*2.2. Method*

Data for this research were gathered using focus group discussions (FGD), in-depth interviews with stakeholders and on-site inspections. Eight protected areas were selected for the study, and for each PA, an average of five (5) focus group discussions were held in the local communities. Local communities are here referred to as communities located within the neighborhood of the PAs whose livelihoods may be impacted directly or indirectly by the PA. The term local communities is used in this paper interchangeably with 'neighbouring communities' and 'nearby communities.'

Table 1 shows the names of the PAs surveyed, the total number of neighbouring communities, the number of FGDs held and the total number of participants across FGDs. Focus group discussions were held in 45 communities. Out of a total of 630 discussants, 73% were males and 27% females. Female participation was low because of cultural barriers in some of the communities, which do not encourage women to share information with strangers when their husbands are around. In several instances, separate discussions were organized for women to ensure their participation. The skewed gender representation did not a ffect the results, as all the responses from both males and females followed similar trends. The age of participants in the FGDs ranged between 17 and 95 years. Each FGD was made up of between five (5) and 15 individuals. The selection of participants was purposively done with the help of local opinion leaders to identify 'normal' residents who were of sound mind and knowledgeable about the subject matter.


**Table 1.** Focus Group Discussions in Respective Protected areas (PAs).

Source: Fieldwork, 2016.

The discussions centered on the degree of local knowledge related to the PAs, the perceived relevance of PAs in the local context and the benefits derived from the PAs by local people. Issues regarding land tenure and compensation and how these influenced the attitudes of local people towards PA managemen<sup>t</sup> were also discussed.

Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 separate people made up of PA o fficials, community leaders and opinion leaders such as Local Assembly members. Whereas the interviews with the PA o fficials were to solicit information on the governance regime of the PAs, local collaboration and threats to the PAs, the local leaders were engaged to seek information on issues of land tenure and compensation, as well as their level of collaboration. In addition to the interviews, on-site inspections with Tour Guards of the Wildlife Division were carried out. Observations made included evidence of encroachment, disturbances by bush fires, evidence of crop raids by wild animals and land-use patterns along the fringes of the PAs.

Secondary data was sourced from published and unpublished books, scientific journals, project reports, workshop proceedings and Wildlife Division documented sources. These materials were sourced from libraries, online resources, governmen<sup>t</sup> o ffices and institutional repositories.

In data analysis, percentage responses were arrived at by tallying the collective responses received from 51 focus group discussions. Though the discussions covered several topical issues and individual contributions were varied, the flexibility of the methodology allowed for collective group responses to be tallied for each of the following issues:


For instance, on benefits, if there was a count of 21 out of the 51 groups listing tourism as a benefit, then tourism was given a score of 41.11% (i.e., 21 ÷ 51 × 100). The percentage values were calculated in this manner for each of the collective group responses, independent of each other.
