Little is known about how employees in New Zealand companies view their organisation’s involvement in community-based initiatives that attempt to address areas of social needs. Understanding what people and organisations think from their frame of reference (Taylor & Bodgan, 1998) on ways of contributing to enhance community wellbeing is of high importance within a nation growing in diversity, and where everyone needs to fully participate in building a harmonious society (Ministry of Social Development, 2005; Swanson, 2002). Despite abundant extant research and many models already developed, frameworks in this area are fragmented. A case study approach has been adopted using one New Zealand Company to test a preliminary framework, Stakeholders and Organisational Enablers Relationship (SOER) Model, that analyses “the nature of relationships in terms of processes and outcomes for the business and its stakeholders” (Jones & Wicks, 1999, p. 207). From investigating the company’s community involvement from the employees’ perspective, results indicate that this particular company is engaging with the community, supporting and empowering employees to participate in the company’s community programme and thereby making a difference in the community by giving to the community. However, in general terms, solving recurring social, economic, political and psychological issues that influence social wellbeing requires cooperation between public, private, and voluntary sectors of the community (New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development, New Zealand Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand Dept of Labour, & New Zealand Dept of Statistics, 2003; Roberts & King, 1989; Steane, 1999). While the results from the case company reported in this study demonstrate that community engagement is being taken seriously by exemplary private sector companies, generalisation of these findings would require further cross-sectional research across industries and organisations from all sectors: private, public and voluntary.

Little is known about how employees in New Zealand companies view their organisation’s involvement in community-based initiatives that attempt to address areas of social needs. Understanding what people and organisations think from their frame of reference (Taylor & Bodgan, 1998) on ways of contributing to enhance community wellbeing is of high importance within a nation growing in diversity, and where everyone needs to fully participate in building a harmonious society (Ministry of Social Development, 2005; Swanson, 2002). Despite abundant extant research and many models already developed, frameworks in this area are fragmented. A case study approach has been adopted using one New Zealand Company to test a preliminary framework, Stakeholders and Organisational Enablers Relationship (SOER) Model, that analyses “the nature of relationships in terms of processes and outcomes for the business and its stakeholders” (Jones & Wicks, 1999, p. 207). From investigating the company’s community involvement from the employees’ perspective, results indicate that this particular company is engaging with the community, supporting and empowering employees to participate in the company’s community programme and thereby making a difference in the community by giving to the community. However, in general terms, solving recurring social, economic, political and psychological issues that influence social wellbeing requires cooperation between public, private, and voluntary sectors of the community (New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development, New Zealand Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand Dept of Labour, & New Zealand Dept of Statistics, 2003; Roberts & King, 1989; Steane, 1999). While the results from the case company reported in this study demonstrate that community engagement is being taken seriously by exemplary private sector companies, generalisation of these findings would require further cross-sectional research across industries and organisations from all sectors: private, public and voluntary.

This research examined whether microfinance-assisted developmental mechanisms can integrate ecological objectives alongside social and economic ones—thus promoting sustainability. The specific focus was to test the ability of microenterprises operated by community-entrepreneurs in supporting local ecosystem services. To this end, the research: elucidated the nature and dynamics of linkages between communities and the local ecosystems with the lens of coupled social-ecological systems, i.e. illustrated ecological modernization of microenterprises in a developing country context; tested how community-based enterprises transform upon application of green microfinance strategy; and then recognized how social learning is promoted through such community-based intervention mechanisms, e.g. microfinance. The research used case study and participatory approaches. The case study comprised two components: i) a green microfinance program, and ii) communities in a riparian, and a wetland ecosystem in Bangladesh engaged in entrepreneurship. The major tools that the study employed for data collections were: household surveys, participatory land -use surveys, semi-structured interviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, multi-stakeholder workshops, field observations, and document reviews. The research findings reveal that the green microfinance strategy, in the short and medium terms, catalyzes entrepreneurial and social innovations, and combine the embedded economic and social objectives of the classic microfinance with the new ecological objectives towards sustainability. The strategy applied by Microfinance Institution (MFI) and adopted by community enterprises transformed the ventures—helping them to go green and reducing greenhouse gas emission. Besides, the partnerships that occur between non-governmental organization (NGO) and community-based organization (CBO) in the process of implementing developmental programs—result social learning and innovations in the communities. The research review found grassroots developmental initiatives as an evolving phenomenon over time. With this view, and with its observation through this cross-sectional study, the research proposes a framework entitled ‘community-based developmental enterprise (CBDE)’. The framework proposes community level entrepreneurial ventures, associated NGO-MFIs, CBOs and other development partners to consider ecosystem services and wellbeing components in entrepreneurial design and actions. / October 2016

The New Zealand Government is striving to improve the way it measures progress and plans for change in an integrated ‘whole of government’ manner. The Local Government Act 2002 serves to strengthen participatory democracy and community governance. Under the Act, local authorities are charged with monitoring, and, not less than once every three years, reporting on the progress made by the community in achieving its outcomes for the district or region. These outcomes belong to the community and encompass what the community considers important to progress towards. Indicators that measure economic, social, environmental, cultural and democratic progress at local level are a primary tool that local authorities use to measure the progress towards their desired outcomes. To successfully track progress, it is important that indicators are technically sound and reflect the values of the entire community. The monitoring of indicators is expected to be ongoing and participatory. The New Zealand Government has leant heavily towards a decentralised locally driven approach to community indicators. The purpose of this study was to explore the manner in which different local authorities have undertaken community indicator: development, monitoring and reporting. This was undertaken through a two pronged approach: 1). A scoping exercise assessing the contents of eighteen local authority LTCCPs, 2). In-depth case studies of community indicator programmes of five of the eighteen local authorities. It was found that the approaches used to develop, monitor and report community indicators ranged abruptly across local authorities. Some councils appear to have relatively robust and meaningful indicator processes in place, which are both technically sound and have gained representative community input. In contrast, other councils hold a compliance mentality towards community indicators and have done the bare minimum when designing their indicator frameworks. These frameworks have tended to be council dominated with few opportunities for community involvement. In addition to this, local authorities poorly communicated indicators through their LTCCPs. The inadequate information detailing indicators processes is unlikely to both educate and promote community buy-in. Councils must place greater emphasis on the engagement of the entire community including other governmental departments, to ensure that indicators are relevant and meaningful for all. Consistency across local authority indicator frameworks will also help to ensure that all local authorities are working in an integrated manner towards the common goal of improving community well-being. Initiatives such as the Linked indicators Project and the Quality of Life Project are possible methods of ensuring consistent indicator frameworks. Finally, councils must provide greater information about community indicators within their LTCCPs.

Developments since the 20th century indicate that the wellbeing of communities makes for healthy national welfare in strong countries. Community wellbeing is thus a priority for policy makers and service providers. Conceptualization of a meaningful, holistic multidimensional measurement of community wellbeing at micro (community) level has been lacking. Such a concept and its measurement are essential when addressing social exclusion and development issues in the enhancement of community wellbeing is to produce worthwhile results. There is growing recognition that earlier understanding of community wellbeing failed to address development needs and processes at community level. Outsider stakeholder driven top-down one-dimensional community wellbeing (‘silo’) measurements did not address human development needs at community level. Meaningful measurement requires integrated frameworks addressing multidimensional issues conceptualizing wellbeing measurement at community level. Such measurement needs to be combined with the integrated inclusion of social capital influence through ‘insider-outsider’ partnerships. The research study purpose was to develop a community driven holistic, integrative wellbeing assessment model. This model could assist ‘insiders’ (community members) and ‘outsiders’ (policy makers, service providers and community development practitioners) in developing and implementing community driven initiatives towards improved wellbeing. The two main research questions were: 1) which macro level wellbeing assessment factors to consider in an aligned micro level wellbeing assessment? and 2) what is the associative relationship between wellbeing and social capital? Two descriptive sample surveys were conducted utilizing a structured questionnaire. Primary data findings contributed to finalization of a community level wellbeing assessment model. This model would enable estimation of the potential (push and pull) factors that influence the targeted success of suggested community development processes. The assessment model is community driven and owned, with spider and quadrant diagram graph tools indicating first the status of community wellbeing and social capital, then the associative relationships of wellbeing and social capital in ‘insider-outsider’ initiatives for wellbeing enhancement. / Development Studies / D. Phil. (Development Studies)

Text in English with abstracts and keywords in English, Sepedi, isiXhosa and isiZulu / Protected areas in South Africa are often surrounded by impoverished communities. Biodiversity must be conserved while improving community wellbeing. An increased understanding of key influences on pro-conservation attitudes and behaviour is essential for the future of successful conservation and the creation of realistic solutions for poor communities. Knowledge gaps exist regarding intangible benefits and losses, as well as the relationship between benefits, losses and pro-conservation attitudes and behaviour. Furthermore, there are less qualitative studies in this field than quantitative, nor are there many that include the perspective of park staff. This research followed a novel comparative multiple-method qualitative approach, using contrasting case studies and borrowing from grounded theory. Three nature reserves were selected, each involving two constituencies – (i) the local community and (ii) protected area staff. Individual interviews, focus group interviews, mapping, and adapted nominal grouping technique were used to collect data. The data were first analysed question-by-question for each case study, followed by cross-case analysis which resulted in meta-themes for each research objective. In each case study, benefits and losses were ranked to indicate their level of importance. Key tangible benefits were employment, access to natural resources and support for schools. Intangible benefits drew less focus, but comprise key influences, such as visiting the park, environmental education, information dissemination, and involvement. These benefits emerged again as aspects that would drew less focus, but comprise key influences, such as visiting the park, environmental education, information dissemination, and involvement. These benefits emerged again as aspects that would improve future positivity if more of each could be provided. Key losses were lack of/limited access to the reserve as visitors, insufficient employment, fear of wild animals and lack of involvement/interaction. Findings indicate that communities have a range of responsibilities towards the reserve (some of which are self-imposed), and a strong sense of custodianship. Exclusion from responsibility led to negative attitudes. Good relationships resulted in fewer poaching incidents, although locals are hesitant to report subsistence poaching. Areas of non-alignment between the perceptions of both constituencies highlight areas for rectification, such as parks acknowledging the losses perceived by communities; knowing which benefits are most important to communities; and highlighting benefits not mentioned by communities. The meta-themes were used to construct a data-derived ‘Theory of Influences on Pro-conservation Attitudes and Behaviour’, which indicates how relationship is shaped by benefits, losses, detractors and facilitators; and includes solutions to increase positive attitudes. To drive practical application of the theory, recommendations for park managers and local communities are provided. Finally, this study was integrated with existing literature to develop the ‘People-Parks Win-Win Framework’ – a comprehensive representation of the influences on people-park relationships – which has not been done before. The study makes methodological, theoretical and practical contributions. Its findings can facilitate people-park win-wins, aiding both biodiversity conservation and community wellbeing. / Mafelo ao a šireleditšwego ka Afrika Borwa gantši a dikaneditšwe ke ditšhaba tšeo di hlokago. Diphedi tšeo di fapafapanego di swanetše go babalelwa mola ka go le lengwe re kaonafatša go phela gabotse ga ditšhaba. Kwešišo ye e oketšegilego ya dilo tše bohlokwa tše di huetšago maikutlo ao a thekgago pabalelo ya diphedi le maitshwaro e bohlokwa go bokamoso bja pabalelo ye e atlegilego le go hloma ditharollo tše di kwagalago go ditšhaba tše di hlokago. Tlhokego ya tsebo e gona mabapi le dikholego le ditahlegelo tšeo di sa bonagalego, gammogo le kamano magareng ga dikholego, ditahlegelo le maikutlo ao a thekgago pabalelo ya diphedi le maitshwaro. Godimo ga fao, go na le dinyakišišo tše mmalwa ka ga boleng ka mo lefapheng le go fetwa ke dinyakišišo ka ga bontši, ebile ga go na le tše ntši tšeo di akaretšago maikutlo a bašomi ba ka dirapeng tša diphoofolo. Dinyakišišo tše di latetše mokgwa wa papetšo wa mekgwa ye mentši ya dinyakišišo ka ga boleng, ka go šomiša dinyakišišo tša seemo tšeo di thulanago le go adima go teori yeo e tlogago e theilwe ka mabaka. Mafelo a pabalelo ya diphedi a mararo a kgethilwe, le lengwe le le lengwe le akaretša bakgathatema ba babedi ka go lona – (i) setšhaba sa kgauswi le (ii) bašomi ba lefelo leo le šireleditšwego. Batho ka o tee ka o tee ba ile ba botšišwa dipotšišo, dihlopha tše di nepišitšwego le tšona di ile tša botšišwa dipotšišo, go hlaola, le mokgwa wo o fetošitšwego wa go hlopha ka maina di šomišitšwe go kgoboketša tshedimošo. Tshedimošo e thomile ka go sekasekwa go ya ka potšišo ye e botšišitšwego go dinyakišišo tša seemo, gwa latela tshekatsheko ya dinyakišišo tše di fapafapanego yeo e feleleditšego ka merero ye megolo go maikemišetšo a mangwe le a mangwe a dinyakišišo. Ka go dinyakišišo tše dingwe le tše dingwe tša seemo, dikholego le ditahlegelo di ile tša bewa ka maemo go laetša maemo a bohlokwa bja tšona. Dikholego tše bohlokwa tšeo di bonagalago di ile tša dirišwa, gwa ba le phihlelelo go methopo ya tlhago le thekgo ya dikolo. Dikholego tšeo di sa bonagalego di ile tša ba le šedi ye nnyane, eupša tša ba le dikhuetšo tše bohlokwa, tša go swana le go etela serapeng sa diphoofolo, thuto ya tikologo, go phatlalatša tshedimošo, le go kgatha tema. Dikholego tše di tšweletše gape bjalo ka dikokwane tšeo di tlago kaonafatša maikutlo a makaone a ka moso ge e le gore tše ntši tša tšona di tla abja. Ditahlegelo tše bohlokwa e bakilwe ke tlhokego ya phihlelelo/phihlelelo ye nnyane ya go tsena ka dirapeng tša diphoofolo ka baeti, tlhokego ya mešomo, go tšhaba diphoofolo tša lešoka le tlhokego ya go kgatha tema/tirišano. Dikutollo di laetša gore ditšhaba di na le maikarabelo a mehutahuta go dirapa tša diphoofolo (a mangwe maikarabelo ke a go ithaopa ga setšhaba), le maikutlo ao a tiilego a go di hlokomela. Go se akaretše ditšhaba go maikarabelo a go feleleditše ka maikutlo ao a sego a loka. Dikamano tše botse di feleleditše ka ditiragalo tše mmalwa tša go bolaya diphoofolo ke bao ba nyakago manaka a tšona, le ge e le gore badudi ba dikadika go bega go bolaya diphoofolo ke bao ba inyakelago nama ya tšona. Makala a go se sepelelane magareng ga maikutlo a bakgathatema ka bobedi a laetša fao go swanatšego go phošollwa gona, go swana le ge dirapa tša diphoofolo di dumela ditahlegelo tšeo di bonwago ke ditšhaba; di tseba gore ke dikholego dife tše di lego bohlokwa kudu go ditšhaba; le go laetša dikholego tše di sego tša bolelwa ke ditšhaba. Mereo ye megolo e ile ya šomišwa go hlama ‘Teori ya dikhuetšo ye e tšwago tshedimošong ka ga Maikutlo le Maitshwaro ao a Thekgago Pabalelo ya diphedi’, yeo e laetšago ka fao kamano e bopšago ke dikholego, ditahlegelo, disenyi le basepediši; ebile e akaretšago ditharollo tša go oketša maikutlo a makaone. Go tšwetša pele tirišo ye e phathagatšwago ya teori ye, balaodi ba dirapa tša diphoofolo le ditšhaba ba ile ba fiwa ditšhišinyo. Mafelelong, dinyakišišo tše di ile tša tsenywa ka gare ga dingwalwa tšeo di lego gona ka nepo ya go hlama ‘Melawanatheo ya Dirapa tša Diphoofolo tša go Thekgwa ke Batho tšeo di Holago Bohle’ – e lego kemedi ye e akaretšago bohle ka ga dikhuetšo tša dikamano tša dirapa tša diphoofolo tša go thekgwa ke batho – e lego seo se sego sa ka sa dirwa mo nakong ye e fetilego. Dinyakišišo tše tsenya letsogo ka ga mekgwa, teori le tirišo. Dikutollo tša tšona di ka nolofatša kholego ya bohle go dirapa tša diphoofolo tša go thekgwa ke batho, tša thuša bobedi pabalelo ya diphedi tšeo di fapafapanego le go phela gabotse ga setšhaba. / Imimandla ekhuselekileyo eMzantsi Afrika ikholisa ukungqongwa yimiphakathi ehluphekileyo. Indalo esingqongileyo kufuneka ilondolozwe lo gama kuphuculwa intlalontle yoluntu. Kubaluleke kakhulu ukwanda kokuqonda imiba enefuthe kwiindlela zokucinga nokuziphatha malunga nolondolozo lwendalo ukuze kubekho impumelelo ekulondolozeni indalo, kudaleke nezisombululo ezisebenzayo kwimiphakathi ehluphekileyo. Kukho izikhewu kulwazi olumalunga noncedo nelahleko, kwanolwalamano phakathi koncedo, ilahleko neendlela zokucinga nokuziphatha. Ngaphaya koko, zimbalwa izifundo ezingqiyame kakhulu kwingxoxo nengcaciso kunezifundo ezingqiyame kumanani, kwaye zimbalwa eziqwalasela izimvo zabasebenzi bamaziko ekugcinwa kuwo indalo. Olu phando lunesimbo esitsha esiqhutywa ngokuthelekisa iindlela zophando eziliqela, kusetyenziswa izifundo ezisekelwe kumava neengcingane/iithiyori ezaziwayo. Kukhethwe amaziko endalo amathathu apho kubandakanywe amacandelo amabini kwiziko ngalinye – (i) uluntu lwendawo kunye (ii) nabaqeshwa bommandla okhuselweyo. Ulwazi okanye idatha luqokelelwe ngezi ndlela zilandelayo: Kwaqhutywa udliwano ndlebe nabantu bengabanye, bengamaqela ekugxininiswe kuwo, kwalandeliswa ngokuthelekisa okuqikelelweyo nokwenzekileyo kunye nokudibanisa amaqela ukuze axukushe imiba ekuphandwa ngayo. Iinkcukacha zolwazi eziqokelelweyo zahlalutywa ngokuthi kuqwalaselwe iimpendulo zombuzo ngamnye kule yemizekelo yamava omntu ngamnye, kwalandeliswa ngokuthelekisa iimeko namava abantu ngabantu, nto leyo eyaveza imixholo ebanzi kwinjongo nganye yesifundo sophando. Kwisifundo samava ngasinye kwalandelelaniswa uncedo nelahleko ngokokubaluleka kwazo. Izinto eziluncedo ezaqwalaselwayo yaba yimpangelo, ukufikelela kwimithombo yendalo nenkxaso yezikolo. Uncedo olungabambekiyo zange luqwalaselwe ngokungamandla kodwa lunefuthe eliphambili njengokutyelela amaziko endalo, ukufundiswa ngokusingqongileyo, ukusasazwa kolwazi nokuthatha inxaxheba. Ezi ndidi zoncedo zaphinda zavela njengamanqanaba aya kuphucula ukuzijonga ngethemba izinto xa kunokwenziwa ukuba zibe khona. Ilahleko yaba kukunqongophala kwendlela yokufikelela kwiziko njengeendwendwe, ukunqaba kwamathuba empangelo, ukoyika izilo zasendle nokungabikho kwamathuba okuthatha inxaxheba. Okufunyanisiweyo kudiza ukuba uluntu lunoxanduva oluziindidi ezahlukeneyo kwiziko (olunye uxanduva bazinike ngokwabo), kwaye luzibona lungabagcini bendawo. Ukunganikwa uxanduva kwakhokelela ekucingeni gwenxa. Intsebenziswano yakhokelela ekuncipheni kweziganeko zokuzingela ngokungekho mthethweni, nangona abahlali bendawo bemathidala ukuxela abantu abazingelela ukuzondla. Iindawo zokuhlabana kwezimvo zamacala omabini zidulisa amanqanaba afanele ukulungiswa, njengokuba amaziko endalo ayiqonde imeko ebonwa njengelahleko luluntu lwendawo; aqonde nokuba zeziphi izinto ezibalulekileyo nezibonwa njengoncedo luluntu; acacise nezinto eziluncedo ezingabalulwanga luluntu lwendawo. Imixholo ebanzi (meta-themes) yasetyenziselwa ukuqweba ‘Ingcingane Yefuthe Elenzeka Kwiimbono Nokuziphatha’ (‘Theory of Influences on Pro-conservation Attitudes and Behaviour’), nebonakalisa ukuba izinto eziluncedo, ilahleko, iziphazamiso nabaququzeleli zilubumba njani ulwalamano. Kwakhona, le ngcingane iquka izisombululo zokwandisa iingcinga ezintle. Kunikwe iingcebiso kubaphathi beziko lendalo nakuluntu lwendawo ukuze kuphuhliswe iindlela ezibonakalayo zokusebenzisa le ngcingane. Okokugqibela, esi sifundo sixutywe noncwadi oselukho ngenjongo yokuphuhlisa ‘Isakhelo Sempumelelo Yentsebenziswano Kuluntu Namaziko Endalo’ (‘People-Parks Win-Win Framework’) – lo ngumbhalo oveza ifuthe lentsebenziswano yoluntu namaziko endalo – nto leyo ingazange ibekho ngaphambili. Esi sifundo sifaka igxalaba ngobuchule, ngengcingane nangomsebenzi ophathekayo. Okufunyaniswe apha kunakho ukudala impumelelo kwintsebenziswano yokuntu namaziko endalo, sincede ulondolozo lwendalo nentlalontle yoluntu. / Izindawo ezivikelekile eNingizimu Afrika kaningi zihaqwe yimiphakathi entulayo. Izinto ezahlukahlukene eziphilayo kufanele zilondolozwe kanti ngakolunye uhlangothi sibe sesifafaza ivangeli lempilo ephephile emiphakathini. Ulwazi oluningi lwemithelela esemqoka emayelana nommoya kanye nemikhuba yokulondoloza kwemvelo kubalulekile kwikusasa lokwakha uhlelo olluyimpumelelo lokulondoloza kwemvelo kanye nokwakha amasu empilo yangempela okusiza imiphakathi edla imbuya ngothi. Kukhona ukwedlulana okumayelana nezinzuzo ezingabonakali ngamehlo kanye nokulahlekelwa, kanye nobudlelwano obuphakathi kwezinzuzo, kokulahlekelwa kanye nemmoya kanye nemikhuba ehlose ukulondoloza imvelo. Ngaphezu kwalokho, kunezifundo ezincane zocwaningo olugxile kwizingxoxo kulo mkhakha, uma seziqhathaniswa nezifundo zocwaningo olugxile kumanani, kanti kunjalo-nje izifundo zocwaningo eziningi azixubi umqondo wabasebenzi. Lolu cwaningo luye lwalandela indlela embaxaningi yokuqhathanisa egxile kwizingxoxo, ngokusebenzisa izifundo zocwaningolotho eziphikisanayo futhi ziye zaqhubeka nokuboleka amasu kwimiqondo egxilile. . Kuye kwakhethwa iziqiwu zokulonda izilwane ezintathu, esinye nesinye isiqiwu sinezakhamuzi zendawo – (i) umphakathi oyizakhamuzi kanye (ii) nendawo evikelekile yabasebenzi. Kuye kwasetshenziswa izinhlelo zenhlolovo yomuntu ngamunye, ukumepha, kanye nezindlela zemibuzo eshicilelwe zemibono yamaqembu, konke lokhu kuye kwasetshenziswa ukuqoqa idatha. Okokuqala idatha iye yahlaziywa ngokwemibuzo ngamunye kolunye nolunye ucwaningolotho, okuye kwalandelwa yindlela yokuhlaziya eyaziwa phecelezi ngecross-case analysis okuyindlela edale ukuba kube nezindikimba ezibizwa ngemeta-themes zenhloso enye nenye yocwaningo. Kolunye nolunye ucwaningo, izinzuzo kanye nokulahlekelwa kuye kwabekwa ngokulandelana ukuze kuvezwe amazing okubaluleka. Izinzuzo ezisemqoka eziphathekayo kuye kwaba ukusebenza, ukwazi ukuthola imithombo yemvelo kanye nokuxhaswa kwezikole. Izinzuzo ezingaphathekiyo akugxilwanga kakhulu kuzo, kodwa nazo ziqukethe imithelela esemqoka, enjengokuvakashela izindawo zokungcebeleka, ukuhlinzekwa ngemfundo yezemvelo, ukusakazwa kolwazi kanye nokubandakanyeka. Lezi zinzuzo ziye zavela futhi njengezinto ezizothuthukisa ikusasa eliqhakazile uma ngabe konke lokhu kuyalandelwa. Ukulahlekelwa okuphawulekayo kuye kwaba ukusweleka/ukufinyeleleka kancane kwezivakashi esiqiwini sezilwane, ukuqashwa kwabasebenzi benani eliphansi, ukwesaba izilwane zasendle kanye nezinga lokusweleka kokubandakanyeka/nokungahlangani. Ulwazi olutholakele luveza ukuthi imiphakathi inezindima eziningi okufanele iziidlale kwiziqiwu ezilondoloza imvelo (ezinye izindima yilezo ezizibeke phezu kwamahlombe omphakathi) kanye nokuba nesasasa lokunakekela imvelo. Kanti ukungabandakanywa komphakathi kuye kwaholela ekutheni umphakathi ube nommoya ongemuhle kulezi ziqiwu. Ubudlelwano obuhle buye baholela ekutheni kube nenani eliphansi lezehlakalo zokubulawa kwezilwane, yize abantu bezindawo ezisondelene neziqiwu beba nokuthandabuza uma kufanele babike izehlakalo zokubulawa kwezilwane. Ukungasebenzisani phakathi kwezinhlanga ezimbili, izakhamuzi kanye namalungu eziqiwu zezilwane kuveza amaphutha okufanele alungiswe, anjengokuthi iziqiwu lezi zibe nolwazi ngokulahlekelwa komphakathi; zazi ukuthi ngiziphi izinzuzo ezibalulekile emphakathini; futhi ziveze izinzuzo ezingavezwanga wumphakathi. Izinhlaka phecelezi ezingama meta-themes zisetshenzisiwe ukwakha ithiyori esuselwe kwidatha, phecelezi ‘Theory of Influences on Pro-conservation Attitudes and Behaviour’, okuveza indlela ubudlelwano obakhiwa ngayo yizinzuzo, ukulahlekelwa, yizihibhe kanye nabancedisi; kanti lokhu kuxuba izixazululo eziqonde ukwengeza ummoya omuhle. Ukuze kusetshenziswe imiqondo ngendlela ebonakalayo , kuye kwalandelwa izincomo zabaphathi beziqiwi kanye nezakhamuzi eziseduze neziqiwu. Okokugcina, lolu cwaningo luye lwahlanganiswa nombhalo wobuciko obevele ukhona ukwakha phecelezi ‘People-Parks Win-Win Framework’ – uhlelo olubanzi oluxuba zonke izinhlaka olunemithelela yemibono yezinhlelo zobudlelwano babantu kanye neziqiwu zezilwane – okuyinto engakaze yenziwe ngaphambilini. Ucwaningo luye lwaba negalelo kwindlela yokucwaningo (methodological), kwimiqondo kanye namagalelo abonakalayo. Okutholwe wucwaningo kunganceda ukuhlela uhlelo lapho kuzuza abantu kanye neziqiwu, lokhu kunganceda zombili izinhlaka ukulondolozwa ephilayo ehlukahlukene kanti futhi kungadala inhlalakahle emphakathini. / Environmental Sciences / Ph. D. (Environmental Management)