Environmental, economic, and sociocultural outcomes of Community Resource Management Area in Ghana: a systematic review

1 Introduction

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and its variants have developed over several decades as key alternatives to “fortress conservation” paradigms (Dressler et al., 2010; Esmail et al., 2023). Fortress conservation, which prioritizes the establishment of protected areas, led to the criminalization of local cultural practices and the displacement and dispossession of Indigenous and local communities (Dressler et al., 2010). In response to these social injustices and the increasing recognition of the importance of local and Indigenous knowledge, CBNRM emerged in the 1970s as a shift from centralized resource governance toward more devolved models that promote community stewardship (Dressler et al., 2010; Roe et al., 2009). This approach expanded and became institutionalized during the 1980s and 1990s, especially in Africa, where early adoption in southern and eastern Africa led to large-scale initiatives such as Zimbabwe’s Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) and Zambia’s Administration Management Design (ADMADE) programs (Dressler et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2021; Roe et al., 2009).

While some successes have been documented, experiences with CBNRM in Africa and globally reveal mixed outcomes across environmental, economic, and empowerment domains (Adeyanju et al., 2021; Brooks et al., 2013; Galvin et al., 2018; Hajjar et al., 2021). Despite some critiques framing CBNRM as a transient trend (see Redford et al., 2013), it remains prominent on global environmental agendas due to increasing evidence that granting resource and tenure rights to Indigenous and local communities generates better conservation and wellbeing outcomes (Dawson et al., 2021; Esmail et al., 2023; Kusters et al., 2022; Woodhouse et al., 2022). As a result, many countries, with donor support, have strengthened their commitment to CBNRM, including Ghana, which has expanded its Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) initiative (Fumey-Nassah, 2025; Nelson et al., 2021).

The CREMA initiative was established in 2000 by the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission of Ghana to devolve authority over natural resources to local communities. In common with other CBNRM programs, CREMA advocates expect that encouraging active local participation in the management of natural resources will foster biodiversity conservation and enhance livelihoods (Adeyanju et al., 2021, 2026). Although the approach officially originated in Ghana’s 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy, its implementation in communities took nearly a decade to be applied on the ground (Asare et al., 2013). Since that period, the expansion of CREMA implementation has accelerated, bolstered by increased donor funding and technical support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Fumey-Nassah, 2025). CREMAs now cover more than two million hectares across roughly 600 communities, with at least 63 CREMAs formally registered and 33 receiving certificates of devolution¹ (Adeyanju et al., 2026; Fumey-Nassah, 2025; Figure 1; see Appendix 1). This expansion recently gained stronger legal backing in July 2023 with the passage of the Wildlife Resources Management Act, 2023 (Act 1115), and received executive approval in March 2024 (World Bank, 2024). The Act gives CREMAs statutory recognition and clearly defines the roles of CREMA leaders and traditional authorities.

Conservation practitioners, particularly government officials, increasingly portray CREMAs as a successful Ghanaian CBNRM model (Adeyanju et al., 2026; Foli et al., 2018; Fumey-Nassah, 2025). In theory, the CREMA approach is environmentally sound, culturally acceptable, economically viable, and anchored in a proven community governance system (Asare et al., 2013). In practice, however, empirical evidence shows that CREMAs have produced mixed and sometimes unintended outcomes, falling short of their biodiversity conservation and livelihood improvement objectives in several contexts (Adeyanju et al., 2021; Agyare et al., 2024; Bempah et al., 2019).

Existing studies have examined a range of CREMA-related issues, including conservation outcomes (Baddianaah et al., 2025; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018), economic benefits (Gilli et al., 2020; Sheppard et al., 2010), governance and management structures (Baker et al., 2018; Baruah, 2017), and the degree of authority devolved to local institutions (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2022). At the same time, critical scholarship has highlighted persistent challenges, including elite capture of benefits, limited community participation, limited conservation financing, and weak governance capacity (Ahmed and Gasparatos, 2020; Bayala et al., 2025; Baruah, 2017; World Bank, 2024). This body of work collectively highlights a range of experiences, showing claims of success alongside the uneven realities of CREMA implementation.

Several reviews have examined CBNRM at global, regional, and national levels, including across Africa (Brooks et al., 2013; Dressler et al., 2010; Galvin et al., 2018; Nelson et al., 2021) and in individual countries such as Botswana and Namibia (Mbaiwa, 2015; Mufune, 2015). However, relatively few reviews focus specifically on Ghana’s CREMA program, and those that do mainly treat CREMAs as entry points to related resource management strategies, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) or integrated landscape approaches, or use comparative perspectives to situate CREMAs within broader CBNRM experiences (Adeyanju et al., 2021; Asare et al., 2013; Foli et al., 2018). Although Adeyanju et al. (2021) reviewed selected CREMA outcomes, the study did not use a systematic review methodology, which is widely regarded as the most rigorous approach for transparent, objective, and reproducible evidence syntheses (Haddaway et al., 2015).

Since these reviews were published, additional empirical studies on CREMAs have emerged, and the program’s policy relevance has increased, especially through its integration into Ghana’s REDD + initiatives (Dugasseh et al., 2024; Kumeh et al., 2025) and ongoing donor support for CREMA expansion² (Adeyanju et al., 2026; Fumey-Nassah, 2025). Against this backdrop, a comprehensive, up-to-date systematic synthesis of CREMA outcomes is lacking³. Therefore, this study systematically reviews the environmental, economic, and sociocultural outcomes of CREMAs in Ghana to provide a clear, current assessment of their effects and guide future policy and practice. Our review demonstrates that current scholarship on CREMAs is heavily skewed toward a few well-known sites, while newer, inactive, or lesser-known CREMAs remain critically underrepresented. This uneven distribution of research risks misrepresenting the status of community conservation at the national level, ultimately leading to geographic bias, flawed policy-making, and an incomplete body of knowledge. Furthermore, our findings indicate that perception-based data is highly prevalent in current CREMA research, highlighting limited diversity in study designs. This reliance on perception data presents significant drawbacks, particularly the difficulty in establishing causal links between CREMA interventions and outcomes.

2 Materials and methods

This systematic review obtained evidence through searches conducted in Scopus and Web of Science in November 2025. We used specific search terms including “Community Resource Management Area,” “CREMA,” “CREMAs,” “Community-Based Natural Resource Management,⁴” “Ghana,” “biodiversity,” “conservation,” “empowerment,” and “livelihood.” These terms were combined using Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” to refine and expand the search results as appropriate. We searched Google Scholar to identify additional relevant articles for each CREMA. First, we compiled a list of CREMAs in Ghana from published articles and reports, totalling over 50 CREMAs (see Appendix 1). Second, we searched for each CREMA’s name on Google Scholar to identify any published articles. On each Google Scholar page, we downloaded articles that included the CREMA name in their titles or abstracts. Third, we screened subsequent Google Scholar pages for additional relevant articles on the CREMA. We continued screening until five pages yielded no relevant hits, indicating saturation (see Yanou et al., 2023). Finally, we repeated these steps for all CREMAs.

A total of 667 peer-reviewed articles were retrieved, including 304 from Scopus, 249 from Web of Science, 106 from Google Scholar, and 8 from the author’s digital library (Figure 2). The retrieved articles were stored in Zotero (https://www.zotero.org/; a free, open-source reference management tool) as an RIS file and then imported into Covidence (https://www.covidence.org/; a screening and data extraction tool) using the University of British Columbia subscription. Covidence was used to manage the entire systematic review workflow. First, Covidence automatically deduplicates references imported from Zotero and allows manual deduplication during the screening process. Subsequently, the authors screened titles and abstracts, conducted full-text reviews, and extracted data in Covidence. Each step of the review process was documented, and Covidence automatically generated an updated PRISMA diagram (Figure 2).

The screening process consists of three stages following Pullin and Stewart’s (2006) approach. In the first stage, authors read the abstracts of all articles identified during the search. Articles that met the inclusion criteria proceeded to the next stage; otherwise, such articles were excluded. Articles met our inclusion criteria if they were: (1) peer-reviewed, (2) reported findings on the impact of the CREMA program on conservation, empowerment, and livelihood outcomes, (3) based on empirical research conducted in at least one CREMA, (4) written in English, and (5) published between 2005⁵ and November 2025. In cases of doubt, articles were advanced to the next stage for further scrutiny. The second and third stages followed the same process, screening the abstracts and full texts, respectively. Articles that met the eligibility criteria at each stage were included in the review. If an article’s eligibility remained unclear after full-text screening, we sought additional information to determine whether to include or exclude them. Any studies whose eligibility remained unclear after this process were excluded (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2022). After completing the process, 34 articles met the inclusion criteria, and bibliographic and other relevant information on socioeconomic, environmental, and sociocultural impacts were extracted from each article. The extracted data was exported in CSV format and downloaded.

In evidence synthesis, the systematic review workflow, particularly the data collection stage involving full-text review and data extraction, is increasingly performed using AI tools (Berger-Tal et al., 2024). However, we conducted a manual review of 111 full-text articles and extracted the data from 34 articles that met the inclusion criteria⁶ without AI assistance. As a result, we were already deeply familiar with the extracted evidence. Copilot, an artificial intelligence (AI) tool embedded in Microsoft Excel,⁷ was used solely to streamline data retrieval and improve efficiency, not to replace the interpretive or analytical roles of human reviewers (Berger-Tal et al., 2024). In the data analysis stage, we opened the CSV file containing the extracted data in Microsoft Excel. In Excel, we selected the Copilot icon and used specific prompts to categorize, extract, and visualize our data (Appendix 2 contains sample prompts for extracting data using Copilot in Microsoft Excel). We validated Copilot’s elicited answers iteratively throughout the data analysis to ensure accuracy and completeness (Berger-Tal et al., 2024). Furthermore, the authors followed the Responsible use of AI in evidence SynthEsis (RAISE) recommendations to ensure transparency and ethical compliance (Flemyng et al., 2025). A narrative synthesis approach was used to present the analysis by organizing the findings into themes and employing descriptive statistics, tables, and graphs where appropriate to visualize the data (Snilstveit et al., 2012).

3 Characterization of the evidence base

The review covered 75 case studies⁸ drawn from 34 articles, representing 24 CREMAs across Ghana (Figure 3). Of these, 16 case studies focused on Weichau CREMA (21% of case studies), 13 on Zukpiri CREMA (17%), 6 on Murugu-Mognori CREMA (8%), 5 on SKGK CREMA (7%), and 4 each on Chakali Sungmaalu CREMA and Dorimo Paramountcy CREMA (both 5%). The remaining 18 CREMAs were each represented by between one and three case studies. Publication years ranged from 2009 to 2025, with the number of published articles increasing after 2015 and further peaking in 2024–2025 (both years accounting for one-third of articles). The study design of included articles were dominated by qualitative and mixed methods approaches (27 articles), with fewer purely quantitative articles (5) and purely biodiversity assessment methods (2).

Interviews (24 articles), surveys (15 articles), and focus groups (14 articles) were the primary data collection methods used in the reviewed articles, while remote sensing/GIS (3 articles), stakeholder workshops (2 articles), and ecological sampling methods were used in a minority of articles (see Appendix 3). Some researchers, such as Owusu‑Ansah (4 articles), Pienaah (4), Agyare (3), Soliku (2), and Baddianaah (2), were first authors on multiple articles, and all five were from Ghana.

Most reviewed articles addressed multiple themes, predominantly highlighting the key outcomes of CREMA (see Appendix 4). Specifically, 27 articles focused on environmental outcomes, 25 on economic outcomes, and 17 on sociocultural outcomes. Additional topics explored less frequently included governance, land-use change, protected areas, resilience, climate change preparedness and resilience, empowerment, food security, land rights, resource conflicts, and traditional knowledge. Most articles used people’s perceptions as evidence of CREMA outcomes across environmental, economic, and socio-cultural domains (Agyare et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2024), with a few exceptions that collected quantitative empirical data and, in rare cases, monitored performance post-CREMA implementation, for example, Wechiau CREMA (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Sheppard et al., 2010).

4 Results: environmental, economic, and socio-cultural outcomes of CREMAs

In this section, we present the environmental, economic, and sociocultural outcomes of CREMAs (Figure 4).

4.1 Environmental outcomes of CREMAs

Overall, environmental outcomes of CREMAs are highly variable across sites and context-dependent. While many CREMAs demonstrate improvements in conservation awareness, local enforcement, and resource management, these gains do not consistently translate into measurable conservation gains across all sites. Persistent challenges, including deforestation, land-use change, and biodiversity loss, highlight the limits of community-based conservation in the absence of sustained enforcement, adequate resources, and broader landscape-level coordination.

4.1.1 Positive outcomes

Four positive environmental outcomes emerge from the reviewed literature (Table 1). Increased conservation awareness is among the most consistently reported, driven by environmental education, community engagement, and the enforcement of local bylaws (Acquah et al., 2017; Agyare et al., 2024; Bonye et al., 2022; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Owusu-Ansah and Agarwal, 2015; Sheppard et al., 2010). Communities frequently participate in conservation-related activities, including wildfire prevention, tree planting, and reporting illegal resource use, with several articles linking these efforts to reductions in bushfires, illegal logging, and unsustainable land-use practices (Agyare et al., 2015a; Baruah, 2017; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Owusu-Ansah, 2021, 2024; Soliku and Schraml, 2020). In many cases, conservation awareness is reinforced by livelihood interventions that align environmental protection with economic benefits, such as beekeeping and organic production systems (Owusu-Ansah, 2021; Dayour et al., 2025). These interventions strengthen understanding of the link between ecosystem health and livelihoods, thereby improving compliance with conservation rules. Comparative evidence also suggests greater conservation awareness in CREMA communities relative to non-CREMA areas, particularly where sustained engagement with NGOs and park authorities has occurred (Acquah et al., 2017; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024).

Table 1. Specific positive environmental outcomes reported across the CREMAs in the selected 34 articles.

Second, CREMAs contribute to protecting adjacent protected areas by reducing illegal resource use and fostering more positive relationships between communities and conservation authorities (Acquah et al., 2017; Kuuder et al., 2013; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024). CREMA communities are more likely to comply with conservation regulations and to tolerate restrictions associated with protected areas, including wildlife-related damage and land-use limitations (Acquah et al., 2017; Abukari et al., 2025). In some contexts, cultural beliefs and traditional practices, such as totemism, further reinforce positive attitudes toward wildlife and conservation (Abukari et al., 2025). Collaboration with government agencies and NGOs also enhances monitoring and enforcement, with CREMA communities actively reporting illegal activities and supporting conservation interventions such as wildfire management and habitat restoration (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Abukari et al., 2025).

Third, evidence from several CREMAs indicates improvements in local resource protection, often linked to collective action, bylaws, and community-based enforcement mechanisms (Agyare et al., 2015a; Baaweh et al., 2022; Owusu-Ansah, 2019; Soliku and Schraml, 2020). For example, sustained fire management practices, including firebreak construction and fire belts, have reduced wildfire incidence in some CREMAs (Agyare et al., 2015b; Baker et al., 2018; Baddianaah and Baaweh, 2021). At some sites, vegetation cover, soil quality, and biodiversity improved compared to adjacent non-CREMA areas (Baddianaah et al., 2025; Douti et al., 2024; Pienaah et al., 2024). In well-documented cases such as Wechiau CREMA, conservation measures have been associated with increases in wildlife populations and species diversity, supported by enforcement of bylaws, ranger patrols, and reinvestment of revenues into conservation activities (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Gyimah and Okrah, 2009; Olayide et al., 2013; Owusu-Ansah, 2019, 2024; Sheppard et al., 2010; Sosiak et al., 2024).

Fourth, at the landscape level, CREMAs have also contributed to improved land-use practices and reduced pressures from activities such as indiscriminate tree felling, primarily for charcoal production, hunting, overgrazing, and unsustainable agricultural expansion (Baddianaah and Baaweh, 2021; Bempah et al., 2019; Owusu-Ansah, 2019; Soliku and Schraml, 2020). However, the effectiveness of these measures varies across sites and is often influenced by local governance capacity and resource availability.

4.1.2 Negative outcomes

Despite the positive environmental outcomes highlighted in the previous subsection, CREMAs do not consistently achieve their conservation objectives, and several articles report persistent environmental challenges (Table 2). In some regions, the establishment of CREMAs was insufficient to prevent deforestation, forest degradation, and agricultural expansion. For example, research in the Ankasa Conservation Area show continued conversion of forest land to cash crop plantations, alongside significant declines in forest cover (Damnyag et al., 2023; Bempah et al., 2019). Similar trends of increasing built-up areas and agricultural expansion have been observed in other CREMAs, reflecting growing economic pressures on land (Owusu-Ansah, 2019; Baddianaah et al., 2025). Even where degradation is reduced relative to surrounding areas, habitat loss and land-use change may still occur within CREMAs, highlighting enforcement limitations and broader landscape-level pressures (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018).

Table 2. Specific negative environmental outcomes reported across the CREMAs in the selected 34 articles.

In addition, CREMAs have struggled to control hunting (poaching) and biodiversity loss. In some cases, illegal hunting, logging, and encroachment persist despite formal conservation rules (Ahmed and Gasparatos, 2020; Baaweh et al., 2022). Declines in species diversity and wildlife populations have been documented in certain CREMAs, driven by continued poaching and habitat conversion (Bempah et al., 2019).

Perceptions of ecological recovery are mixed, with some case studies reporting limited improvements in wildlife return and ecosystem restoration outcomes (Agyare et al., 2024). These findings suggest that, while CREMAs can reduce certain pressures, they are not always sufficient to fully halt biodiversity decline.

4.2 Economic outcomes of CREMAs

Overall, economic outcomes of CREMAs are characterized by modest and uneven benefits, with most gains arising from supplementary livelihood activities rather than substantial income transformation. While CREMAs can enhance income, diversify livelihoods, build resilience, and create localized employment opportunities, these benefits are often constrained by limited financing, reliance on external support, and trade-offs associated with conservation restrictions (Table 3). As a result, economic incentives alone may be insufficient to sustain long-term community support for conservation without broader structural and financial support mechanisms.

Table 3. Specific positive and negative economic outcomes reported across the CREMAs in the selected 34 articles.

4.2.1 Positive outcomes

Across CREMAs, livelihood interventions are a central mechanism for generating economic benefits, including beekeeping, agro-processing, small livestock rearing, non-timber forest product (NTFP) commercialization, and value addition (Baaweh et al., 2022; Baddianaah and Baaweh, 2021; Bempah et al., 2019; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Owusu-Ansah, 2021, 2024; Soliku and Schraml, 2020; Soliku, 2021). For instance, in Zukpiri CREMA, beekeeping and small-ruminant projects have involved about 90 participants (Owusu-Ansah, 2024). These activities often complement rather than replace existing livelihoods, and provide supplemental income to meet basic household needs such as food, education, and healthcare (Agyare et al., 2024; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Gilli et al., 2020; Owusu-Ansah and Agarwal, 2015).

Women are key beneficiaries of many CREMA-supported livelihood programs, particularly in shea nut processing, groundnut farming, and small-scale enterprise development (Agyare et al., 2015b; Baaweh et al., 2022; Baddianaah and Baaweh, 2021; Bonye et al., 2022; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Dayour et al., 2025). In some cases, participation in certified organic value chains and cooperatives provides access to premium markets and slightly higher returns than non-certified products (Dayour et al., 2025; Sheppard et al., 2010). In 2009, the women’s shea group in Wechiau CREMA, one of the better-resourced CREMAs, benefited 1,010 women from families across all 17 communities, with a projected harvest value of USD 34,564 (Sheppard et al., 2010). These women earn GHS 30 (USD 3.56) more per bag of organic shea nuts sold than when selling uncertified shea nuts (Dayour et al., 2025). Nearly all respondents in the CREMA recognized the positive impact of the shea cooperative, with 88% specifically expressing appreciation. Many also mentioned benefits such as higher income (72%), improved access to education for their children (57%), better healthcare (36%), and an overall improved quality of life (19%) (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). However, these gains are typically incremental and vulnerable to fluctuations in production and market conditions (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018).

Microcredit schemes, capacity-building initiatives, and emerging opportunities linked to carbon markets and REDD + programs also offer additional benefits by providing potential future income streams (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Baruah, 2017). However, these opportunities remain unevenly developed and often depend on external support (Baruah, 2017).

CREMAs generate employment primarily through ecotourism and livelihood interventions, although these opportunities are often limited in scale, seasonal, and unevenly distributed (Acquah et al., 2017; Bonye et al., 2022; Gyimah and Okrah, 2009; Olayide et al., 2013; Sheppard et al., 2010). Ecotourism has been successfully developed in only a few CREMAs, notably Wechiau and Murugu-Mognori, where it provides direct and indirect employment through roles such as tour guiding, ranger services, and support activities such as the provision of accommodation and catering (Kuuder et al., 2013; Acquah et al., 2017; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). At Weichau CREMA, ecotourism grew in both visitor numbers and revenue from 1999 to 2004. Visitor numbers have leveled off at 1,500 to 1,800 annually, and since 2004, revenue has reliably covered staff salaries and stakeholder stipends (Gyimah and Okrah, 2009; Sheppard et al., 2010). By 2009, nearly 50 community members received regular income directly from CREMA, and about 100 more benefited from occasional work and indirect employment opportunities (Sheppard et al., 2010). By 2017, over 2,000 individuals (representing 22% of an estimated 9,415 residents) were employed on a salaried or commissioned basis (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). Meanwhile, in Murugu-Mognori CREMA, the number of tourists visiting the community increased from 216 in 2007 to 1,120 in 2011 (Acquah et al., 2017). In these cases, tourism revenues contribute to local economies and help finance conservation activities, although income levels remain modest and dependent on visitor flows (Bonye et al., 2022; Olayide et al., 2013). Despite the modest income from ecotourism, it contributed to the household’s overall income, supported women’s financial independence and stability, and helped meet basic household needs (Bonye et al., 2022; Dayour et al., 2025).

Overall, evidence across multiple CREMAs indicates that while livelihood interventions improve incomes and resilience, their impacts are generally modest and insufficient to significantly transform household economies (Agyare et al., 2015b, 2024; Gilli et al., 2020). In many cases, expected benefits are not fully realized or sustained over time (Bempah et al., 2019). Importantly, these economic outcomes are often constrained by limited access to sustained conservation and green financing, which affects the scalability and long-term viability of CREMA-supported livelihood initiatives (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024). Employment generated through project-based activities such as agro-processing, beekeeping, and community enterprises typically benefits a relatively small proportion of community members and often serves as a supplementary rather than primary income source (Dayour et al., 2025; Owusu-Ansah, 2024).

4.2.2 Negative outcomes

Despite generating some income, CREMAs can impose financial and opportunity costs on communities. In some cases, CREMAs struggle to generate sufficient revenue to sustain their operations, leading to reliance on external funding or personal contributions from local leaders (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024). For example, a leader in Aowin CREMA paid the CREMA office utility bills from their personal purse to avoid disconnection, as well as repairs for a broken CREMA motorbike (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024).

Restrictions on resource use, including hunting and access to forest products, may also reduce income-generating opportunities for some households, creating perceptions of economic burden (Gyimah and Okrah, 2009; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024). These trade-offs highlight tensions between conservation objectives and livelihood needs.

In some instances, establishing CREMAs has reduced access to land and natural resources, particularly where core conservation zones overlap with previously cultivated or commonly used areas (Ahmed and Gasparatos, 2020; Bonye et al., 2022; Sheppard et al., 2010). For instance, 30,000 ha of private and communal land previously used for sugarcane farming were appropriated for the development of Avu Lagoon CREMA, with less than 30% of the original land area from the 1980s remaining available for sugarcane cultivation (Ahmed and Gasparatos, 2020).

Such restrictions can adversely affect agricultural production and livelihoods, including youth out-migration in search of alternative income sources (Bonye et al., 2022). In some contexts, reduced access to forest resources further limits traditional livelihood activities, particularly for vulnerable groups (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024).

4.3 Socio-cultural outcomes of CREMAs

Overall, socio-cultural outcomes of CREMAs reflect a complex interplay between empowerment and exclusion. While CREMAs can strengthen community cohesion, enhance local capacity, and support cultural practices, they can also reinforce existing inequalities, generate conflict, and contribute to cultural change (Tables 4 and 5). These mixed outcomes highlight the importance of governance structures, equity considerations, and inclusive participation in shaping the social sustainability of community-based conservation initiatives.

Table 4. Specific positive sociocultural outcomes reported across the CREMAs in the selected 34 articles.

Table 5. Specific negative sociocultural outcomes reported across the CREMAs in the selected 34 articles.

4.3.1 Positive outcomes

Four positive socio-cultural outcomes emerge from the systematic review (Table 4). First, CREMAs contribute to the preservation of cultural values and locally embedded governance systems by incorporating traditional norms, beliefs, and practices into conservation activities (Kuuder et al., 2013; Sheppard et al., 2010; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). In several cases, cultural beliefs, such as totemism and traditional ecological knowledge, play an important role in shaping conservation behavior and protecting culturally significant species (Agyare et al., 2024; Baaweh et al., 2022). Livelihood initiatives, particularly those involving non-timber forest products such as shea, are frequently aligned with existing cultural practices and gender roles, reinforcing their legitimacy and acceptance within communities (Gilli et al., 2020; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018).

Second, CREMAs may enhance community recognition and social cohesion as participation in CREMAs often increases community visibility and recognition at national and international levels through engagement with NGOs, researchers, and donors (Baddianaah and Baaweh, 2021; Sheppard et al., 2010). This external recognition can foster a sense of pride and legitimacy among community members and leaders (Bonye et al., 2022; Kuuder et al., 2013). For instance, Wechiau CREMA received the esteemed USD 20,000 UN Equator Prize in 2008, and its 10th-anniversary celebrations were attended by both foreign and local dignitaries (Sheppard et al., 2010). CREMAs also promote social cohesion by creating platforms for collective action, including community meetings, shared livelihood activities, and ecotourism initiatives (Dayour et al., 2025; Kuuder et al., 2013; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024). These interactions can strengthen relationships within and between communities and, in some cases, reduce conflict and improve cross-border relations (Olayide et al., 2013; Agyare et al., 2024).

Third, in several CREMAs, conservation activities and associated external support have contributed to improvements in local infrastructure and social services, including access to education, healthcare, water, and energy, thus enhancing community development and improving social services (Bonye et al., 2022; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Olayide et al., 2013; Sheppard et al., 2010). Ecotourism revenues and donor funding have supported the development of schools, health facilities, and community infrastructure, often at higher rates than in non-CREMA areas (Olayide et al., 2013; Sheppard et al., 2010). Infrastructure development within Wechiau CREMA advanced more quickly than in communities outside the CREMA from 1999 to 2007. For instance, large settlements within the CREMA received eight times as many new amenities per community as those outside the CREMA, while small communities in the CREMA received twice as many new amenities per community as those outside the CREMA (Sheppard et al., 2010). Between 2005 and 2009, solar lighting programs installed 60 times more lights per community within the CREMA (546 in 17 communities) than outside the CREMA (up to 50 in 93 communities) (Sheppard et al., 2010). In 2016, this trend continued, with new infrastructure within the Wechiau CREMA still surpassing outside areas for both small and large communities (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). These interventions can enhance overall wellbeing and contribute to long-term human capital development, including through scholarship programs and skills training (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Gyimah and Okrah, 2009; Olayide et al., 2013). In Wechiau CREMA, by 2009 and 2017, 20 and 42 scholarship recipients, respectively, had completed secondary schooling, with four reaching tertiary levels. These scholars later contributed to the management of Wechiau CREMA as skilled tour guides, information officers, and research assistants (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018).

Fourth, CREMAs have expanded opportunities for local participation in natural resource governance, strengthening community-level decision-making and fostering a sense of ownership over conservation processes (Pienaah et al., 2025; Soliku and Schraml, 2020). In some cases, this includes formal devolution of resource management authority to communities (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). Participation in CREMA structures and activities has also contributed to capacity building, leadership development, and increased engagement of marginalized groups, particularly women, in livelihood activities and local governance (Dayour et al., 2025; Gilli et al., 2020; Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024). These processes can enhance local agency, improve access to networks and resources, and strengthen community-based management systems. For example, a community in Krokosua CREMA negotiated a Social Responsibility Agreement—investment in kind worth 5% of the timber value—with a logging company to benefit from logging operations in their area, while another community in Aowin CREMA blocked a small-scale mining project due to concerns about water and land pollution (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024).

However, gains in participation and capacity are uneven and often depend on local institutional dynamics and external support. For instance, Wechiau CREMA leaders showed improved problem-solving skills at both the 10-year and 20-year evaluations (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). They demonstrated foresight by developing shea as a secondary income source alongside ecotourism, conducting preemptive burns to prevent bushfires in core zones, and imposing a ban on charcoal transport through the CREMA. Nonetheless, responses to other issues, such as poaching, illegal logging, and contamination of organic shea nuts, were taken only after damage had occurred (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018). Limited fiscal and logistical resources, along with uncooperative traditional authorities, also impede enforcement of rules and regulations (Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018).

4.3.2 Negative outcomes

Despite its multiple benefits, CREMAs can exacerbate existing social inequalities, lead to conflict and mistrust, and erode cultural practices (Table 5). In many instances, local elites such as traditional authorities and CREMA leaders hold most decision-making power and control access to benefits (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Baruah, 2017). This can result in unequal distribution of opportunities, such as participation in training, access to livelihood programs, and representation in governance structures. In some CREMAs, membership requirements and leadership control over resources create exclusionary dynamics that limit participation by non-members, women, and other marginalized groups (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Owusu-Ansah, 2021). Overall, fewer women occupy leadership roles in CREMAs, and when they do, they are typically absent from top management positions (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024; Owusu-Ansah, 2021). Evidence also suggests that leaders may disproportionately benefit from CREMA-related opportunities, reinforcing existing power hierarchies (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2024).

Conflicts have emerged in several CREMAs, particularly around resource control, benefit-sharing, and leadership accountability (Bonye et al., 2022; Ahmed and Gasparatos, 2020). Disputes over ecotourism revenues, allegations of mismanagement, and tensions between community members and leaders contribute to mistrust and undermine collective action. Resource-use restrictions can also generate conflicts among user groups, including farmers, pastoralists, and resource-dependent households, particularly when access to land and natural resources is constrained (Pienaah, 2025a; Bonye et al., 2022). For instance, individuals engaged in fishing and hunting in Wechiau CREMA reported negative effects of bans on these activities, which had previously generated significant income for them (Bonye et al., 2022).

In some contexts, conservation rules and external influences associated with CREMAs contribute to changes in cultural practices. Restrictions on traditional activities, such as harvesting culturally significant products, may lead to the loss or alteration of cultural traditions (Bonye et al., 2022). Additionally, increased exposure to tourism and external actors can contribute to cultural change, including concerns about loss of privacy and cultural dilution in some communities (Acquah et al., 2017).

4.4 Other associated outcomes of CREMAs

Beyond environmental, economic, and sociocultural outcomes, CREMAs also confer broader benefits related to food security, climate change preparedness, and livelihood resilience. Across several CREMAs, livelihood diversification, sustainable resource management, and capacity-building initiatives contribute to improved household resilience and adaptive capacity (Pienaah et al., 2025). These outcomes are often linked to the promotion of climate-resilient agricultural practices, reduced reliance on environmentally harmful activities, and improved access to natural resources.

Evidence also suggests that CREMAs can enhance food security. Households within CREMAs are generally less vulnerable to severe food insecurity than those outside, owing to access to non-timber forest products and more stable livelihood systems (Pienaah, 2025b). In some cases, targeted interventions, such as small-scale irrigation systems and support for low-input crops, help reduce vulnerability to climate variability and seasonal food shortages (Dayour et al., 2025). However, as with other outcome domains, these benefits are unevenly distributed across sites and remain closely tied to the presence of external support, local capacity, and the effectiveness of livelihood interventions.

5 Discussion

5.1 Synthesis of findings

Our review of 34 articles shows that CREMAs in Ghana produce mixed environmental, economic, and sociocultural outcomes, highlighting substantial variability across contexts. This variability reflects the longstanding debate on the effectiveness of CBNRM initiatives (Brooks et al., 2013; Dressler et al., 2010; Galvin et al., 2018). As Murphree (2009, p. 2553) notes, CBNRM “sometimes works, sometimes does not, and must always be evaluated within specific contexts.” Our findings align with this perspective and with broader evidence of mixed outcomes across African CBNRM initiatives (Galvin et al., 2018; Gayo, 2025).

For CREMAs, outcomes are strongly shaped by contextual factors, including motivations for establishment, the quality of implementation processes, leadership capacity, facilitating organizations, and the nature and duration of external support (Agyare et al., 2015b). More broadly, project design, community characteristics, incentive structures, institutional arrangements, and project duration also influence CBNRM performance (Brooks et al., 2013; Brooks, 2017).

A key environmental outcome across CREMAs is increased conservation awareness, which often translates into concrete actions such as wildfire management, tree planting, and community monitoring. Our findings suggest that awareness is most effective when linked to tangible livelihood benefits and aligned with existing cultural values. For example, culturally significant species, such as hippopotamuses in Wechiau CREMA, have been integrated into tourism-based conservation, while livelihood interventions, such as beekeeping and shea production, incentivize resource protection in other CREMAs. These cases illustrate how conservation outcomes improve when conservation goals are aligned with local economic and cultural priorities (Adeyanju et al., 2026; Ngongolo and Kyando, 2025).

However, environmental outcomes are uneven: while some CREMAs demonstrate improved resource protection, others continue to experience substantial deforestation and forest degradation. Despite increased awareness and local action, there is limited empirical evidence that CREMAs achieve significant ecological improvements in terms of forest cover, biodiversity, or species recovery. Among the 24 CREMAs reviewed, only a few cases, most notably Wechiau and Zukpiri, demonstrate consistent evidence of conservation success. This pattern reflects broader CBNRM experiences globally, where conservation outcomes remain uneven: while some programs in Indonesia and Tanzania report localized conservation gains, others in Namibia continue to experience habitat loss and biodiversity decline (Lee, 2018; Santika et al., 2019; Meyer et al., 2021). Overall, these findings suggest that while CREMAs are effective in promoting conservation awareness and local engagement, their ability to deliver measurable conservation outcomes remains limited.

Economically, CREMAs generate benefits through livelihood diversification and employment opportunities, which are among the most anticipated outcomes of CBNRM initiatives (Adeyanju et al., 2021; Murphree, 2009). However, a persistent gap exists between expectations and realized benefits within CREMAs and across CBNRM programs more broadly (Agyare et al., 2024; Shereni and Saarinen, 2021). This gap reflects both the modest scale of economic gains and their uneven distribution within communities (Adeyanju et al., 2026; Gilli et al., 2020), consistent with findings from other African CBNRM contexts (Suich, 2013).

In most CREMAs, economic benefits are derived from small-scale livelihood interventions, particularly non-timber forest product collection, processing, and value addition, with important contributions to women’s livelihoods. In contrast, ecotourism generates significant income and employment in only a very few cases, notably Wechiau and, to a lesser extent, Murugu-Mognori CREMAs. This contrasts with CBNRM models in Southern Africa, where tourism and safari hunting often generate substantial revenues to participating communities (Murphree, 2009; Tchakatumba et al., 2019). Many CBNRM programs prioritize community-level investments over direct household payments, which may further limit perceived benefits (Tchakatumba et al., 2019). In our study, CREMAs supported both household livelihoods and community infrastructure, underscoring the potential role of CBNRM initiatives in rural development.

Furthermore, existing studies indicate that perceptions of benefit are influenced by socio-cultural, psychological, and community-specific factors (Carpenter, 2024; Muyengwa, 2015). Crucially, the sustainability of these economic outcomes is constrained by limited access to conservation and green financing, as well as continued reliance on external donor support. Without stable, scalable financing mechanisms, livelihood interventions remain small-scale and difficult to sustain over time. Overall, while CREMAs contribute to income diversification and rural development, their economic impacts often fall short of community expectations.

Socio-cultural outcomes are similarly mixed. CREMAs support and reinforce cultural norms and traditions, strengthen social cohesion, and enhance local participation in resource management. However, in other cases, they generate conflict and mistrust, reinforce inequalities, and contribute to the erosion of certain cultural practices, highlighting persistent trade‑offs that require careful management to preserve essential traditions (Dayour et al., 2024). These trade-offs reflect broader patterns observed in CBNRM systems in Benin and South Africa, where social cohesion both enables successful collective action and is itself shaped by project outcomes (Idrissou et al., 2011; Musavengane and Simatele, 2016).

Although CREMAs have expanded opportunities for local participation and capacity building, governance challenges remain significant. Many CREMA institutions lack the capacity, resources, inclusivity, and coordination required for effective implementation (Bayala et al., 2025). While local actors often demonstrate strong willingness to engage in resource management (Bayala et al., 2025), their efforts are constrained by limited authority and incomplete devolution of power from the state (Mawutor and Hajjar, 2022). This reflects broader trends across the Global South, where decentralization policies are undermined by restricted decision-making power, insecure tenure, and limited local control over resources (Barrow et al., 2016; Ribot et al., 2006).

Overall, CREMAs demonstrate clear potential to support conservation and rural development, but their effectiveness remains highly context dependent. Realizing this potential will require stronger institutional capacity, more equitable governance structures, and improved access to sustainable financing mechanisms.

5.2 Identified knowledge gaps and research limitations

Most articles reviewed primarily focus on CREMAs in northern Ghana, particularly a small number of well-documented cases (Figure 3), resulting in limited empirical coverage in other regions. Notably, well studied CREMAs such as Wechiau and Zukpiri were established prior to the formal CREMA framework and later incorporated into it (Baker et al., 2018; Sheppard et al., 2010). Their strong performance, international recognition, and sustained external support have made them “model CREMAs,” attracting disproportionate research attention and potentially biasing the evidence base.

Quantitative empirical data on CREMA performance remain limited, with much of the literature relying on perception-based assessments (e.g., Agyare et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2024). Only a small number of case studies provide baseline or longitudinal data (e.g., Bempah et al., 2019; Brichieri-Colombi et al., 2018; Sheppard et al., 2010). Thus, limiting the ability to draw robust conclusions about environmental and socioeconomic impacts.

This review also has some limitations. These include potential database bias arising from the underrepresentation of developing-country journals in major academic databases; selection bias due to the exclusion of grey literature and donor or NGO reports; and duplicate bias resulting from the inclusion of multiple publications that draw on the same primary research (see Ros-Tonen et al., 2021). In addition, CREMAs were treated as relatively homogeneous units despite comprising multiple communities with diverse experiences, limiting analysis of intra-CREMA variation. Given the substantial variability observed both within and between CREMAs, future research should place greater emphasis on capturing this heterogeneity (Adeyanju et al., 2026; Agyare et al., 2015a, 2015b).

6 Conclusions and recommendations

This review synthesizes evidence on the environmental, economic, and sociocultural outcomes of 24 CREMAs, moving beyond single-site assessments to provide a broader understanding of the program’s impacts and policy relevance. Overall, the evidence reveals a combination of positive and negative outcomes, highlighting both the opportunities and inherent limitations of CREMAs in achieving their stated objectives. Consistent with Agyare et al. (2024), our findings indicate that while CREMAs can contribute to conservation and development goals, design and implementation factors constrain their effectiveness. As such, CREMAs are best understood as a complementary approach alongside multiple-use protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) (Adams et al., 2023; Gurney et al., 2021). Nonetheless, CREMAs remain highly relevant due to their geographic scale, strategic location outside protected areas, integration with rural development, and growing policy significance.

The review makes three key contributions to the academic literature. First, it synthesizes evidence on the outcomes of CREMAs, Ghana’s main CBNRM approach. The review shows that CREMAs generate mixed environmental, economic, and sociocultural outcomes, highlighting the persistent challenge of achieving the multiple and often competing objectives of CBNRM programmes. In doing so, it extends CBNRM scholarship by demonstrating that the mixed outcomes documented across Africa (Galvin et al., 2018; Gayo, 2025) and globally (Brooks et al., 2013; Hajjar et al., 2021) are also evident within Ghana's flagship conservation model. Because several factors contribute to successful outcomes in CBNRM programs (Brooks, 2017; Brooks et al., 2012; Measham and Lumbasi, 2013; Thakadu, 2005), global conservation programs should learn from successful CBNRM initiatives to improve existing programs and avoid potential pitfalls in future ones.

Second, the review advances understanding of the trade-offs inherent in conservation-development interventions and their outcomes are interlinked (Delgado-Serrano, 2017; Leader-Williams et al., 2010; McShane et al., 2011). It shows that a positive environmental outcome from imposed restrictions may create a negative economic or sociocultural outcome through lost livelihoods or cultural activities. Highlighting these trade-offs reveals the tensions involved in achieving multiple outcomes and the need to pay closer attention to potential trade-offs in CREMAs during both design and implementation. This approach may facilitate adaptive management and reduce polarization by acknowledging potential negative outcomes and participant dissatisfaction (Hirsch et al., 2011). Consequently, it may improve the effectiveness of CREMAs in balancing conservation and rural development objectives.

Third, the review contributes to scholarship on conservation incentives by showing that livelihood interventions and in-kind benefits delivered through social services can strengthen local support for conservation initiatives and contribute to conservation outcomes (Charnley, 2023; Suich, 2010). At the same time, the findings reinforce the growing recognition that incentives alone cannot guarantee positive conservation outcomes, emphasizing the importance of broader governance, institutional processes and contextual conditions (Galvin et al., 2018; Spiteri and Sanjay, 2006).

Furthermore, this review also identifies key thematic and methodological trends in CREMA research and highlights persistent evidence gaps across Ghana. These findings have important implications for CREMA design and implementation, including the need for sustained, context-sensitive support, clearer alignment of stakeholder roles, strengthened local capacity, and more realistic expectations regarding conservation and livelihood outcomes. Based on these findings, we offer the following recommendations for future research and for policy and practice:

For researchers

• Expand CREMA research and impact evaluation beyond northern Ghana to better capture regional variation in implementation processes and outcomes nationwide.
• Move beyond perception-based assessments by employing diverse methodological approaches, including remote sensing, longitudinal studies, and advanced analytical tools to evaluate land-use change and biodiversity dynamics.

For CREMA implementers (government, NGOs, and donors)

• Avoid overpromising livelihood benefits during CREMA establishment, as inflated expectations can lead to persistent expectation–performance gaps and disillusionment.

• Mobilize long-term, diversified financial and technical support, including conservation and green financing mechanisms, donor funding, and locally embedded systems such as Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs), to strengthen community-level capacity (see Pienaah, 2025c).

• Empower local actors to enforce conservation rules while ensuring fair compensation, inclusive participation of all resource users, and the use of multiple-use zones to balance conservation and livelihood needs.

• Integrate context-appropriate livelihood strategies into CREMA design from the outset, aligned with local resources and cultural practices, to enhance income diversification and reinforce conservation incentives. These interventions should be adequately funded to ensure scalability and meaningful household-level benefits.

• Establish robust monitoring and evaluation systems within CREMAs to support adaptive management and track progress toward conservation and development objectives

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this work, the authors used Microsoft Copilot and Grammarly to improve grammar and phrasing. We also used Copilot to streamline the data retrieval process from Microsoft Excel. After using these tools, the authors reviewed and edited the content before including it in the manuscript. We take full responsibility for the content of the published article.

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/ffgc.2026.1961815/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Aureliu Florin Hălălișan, Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania

Reviewed by: Aaron Tettey Tetteh, University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana

Justice Sebuga Kotani, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, United States

Footnotes

Devolved CREMA rights often diverge in practice from paper-based mandates, varying significantly by CREMA. Nationally, the Wildlife Act 2024 recognizes CREMA rights to wildlife, while other authority is codified across CREMA bylaws, policies, and constitutions. Mawutor and Hajjar (2022) provide the most extensive cross-case analysis of these real-world dynamics, revealing that devolved state powers remain limited, primarily shifting forest protection responsibilities and resource restrictions onto local communities. In practice, implementation gaps undermine the four core dimensions of authority: rule-making powers over hunting and harvesting are rarely exercised, resource access is restricted; decision-making leverage over logging is routinely bypassed by loggers; enforcement capabilities (fines and arrests) are constrained by a lack of resources; and adjudicative powers are restricted to internal administrative disputes rather than resource conflicts. Together, this evidence reveals that the meaningful devolution of authority and material resources required for autonomous resource management within CREMAs remains unrealized.

In March 2026, eight new CREMAs were inaugurated and presented their certificate of devolution in Upper West and Savannah Regions, all supported by donor funding projects including the Ghana Shea Landscape Emission Reduction Project and the Ghana Landscape Restoration and Small-Scale Mining Project. Source: https://citinewsroom.com/2026/03/wildlife-division-inaugurates-four-community-resource-management-areas/#;https://gna.org.gh/2026/03/cremas-effective-in-safeguarding-ghanas-environment/

We acknowledge the publication of a systematic review on CREMAs (Mireku, 2026) a few days before the submission of this manuscript. While the findings in Mireku (2026) overlap with those reported in our paper, our review uncovered other key findings, particularly related to geographic and methodological gaps in published CREMA literature.

Searches also included variations of the term “Community-Based Natural Resource Management” such as “Collaborative Resource Management,” “Collaborative Natural Resource Management,” “Collaborative Natural Resource Governance,” “Community-Based Mangrove Management,” “Community-Based Wildlife Management,” “Joint Forest Management,” “Participatory Forest Management,” “Communal Resource Management,” and “Integrated Conservation Development Project.”

The selection of 2005 as the start date for retrieved articles reflects the launch of the CREMA program in the early 2000s.

In contrast to Mireku (2026), we mainly searched prominent databases (Scopus and Web of Science), retrieved a higher number of articles (667), and included more articles (34).

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/get-started-with-copilot-in-excel

Out of the 34 articles analyzed, nearly half examined multiple CREMAs, resulting in a total of 75 case studies.