Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42859225›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2026

Conservation Practitioners' Perspectives on Management Responses to Poaching in South African Protected Areas.

Ndivhuwo Shivambu, Tinyiko Cavin Shivambu, Takalani Nelufule, Tsireledzo Goodwill Makwarela, Tshifhiwa Constance Nangammbi, Nimmi Seoraj-Pillai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ndivhuwo ShivambuDepartment of Nature Conservation, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria West, 0183, South Africa. ShivambuN@tut.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9336-9813
Tinyiko Cavin ShivambuCollege of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences, Florida Science Campus, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, Roodepoort, 1709, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-4712
Takalani NelufuleCollege of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences, Florida Science Campus, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, Roodepoort, 1709, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9823-075X
Tsireledzo Goodwill MakwarelaDepartment of Nature Conservation, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria West, 0183, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9929-1722
Tshifhiwa Constance NangammbiDepartment of Nature Conservation, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria West, 0183, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8039-3251
Nimmi Seoraj-PillaiDepartment of Nature Conservation, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria West, 0183, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4851-8576

Funding

Department of Higher Education and Training, and the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) SGD14040966243National Research Foundation TTK20110815000024620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biodiversity across Africa faces escalating threats from agricultural expansion, urbanisation, resource overexploitation, and pollution, particularly at the margins of protected areas (PAs). These land‑use changes intensify interactions between people and wildlife by compressing habitats, increasing competition for space and resources, and disrupting ecological processes, thereby exacerbating human-wildlife conflict and threatening conservation outcomes. In this context, conservation practitioners play an important role in managing these conflicts by implementing conservation management interventions. A total of 49 conservation practitioners across KwaZulu‑Natal, Limpopo, and Mpumalanga in South Africa were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire to document the implementation of key conservation measures and to examine their association with practitioner-reported poaching occurrence. Most reserves implemented perimeter fencing and shared boundaries with adjacent local communities. Community engagement and environmental education programmes were also widely reported. The proportion of practitioners reporting poaching was highest in KwaZulu‑Natal (84.2%), followed by Limpopo (71%) and Mpumalanga (61.5%). Binary logistic regression revealed that community engagement was significantly associated with lower odds of poaching. Sustaining PAs requires integrated strategies that combine enforcement, community engagement, and adaptive management.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesAnimalsBiodiversityEcosystemHumansSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesWildlife TradeCommunity engagementConservation managementEnforcementPoachingProtected areas

Identifiers

PMID42859225
PMCPMC13653863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.