538 L. Sibanda et al.


effectiveness (van Eeden et al., 2018), mainly because of the associated costs and practical difficulties (Baylis et al., 2016). The Hwange-Matetsi Protected Area Complex in north-


western Zimbabwe is of global importance for lion conser- vation (Cushman et al., 2018). The protected area is part of the wider Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area and is home to one of the world’s largest remaining lion populations, with .1,000 individuals (Bauer et al., 2016). As for many lion populations, persecution by farmers along the community–protected area interface in retalia- tion for livestock loss is a serious threat to this population (Loveridge et al., 2017). Over 1,000 livestock (c. 19% of the entire livestock population) were killed by large predators including lions during 2008–2013, and c. 50 lions (mostly fe- males with dependent cubs and subadult males) were killed in retaliation by farmers and local authorities during the same period (Loveridge et al., 2017). The factors influencing the frequency and magnitude of livestock attacks by lions in this area are well studied. Livestock depredation by lions peaks during the wet months, when livestock is herded away from crop fields and closer to the protected area (Kuiper et al., 2015). The majority (.80%) of lion attacks on livestock occur at night when many livestock are left to graze unattended rather than being securely enclosed in protective kraals (Loveridge et al., 2017). In 2012, in collaboration with local traditional leaders,


we introduced a community-based coexistence programme known as Long Shields Community Guardian (hereafter the Long Shields programme) in north-western Zimbabwe. We collaborated with local communities to ensure that the programme’s aims, actions and outcomes were relevant to all stakeholders and aligned with the interests of the community, and that the programme was locally appropri- ate and consistent with norms and customs. The Long Shields programme was modelled on the Lion Guardians programme in Amboseli, Kenya, which aims to provide non-lethal solutions, such as educational outreach and deterring lions, to reduce the impact of lions on people and promote coexistence (Hazzah et al., 2014). To illustrate the inputs, activities, target audiences and desired outcomes of the Long Shields programme, we followed the theory of change methodology, which involves a logical, ordered se- quence for programme design and evaluation (Woodhouse et al., 2015). The theory of change framework has been used elsewhere in other conservation contexts (Morehouse et al., 2020) and can be particularly useful for structuring data collection and prioritizing the activities and goals of future programmes. As part of a broader evaluation, we hypothesized that the


programme would improve farmers’ attitudes towards lions and facilitate human–lion coexistence by (1) reducing live- stock loss to lions (both perceived and actual), (2) reducing the risk to human safety, and (3) creating awareness of the programme and its demonstrated efforts. Results to date


suggest that hazing or chasing so-called problem lions is an effective method for deterring young lions from communal farmlands (Petracca et al., 2019) and that the programme is well received within the target communities. Consequently, there has been a positive shift in farmers’ at- titudes towards lions (Sibanda et al., 2021). Evidence from other areas also suggests that assisting farmers in building sturdy livestock enclosures and alerting them of approach- ing lions are both effective methods for limiting livestock depredation (Lichtenfeld et al., 2014). To establish whether the Long Shields programme was


effective in mitigating livestock depredation by lions, we examined the long-term trends before (2008–2012) and after (2013–2017) the implementation of the programme, and compared levels of livestock depredation between par- ticipating and non-participating farmers. Wealso examined the temporal trends in retaliatory killings of lions by local farmers before and after programme implementation. We hypothesized that as a result of the programme’s activities there would be (1) a significant decrease in livestock depre- dation by lions for participating farmers (treatment group) in comparison to non-participating farmers (non-treatment group), and (2) a significant reduction in retaliatory killings of lions by participating farmers after the introduction of the programme.


Study area


Our study was implemented in three rural communities in communal lands in north-western Zimbabwe (Fig. 1): Mabale (Dingani Chieftainship: 480 km2), Tsholotsho (Matupula and SiphosoChieftainships: 2,171km2)andVictoria Falls(Mvuthu and Shana Chieftainships: 655 km2). Mabale and Tsholotsho rural communities are adjacent toHwangeNational Park, and Victoria Falls communal area is adjacent to Zambezi National Park. Both Hwange and Zambezi National Parks are part of the Hwange-Matetsi Protected Area Complex. The Sikumi Forest Land provides a buffer between Mabale and Hwange National Park, and Fuller Forest Land lies between Victoria Falls and Zambezi National Park. Differences in human settlement density across the study sites are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. The study area is semi-arid, with a mean annual rainfall


of 600 mm (interannual CV= 25%; Guerbois et al., 2013). Crop cultivation and livestock-rearing are the two primary sources of livelihoods. Common livestock reared include cattle Bos taurus, donkeys Equus asinus, sheep Ovis aries and goats Capra hircus (Sibanda et al., 2020). Some farmers herd their livestock and pen them at night as is traditional, but previous studies have found evidence of some less care- ful herding practices (e.g. Kuiper et al., 2015; Loveridge et al., 2017). Livestock is grazed on designated rangeland usually located within the communal lands. Farmers in


Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 537–545 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000302


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164