSRS scheme’s perceived failure to capture the socio-economic and cultural value of livestock. Cattle were a symbol of wealth and status in Aawambo society, outweighing the financial offset from livestock losses. This explains the reason why the farmers preferred livestock replacement as an alternative compensation strategy to maintain social status. Moreover, replacing animals restores wealth to conservancy members, which is traditionally measured in animal herds (i.e., through their production of milk, meat, and manure), not money. A study by Braczkowski et al. (2020) found similar findings about lower compensation rates offered to communities that highly depended on livestock as a subsistence livelihood strategy and an important asset to maintain households. It is important to note that financial compensation is not sustainable for mitigating HWC, as there is often corruption, and some communities might have higher socio–cultural values for livestock than the financial compensation offered for livestock loss (Gargallo, 2021).
Although the CBNRM approach emphasizes providing incentives to communities living alongside wildlife (Gargallo and Kalvelage, 2021; Lendelvo et al., 2024; Mbaiwa, 2018), this study found that farmers in Sheya shUushona Conservancy did not derive any direct benefits from wildlife-based tourism, despite bearing the direct costs associated with living alongside wildlife. This contributed to negative attitudes toward wildlife managers among farmers. This finding suggests that the farmers understand the economic importance of wildlife and its potential to improve their livelihoods, in particular through tourism and trophy hunting. It further reflects an unequal distribution of wildlife benefits and costs, whereby predators are perceived as government assets but enemies to livelihoods. Therefore, the level of tolerance of the conflict among farmers remained low.
While Namibia’s CBNRM approach is recognized as a successful global leader in community-wildlife conservation (Lendelvo et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2022), wildlife-related benefits may be unevenly distributed across conservancies and within communities. Some conservancies may not receive benefits from wildlife, making local people less tolerant of negative wildlife impacts. The studies by Nakanyala et al. (2022) and Kalvelage et al. (2023) noted findings consistent with this study in King Nehale Conservancy and the Zambezi region, respectively. Farmers in their studies experienced HWC without receiving direct benefits from wildlife. Most importantly, the findings highlight the need to move beyond viewing communities and CBNRM in conservancies as homogeneous, as different local socio-ecological factors related to HWC and community benefits from wildlife were noted in various studies (Nakanyala et al., 2022; Kalvelage et al., 2023; Gargallo, 2021). Therefore, these factors need to be understood and incorporated in the HWC mitigation planning.
Lastly, this study noted the perceived failure by wildlife managers to maintain the Etosha National Park fence, which contributed to HWCs in the conservancy and reduced trust in the relationship between the farmers and wildlife managers. Farmers perceived the fence as a protective measure intended to keep predators and other wildlife species within the protected park, thereby reducing livestock predation in the area. Findings from other studies conducted near protected areas, such as Koskey et al. (2021), Luetkemeier et al. (2023), and Makumbe et al. (2022), also reported that the communities expressed distrust toward wildlife managers because they perceived that poor fencing of protected areas contributed to HWC in their areas. In this study, the dilapidated condition of the park contributed to farmers’ negative attitudes toward wildlife managers within the context of HWC. This trend was similar in other studies that indicate tension surrounding the wildlife authorities’ role in maintaining the protected areas’ fences that were supposed to mitigate HWC. The communities in the studies expected wildlife managers to maintain the protected areas’ fences.
5 Conclusion
In conclusion, the findings of the study reveal that the relationship between farmers and wildlife managers in Sheya shUushona Conservancy is characterized by distrust and unequal expectations regarding wildlife management in the area. Farmers’ accounts of wildlife managers’ delayed responses to HWC incidents, coupled with the perceived prioritization of wildlife over their livestock concerns, suggest that wildlife authorities’ responsiveness plays an important role in shaping local attitudes toward wildlife managers. In addition, distrust was largely caused by farmers’ negative attitudes toward the offset payment scheme, lack of wildlife–related benefits, the dilapidated state of the Etosha National Park fence, and human settlement expansions into conservation areas in the conservancy. These factors influenced HWC farmers’ attitudes toward wildlife managers in the conservancy, as highlighted in other HWC studies. The study’s findings support the assumption by Dickman (2010) that disputes and distrust between communities and wildlife managers may influence HWC intensity.
The findings of this study have important implications for understanding HWC in Namibia and other conservation contexts elsewhere in the world. The findings demonstrate that a trusting relationship between farming communities and wildlife managers is crucial in addressing HWC. Therefore, this study recommends that MEFT and researchers should move beyond documenting conflict and focus on designing and testing solutions to improve the relationship between the parties. In addition, the offset payments for livestock losses and benefit–sharing largely contributed to distrust between farmers and wildlife managers. The study recommends further research to determine whether financial incentives are an effective mitigation for HWC in the country.
The data used in this study were mostly collected from the farmers who experienced HWC at various hotspots in the conservancy. The single case study approach and the sampling methods used limited its scope. Therefore, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to farmers who did not experience HWC within the conservancy, nor can they be assumed to represent farmers in other communal conservancies in Namibia. Furthermore, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to other global contexts experiencing HWC. Future research could expand the target population to include all the farmers to gain a broad perspective of HWC in the area. Finally, this study could assist in developing a conceptual framework that might promote coexistence between communities and wildlife, balancing wildlife conservation and community livelihoods in the CBNRM contexts in Namibia and beyond.
Statements Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by University of Namibia Research Ethics Committee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
JH: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. JT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
AbdallaM. M.OliveiraL. G. L.AzevedoC. E. F.GonzalezR. K. (2018). Quality in qualitative organizational research: types of triangulation as a methodological alternative. Adm.: Ens. e Pesq.19. doi: 10.13058/raep.2018.v19n1.578
AlaseA. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): a guide to a good qualitative research approach. Int. J. Educ. Lit. Stud.5, 9–19. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.9
AzungahT. (2018). Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qual. Res. J.18, 383–400 doi: 10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
BaralK.SharmaH. P.KunwarR.MorleyC.AryalA.RimalB.et al. (2021). Human wildlife conflict and impacts on livelihood: a study in community forestry system in mid-hills of Nepal. Sustainability13:13170. doi: 10.3390/su132313170
BauerH.DickmanA.ChapronG.Oriol–CotterrilA.NicholsonS.Sillero–ZubiriC.et al. (2022). Threat analysis for more effective lion conservation. Oryx56, 108–115. doi: 10.1017/S0030605320000253
BhatiaS.RedpathS. M.SuryawanshiK.MishraC. (2020). Beyond conflict: exploring the spectrum of human–wildlife interactions and their underlying mechanisms. Oryx54, 621–628. doi: 10.1017/S003060531800159X
BraczkowskiA.FattebertJ.SchenkR.O’BryanC.BiggsD.MaronM. (2020). Evidence for increasing human-wildlife conflict despite a financial compensation scheme on the edge of a Ugandan National Park. Conserv. Sci. Pract.2:e309. doi: 10.1111/csp2.309
BraczkowskiA. R.O’BryanC. J.LessmannC.RondininiC.CrysellA. P.GilbertS.et al. (2023). The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict. Commun. Biol.6:182. doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-04493-y
BroekhuisF.KaeloM.SakatD. K.ElliotN. B. (2020). Human–wildlife coexistence: attitudes and behavioural intentions towards predators in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Oryx54, 366–374. doi: 10.1017/S0030605318000091
CarminatiL. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: a tale of two traditions. Qual. Health Res.28, 2094–2101. doi: 10.1177/1049732318788379
CarterH.GomezC.RayS.LepardC.MutinhimaY.SibandaL.et al. (2025). Hopes and fears for incentivising coexistence with big cats through innovative market-based financial mechanisms. Wildl. Lett.3, 30–35. doi: 10.1002/wll2.70002
ChombaC.SenzotaR.ChabwelaH.MwitwaJ.NyirendaV. (2012). Patterns of human-wildlife conflicts in Zambia, causes, consequences and management responses. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ.4, 303–313. doi: 10.5897/JENE12.029
CockerillK. A.HagermanS. M. (2020). Historical insights for understanding the emergence of community–based conservation in Kenya: international agendas, colonial legacies, and contested worldviews. Ecol. Soc.25, 171. doi: 10.5751/ES-11409-250215
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th Edn. California: SAGE Publications.
CurtisP. D. (2020). After decades of suburban deer research and management in the eastern United States: where do we go from here?Human–Wildl. Interact. 14:16.
DelisleZ. J.ReelingC. J.CaudellJ. N.McCallenE. B.SwihartR. K. (2024). Targeted recreational hunting can reduce animal-vehicle collisions and generate substantial revenue for wildlife management agencies. Sci. Total Environ.935:173460. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173460
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.GiardinM. D.CanniellaG. S. (2024). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 6th Edn. California: SAGE Publications.
DickmanA. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv.13, 458–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x
DunninkJ. A.HartleyR.RutinaL.AlvesJ.FrancoA. M. (2020). A socio-ecological landscape analysis of human–wildlife conflict in northern Botswana. Oryx54, 661–669. doi: 10.1017/S0030605318001394
FeldmeierD. E.SchmitzO. J.CarterN. H.MasungaG. S.OrrickK. D. (2024). Predictions and perceptions: a social-ecological analysis of human-carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol. Conserv.294:110615. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110615
GargalloE. (2020). Community conservation and land use in Namibia: visions, expectations and realities. J. South. Afr. Stud.46, 129–147. doi: 10.1080/03057070.2020.1705617
GargalloE. (2021). Human-wildlife conflict in a ‘successful’ community conservation programme: economic and territorial impacts on Namibia’s conservancies. J. Arid Environ.193:104591. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2021.104591
GargalloE.KalvelageL. (2021). Integrating social-ecological systems and global production networks: local effects of trophy hunting in Namibian conservancies. Dev. South. Afr.38, 87–103. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2020.1835608
GayoL. (2025). A review of climate change, human population growth and poverty as potential drivers of human-wildlife conflicts in Africa. Discov. Anim.2:49. doi: 10.1007/s44338-025-00088-5
GöttertT.StarikN. (2022). Human–wildlife conflicts across landscapes—General applicability vs. case specificity. Diversity.14:380. doi: 10.3390/d14050380
HauptfleischM.BlaumN.LiehrS.HeringR.KrausR.TausendfruendM.et al. (2024). “Trends and barriers to wildlife-based options for sustainable management of savanna resources: The Namibian case,” in Sustainability of Southern African ecosystems under global change: Science for management and policy interventions, (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 499–525. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-10948-5_18
KalvelageL.DiezJ. R.BolligM. (2023). Valuing nature in global production networks: hunting tourism and the weight of history in Zambezi, Namibia. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr.113, 1818–1834. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2023.2200468
KlataskeR. T. (2017). Wildlife Management and Conservation on Private Land in Namibia: An Ethnographic Account. Michigan: Michigan State University.
KoskeyC. C.MakanjiD. L.WilkinsonC. E.EshiamwataG. W. (2021). Socio-economic impacts of hyena predation on livestock around Lake Nakuru National Park and Soysambu Conservancy, Kenya. Open J. Soc. Sci.9, 411–425. doi: 10.4236/jss.2021.99029
LendelvoS.SullivanS.DieckmannU. (2024). “CBNRM and landscape approaches to conservation in Kunene Region, post–Independence,” in Etosha Pan to Skeleton Coast. Conservation Histories, Policies and Practices in North West Namibia, eds. SullivanSDieckmannULendelvoS (Cambridge: Open Book Publishers), 109–140. doi: 10.11647/obp.0402.03
LindseyP. A.HavemannC. P.LinesR. M.PriceA. E.RetiefT. A.RhebergenT.et al. (2013). Benefits of wildlife-based land uses on private lands in Namibia and limitations affecting their development. Oryx47, 41–53. doi: 10.1017/S0030605311001049
LongS. A.JonesB. T. B. (2004). Contextualising CBNRM in Namibia. Livelihoods and CBNRM in Namibia: The Findings of the WILD Project. Final Technical Report of the Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Diversification Project. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism.
LuetkemeierR.KrausR.MbidzoM.HauptfleischM.LiehrS.BlaumN. (2023). A qualitative exploration of conflicts in human-wildlife interactions in Namibia’s Kunene Region. Diversity.15:440. doi: 10.3390/d15030440
MakumbeP.MapuraziS.JaravaniS.MatsileleI. (2022). Human-wildlife conflict in save valley conservancy: residents’ attitude toward wildlife conservation. Scientifica.2022:2107711. doi: 10.1155/2022/2107711
MbaiwaJ. E. (2018). Effects of the safari hunting tourism ban on rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation in Northern Botswana. S. Afr. Geogr. J.100, 41–61. doi: 10.1080/03736245.2017.1299639
MbenziP. A. (2021). Ando okwali ihe to shanga opo waa dhimbwe: Omuthigululwakalo gwAawambo ohela nonena.
MEFT (2024). Human–Wildlife Conflict Data. Windhoek: Government of the Republic of Namibia.
MendelsohnJ. M.JarvisA.MendelsohnM.RobertsonT. (2022). Atlas of Namibia: Its Land, Water and Life. Windhoek: Namibia Nature Foundation.
MET (2018). Revised National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2018–2027. Windhoek: Government of the Republic of Namibia.
MfuneJ.AngulaM.LendelvoS.MosimaneA. (2013). Human-wildlife conflict along the borders of Etosha National Park. UNAM. Available online at: https://digital.unam.edu.na/xmlui/handle/11070.1/21836
MoonM. D. (2019). Triangulation: a method to increase validity, reliability, and legitimation in clinical research. J. Emerg. Nurs. 45, 103–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2018.11.004
MoserA.KorstjensI. (2018). Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur. J. Gen. Pract.24, 9–18. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
MosimaneA. W.McCoolS.BrownP.IngrebretsonJ. (2014). Using mental models in the analysis of human–wildlife conflict from the perspective of a social–ecological system in Namibia. Oryx48, 64–70. doi: 10.1017/S0030605312000555
MwampetaS. B.WiltonC. M.MkasangaI. J.MasindeL. M.RankeP. S.RøskaftE.et al. (2021). Lion and spotted hyena distributions within a buffer area of the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Sci. Rep.11:22289. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01518-6
NACSO (2015). The state of community conservation in Namibia—A Review of Communal Conservancies, Community Forests and Other CBNRM Initiatives.
NACSO (2023). The State of Community Conservation in Namibia. A Review of Communal Conservancies, Community Forests and Other Community–Based Natural Resources Management Initiatives. Windhoek, Namibia: National Association of Community–Based Natural Resource Management Support Organizations.
NakanyalaJ.HeitaJ.LewisE.SiyambangoN.LendelvoS. (2022). Local Farmers’ Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the King Nehale Conservancy, Namibia.
Namibia Statistics Agency (2011). Namibia 2011 Population and Housing Census Main Report. Republic of Namibia.
Namibia Statistics Agency (2023). Namibia 2023 Population and Housing Census Main Report. Republic of Namibia. doi: 10.5089/9798400262036.002
NewingH.EagleC. M.PuriR. K.WatsonC. W. (2011). Conducting Research in Conservation Social Science Methods and Practice.London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203846452
NicholsonS. K.DickmanA.HinksA.RiggioJ.BauerH.LoveridgeA.et al. (2023). Socio-political and ecological fragility of threatened, free-ranging African lion populations. Commun. Earth Environ.4:302. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00959-3
NogaS. R.KolawoleO. D.ThakaduO. T.MasungaG. S. (2018). ‘Wildlife officials only care about animals’: farmers‘ perceptions of a ministry-based extension delivery system in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J. Rural Stud.61, 216–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.06.003
PooleyS.BaruaM.BeinartW.DickmanA.HolmesG.LorimerJ.et al. (2016). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations. Conserv. Biol.31, 513–523. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12859
QueirósA.FariaD.AlmeidaF. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Eur. J. Educ. Stud.3, 369–387.
RahmanM. S. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: a literature review. J. Educ. Learn.6, 102–112. doi: 10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
RoseJ.JohnsonC. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. J. Leisure Res.51, 432–451. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042
SalernoJ.BaileyK.GaughanA. E.StevensF. R.HiltonT.CassidyL.et al. (2020). Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape. Conserv. Biol.34, 891–902. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13480
SmithJ.SamuelsonM.LibandaB. M.RoeD.AlhassanL. (2022). Getting blended finance to where it’s needed: the case of CBNRM enterprises in Southern Africa. Land11:637. doi: 10.3390/land11050637
TeixeiraL.Tisovec-DufnerK. C.MarinG. D. L.MarchiniS.DorresteijnI.PardiniR. (2021). Linking human and ecological components to understand human–wildlife conflicts across landscapes and species. Conserv. Biol.35, 285–296. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13537
TrevesA.Santiago-ÁvilaF. J. (2020). Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Conserv. Biol.34, 811–818. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13472
TumentaP. N.de IonghH. H.FunstonP. J.de HaesH. A. U. (2013). Livestock depredation and mitigation methods practised by resident and nomadic pastoralists around Waza National Park, Cameroon. Oryx47, pp.237–242. doi: 10.1017/S0030605311001621
VealA. J. (2017). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism. London: Pearson.
ViollazJ. S.ThompsonS. T.PetrossianG. A. (2021). When human–wildlife conflict turns deadly: comparing the situational factors that drive retaliatory leopard killings in South Africa. Animals11:3281. doi: 10.3390/ani11113281
ZimmermannA.McQuinnB.MacdonaldD. W. (2020). Levels of conflict over wildlife: understanding and addressing the right problem. Conserv. Sci. Pract.2:e259. doi: 10.1111/csp2.259
Summary
Keywords
community-based natural resources management (CBNRM), conservancy, farmers, human–wildlife conflict, Namibia, protected area, trust, wildlife managers
Citation
Heita J, Thomsen JM and Mosimane AW (2026) Determinants of human–wildlife conflict management in the Sheya shUushona Conservancy, Namibia. Front. Sustain. Resour. Manag. 5:1949169. doi: 10.3389/fsrma.2026.1949169
Published
04 November 2026
Updates
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2026 Heita, Thomsen and Mosimane.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jona Heita, jheita@unam.na
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.