*Theoretical Underpinnings*

A protected area governance regime is critical in understanding the degree to which local people collaborate in protected area management. In general terms, managemen<sup>t</sup> refers to "the process of assembling and using sets of resources in a goal-directed manner to accomplish tasks in an organization" [20] p. 4. With regard to protected areas, it involves planning, directing, organizing and evaluating [21]. Governance, on the other hand, relates to power, relationships, responsibility and accountability. In a protected area context, it refers to "who holds managemen<sup>t</sup> authority and responsibility and can be held accountable according to legal, customary or otherwise legitimate rights" [22] p. 19. Governance also covers broad issues ranging from policy to practice, from behavioral issues to meaning, and from investments to impacts in relation to protected areas [22]. Borrini-Feyerabend et al. [23] proposed a fundamental distinction between governance regimes and categorized them into four types, namely: government-managed (solely managed by governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies); co-managed (management responsibility and authority shared among several actors); privately managed (exclusively in private hands); and community-managed (where managemen<sup>t</sup> is conducted by local people). Based on these governance types, West and Brechin [24] came out with the dual model—the "exclusive" and "inclusive" approaches—to explain di fferent governance regimes.

In general, a state-managed PA governance regime by its design excludes local people. Thus, to promote inclusiveness and benefit-sharing with neighbouring communities, IUCN introduced a set of universal PA definitions based on six managemen<sup>t</sup> categories. These are Category IA (strict nature reserve), Category IB (wilderness area), Category II (national park), Category III (natural monument), Category IV (habitat/species managemen<sup>t</sup> area), Category V (protected landscape/seascape) and Category VI (protected area with sustainable use of natural resources) [3]. The purpose was for each member country to have a blend of several categories of PAs so that while some may allow for a certain level of human activities, others would remain exclusive in order for the PA system to meet both scientific and socio-economic needs.

The numerous challenges which characterize the exclusive approach [18,25–28] led to a paradigm shift, with the inclusive approach now taking center stage. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Reference [29] defined collaboration as a mutually beneficial relationship between two or more parties who work toward common goals by sharing responsibility, authority, and accountability for achieving results. This view sees the interests of local people as central to the area being protected and seeks to promote community collaboration in managemen<sup>t</sup> and planning. Mulongoy and Chape [30] outlined three basic processes for a collaborative approach. These involve dialogue among the various stakeholders and a focus on ecologically sensitive livelihoods, equitable distribution of costs and benefits and the creation of institutions such as joint managemen<sup>t</sup> boards or village conservation committees. The strengths of the collaborative approach lie in the fact that it is humane, transparent and based on democratic principles, hence its wide acceptability [31]. The approach is also important because it brings groups with similar or di fferent perspectives together to exchange viewpoints and search for solutions that go beyond their own vision of what is possible. It, thus, responds to complex problems and challenges that isolated e fforts cannot solve [29].

To enhance e ffective collaboration, Kemmis [32], in line with others [33–35], suggested that round table discussions in a democratic manner can help to identify more diverse and higher-level public goods than what each person, on their own, can bring to the table. Me ffe et al. [34] designed an ecosystem managemen<sup>t</sup> framework with three contextual elements, namely, ecological, socio-economic and institutional contexts [34]. The framework prescribed "win-win-win" solutions, which they explained as being community-based ecosystem managemen<sup>t</sup> that provides an organizing framework blending the three contextual elements. This converging point essentially promotes a governance regime in which all stakeholder-interests are achieved without anyone unduly disadvantaged. They identified four zones of ecosystems management, as represented in Figure 1, namely:

**Figure 1.** Zones of Ecosystems Management. Source: Modified from Meffe, [34].

A—the zone of regulatory or managemen<sup>t</sup> authority where enforcement and regulation dictate decision-making as pertains in all PAs;

B—the zone of societal obligations, which does not directly influence natural resource managemen<sup>t</sup> but indirectly impacts decisions. Examples may include policies that integrate local needs in managemen<sup>t</sup> systems to ensure equity and fairness;

C—the zone of influence where interpersonal relationships and informal processes prevail, for example, man-nature interaction where activities inimical to the environment prevail;

D—the zone of win-win-win partnerships in which multi-stakeholder collaboration prevails and where there is fairness and equity among all partners.

The zone of "win-win-win" partnerships, according to Meffe et al. [34], is the ideal zone to operate to ensure that institutions regulate and dictate decisions within the ecological context, while at the same time satisfying socio-economic needs of local people. These multifaceted dimensions in ecosystems managemen<sup>t</sup> and PA governance were later buttressed by Feurt [36] in the concept of collaborative knowledge networks, which captures the relationships among PA managers, local communities and organizations with shared missions for sustaining natural systems in locally valued places.

Several commentators have, however, expressed reservations about the effectiveness of a collaborative approach. Borrini-Feyerabend et al. [23], for instance, argued that PA governance is much more complex than the model intends to explain because, in real terms, a continuum of options exists for sharing authority between the governmental agency in charge and the concerned communities. These authors explained that along the continuum, PA officials may ignore the interests and capacities of local stakeholders and repress all unlawful relationships with the PA. Chicchon [37] also doubted the effectiveness of a collaborative approach and argued that whereas PA managers' interests are driven by the political viability of PAs with biodiversity conservation as the primary goal, local people's interests are not necessarily conservation-driven but rather driven by economics. Cooke and Kothari [38] have argued that local communities, often targeted for collaboration, are rarely politically cohesive and have no collective voice. Terborgh and van Schaik [39] opined that a collaborative model is not likely to succeed where the local population is heavily dependent on local resources unless there are livelihood alternatives that would improve human wellbeing and help safeguard forests and other natural resource exploitation. According to Abrams et al. [40], conservation success in African depends on capacity building that leads to a sense of ownership. Drawing from a Tanzanian example, Meroka and Haller [41] noted that despite the official discourse of collaborative conservation, for most local people, conservation for which they do not derive any direct economic benefit means underdevelopment. As the debate waged, DeFries et al. [42], in a counter view, noted that "win-win-win" opportunities are

idealistic in many situations. They instead advocated for what they referred to as "small loss-big gain" opportunities. They explained this to mean a governance regime in which the ecological functioning of the protected area is maintained ("big gain") with minimum negative consequences for human land use ("small loss").

Embedded in the collaborative approach [7] is the notion of local perceptions and attitudes, which some have recognized as paramount to e ffective collaboration. Several authors have argued that successful PA governance requires not only local community collaboration but also changes in perceptions and attitudes of local people, which would engender the integration of local development with environmental conservation [43–45]. According to a review by Dimitrakopoulos et al. [45], perceptions and attitudes are influenced by the level of trust towards institutions responsible for governance and management, the restrictions imposed during the establishment of a PA, the level of awareness among citizens and the personal attributes of individuals.

Local attitudes towards PA management, according to Eagly and Chaiken [46], is a cognitive favoured or disfavoured evaluation of a PA, which reflects the beliefs that people hold about the PA. This, according to them, may be influenced by PA sta ff or managemen<sup>t</sup> interventions, local economic needs and history, or other indirectly related socio-economic factors such as governmen<sup>t</sup> policy. Perceptions, on the other hand, refer to people's beliefs that derive from their experiences and interaction with a programme or activity [47]. Xu et al. [43] argue that local people's perceptions are related to costs and benefits produced by PAs, their dependence on PA resources and their knowledge about PAs. According to Nicholas et al. [48], groups within the same region may even di ffer in their perceptions about the impacts of the same PA on them. Such di fferences in perception are mostly driven by economic dependence on ecosystem services [49]. Parker et al. [7] argued that improving relationships with local communities depends partly on identifying the perceived costs to the local communities and mitigating them, as well as identifying the perceived benefits and maintaining or enhancing them. This is in line with the argumen<sup>t</sup> of McNeely et al. [50] that local interest is dependent on the balance between the sacrifices local communities make and the benefits they derive from PAs. According to these authors, this interest often wanes when the opportunity costs of conservation far outweigh the foregone development alternatives or traditional activities.

In a nutshell, the model of Me ffe et al. [34], explained di fferent levels of collaboration and advocated for the ideal (win-win-win) solutions, where governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> responsibility and authority are shared among multiple stakeholders and where benefits that accrue are equitably distributed to engender e ffective local collaboration. Though there were counter views to the collaborative model, it is also important to note that PA governance regime, to a large extent, influences local perceptions and attitudes towards PA management, which in turn is dependent on the economic and other benefits that local people derive from the conservation initiative.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

## *2.1. Site Description*

The study area encompasses selected protected areas within the major ecological zones of Ghana. The selected PA sites span the entire latitudinal landscape of the country from about latitude 5.0◦ N to about latitude 11.0◦ N. The ecological zones, which correspond with the climatic regime, are characterized by a gradation of rainfall intensity from the north of the country to the south. Owusu and Waylen [51], for instance, recorded 10-year average rainfall values for the savannah ecological zone to the north as 1000 mm, the forest savannah ecotone in the mid portions as 1200 mm and the forest zone to the south as 1600 mm. A total of eight PAs were selected across these zones to ensure a fair representation of all the major zones. These include: Kakum National Park (Category II) and Atewa Range Forest Reserve (Category VI) in the forest zone; Kogyae Strict Nature Reserve (Category IA), Digya National Park (Category II) and Bui National Park (Category II) in the forest/savannah ecotone; and Mole National Park (Category II) and Gbele Resource Reserve (Category IV) in the savannah zone (Figure 2). The categorization is based on the standard IUCN definition [3]. All these PAs were established by a Legislative Instrument (LI 710, as amended) [52] and operate under a state-managed governance regime. The Wildlife Division of the Ghana Forestry Service appoints staff who manage the PAs, guided by comprehensive managemen<sup>t</sup> plans, which are designed for each PA, based on the managemen<sup>t</sup> category of the PA, the PA priorities and the local context.

**Figure 2.** Map of Ghana and the Study Sites.

The selection of the sites was also based on the fact that all of the sites contain species of significant conservation value and are major hubs for in-situ biodiversity conservation. It is also worth noting that all six of the PAs outside the forest zone are located within the Volta Basin in Ghana, which is a major agricultural zone in the country [53]. It is believed that if effectively managed, these PAs would contribute to microclimate enhancement in the basin and impact positively on crop production [54] and the health of streams that feed the Volta River. Another important attribute of the basin is its strategic importance to Volta reservoirs, which supply about 50% of Ghana's electricity needs through hydro-electric power generation. A well-managed PA system within the basin would, therefore, help in environmental resilience building [55] and stabilize the Volta Basin against total degradation, considering the level of human activities taking place in the basin.
