**1. Introduction**

Protected areas (PAs) have remained the bedrock of nature conservation, and by far, the best strategy to protect habitats and stem the rapid erosion of biodiversity [1,2]. The Convention on Biological Diversity defines a protected area (PA) as a: "geographically defined area, which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives" [3]. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), however, provides a universally accepted definition of a protected as "a clearly defined geographical space recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature and its associated ecosystems services and cultural values" [3]. The historical antecedent of the establishment of PAs stemmed from the belief in the restorative powers of 'a little pure wilderness,' rooted in the romantic-transcendental preservation ethic [4]. This was a deterministic worldview with a cause and effect relationship, in which the proponents believed that experiencing original nature provided aesthetic, psychological and spiritual benefits that could not be gained in urban or even pastoral landscapes [5]. This line of thought prompted the establishment of large national parks and reserves where natural ecosystems could be protected from human influence, and biodiversity could be conserved [6].

Contrary to this worldview, also referred to as the "exclusive model," is the widely acclaimed 'socially oriented paradigm' of PA managemen<sup>t</sup> [7], which blends conservation objectives with concerns for the wellbeing of local communities [8–14]. The proponents of this approach, referred to as the "inclusive model," are of the view that local people would most likely be willing to conserve when they receive direct benefits from the conservation enterprise. This approach promotes local community collaboration in the decision-making process and enhances dialogue, transparency, mutual respect, equity and benefit-sharing.

Another important conservation approach based on multi-stakeholder engagemen<sup>t</sup> is matrix-based conservation [15]. This approach stresses the importance of maintaining suitable habitats and populations of native species outside PAs. According to Lindenmayer and Franklin, [15], it involves the regulatory control of landscape activities such as farming and logging, as well as hunting, to protect species not only within the PA but the entire landscape. This landscape-level approach, however, presents a challenge in sub-Saharan Africa, where land ownership and livelihood issues make its implementation di fficult.

In general, socio-economic and cultural factors, to a large extent, influence conservation decisions in most developing countries [16]. Poverty is a major socio-economic characteristic of most communities bordering PAs in these countries. This raises challenges because local communities who, hitherto, derive their livelihood from forest resources and other ecosystem services before PA establishment, tend to be denied access after their establishment [8,17]. Lea et al. [18] explained that the strict protectionists' approach tends to displace people and deprive them of their livelihoods, thereby exacerbating their poverty situation. On the cultural front, the traditional land tenure system is a major factor influencing conservation decisions by local communities in most developing countries. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), [19], land tenure issues are of prime concern presently, as high rate of population growth, high food prices, the impact of climate change, trade regimes and growing demand for agrofuels, among other factors, have continued to exert pressure on land tenure systems. Moreover, land for wildlife conservation may belong to private individuals, community groups or the state. However, since wildlife is a fugitive property that does not recognize property boundaries, its movement cannot be restricted, hence incessant human-wildlife conflicts [19] occur in the absence of matrix-based conservation.

As noted by Parker et al. [7], the primary focus of PA managemen<sup>t</sup> has been related to the benefits these areas provide at a higher level, including the protection of biodiversity, spiritual benefits and economic gains through tourism, with less attention given to possible concerns raised by local communities on how they have been disadvantaged by PA establishment. In Africa, most PAs are under state-managed governance regime with little or no provision for local community collaboration. This raises the question as to how practicable local collaboration is in PA managemen<sup>t</sup> if the governance regime does not realistically involve local people. This study, therefore, examined how PA governance regime influences multi-stakeholder collaboration in PA managemen<sup>t</sup> in Ghana. More specifically, the study investigated the general threats faced by PAs in selected sites, how the prevailing governance regime has influenced local community perceptions and attitudes, as well as conservation outcomes by way of threat reduction.
