**5. Conclusions**

It is obvious from the discussion that the state-managed PA governance regime does not meet local livelihood needs and is, therefore, perceived by most local communities as an initiative by governments to conserve nature for the benefit of the state. The governance regime, thus, fails to address poverty in nearby communities and tends to ignore fundamental problems that confront the local people such as human-wildlife conflicts. The regime has instead fueled antagonistic relationships between the communities and PA o fficials, resulting in highhandedness on the part of o fficials and criminalization of livelihood-related o ffences that are committed by the local people. This implies that PA o fficials will continue to regard local community members as intruders rather than partners because the governance regime does not engender true local collaboration. Promotion of co-managed protected areas is an option that would enhance community ownership and ensure better collaboration and greater success in nature conservation. Furthermore, for the state-controlled areas to be e ffectively managed, every e ffort must be made to positively influence local perceptions and attitudes towards behavioral change by promoting collaborative partnerships among the local people and all other interest groups. The promotion of village committees such as the Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) concept, which is an initiative instituted by the Ghana Forestry Commission, provides local people with an open forum to discuss issues, ask questions, and recommend their own prescriptions. This initiative has started receiving recognition and, therefore, is being implemented in some of Ghana's state-managed PAs. It is further recommended that PA o fficials need to solicit donor support or additional funding from their governments to promote local collaboration and alternative livelihood activities, which comes at a high cost. This study also recommends a new system of compensation that is oriented towards permanent job creation through development interventions in the neighboring communities to empower the local people economically to help alleviate poverty in these communities. There is also the need to consider integrated landscape managemen<sup>t</sup> as an option where wildlife will be protected not only in designated reserves but within the entire landscape through multi-stakeholder engagement. E ffective use of the landscape in a manner that optimizes yields such as agricultural intensification can also reduce pressure on PAs.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, J.S.A.; Data curation, J.S.A.; Formal analysis, J.S.A., J.K.N. and S.A.; Investigation, J.S.A., J.K.N. and S.A.; Methodology, J.S.A., J.K.N. and S.A.; Writing—original draft, J.S.A., J.K.N. and S.A.; Writing—review & editing, J.S.A., J.K.N. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding. **Acknowledgments:** The authors wish to thank the Wildlife Division of the Ghana Forestry Commission for granting us access to all the protected areas to carry out fieldwork. We wish also to thank all the protected area managerial staff for their support during fieldwork and for the valuable information provided during interview sessions. A note of appreciation also goes to all the local chiefs of the communities visited, for allowing us entry into the communities and encouraging the community members to participate in the focus group discussions. Above all, we thank the Almighty God for the guidance and protection during the entire duration of the work.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
