Sengwa Wildlife Area (SWA) was established in 1965 in North West Zimbabwe. SWA is located at longitude 28.1948 east and latitude −18.0778 south and is only 373 km² in size (Figure 1). The area is typical of a semi-arid environment. Rainfall, measured locally at the institute, is characterised by monthly and intra-annual variability with a mean annual rainfall of 612.6 mm. Three seasons are experienced:

the hot wet (November-April), the cool dry (May-July) and the hot dry (August-October). The main activities undertaken in SWA include safari hunting, educational trips and terrestrial research. Adjacent communities’ extractive use of park resources include timber harvesting, firewood collection, medicinal plants and honey collection, bush meat poaching and livestock grazing although these activities are strictly prohibited in SWA. Major land-use practices in the adjacent Sai community is agriculture and livestock keeping.

Four target communities were purposively selected based on their proximity (Sharing boundary) to SWA (i.e. Gava, Chitita, Siamwanja and Muchoni). The occupancy of the villages were regarded as frontline people who are likely to be immediately affected by any activities and are dependent on SWA park products and services. Analysis of station crime register and visitor’s log-books to understand reasons for arrests and purpose of visit was done to have baseline information to the problems and purpose of visits before conducting Focused Group Discussion (FGD). Literature on policy and legislation relating to access and utilisation of park products was also analyzed in order to identify gaps to community involvement.

Purposive sampling of four villages (i.e. Gava, Chitita, Siamwanja and Muchoni) was done based on distance of the village from the park boundary. These four villages fall in Ward 3 and 4 of Gokwe South. FGD participants were drawn from people who live adjacent to the PA (i.e. within a 5 km radius from the SWA boundary) consisting of people of different roles in the community including Village Heads, Pensioners, Councillors, Farmers and other household members who are permanent residence in that village. FGDs were held within communities from the selected villages located between the southern area boarded by Lutope River and eastern side of SWA stretching to Manyoni River, in a semi-circle covering a distance of five (5) kilometers from the park boundary into the Sai communal area. Previous studies found such a distance to cover localized impacts of a PA (Hartter & Goldman, 2011) [17] . Study area size from where community were drawn was 230 km².

One FGD meeting was done in each village selected in this study. FGD meetings were conducted between the 10^th of April and 27^th April 2021 in the four villages. Each village was covered separately because of confounding variables in needs and geographical location. Information on community-park interactions, how policy issues affect the community park interaction, strategies that can be employed to balance community livelihoods and natural resource conservation were collected. Benefits currently enjoyed and losses incurred were recorded as well as community attitude towards the PAs were also discussed. FGDs standard guidelines were followed to facilitate progress and smooth participation by every participant. Hence, all ethical considerations were agreed upon by all participants prior to the discussions and data collection. These include protection of participant privacy and no rewards were promised relating to the research.

One facilitator assisted by one of the researchers was selected from among the participants to ask participants questions relating to agreed discussion topics which were highlighted prior to discussions. The FGD data was recorded by two local research assistants. FGDs data were collected in form of semi-structured forms, diaries and photographs. Facilitative discussion with initiation of open-ended questions were done.

Average attendance of twenty-five (25) participants from each of the selected four villages taking into account gender issues was recorded (Table 1). Total number of participants from all the four villages comprised 8% single women (n = 8), 24% married women (n = 24), 26% single men (n = 26) and 42% married men (n = 42). Participants who were categorised as single men and women were unmarried with age above 18 years but below 25 years of age.

From the FGD meetings conducted, all participants (n = 100) mentioned a number of resources and services that can benefit communities which they mentioned are available in SWA. Water for domestic and livestock use, thatching grasses, biltong from local safari operators and grazing lands for livestock while park staff can also help to control HWCs, conduct education and awareness and capacity building in areas relating to balancing conservation and community livelihoods (Table 2).

Identified list of resources utilised from January 2021 to December 2021 from station records include wild fruit collection, bushmeat, grazing lands, HWCs mitigation, park visits, selling agri-produce and firewood. Community use varied with type of product and or service offered. Summary statistics of resource use and demand by adjacent communities around SWA based on 2020 SWRI records (Visitors and Crime Register) are shown in Figure 2. Crime register gave records of illegal activities while visitors register gave information of people visiting the station for different purposes such as tourism activities and selling garden produce.

Previous experience by locals such as fair treatment to locals and employment by SWA had been enjoyed. Other areas mentioned by participants are shown in Table 3.

Policy related issues raised by participants during FGD meetings include accessibility to park resources, full participation in PA management programs, equitable sharing of park products, stewardship and ownership of wildlife resources, support of community based initiatives and social responsibility as well implementation of criteria of the policies involved. Several legislation were mentioned and cited as examples (Table 4).

Challenges raised in each village during FGDs as a result of PA policy include cattle encroachment, poaching and HWCs issues. Other challenges raised per each village are listed as shown in Table 5.

Participants attitudes towards the existence of SWA is influenced by direct and indirect benefits they gained and will expect to gain from it in future either through illegal or legal ways. The level of support was gender independent hence decision to reject H₀. (Table 6). Community support was calculated as a percentage for each category (i.e. men and women) of the total number of participants for each village who were in support of the SWA.

Pearson Chi-Square = 0.388, DF = 3, P-Value = 0.943 χ 2 = ∑ ( f o − f e ) 3 / f e = 0.943 and χ² 0.05, 3 = 7.815 There for χ² < χ² U, do not reject H_o. and conclude that community view over the existence of SWA is independent of gender.

Trust, collaboration, access and participation were key pillars mentioned to integrate LCL and natural resource conservation in SWA. Integrating LCL and natural resource conservation can be done through collaborating in various areas (Figure 3) highlighted discussions and these vary to some extend across the landscape.

The study identified a variety of park products that can be offered to communities to reduce household expenditure, improve community livelihoods and increase support for the protection of its source area, which is the SWA. The findings of this study demonstrates that adjacent communities to SWA can derive a significant share of their total income from ecosystem goods and services from the park. The findings subscribe to the notion that community income and livelihoods strategies may highly dependent on natural resource especially to those marginalized communal areas where there is limited alternatives for livelihoods (Roe 2010) [22] .

Community needs vary, for example, school representatives expected services related to educational tours, while village heads were worried by high poaching and protection of their ancestral grave sites, cultural and sacred areas protection

which they relates to current misfortunes surrounding villages such as increase in predator-human conflicts and recurrent droughts in recent years. The study also revealed that different age groups and gender needs different resources for their livelihood, for example firewood and thatching grass were mostly mentioned by women and young girls, while casual employment by men. However, some products and services are necessary for every community survival, for instance, biltong offered by local safari operators was a need for everyone regardless of gender and villages while services to control human wildlife conflicts remain every household’s expectations. The findings agree to observation by Mariki (2016) [23] , in Tanzania where it was reported that local community needs vary from one area to another and differ with age groups and gender. Abachebsa (2017) [2] also mentioned that in Ethiopia resources requirements vary across gender and by geographical location from the study which was conducted.

The study identified the need for State to enact enabling policies, legislation, regulations and supported institutional framework to support participation by local adjacent communities on PA conservation programmes. Clear, simple and transparent procedures for mutual accountability between park management and local communities were also mentioned as a way to reduce community frustration that may drive them to illegal resource extraction. Participants mentioned national laws such as S.I 362 of 1990 [19] and the Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20: 14) [20] , policies and regulations, local management arrangements like determining community visiting days to the park to have negative impacts on resource accessibility by local communities although they help to safeguard excessive resource extraction. A mentioned example was where adjacent communities are restricted to access waterpoints within the park through the Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20: 14) [20] . However, water sources along the park boundary were benefiting local communities as source of domestic water and for livestock.

The study also found that both the constitution of Zimbabwe and the Parks and wildlife Act (Chapter 20: 14) [20] of 2001 does not specifically recognise community-based property right but environmental rights. This means property rights of communities can be lost when they are vested in the State on behalf of the communities (Wily, 2011) [24] . The rights of community are expropriated once the land has been compulsorily acquired for the establishment of a PAs hence community lose attachments to their historical lands and graves of their ancestors. The study established that currently adjacent communities do not have capacity to claim compensation for their livestock and field losses due to wild animals hence fueling park-community conflicts.

Parks and Wildlife Act promotes consumptive hunting and non-consumptive tourism. However, hunting and removal of any animal or part of an animal or sale of animals is prohibited in Parks and Wildlife Estate except if a person is a holder of a professional hunter’s license, learner professional hunter’s license or professional guide’s license. This means the local communities cannot carry out any wildlife related activities in any PA without the appropriate permits which may earn them livelihoods.

Adjacent communities also expressed concern on policies which prohibits the killing or injury of animals in self-defense which provides for the reporting of killing of animals or injury of animals other than dangerous animals. Due to the fact that local communities live adjacent to these animals they requested for powers to swiftly respond to such incidence of human wildlife conflicts on their own. Participants argued that relevant Authorities at times face transport constraints, hence local communities are better placed to carry out such roles. The same sentiments were highlighted by Mushayavanhu (2017) [25] in support of local community involvement in HWC mitigation strategies as a way to improve efficiency hence reduce unnecessary losses. This means problem animal control can best be handled by Animal Reporters, farmers and former Fence Minders (Machena et al., 2017) [26] . The communities will identify their needs and support they require as well as appropriate rules and agreements. Nevertheless, such activities by communities cannot be institutionalised because local communities do not have legal status to conduct human wildlife conflict management on their own.

Even though community participation has been adopted expressly in the Constitution of Zimbabwe, it is still limited in the Parks and Wildlife Act. The Parks and Wildlife Act has limited provisions that support accessibility to park products. Despite the fact that the rights of access of local communities to natural resources have been addressed in terms of user rights, they have not been clarified in relation to decision making and management of natural resources. To this fact, Arni & Khairill (2013) [4] point out that sustainability of PAs is disrupted by rising conflicts among users of the products.

Most policies mentioned during FGDs indicate failure to addressing the relationship between management plans and reduction of HWCs which have impacts on livelihoods. The policies do not recognise the increased threats by wild animals and their activities on wildlife corridors and community forests. Participants expressed the need for consultations to inform how park policies work as well as identifying clear benefit sharing schemes that are context specific to their livelihoods. Park policies were observed neither promotes community access to natural resources nor they give clear framework on the sharing of benefits. It was acknowledged that although some arrangements were made at local level, however, these agreements were in most cases not legally enforceable, hence, should be incorporated in the supporting laws for them to be legally binding.

The study also observed that the central dogma to continued lack of park-community nexus is attributed to lack of capacity by the state, local communities and stakeholders to implement and enforce the various laws and policies in areas of access and benefit sharing. This further isolate community from legally accessing the park products and enjoy unlimited services which the state is supposed to offer legally and to have full control of available resources for sustainable use. The point agree to same sentiments highlighted by Muchena (2017) [26] and Mushayavanhu (2017) [25] who both cited limited resources to operationalize and implement policies and laws as key drawback to improving LCL in Zimbabwe.

The study also revealed that support by local communities to SWA is independent of gender. All participants anticipated for good relations and benefiting from the SWA. However, support by local adjacent communities to the success of SWA are linked more to resource use and previous experience by adjacent communities. The findings, however, contrast to remarks by Nyhus (2016) [27] who noted that women are more likely to have negative attitudes because their incomes are often more dependent on food crop production, which is likely to be highly susceptible to damage by wild animals, while men are more likely to focus on other activities, which may be less vulnerable to animal damage but utilise park resources much.

Linking conservation and community livelihoods is particularly pertinent for SWA, where human population pressures and economic forces influence livelihoods and conservation programs. Addressing livelihood needs of local communities can led to successful conservation initiatives where collaboration is based on the premise that, if communities receive economic benefits from SWA, they will change their attitudes and want to conserve and manage its source. Similar thoughts were cited by Wells and Mc Shane (2004) [28] who stated that when local communities get incentives from a PA related project with a clear revenue redistribution policies it increases benefits to communities, reduce park-community conflicts and strengthen conservation objectives and implementation of activities that may lead to improved park protection.

The study established that through collaboration, adjacent communities with existing close ties with SWA showed some form of supporting conservation through participating in snare removal, reporting illegal activities as well supply information on problem animals on time while those with no close ties exhibited ignorant and were unwilling to participate in resource protection. Therefore, there is need to focus on establishing the conditions in which resources can be legitimately managed and sustainably exploited by adjacent local communities as emphasized by Murindagomo (1990) [29] . SWA management may allocate park products right to frontline communities to harvest, for instance thatching grass and firewood, on regulated quantities hence illegal uncontrolled overexploitation can be reduced. Access to park resources should be subject to certain responsibilities, including endorsement by community leaders and implementation of a wildlife management plan that recognises local community participation (Mushayavanhu, 2017) [25] . Similarly, Muchena et al., (2017) [26] suggested the practice as a way that can strengthen both community livelihood and collaborative natural resource conservation. Participants showed their commitment to protect SWA and act as whistle blowers only if they get some benefits. For effective collaboration, participants call for equal treatment of all villages despite different geographical location around the PA which encourages full participation and togetherness.

The regulated utilisation of natural resources by adjacent communities in recent years may lead to significant improvements in human well-being and a decrease in poverty. Consistent with this, Tekelenburg et al. (2009) [30] suggested that a country’s natural resources is inversely related to its Human Development Index (HDI), while World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (2012) [31] uncovers a clear relationship between increasing HDI and an increasing ecological footprint hence the need to provide park products to the community on a regulated basis based on trust and collaboration.