Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Conservation Science ·

Volume 7 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2026.1849635

Community perspectives and involvement in biodiversity conservation in Limpopo National Park, Mozambique: a socio-political analysis

  • Juvência Yolanda Malate1,2
  • Angelo Fierravanti1,3*corresponding author
  • Hélder Fernando Pedrosa e Sousa4,5
  • Arsénio Jorge6
  • Luís Filipe Gomes Lopes3,7
  • Manuel Luís Tibério7,8
  • Almeida Alberto Sitoe6
  1. 1Centre for the Research and Technology of Agroenvironmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), Inov4Agro, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal
  2. 2Division of Agriculture, Higher Polytechnic Institute of Gaza, Chokwe, Gaza, Mozambique
  3. 3Department of Forests and Landscape Architecture, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
  4. 4Department of Mathematics, University of Trás-Os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal
  5. 5Center for Computational and Stochastic Mathematics (CEMAT), Instituto Superior Técnico – Universidade de Lisboa (IST-UL), Lisboa, Portugal
  6. 6Faculty of Agronomy and Forestry Engineering, UEM-Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo, Mozambique
  7. 7Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
  8. 8Department of Economics, Sociology and Management, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

The establishment of strict conservation areas often creates friction between management objectives and the traditional livelihoods of local communities. This study evaluates how restrictions on the traditional use of natural resources have shaped the perceptions and involvement of local communities in the participatory management of Limpopo National Park (LNP) in Mozambique. Through the application of questionnaires to 345 households and interviews with key informants, we analysed the sociopolitical dynamics of biodiversity conservation and benefit-sharing. The results demonstrate a significant paradox: while residents recognise the ecological value of forests and wildlife, participation in management and decision-making remains critically low. Specifically, we identified that the limited community influence on tourism revenue sharing and stakeholder engagement strategies correlates with negative perceptions of park governance. This study contributes to the literature by providing an integrated socio-ecological analysis of how top-down conservation policies can undermine social agency, even when conservation values are shared. We conclude that the transition to a genuine co-management model that prioritises procedural justice and capacity building is essential for reconciling conservation goals with the rights of communities in African protected areas.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Globally, conservation areas are often established in relatively undisturbed forests to mitigate the impacts of climate change, while playing a critical role in addressing the global biodiversity crisis and providing essential ecosystem services. Despite these benefits, many conservation areas in Africa face human interference and habitat fragmentation (Shapiro et al., 2023; Chiaka et al., 2024; Yuan et al., 2024). This trend is particularly observed in protected areas of Mozambique, where the demand for fuelwood (firewood and charcoal), unsustainable agriculture, and poaching weaken the performance of natural ecosystems (Ameja et al., 2022; Ismail et al., 2025). This management complexity motivated the creation of the Limpopo National Park (LNP), established in 2001, covering a conservation area of 11, 233 km² (Spierenburg et al., 2008; Sappa et al., 2023) in a region where local residents relied on natural resources (e.g. subsistence and commercial hunting, charcoal production, sale of construction poles) for their sustenance (Ricolfi et al., 2020; Otsuki, 2024). Furthermore, LNP is designated as a strict protection area, where permanent human settlement within park boundaries is not permitted (Givá and Raitio, 2017; Massé, 2020). This level of human-free conservation requires the resettlement of the local populations of the LNP (Milgroom and Spierenburg, 2008; Otsuki, 2023; Malate et al., 2025).

The communities of the LNP live in a precarious semiarid environment, relying on rain-fed agriculture that is marked by failures and difficulties stemming from climatic uncertainty (Silva et al., 2018; Sappa et al., 2023; Pereira et al., 2024). Poverty rates in the LNP have risen with the restrictions on resource use (Lunstrum, 2016; Witter, 2021; Otsuki, 2023). Moreover, several studies have highlighted weaknesses in the governance of resource access, unequal distributions of decision-making power, and the limited practical impact of livelihood analyses (Givá and Raitio, 2017; Silva et al., 2018; Notelid and Ekblom, 2021). Although global natural resource management policies promote inclusive governance models (Artelle et al., 2019; Sangha et al., 2024), institutional fragility and the centralized power system in African countries restrict local community participation, resulting in a top-down approach that is often ineffective for conservation and local livelihoods (Gelcich et al., 2009; Ongolo and Krott, 2024). The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (targets 13 and 21) advocates for the fair sharing and equity of nature’s benefits, ensuring equitable and effective decision-making regarding biodiversity (Raymond et al., 2022; Torres-Alruiz and Rodríguez, 2025). To achieve these targets, Raymond et al. (2022), proposed a co-management approach grounded in distributive, procedural, and recognition justice. The authors argue that by recognizing the rights, interests, and identities of diverse stakeholders, this framework promotes more inclusive and equitable conservation practices. Consistent with this perspective, previous studies suggest that the effectiveness of formal governance instruments depends on their alignment with local social and cultural contexts, as such alignment fosters community engagement and strengthens support for conservation initiatives (Mann and Absher, 2014; UICN, 2023; Willis et al., 2024). Community engagement in co-management increases when local communities perceive that the benefits are stable, robust, and consistent with livelihood security (Sattler et al., 2015). Therefore, understanding socially constructed perceptions, manifested in attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and motivations, is fundamental, as they shape the way local communities respond to conservation initiatives (Bennett et al., 2019; Rodrigues et al., 2024; Martell and Rodewald, 2025). Furthermore, the participation of local actors in governance has been associated with improved social and ecological outcomes, particularly when governance processes promote inclusion, equitable power-sharing, and the recognition or restoration of rights (Bennett et al., 2019; Huber et al., 2023). Empirical evidence suggests that the engagement of local actors in governance improves compliance with rules and restrictions and promotes support for conservation policies (Kochskämper et al., 2016; Huber et al., 2023). Although previous qualitative studies on the LNP have addressed structural challenges that restricting community committee representation (Colua De Oliveira et al., 2021), the socio-economic impacts of human-wildlife conflicts (Massé, 2020), and the effects of conservation-induced displacement (Otsuki, 2023), these contributions remain thematically isolated, and the literature still lacks integrated socio-ecological analyses. A critical gap persists regarding integrated socio-ecological analyses that directly link restrictions on traditional resource use to local perceptions, attitudes, and actual participation in conservation governance. Furthermore, the Mozambican conservation literature has often prioritised institutional and policy analyses, while paying less attention to the empirical and participatory dimensions of resident communities (Schoon, 2013; Sjöstedt et al., 2022; Mpofu et al., 2026). This study expands our knowledge of community participation in conservation by empirically demonstrating how ecological, institutional, and experiential dimensions interact and structure participatory processes.To address these socio-ecological complexities, the primary overarching purpose of this study is to analyse the intersection between centralized conservation governance and local community realities in the LNP. Specifically, this research pursues three interconnected objectives:

  • Characterise the communities’ sociodemographic profiles and analyse how social and territorial factors affect power dynamics, access to decision-making, and participation in biodiversity conservation processes;
  • To evaluate local community perceptions and attitudes toward biodiversity, forest conservation, and subsistence activities under the current regulatory framework;
  • To assess the level of local community participation in strategic park management, focusing on stakeholder engagement mechanisms and tourism revenue benefit-sharing decision-making processes.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Area of study

The research was conducted in southern Mozambique, within Gaza Province, Massingir District, across six villages. Two villages awaiting resettlement are located within the core conservation area of the LNP (Machamba and Mavondze), two in the buffer zone (Machaule and Madingane), and another two (Macavene-Tihovene and Bingo-Chitarre) are situated outside the park boundaries, near the LNP border (Figure 1). The population of these two external villages comprises communities that were formerly located within the park, in the villages of Macavene and Bingo, until 2013 and 2022, respectively (Milgroom and Claeys, 2025). In the LNP, the buffer zone (1, 720 km² in area) is located along the Elephant and Limpopo rivers, comprising a 5 km strip designated for economic development and human settlements (ANAC, 2021). Within the buffer and central zones, activities are limited to subsistence agriculture, fishing, the extraction of construction materials and firewood, and the gathering of fruits and roots; furthermore, any form of hunting or charcoal production is prohibited (ANAC, 2021; Witter, 2021). The selection of villages in the LNP and outside the park (resettled villages) was based on the following four criteria: (1) dependence on natural resources and participation in the management of the park before its creation; (2) presence of significant cultural ties with the protected area; (3) villages benefiting from 20% of tourism revenue; (4) location in relation to accessibility to basic infrastructure. Moreover, the resettled villages were selected because they were affected by LNP management interventions, possess relevant data on adaptation to resource-use restrictions, and provide insights into local perceptions of conservation within the park.

Map indicating the locations of the six communities involved in this study, located either within Limpopo National Park (LNP) (represented by the grey area) or outside the park’s boundaries (represented by white area). The LNP’s position within Mozambique and its relationship to the African continent are indicated by the tiny square in the upper right corner.
Figure 1. Map indicating the locations of the six communities involved in this study, located either within Limpopo National Park (LNP) (represented by the grey area) or outside the park’s boundaries (represented by white area). The LNP’s position within Mozambique and its relationship to the African continent are indicated by the tiny square in the upper right corner.

The climate of the region is semi-arid with two seasons, the hot and rainy months (November to April) and the dry and cool months (May to October) (Roque et al., 2022). The average annual temperature ranges from 24 °C to 30 °C (Roque et al., 2021; Mapaco et al., 2022), while the annual precipitation is between 450 (in northern area of LNP) to 509 mm (in southern area of LNP) (Stalmans et al., 2004; Milgroom and Giller, 2013; Mapaco et al., 2022; Herrero et al., 2023). The LNP has three crucial rivers that ensure the distribution of wildlife and human settlements, the Limpopo, Olifants and Shingwedzi rivers (Sappa et al., 2023). The Limpopo and Olifants Rivers flow year-round and delineate the boundaries of the park. The Shingwedzi River, which is seasonal and does not flow continuously, traverses the central area of the park and provides important habitat for several wildlife species (Notelid and Ekblom, 2021; Roque et al., 2021; Sappa et al., 2023). The predominant vegetation in LNP is Mopane (Colophospermium mopane Kirk ex J. Leonard) characteristic of the Sudan-Zambezi region, Silver Terminalia (Terminalia sericea Burch. Ex DC: Silver Cluster-leaf), and Red bush willow (Combretum apiculatum Sond.) in higher regions (Cambule et al., 2015).

2.2 Experimental design

In each of the six village, random sampling was applied to reach the households to be interviewed. For sampling purposes, the 2017 census data provided by the district and the list of households obtained through community leaders were used. The sample size (n) was determined based on the Equation 1, suggested by Rea and Parker (2014), assuming that the population exhibits heterogeneity between villages but is relatively homogeneous within each village in terms of activity and income.

(1) n=Zα2∗0.25∗NZα2∗0.25+(N−1)∗Cp2

In this equation, n denotes the required sample size, C<sub>p</sub> represents the confidence interval expressed as a proportion (10%), Zα signifies the standard normal deviation for a 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96; α = 0.05), and N is the total number of households. Based on the aggregate population of N = 1, 316 households across the six selected target areas, Equation (1) yielded a calculated target of 342 households. The specific distribution of the total number of households (N) and the calculated sample sizes (n) for each individual village is structured in Table 1. During actual fieldwork execution, the final number of households successfully surveyed in Macavene-Tihovene was n = 37 due to local respondent availability, bringing the final consolidated sample size to 345 households across the entire study villages.

Table 1. Sampling framework and socio-demographic profile across the studied villages, contrasting total households (N = 1, 316) with the calculated target sample (n = 342) and the distribution of male and female household leadership (n = 345).

VillageTotal Households (N)Households (n)% total sampleMale-headed (n)Male-headed (%)Female-headed (n)Female-headed (%)
Mavondze7208524.60%5723.46%2827.45%
Machamba1004914.20%3413.99%1514.71%
Madingane1966518.80%4719.34%1817.65%
Machaule1315616.20%4920.16%76.86%
Macavene-Tihovene523710.70%229.05%1514.71%
Bingo-Chitarre1175315.40%3413.99%1918.63%
TOTAL1316345*100.00%243100.00%102100.00%

Values represent absolute frequencies and relative percentages (%) calculated based on the sample size. The asterisk () denotes the discrepancy between the equation 1 calculated target sample size (n* = 342) and the final sample successfully realized during field data collection (n = 345).

Stratified random sampling by village, supported by the 2017 census data and community lists of households, ensured that the sample composition adequately reflected the local population structure. The relative homogeneity within the village regarding subsistence activities and income, combined with the sample size calculation, supports the inferential validity of the design. We recognise potential biases, self-selection, variable respondent availability, and social desirability, which are mitigated by pre-tests, trained bilingual interviewers, culturally sensitive translation, and triangulation with key informants. These procedures reinforce the representativeness of the sample and the methodological rigour of the study.

2.3 Data collection

An initial exploratory survey was conducted in November 2022 to gain an overview of the park and its adjacent communities, determine the selection of study areas, and assess village accessibility. The main data collection phase was subsequently carried out from August to September 2023, encompassing the selected villages. The approach integrated research strategies such as participatory assessment techniques, household head interviews, and key informant interviews.

Questionnaires were used to collect sociodemographic information on households, as well as data on respondents’ perceptions of (i) natural resource conservation; (ii) community involvement in the management of the conservation area; (iii) the functionality of the natural resource management committee. Seven interviews were conducted with previously selected key informants, aiming to gather information related to the conservation of natural resources from: (a) community leader; (b) leader of the natural resource management committee; (c) park administrator; (d) park committee head; (e) resettlement officer in the park; (f) director of district economic activities services and (g) natural resource management officer in the agriculture sector. The qualitative data was collected through semi-structured questionnaires administered to key informants intentionally selected for their knowledge and involvement in the management of LNP resources, providing detailed and contextualised information. These data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. In a preliminary phase, the responses were systematised, followed by coding aimed at extracting patterns and analytical categories (e.g., support for conservation/positive attitudes, participation in monitoring, fire management, open/latent conflicts, and sharing of benefits). Subsequently, the codes were grouped into broader analytical themes, highlighting clear patterns in the participants’ perceptions: 1) community involvement in the conservation of natural resources; 2) conflicts and tensions with the management of the LNP; and 3) perception of the sharing of economic benefits.

Prior to deployment, the questionnaires were rigorously field-tested to verify clarity and cultural suitability. To overcome local literacy barriers, both participatory meetings and household interviews were conducted via simultaneous translation between Portuguese and Xichangana. Field sessions were led by trained, fully bilingual interviewers. The collected responses were systematically recorded in Portuguese, translated into English, and integrated into the research database through cross-validation.

For the data analysis, the following qualitative variables were considered: nominal (villages of Machamba, Mavondze, Madingane, Machaule, Macavene-Tihovene, and Bingo-Chitarre), ordinal (age groups of family members: 0–4 yrs, 5–14 yrs, 15–44 yrs, 45–64 yrs, and >64 yrs), and dichotomous (predominance of household leadership: male or female). This specific age categorization is grounded in the official demographic framework of the National Institute of Statistics of Mozambique (INE, 2024). While raw population data in Massingir are compiled in standard cohorts (INE, 2024), we selectively aggregated these intervals into five functional groups to capture distinct socio-ecological roles within the LNP. This allows for a clear distinction between early childhood (0–4 yrs), school-age dependents (5–14 yrs), the primary economically active and labour-providing population (15–44 yrs), mature working adults (45–64 yrs), and the elderly (>64 yrs). The inclusion of the 0–4 and 5–14 age groups reflect their central socio-ecological roles. This age phase is characterised by structural dependence and socialisation, both of which influence household consumption patterns and care requirements. Participation in domestic activities during this stage of life is exclusively assisted and non-productive.

The data collected using the questionnaire were village, age group, number of individuals (N) per each village, the percentage of the number of individuals (%) compared to the total, and the percentage of individuals per each village that answered “yes” to whether the following factors influence the conservation of the Limpopo National Park (LNP): (i) commercial poaching; (ii) fuelwood harvesting; (iii) timber harvesting; (iv) retaliatory killing of wildlife; (v) subsistence hunting; (vi) population growth; (vii) expansion of new cultivation areas; (viii) house construction. Community perceptions and attitudes toward natural resource management, including involvement in management processes, access to resources, and benefit-sharing mechanisms, were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The internal consistency of the Likert scale was evaluated based on Cronbach’s alpha, which presented a value of 0.745, indicating the scale’s acceptable reliability for measuring the variables under analysis. Likert-scale scores were used to summarise and interpret the respondents’ perceptions and levels of involvement.

This procedure followed a clear explanation of the study, which ensured that participation was voluntary and fully informed.

2.4 Statistical and qualitative analysis

Non-parametric statistical methods were applied to analyse the dataset, including the Kruskal-Wallis’s test, the Mann-Whitney U test, the chi-square (χ²) test for proportions, and Spearman’s rank correlation analysis, adopting a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05) for all statistical tests. The analysis was based on discrete quantitative, nominal categorical, and ordinal variables, and the choice of non-parametric tests was supported by non-normal distribution of the variables, as confirmed by significant Shapiro-Wilk goodness-of-fit-test (p < 0.05; Supplementary Table 1).

Non-parametric statistical analyses were applied to account for the distributional properties of the data. The Kruskal-Wallis’s test was applied to evaluate variations in demographic structures across the studied communities, treating the specific age groups as the categorical factor and the village as the nominal grouping variable. The Mann-Whitney U test was employed for pairwise comparisons between two independent groups (e.g., household leadership), with the nominal response variable was the sex of the head of household, and the categorical explanatory variable was age group. The chi-square test was used to evaluate associations between nominal categorical variables (perception of subsistence hunting and village) through contingency table analysis, while Spearman’s rank correlation (ρs) was preferred over Pearson’s to detect monotonic relationships without assuming linearity or normality. Although Likert-scale data are inherently ordinal, we calculated mean values and standard deviations to provide a more intuitive summary of central tendency and dispersion. This approach, while descriptive, ensures a comprehensive overview of community perceptions and establishes a baseline for future comparative research in similar conservation contexts.

Qualitative patterns were initially explored through visual inspection of variable distributions and subsequently corroborated through key informant interviews. Data derived from key informant interviews were analysed separately using text-based content analysis, with the aim of providing more profound insights and contextualising the quantitative results. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 30.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, USA, 2026).

3 Results

3.1 Sociodemographic characteristics of the communities

To assess whether age-group patterns were consistent across villages, we analysed population distribution by age group. Significant differences emerged in both the 15–44 yrs age group (H = 14.16; p< 0.015) and the 45–65 yrs age group (H = 16.57; p < 0.005), indicating substantial variation in demographic structure among villages.

Mavondze displayed a significantly higher mean rank for the number of individuals within both the 15–44 yrs and 45–64 yrs age cohorts, followed by Madingane in the 15–44 category. Conversely, Machamba and Macavene-Tihovene exhibited consistently lower averages across both age groups (Figure 2). Overall, individuals aged 15–44 yrs constitute the largest proportion of the population across all settlements, followed sequentially by the 5–14 yrs cohort (Figure 3).

Distribution of family members by village across two age groups (letters indicate homogeneous subsets)”.
Figure 2. Distribution of family members by village across two age groups (letters indicate homogeneous subsets)”.
Demographic representation of the number of individuals from each of the six studied villages, with black and grey bars indicating the age groups. The compact graph located in the upper right corner illustrates the overall count of individuals within each age group, together with the associated percentage frequency denoted by the values displayed above each bar.
Figure 3. Demographic representation of the number of individuals from each of the six studied villages, with black and grey bars indicating the age groups. The compact graph located in the upper right corner illustrates the overall count of individuals within each age group, together with the associated percentage frequency denoted by the values displayed above each bar.

Male-headed households maintain a significantly higher average number of individuals within both the infant 0–4 years cohort (U = 10925; p < 0.03) and the economically active 15–44 yrs cohort (U = 83144; p< 0.0001) compared to female-headed households (Table 2). The consideration of the age group 0–4 yrs is relevant because it is a more dependent and vulnerable group to the socio-ecological conditions of the household, directly reflecting on the care burden and availability of family resources. Generally, household leadership is predominantly male (n = 243; 70.43%). Within this structure, Mavondze and Madingane concentrate a greater number of inhabitants within the economically active bracket (15–44 yrs), a demographic pattern characterized by a clear preponderance of male-headed families (Figure 3; Table 2).

Table 2. Average number of individuals by age group in families headed by men (M) and women (W).

AgeM (n = 243)W (n = 102)Up-value
0-40.870.69109250.03
5-142.081.72114080.12
15-443.172.1983144<0.0001
45-640.800.55112710.07
>640.320.33117450.16

The U indicates the Mann–Whitney test statistic, with the corresponding p-values reported.

3.2 Community perception of resource conservation in the LNP

Over 90% of respondents in the examined villages identified commercial poaching, retaliatory wildlife killings, and timber harvesting as threats to natural resource conservation (Figure 4). In contrast, subsistence hunting, the expansion of new cultivation areas, and house construction were not considered significant pressure factors on biodiversity. The chi-square test revealed statistically significant differences between the villages in the positive perceptions of the communities regarding subsistence hunting (χ² = 29.41; p < 0.001) (Figure 5). The population of the village of Madingane was the only one to show positive perceptions lower than 50% regarding this activity. There were no significant differences between the residents of Madingane compared to those of Bingo-Chitarre and Mavondze (Figure 5). Conversely, the Machaule community exhibited a significantly higher proportion of positive perceptions toward subsistence hunting (85.7%; p< 0.001).

Representation of the percentage frequency of affirmative responses (yes) from the interviewed heads of households in relation to the following questionnaire items: commercial poaching (CP); fuelwood harvesting (FH); timber harvesting (TH); retaliatory killing of wildlife (RKW); subsistence hunting (SH); population growth (PG); expansion of new cultivation areas (ENA); house construction (HC).
Figure 4. Representation of the percentage frequency of affirmative responses (yes) from the interviewed heads of households in relation to the following questionnaire items: commercial poaching (CP); fuelwood harvesting (FH); timber harvesting (TH); retaliatory killing of wildlife (RKW); subsistence hunting (SH); population growth (PG); expansion of new cultivation areas (ENA); house construction (HC).
**(A)** Positive perceptions (affirmative “yes” responses), expressed as percentages, of the interviewed heads of households regarding subsistence hunting across the six study villages. The percentage shown within the square boxes represents the difference in affirmative responses between villages. The square boxes, shaded in a grayscale, represent the significance (p-value) of the Chi-square test results: *p* ≥ 0.05 (white), *p<* 0.05 (very light gray), *p* < 0.01 (light gray), and *p<* 0.001 (dark gray); **(B)** representation, for each village, of the percentage ratio of positive responses. Shared letters above the bars indicate no statistically significant differences between specific villages based on the chi-square test results (p< 0.05).
Figure 5. (A) Positive perceptions (affirmative “yes” responses), expressed as percentages, of the interviewed heads of households regarding subsistence hunting across the six study villages. The percentage shown within the square boxes represents the difference in affirmative responses between villages. The square boxes, shaded in a grayscale, represent the significance (p-value) of the Chi-square test results: p ≥ 0.05 (white), p< 0.05 (very light gray), p < 0.01 (light gray), and p< 0.001 (dark gray); (B) representation, for each village, of the percentage ratio of positive responses. Shared letters above the bars indicate no statistically significant differences between specific villages based on the chi-square test results (p< 0.05).

3.3 Community involvement in resource management

Local communities exhibited a high perception of involvement in the conservation of LNP, particularly regarding forest conservation (Mean = 4.36 ± 0.71 points on a 1–5 Likert scale) and associated conservation actions (Mean = 4.17 ± 0.69 points on a 1–5 Likert scale) (Table 3). This orientation toward resource stewardship was corroborated by qualitative data from key informants, who noted that residents actively engage in fire management and participate in monitoring activities within the LNP.Conversely, this willingness to participate in conservation contrasted with the communities’ documented influence over governance and economic benefits. Respondents reported low levels of participation regarding the distribution of tourism revenues (“Access benefit sharing - Decision-making”; Mean = 2.02 ± 0.73 points on a 1–5 Likert scale) and institutional engagement strategies (“Stakeholder engagement strategy - Community decision”; Mean = 1.97± 0.68 points on a 1–5 Likert scale; Table 3). This low institutional engagement was supported by qualitative evidence from key informant A2: “Decisions regarding revenue are often made at higher administrative levels, leaving us to simply receive what is allocated without a say in the process.” Spearman correlation analysis confirmed a significant, moderate positive correlation emerged between “Forest conservation” and “Conservation actions” (ρ<sub>s</sub> = 0.67, p < 0.001), as well as between “Wildlife conservation” and “Conservation actions” (ρ<sub>s</sub> = 0.66, p < 0.001). These results reflect perceptions about practices implemented by local communities, which act as agents responsible for the conservation of natural resources and conservation actions. Similarly, a high positive correlation was identified between “Access benefit sharing and decision-making” and “Stakeholder Engagement Strategy - Community Decision.” (ρs = 0.87, p < 0.001). Crucially, while these institutional and economic variables are theoretically intertwined in the minds of residents, they collectively recorded lower scores compared to other elements analysed (Table 3; Figure 6). Key informants confirmed that this gap often leads to latent tensions, particularly when LNP officials fail to address local concerns such as human-wildlife conflict (e.g., compensation for crop destruction and livestock deaths). To mitigate these tensions, experimental technical solutions have been implemented; as noted by informant A5: “Measures were created in an experimental phase to reduce conflicts from cattle attacks, with the creation of bomas, which help improve cattle management conditions and protection against wildlife.” These combined findings demonstrate that despite showing internal alignment and a baseline willingness to support conservation, local communities remain structurally isolated from the governance of natural resources within the LNP.

Table 3. Likert scale response distribution and perception scores (Mean, Standard Deviation, Median, and Interquartile Range [IQR]) regarding community involvement in natural resource management across the surveyed villages.

Likert scale statementsVillageResponses (%) aMedianIQRMeanσPeople Perception
VLLMHVH
Forest conservationMavondze01.216.534.148.2414.290.78Very high
Machamba0016.344.938.8414.220.71Very high
Madingane007.738.553.8514.460.64Very high
Machaule007.133.958.9514.520.63Very high
Macavene-Tihovene0010.824.364.9514.540.69Very high
Bingo-Chitarre0015.152.832.1414.170.67High
Total00.312.538.349.0414.360.71Very high
Wildlife conservationMavondze0015.363.521.2404.060.6High
Machamba4.1016.359.220.4403.920.86High
Madingane009.263.127.7414.180.58High
Machaule008.933.957.1514.480.66Very high
Macavene-Tihovene0013.548.637.8414.240.68Very high
Bingo-Chitarre0013.260.426.4514.130.62High
Total0.6012.855.930.7414.160.68High
Conservation actionsMavondze0016.552.930.6414.140.68High
Machamba0018.44932.7414.140.71High
Madingane0013.856.929.2414.150.64High
Machaule0014.339.346.4414.320.72Very high
Macavene-Tihovene0018.932.445.9414.160.78High
Bingo-Chitarre0020.854.724.5404.040.68High
Total0016.849.333.9414.170.69High
Access benefit sharing /Decision-makingMavondze32.950.616.500211.840.69Low
Machamba26.557.116.300211.900.65Low
Madingane33.843.123.100211.890.75Low
Machaule8.957.132.101.8212.290.71Low
Macavene-Tihovene8.156.832.402.7212.320.75Low
Bingo-Chitarre22.645.332.100212.090.74Low
Total24.151.024.300.6202.020.73Low
Stakeholder engagementstrategy /Community decisionMavondze32.950.616.500211.840.69Low
Machamba26.559.214.300211.880.63Low
Madingane33.847.718.500211.850.71Low
Machaule8.966.125.000202.160.56Low
Macavene-Tihovene8.164.927.000212.190.57Low
Bingo-Chitarre24.545.330.200202.060.74Low
Total24.354.521.200201.970.67Low

VH, Very high; H, High; M, Moderate; L, Low; VL, Very low are values used throughout this section to indicate the percentage of respondents who express the level of involvement in LNP management. High involvement indicates a positive perception, and low involvement indicates a negative perception. The people perception labels assigned in the last column correspond to the mean score ranges as follows: 1.00–1.79 = Very Low; 1.80–2.59 = Low; 2.60–3.39 = Moderate; 3.40–4.19 = High; 4.20–5.00 = Very High.

Illustration of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (*ρs;* rho) obtained from the number of positive replies for the resource management factors analysed in this study. ABSDM refers to Access and Benefit Sharing – Decision Making, whereas SESCD implies Stakeholder Engagement Strategy – Community Decision. The values within the square boxes represent the Spearman correlation coefficients, while the greyscale represents statistical significance: *p<* 0.05 (very light grey box), *p* < 0.01 (light grey box), *p* < 0.001 (dark grey box), and non-significant *p* ≥ 0.05 (white box).
Figure 6. Illustration of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρs; rho) obtained from the number of positive replies for the resource management factors analysed in this study. ABSDM refers to Access and Benefit Sharing – Decision Making, whereas SESCD implies Stakeholder Engagement Strategy – Community Decision. The values within the square boxes represent the Spearman correlation coefficients, while the greyscale represents statistical significance: p< 0.05 (very light grey box), p < 0.01 (light grey box), p < 0.001 (dark grey box), and non-significant p ≥ 0.05 (white box).

4 Discussion

4.1 Sociodemographic characteristics of the LNP communities

The demographic profile of the LNP communities reveals structural patterns that shape the dynamics of power and governance of natural resources. The higher concentration of individuals aged 15–44 and 45–65 in the villages of Mavondze and Madingane highlights territorial inequalities associated with access to strategic resources, such as the Elephants River and the Massingir dam (Notelid and Ekblom, 2021; Sappa et al., 2023). The proximity to water sources influences the settlement of the active population and structures economic and political opportunities. Based on the perspective of political ecology, this concentration is not neutral; it expresses the historical dynamics of territorialisation in access to water for agricultural irrigation and domestic and commercial tilapia fishing (Oreochromis mossambicus, Peters) serve to attract and retain the active population (Bruna, 2019; Fafetine et al., 2025). This spatial distribution subsequently creates local power hierarchies and defines who has the greater power to negotiate, resist, or adapt to conservation policies (Vargas Falla et al., 2024).

The prevalence of male-headed households, although in accordance with Mozambican rural standards (70% led by men) (Matos, 2023; Ruiz-Castillo et al., 2023), takes on distinct significance when analysed in the context of conservation governance. Despite the high rates of male labour migration in the region, women continue to exercise discretionary decision-making at the household level (decide the harvest stage and which food or household items to buy); however, decision-making power remains centralised among men, even when they are physically absent (Ribeiro et al., 2019; Agadjanian et al., 2021). The patriarchal structure has implications for the management of natural resources, determining who should participate in community meetings and engage in dialogue with park managers and who has the legitimacy to claim compensation (Espada and Kainer, 2023; Ty et al., 2023). This patriarchal structure restricts women’s participation in decision-making arenas and compromises the effectiveness of responses to adverse events and affects the adaptive capacity of families, especially in contexts of agricultural drought, loss of crops and livestock to wildlife, and blocking of emergent decisions, such as the sale of cattle (Silva et al., 2018; Notelid and Ekblom, 2021; Otsuki, 2023). In support of our results, studies conducted in Africa (Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda) reveal that male-led households have a greater capacity to adapt to natural resource use policies and the effects of prolonged agricultural droughts in protected areas (Perez et al., 2015; Pike et al., 2022; Machio et al., 2025). Population heterogeneity creates different power positions among the villages. Macavene-Thihovene and Machamba, with a smaller number of individuals, may face institutional disadvantages in accessing information, weak representation in governance meetings, and claiming conservation benefits (Otsuki, 2023; Milgroom and Claeys, 2025). Villages with larger populations have a greater capacity to mobilise and influence negotiations, both with the park and the district government (Otsuki, 2023).

4.2 Perspective of the LNP community on the conservation of natural resources in the park

The results concerning local community attitudes and perceptions of risk factors affecting conservation in the LNP reveal that these perspectives are not shaped solely by restrictions on the traditional use of resources within the park. Although the conservation area management imposes limitations on the use of natural resources, with the proclamation of the LNP, such measures directly influenced sociocultural dynamics. More than 90% of respondents recognize that commercial poaching, fuelwood harvesting, timber harvesting, and retaliatory killing of wildlife pose a threat to biodiversity conservation (Milgroom and Spierenburg, 2008; Givá and Raitio, 2017). This pattern is aligned with the study that reveals that in extensive conservation areas with fewer restrictions, residents tend to have positive perceptions (Allendorf, 2020). Political ecology shows that the regulation of sustainable use and threats to conservation are influenced by institutions with legislative power, adopting some uses to the detriment of others. The governance of the LNP requires more inclusive decision-making mechanisms to reduce power asymmetries and strengthen institutional legitimacy.

In contrast to large-scale threats, subsistence hunting is not perceived by residents as a significant threat to conservation, a trend documented in other regions of Southern Africa, such as the Luangwa National Park, Zambia, and the Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe (Muboko et al., 2016; Zyambo et al., 2022). The analysed data on the influence of subsistence hunting suggest that the differences between villages are significant, Madingane, Bingo-Chitarre, and Mavondze showing positive perceptions below 60%, highlighting factors such as population density, livelihood security, and human-wildlife conflicts that influenced specific behaviours in each village (Ntuli and Muchapondwa, 2018; Manda et al., 2023). These differences between the villages exceed the explanation based on ecological and demographic factors, also highlighting the asymmetry of the institutional interaction of the LNP with the local community. The performance of oversight, the irregularity in the implementation of development initiatives, and the limited participation in decision-making processes influence perceptions of legitimacy and justice (Huber et al., 2023; Rodrigues et al., 2024). In contrast, the village of Machaule shows high positive perceptions against subsistence hunting, demonstrating greater adherence to conservation norms (Etongo et al., 2023; Lyakurwa et al., 2025). The same positive perception percentage below was also observed in the buffer zone, which is an area designed to control and reduce the impacts of activities incompatible with biodiversity conservation (ANAC, 2021). Community adherence to conservation norms depends on tangible incentives and sustained trust relationships. Although the main field data were collected in 2023, subsequent extreme weather events, including the 2026 floods reported in Mozambique (Davies, 2026; Lusa, 2026), illustrate the continued vulnerability of livelihoods in the LNP region. These events are mobilised here as a contextual framework, not as evidence of incompetence directly derived from the household survey. Moreover, the vulnerability of LNP livelihoods has been intensified by cyclical climatic events (Notelid and Ekblom, 2021; Pereira et al., 2024). The lack of institutional support after extreme events strengthens the weakening of governance and perceptions of marginalisation. Generally, failures in institutional response reduce the trust and legitimacy of protected area managers, especially when communities are already dealing with restrictions on resource use (Tallent and Zabala, 2024). The integration between conservation and social policies is crucial to mitigate vulnerabilities exacerbated by extreme climate events. Despite the positive attitudes and perceptions demonstrated by the community, these results do not necessarily reflect genuine support for conservation; they hide structural social weaknesses related to economic precariousness, lack of income alternatives, and restricted participation in co-management (Givá and Raitio, 2017; Colua De Oliveira et al., 2021). The governance of the LNP remains dependent on limited community participation, centralised decisions, and a lack of transparency in sharing benefits (Colua De Oliveira et al., 2021). These dynamics produce ambiguous perceptions: recognition of the relevance of conservation, but limited trust in the responsible institutions. The decentralisation of management and the expansion of community representation are structural conditions that transform passive acceptance into active support. The social fragilities in the LNP emerge amid global reforms restoring communities’ rights over conservation areas. In the LNP, the implementation of biodiversity reform reveals gaps in compensation for community rights; the adaptive incapacity of local livelihoods persists, and there is a weak sharing of benefits associated with the right to restricted access (Sikor et al., 2017; Aggarwal et al., 2021; Myers et al., 2022). This tension arises when conservation coexists with territorial control, producing legal uncertainties and legitimacy conflicts (Gandiwa et al., 2013; Alam and Razzaque, 2026), which can undermine community trust and hinder effective collaboration between local communities and conservation authorities. Harmonisation between community rights and state practices is indispensable for reducing legitimate conflicts and ensuring legal certainty.

4.3 Local community involvement in resource management

The study examines the validity of the hypothesis that the centralised administration model limits community engagement in park management. The results indicated that community participation is strong in the operational dimensions of “Forest Conservation” and “Conservation Actions”, indicating active involvement in actions against uncontrolled fires and local monitoring—actions confirmed by key informants (Gandiwa et al., 2013; Ribeiro et al., 2019; Ntuli et al., 2021). This pattern suggests that when conservation activities rely on local knowledge and immediate action, communities respond effectively, demonstrating operational capacity and commitment to conservation.

Diverging from these operational successes, the strategic dimension reveals lower average values for “Access to Benefit Sharing - Decision Making” and “Stakeholder Engagement Strategy - Community Decision” (ABSDMmean and SESCDmean = 2.0), showing that, although they actively contribute to conservation, local communities have minimal influence on the management of benefits (from the 20% tourism revenue) and formal decision-making processes. This implies that the current institutional arrangement reinforces the asymmetry of power and limits the community’s ability to influence decisions that directly affect their well-being. These results about residents’ perceptions in park management corroborate studies that highlight conflicts between local communities and LNP managers, exacerbated by the lack of compensation for cattle predation and the destruction of agricultural crops by wildlife (Massé, 2016; Strong, 2019). These insights are furtherreinforced by “key informants”, revealing the lack of transparency in the sharing of benefits by the natural resource management committee (Colua De Oliveira et al., 2021). Although the natural resource regulation in Mozambique establishes local community benefit-sharing as 20% of the forest resource extraction and nature-based tourism revenue, the sharing process is cumbersome and non-transparent, resulting in limited community access to the shares (MacQueen & Falcão, 2017; Rylance, 2017). The opacity in the management of the 20% not only compromises institutional trust but also reduces the legitimacy of conservation structures, creating a cycle of distrust that affects the effectiveness of environmental policies (Mbanze et al., 2019). The absence of an accountability mechanism suggests the need for legal reforms that mandate the public disclosure of financial funds and community auditing. Consistent with previous research (Sitoe et al., 2014), they report that some community leaders or influential individuals in the village use the incentives for individual needs.

The involvement of local communities in conservation is recognised as a crucial factor for the performance of protected areas. In this study, a moderate correlation was observed between the variables “Conservation actions” and “Forest conservation”, demonstrating consistency between attitudes and behaviours. This coherence indicates that the community supports conservation and internalises sustainable practices, which strengthens its potential as a strategic partner in park management. Despite the strong evidence of a correlation between “Access Benefit Sharing -Decision Making” and “Stakeholder Engagement Strategy- Community Decision”, both variables exhibit very low average values. This finding suggests that a centralised administrative model constrains meaningful community participation in decision-making processes. The restriction on community involvement in decision-making shows a low adherence to global policies for managing conservation areas in the LNP, prioritising approaches that are aligned with the political and ecological context. This result reinforces that the governance of the LNP tends to be top-down, combining formal participation mechanisms with limitations that reduce the influence of communities, a paradox recognised in the conservation governance literature (Kochskämper et al., 2016; Huber et al., 2023). This restriction in the governance of the LNP is not formally declared, the LNP management plan focuses on enhancing governance through the implementation of co-management within the conservation area; similar cases have been observed in other regions of Africa, resulting in conflicts between residents and park managers, perceptions of injustice, popular unrest, and illegal practices (Kiwango et al., 2018; Janssens et al., 2022). In contrast, successful cases have been observed in the districts of Ndu, Njinikom, and Mbengwi, Cameroon, and the Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve, Malawi, where participatory governance has increased wildlife populations and community well-being (Musavengane et al., 2019; Manda et al., 2023). These contrasts reinforce that the results of conservation do not depend solely on community involvement but on institutional robustness and the sharing of power and responsibilities (Bennett et al., 2021). As suggested by recent studies on the dilemma between the needs of local communities (Bennett et al., 2021; Dawson et al., 2021; Nyaupane et al., 2022), the results of this study reinforce the urgency of a reform orientated towards a truly inclusive management model. Such reform implies the following: (i) restructuring the LNP management committee for a balanced representation of women, community leaders, youth, and members with a minimum literacy level suitable for the roles; (ii) defining clear competencies between government authorities and local actors, reflecting the asymmetry between participation and influence in decisions; (iii) introducing a legal instrument that clarifies responsibilities, ensures transparency, and promotes accountability, addressing identified institutional weaknesses; and (iv) investing in the capacity building of the management committee in environmental legislation, participatory management, finance, and conflict resolution, considering the identified technical limitations. This set of measures points towards a path of more equitable governance capable of reconciling conservation and social justice.

4.4 Study limitations

Although this study provides a unique socioeconomic mapping of the LNP, several limitations must be considered when interpreting the results. The cross-sectional design prevents causal conclusions and restricts the analysis of institutional changes over time. The verbal application of the questionnaires may have generated biases, while the reduced qualitative sample limits the breadth of community perspectives. Moreover, the analyses identify associations but not causal relationships, and the exclusive focus on LNP restricts the generalisation of the results. These limitations point to the need for future comparative and longitudinal research.

5 Conclusion

This study provides empirical evidence that conservation efforts in the LNP area are constrained by a centralised administrative framework that marginalises local communities. Although residents exhibit positive attitudes toward biodiversity, their limited role in “Access benefit sharing - Decision-making” processes create a sociopolitical disconnect. Our findings highlight that conservation success hinges not only on ecological enforcement but also on the perceived fairness of governance. To move beyond general participatory rhetoric, LNP management must institutionalise co-management structures that give communities meaningful influence over tourism revenue and resource monitoring. Crucially, policy reforms should focus on resolving the dual challenge of human-wildlife conflict and livelihood security to ensure long-term community support. These results serve as a critical case study for other transboundary conservation areas in Southern Africa, demonstrating that without inclusive governance and the restoration of community rights, the sustainability of protected areas remains at risk.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the execution of this study, the author(s) resorted to QuillBot Premium (https://quillbot.com/) to identify linguistic inaccuracies and enhance clarity, fluency, and engagement in the English language, as well as to paraphrase the text in an academic style as needed. After using QuillBot Premium tool, the author(s) reviewed and edited the manuscript and declared responsibility for the content of this publication. The author(s) assume that the original text was generated by a human; QuillBot Premium is not intended for the complete production of text or innovative concepts via AI. The QuillBot Premium tool was used to improve the quality of the text and ensure greater adherence to scientific publication guidelines.

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.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2026.1849635/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Kamaljit Kaur Sangha, Charles Darwin University, Australia

Reviewed by: Yann Emmanuel Miassi, Laval University, Canada

Widyanti Utami A., Universitas Sulawesi Barat, Indonesia

Mildred Sena, Santo Domingo Institute of Technology, Dominican Republic

Statements

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.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was financially supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). We also thank FCT for the funding obtained through the national funds: FCT/MCTES, Chair, and Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences and LA/P/0126/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/LA/P/0126/2020). JM thanks FCT for the doctoral scholarship PRT/BD/154287/2022, identified by the DOI (https://doi.org/10.54499/PRT/BD/154287/2022). This publication was financially supported by the Oliver Tambo Africa Research Chair Initiative, project ID 109126, funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF), the Department of Science and Innovation of South Africa (DSI), the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC), the Oliver & Adelaide Tambo Foundation (OATF), and the National Research Fund of Mozambique (FNI). The opinions expressed in this article are the exclusive responsibility of the authors and do not represent those of the Oliver Tambo Africa Research Chairs Initiative, its partners, and its Boards of Directors.

Data availability

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://zenodo.org/records/18663091.

Ethics approval

The studies involving humans were approved by University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (Ref. Doc53-CE-UTAD-2023). 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

JM: Formal analysis, Methodology, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation. AF: Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. HS: Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Visualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. AJ: Writing – review & editing. LL: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. MT: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AS: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the LNP staff, to Dr Sérgio Bié, António Hilário Chemane, and the administrator, Eng. Francisco Augusto Pariela, for the collaboration and sharing of essential information for the research. The acknowledgements extend to Eng. Constância da Silva Ricardo from the Higher Polytechnic Institute of Gaza for the support in data collection. Furthermore, the authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions of the reviewers.

References

  1. Agadjanian V., Hayford S. R., Jansen N. A. (2021). Men’s migration and women’s mortality in rural Mozambique. Soc Sci. Med. 270, 113519. doi: doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113519
  2. Aggarwal S., Larson A., McDermott C., Katila P., Giessen L. (2021). Tenure reform for better forestry: An unfinished policy agenda. For. Policy Econ. 123, 102376. doi: doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376
  3. Alam S., Razzaque J. (2026). Contested forests: How transnational networks mitigate and reproduce conflict. World Dev. 200, 107301. doi: doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2025.107301
  4. Allendorf T. D. (2020). A global summary of local residents’ attitudes toward protected areas. Hum. Ecol. 48, 111 – 118. doi: doi:10.1007/s10745-020-00135-7
  5. Ameja L. G., Ribeiro N., Sitoe A. A., Guillot B. (2022). Regeneration and restoration status of miombo woodland following land use land cover changes at the buffer zone of Gile National Park, Central Mozambique. Trees For. People. 9, 100290. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100290
  6. ANAC (2021). Plano de maneio para o período 2022- 2032 (Maputo: Administração Nacional das Áreas de Conservação), 83.
  7. Artelle K. A., Zurba M., Bhattacharyya J., Chan D. E., Brown K., Housty J.. (2019). Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: A nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108284. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108284
  8. Bennett N. J., Di Franco A., Calò A., Nethery E., Niccolini F., Milazzo M.. (2019). Local support for conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 12, 12640. doi: doi:10.1111/conl.12640
  9. Bennett N. J., Katz L., Yadao-Evans W., Ahmadia G. N., Atkinson S., Ban N. C.. (2021). Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 711538. doi: doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.711538
  10. Bruna N. (2019). Land of plenty, land of misery: Synergetic resource grabbing in Mozambique. Land 8, 113. doi: doi:10.3390/land8080113
  11. Cambule A. H., Rossiter D. G., Stoorvogel J. J., Smaling E. M. A. (2015). Rescue and renewal of legacy soil resource inventories: A case study of the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Catena 125, 169 – 182. doi: doi:10.1016/j.catena.2014.10.019
  12. Chiaka J. C., Liu G., Li H., Zhang W., Wu M., Huo Z.. (2024). Land cover changes and management effectiveness of protected areas in tropical coastal area of sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 22, 100340. doi: doi:10.1016/j.indic.2024.100340
  13. Colua De Oliveira E. R., Otsuki K., Mubai M. E. (2021). Tackling challenges for co-management of natural resources: The community council in Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Dev. Pract. 31, 707 – 713. doi: doi:10.1080/09614524.2021.1898547
  14. Davies R. (2026). “ Flooding in Mozambique, december 2025 to february 2026,” in News. (European Union: Copernicus Emergency Management Service (EMS)). Available online at: https://emergency.copernicus.eu/news/flooding-in-Mozambique-december-2025-to-february-2026/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (Accessed February 12, 2026).
  15. Dawson N. M., Coolsaet B., Sterling E. J., Loveridge R., Gross-Camp N. D., Wongbusarakum S.. (2021). The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc 26, art19. doi: doi:10.5751/ES-12625-260319
  16. Espada A. L. V., Kainer K. A. (2023). Women and timber management: From assigned cook to strategic decision-maker of community land use. Land. Use Policy 127, 106560. doi: doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106560
  17. Etongo D., Lafleur H., Vel T. (2023). Community perceptions and attitudes towards the management of protected areas in Seychelles with Morne Seychellois National Park as case study. World Dev. Sus. 3, 100091. doi: doi:10.1016/j.wds.2023.100091
  18. Fafetine J., Cuinhane T., Sadeghi B., Miambo R. D., De Araújo L., Groschup M. H.. (2025). Zoonotic arbovirus infections in cattle in Mozambique with special reference to Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) and rift valley fever virus (RVFV). Virol. J. 22, 185. doi: doi:10.1186/s12985-025-02804-9
  19. Gandiwa E., Heitkönig I. M. A., Lokhorst A. M., Prins H. H. T., Leeuwis C. (2013). CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Ecol. Soc 18, art7. doi: doi:10.5751/ES-05817-180407
  20. Gelcich S., Godoy N., Castilla J. C. (2009). Artisanal fishers’ perceptions regarding coastal co-management policies in Chile and their potentials to scale-up marine biodiversity conservation. Ocean. Coast. Manage. 52, 424 – 432. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.07.005
  21. Givá N., Raitio K. (2017). ‘Parks with people’ in Mozambique: Community dynamic responses to human–elephant conflict at Limpopo National Park. J. South. Afr. Stud. 43, 1199 – 1214. doi: doi:10.1080/03057070.2017.1374810
  22. Herrero H. V., Southworth J., Khatami R., Insalaco S., Muir C. (2023). Examining the relationship between vegetation decline and precipitation in the national parks of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area during the 21st century. Front. Environ. Sci. 11, 1106849. doi: doi:10.3389/fenvs.2023.1106849
  23. Huber J. M., Newig J., Loos J. (2023). Participation in protected area governance: A systematic case survey of the evidence on ecological and social outcomes. J. Environ. Manage. 336, 117593. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117593
  24. INE (2024). Estatísticas do Distrito de Massingir 2019-2023 (Maputo: Instituto Nacional de Estatística).
  25. Ismail C. M., Valdivia C. E., Alaniz A. J. (2025). Protected areas and soil loss: Evidence from the Lugenda River Basin, Mozambique. Sci. Afr. 30, e03005. doi: doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e03005
  26. Janssens I., De Bisthoven L. J., Rochette A.-J., Kakaï R. G., Akpona J. D. T., Dahdouh-Guebas F.. (2022). Conservation conflict following a management shift in Pendjari National Park (Benin). Biol. Conserv. 272, 109598. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109598
  27. Kiwango W. A., Komakech H. C., Tarimo T. M. C., Martz L. (2018). Levels of community participation and satisfaction with decentralized wildlife management in Idodi-Pawaga Wildlife Management Area, Tanzania. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25, 238 – 248. doi: doi:10.1080/13504509.2017.1378750
  28. Kochskämper E., Challies E., Newig J., Jager N. W. (2016). Participation for effective environmental governance? Evidence from Water Framework Directive implementation in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. J. Environ. Manage. 181, 737 – 748. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.007
  29. Lunstrum E. (2016). Green grabs, land grabs and the spatiality of displacement: Eviction from Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park. Area 48, Artigo 2. doi: doi:10.1111/area.12121
  30. Lusa (2026). “ Cheias destroem 180 mil hectares de produção e 150 mil cabeças de gado em Moçambique,” in Notícia. (Portugal: Agroportal). Available online at: https://www.agroportal.pt/cheias-destroem-180-mil-hectares-de-producao-e-150-mil-cabecas-de-gado-em-mocambique/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (Accessed February 12, 2026).
  31. Lyakurwa G. J., Chepkwony M. C., Sabuhoro E. (2025). Community perceptions on conservation, livelihood vulnerability and quality of life around Tanzania’s Kilimanjaro National Park. Land 14, 334. doi: doi:10.3390/land14020334
  32. Machio P. M., Sallu S. M., Waized B., Mwanri A. W., Duodu K. G. (2025). A gendered analysis of adaptive capacity and food security in Makueni County, Kenya. Front. Sustain. Food. Syst. 8, 1494475. doi: doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1494475
  33. MacQueen D., Falcão M. International Institute for Environment and Development (2017). Boosting governance in Mozambique’s forests: Options for more sustainable forestry among Chinese timber traders and Mozambican partners. IIED. (London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)).
  34. Malate J. Y., Fierravanti A., Sitoe A. A., Tibério M. L., Lopes L. F. G. (2025). Analyzing the sustainability of the environmental and socio-economic externalities of the Limpopo National Park (Mozambique) since its institution. Front. Conserv. Sci. 6, 1645489. doi: doi:10.3389/fcosc.2025.1645489
  35. Manda L., Salako K. V., Kataya A., Affossogbe S. A. T., Njera D., Mgoola W. O.. (2023). Co-management brings hope for effective biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development in Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve in Malawi. Front. Conserv. Sci. 4. doi: doi:10.3389/fcosc.2023.1124142
  36. Mann C., Absher J. D. (2014). Adjusting policy to institutional, cultural and biophysical context conditions: The case of conservation banking in California. Land. Use Policy 36, 73 – 82. doi: doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.007
  37. Mapaco L., Crespin L., Rodrigues D., Gouy De Bellocq J., Bryja J., Bourgarel M.. (2022). Detection and genetic diversity of Mopeia virus in Mastomys natalensis from different habitats in the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Infect. Genet. Evol. 98, 105204. doi: doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2022.105204
  38. Martell J. E. M., Rodewald A. D. (2025). Wildlife values can inform strategic conservation communication efforts. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 30, 182 – 200. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2024.2346100
  39. Massé F. (2016). The political ecology of human-wildlife conflict: Producing wilderness, insecurity, and displacement in the Limpopo National Park. Conserv. Soc 14, 100. doi: doi:10.4103/0972-4923.186331
  40. Massé F. (2020). Conservation law enforcement: Policing protected areas. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110, 758 – 773. doi: doi:10.1080/24694452.2019.1630249
  41. Matos E. A. C. (2023). “ A importância do território para a família rural Moçambicana,” in Processos dinâmicos geográficos no moçambique contemporâneo, 1.a ed (Porto Alegre, RS: Totalbooks), 62 – 84. doi: doi:10.52632/978.65.88393.51.2
  42. Mbanze A. A., Ribeiro N. S., Vieira Da Silva C., Santos J. L. (2019). An expert-based approach to assess the potential for local people engagement in nature conservation: The case study of the Niassa National Reserve in Mozambique. J. Nat. Conserv. 52, 125759. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125759
  43. Milgroom J., Claeys P. (2025). Participation is not the answer: Epistemic violence and authoritarian practices in conservation-forced displacement. J. Peasant. Stud. 52, 74 – 100. doi: doi:10.1080/03066150.2024.2342435
  44. Milgroom J., Giller K. E. (2013). Courting the rain: Rethinking seasonality and adaptation to recurrent drought in semi-arid southern Africa. Agric. Syst. 118, 91 – 104. doi: doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2013.03.002
  45. Milgroom J., Spierenburg M. (2008). Induced volition: resettlement from the limpopo national park, Mozambique. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 26, 435 – 448. doi: doi:10.1080/02589000802482021
  46. Mpofu E., Penker M., Musakwa W., Radinger-Peer V., Gugerell K. (2026). Fragmented governance, shared landscapes: Policy and functional (in)coherence insights from the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Environ. Manage. 76, 1. doi: doi:10.1007/s00267-025-02309-9
  47. Muboko N., Gandiwa E., Muposhi V., Tarakini T. (2016). Illegal hunting and protected areas: Tourist perceptions on wild animal poisoning in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. Tour. Manage. 52, 170 – 172. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.023
  48. Musavengane R., Tantoh H. B., Simatele D. (2019). A comparative analysis of collaborative environmental management of natural resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: A study of Cameroon and South Africa. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 54, 512 – 532. doi: doi:10.1177/0021909618825276
  49. Myers R., Fisher M., Monterroso I., Liswanti N., Maryudi A., Larson A. M.. (2022). Coordinating forest tenure reform: Objectives, resources and relations in Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Peru, and Uganda. For. Policy Econ. 139, 102718. doi: doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102718
  50. Notelid M., Ekblom A. (2021). Household vulnerability and transformability in Limpopo National Park. Sustainability 13, 2597. doi: doi:10.3390/su13052597
  51. Ntuli H., Muchapondwa E. (2018). The role of institutions in community wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe. Int. J. Commons. 12, Artigo 1. doi: doi:10.18352/ijc.803
  52. Ntuli H., Sundström A., Sjöstedt M., Muchapondwa E., Jagers S. C., Linell A. (2021). Understanding the drivers of subsistence poaching in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area: What matters for community wildlife conservation ? Ecol. Soc 26, 18. doi: doi:10.5751/ES-12201-260118
  53. Nyaupane G. P., Poudel S., York A. (2022). Governance of protected areas: An institutional analysis of conservation, community livelihood, and tourism outcomes. J. Sustain. Tour. 30, 2686 – 2705. doi: doi:10.1080/09669582.2020.1858089
  54. Ongolo S., Krott M. (2024). “ General introduction to the politics of global sustainability in Africa: Power dynamics in the forests,” in Power Dynamics in African Forests: The Politics of Global Sustainability, 1st Edition (Abingdon, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom/ and New York, NY, USA: Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group), 1 – 17.
  55. Otsuki K. (2023). The violence of involuntary resettlement and emerging resistance in Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park: The role of physical and social infrastructure. Environ. Plan. E. 6, 240 – 258. doi: doi:10.1177/25148486221089161
  56. Otsuki K. (2024). Contested values of development: Experiencing commodification of livelihoods through displacement and resettlement in Mozambique. Environ. Plann. A. 56, 1787 – 1802. doi: doi:10.1177/0308518X231182431
  57. Pereira J., Rosalino L., Ekblom A., Santos M. (2024). Livelihood vulnerability and human-wildlife interactions across protected areas. Ecol. Soc 29, 13. doi: doi:10.5751/ES-14605-290113
  58. Perez C., Jones E. M., Kristjanson P., Cramer L., Thornton P. K., Förch W.. (2015). How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Global Environ. Change 34, 95 – 107. doi: doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.003
  59. Pike F., Jiddawi N. S., De La Torre-Castro M. (2022). Adaptive capacity within tropical marine protected areas – differences between men- and women-headed households. Global Environ. Change 76, 102584. doi: doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102584
  60. Raymond C. M., Cebrián-Piqueras M. A., Andersson E., Andrade R., Schnell A. A., Battioni Romanelli B.. (2022). Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects. One Earth 5, 252 – 264. doi: doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008
  61. Rea L. M., Parker R. A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey reserch. A comprehensive guide. (San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass).
  62. Ribeiro N., Ruecker G., Govender N., Macandza V., Pais A., Machava D.. (2019). The influence of fire frequency on the structure and botanical composition of savanna ecosystems. Ecol. Evol. 9, 8253 – 8264. doi: doi:10.1002/ece3.5400
  63. Ricolfi L., Barbieri M., Muteto P. V., Nigro A., Sappa G., Vitale S. (2020). Potential toxic elements in groundwater and their health risk assessment in drinking water of Limpopo National Park, Gaza Province, Southern Mozambique. Environ. Geochem. Health 42, 2733 – 2745. doi: doi:10.1007/s10653-019-00507-z
  64. Rodrigues J. G., Villasante S., Sousa-Pinto I. (2024). Exploring perceptions to improve the outcomes of a marine protected area. Ecol. Soc 29, art18. doi: doi:10.5751/ES-15159-290318
  65. Roque D. V., Göttert T., Macandza V. A., Zeller U. (2021). Assessing distribution patterns and the relative abundance of reintroduced large herbivores in the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Diversity 13, 456. doi: doi:10.3390/d13100456
  66. Roque D. V., Macandza V. A., Zeller U., Starik N., Göttert T. (2022). Historical and current distribution and movement patterns of large herbivores in the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 978397. doi: doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.978397
  67. Ruiz-Castillo P., Imputiua S., Xie K., Elobolobo E., Nicolas P., Montaña J.. (2023). BOHEMIA a cluster randomized trial to assess the impact of an endectocide-based one health approach to malaria in Mozambique: Baseline demographics and key malaria indicators. Malar. J. 22, 172. doi: doi:10.1186/s12936-023-04605-3
  68. Rylance A. (2017). Estimating tourism’s contribution to conservation area financing in Mozambique. Tour. Hosp. Res. 17, Artigo 1. doi: doi:10.1177/1467358415613119
  69. Sangha K. K., Madegowda C., Balasubramanian M. (2024). Reshaping conservation incorporating Indigenous perspectives. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 54, e03197. doi: doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03197
  70. Sappa G., Vitale S., Ferranti F., Barbieri M. (2023). Limpopo National Park (Mozambico): Groundwater assessment as a tool for a sustainable management of the area. Environ. Earth Sci. 82, 461. doi: doi:10.1007/s12665-023-11126-4
  71. Sattler C., Schröter B., Jericó-Daminello C., Sessin-Dilascio K., Meyer C., Matzdorf B.. (2015). Understanding governance structures in community management of ecosystems and natural resources: The Marujá case study in Brazil. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 182 – 191. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.015
  72. Schoon M. (2013). Governance in transboundary conservation: How institutional structure and path dependence matter. Conserv. Soc 11, 420. doi: doi:10.4103/0972-4923.125758
  73. Shapiro A., d’Annunzio R., Desclée B., Jungers Q., Kondjo H. K., Iyanga J. M.. (2023). Small scale agriculture continues to drive deforestation and degradation in fragmented forests in the Congo Basin, (2015–2020). Land. Use Policy 134, 106922. doi: doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106922
  74. Sikor T., He J., Lestrelin G. (2017). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis revisited. World Dev. 93, 337 – 349. doi: doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.032
  75. Silva J. A., Loboda T., Strong M. (2018). Examining aspiration’s imprint on the landscape: Lessons from Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park. Glob. Environ. Change 51, 43 – 53. doi: doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.013
  76. Sitoe A., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S., Ribeiro N., Guedes B., Givá N. (2014). “ Community rights and participation in the face of new global interests in forests and lands: The case of Mozambique,” in Forest Under Pressure: Local Responses to Global Issues, vol. 32. Eds. Sitoe A., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S., Ribeiro N., Guedes B., Givá N. (Vienna: IUFRO), 345 – 356.
  77. Sjöstedt M., Sundström A., Jagers S. C., Ntuli H. (2022). Governance through community policing: What makes citizens report poaching of wildlife to state officials ? World Dev. 160, 106065. doi: doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106065
  78. Spierenburg M., Steenkamp C., Wels H. (2008). Enclosing the local for the global commons: Community land rights in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier conservation area. Conserv. Soc 6, 87 – 97.
  79. Stalmans M., Gertenbach W. P. D., Carvalho-Serfontein F. (2004). Plant communities and landscapes of the Parque Nacional do Limpopo, Moçambique. Koedoe 47, Artigo 2. doi: doi:10.4102/koedoe.v47i2.83
  80. Strong M. (2019). People, place, and animals: Using disemplacement to identify invisible losses of conservation near Limpopo National Park. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 38, 95 – 108. doi: doi:10.1080/19376812.2017.1303618
  81. Tallent T., Zabala A. (2024). Social equity and pluralism in Nature-based Solutions: Practitioners’ perspectives on implementation. Environ. Sci. Policy 151, 103624. doi: doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103624
  82. Torres-Alruiz M. D., Rodríguez I. (2025). Co-Management at Peweñentu? A micro-political ecology perspective of Mapuche sense of environmental justice at Villarrica National Park, Chile. Hum. Ecol. 53, 327 – 342. doi: doi:10.1007/s10745-025-00598-6
  83. Ty P. H., Tan N. Q., Dinh N. C., Nhi T. T. P., Tien T. T. Q., Cuong L. C. H. (2023). Uncovering gender disparities in payment for forest environmental services (PFES): A feminist political ecology view from Vietnam. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 19, 100281. doi: doi:10.1016/j.indic.2023.100281
  84. UICN (2023). Diretrizes Da UICN CSE Sobre Confl¬Itos E Coexistência Entre Humanos E Animais Selvagens. Primeira edição (Gland: UICN).
  85. Vargas Falla A. M., Brink E., Boyd E. (2024). Quiet resistance speaks: A global literature review of the politics of popular resistance to climate adaptation interventions. World Dev. 177, 106530. doi: doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106530
  86. Willis K. A., Putten I. V., Hardesty B. D. (2024). Addressing cultural context is the missing piece in policy solutions to plastic pollution. Environ. Sci. Policy 159, 103829. doi: doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103829
  87. Witter R. (2021). Why militarized conservation may be counter-productive: Illegal wildlife hunting as defiance. J. Polit. Ecol. 28, Artigo 1. doi: doi:10.2458/jpe.2357
  88. Yuan X., Li S., Chen J., Yu H., Yang T., Wang C.. (2024). Impacts of global climate change on agricultural production: A comprehensive review. Agronomy 14, 1360. doi: doi:10.3390/agronomy14071360
  89. Zyambo P., Kalaba F. K., Nyirenda V. R., Mwitwa J. (2022). Conceptualising drivers illegal hunting by Local hunters living in or adjacent to African protected areas: A scoping Review. Sustainability 14, 11204. doi: doi:10.3390/su141811204

Citation

Malate, J. Y., et al. (2026). Community perspectives and involvement in biodiversity conservation in Limpopo National Park, Mozambique: a socio-political analysis. Frontiers in Conservation Science, Volume 7. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
7 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Malate, Fierravanti, Sousa, Jorge, Lopes, Tibério and Sitoe.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Angelo Fierravanti

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchHuman-Hippopotamus conflicts and socio-ecological tensions in the Ruzizi plain: a one health and political ecology perspectiveEsther Mufungizi Ahana, Marie Shangalume Fadhili, François Mmunga Assumani, Christian Zagabe Muderhwa, Gustave Nachigera MushagalusaPerspectiveCyclic droughts, flooding and collective trauma: an environmental feedback loop to inform governance and socio-ecological resilience in Kenya’s rift valleyGilbert O. Obwoyere, Scott JonesHypothesis and TheoryThe Arid Zone Pollinator Paradox: hidden resilience erosion and structural-functional decoupling in dryland pollination systemsRachid Sabbahi