|
| Subfactors | Number and percentage of publications reporting the factor to be responsible for success | Number and percentage of publications reporting the factor to be responsible for failure |
|
| Subfactors responsible for success and failure in different contexts | | |
| The creation of the park led to displacement of local people from the land they occupied. | 2 (1.6%) | 35 (28.5%) |
| The local people neighbouring the park were restricted from accessing resources in the park. | 20 (16.3%) | 48 (39.0%) |
| The local people who initially obtained resources in the area were not adequately compensated for no longer accessing resources in the park. | 39 (31.7%) | 39 (31.7%) |
| Subfactors responsible only for success | | |
| The park administration had conflict resolution mechanisms and implemented them in case of any conflict. | 11 (8.9%) | 0 |
| The park’s administration possessed documents for legal establishment of the park. | 4 (3.3%) | 0 |
| The park’s administration gave harsh punishments to people who contravened park rules. | 13 (10.6%) | 0 |
| The park’s administration provided education, awareness, and outreach programmes to local communities neighbouring the park. | 26 (21.1%) | 0 |
| The management of the park was effected through the leadership structures of the local community. | 20 (16.3%) | 0 |
| The park had a monitoring and evaluation system. | 15 (12.2%) | 0 |
| Subfactors responsible only for failure | | |
| The local people neighbouring the park were asked to pay fees to access resources in the park. | 0 | 17 (13.8%) |
| The local people neighbouring the park were not consulted before the park was created. | 0 | 58 (47.2%) |
| A feasibility study to account for the local context was not conducted before creating the park. | 0 | 12 (9.8%) |
| The park administration did not give the promised incentives to local people in the case of community-based conservation approach. | 0 | 5 (4.1%) |
| The park was created in an area with high biodiversity and not degraded. | 0 | 10 (8.1%) |
| The creation of the park did not take into account the past and current human ecology of the area. | 0 | 13 (10.6%) |
| There were no clear communication channels between park staff and leaders at the local and national level. | 0 | 20 (16.3%) |
| The policies governing the park were not enforced. | 0 | 12 (9.8%) |
| The park staff were not skilled and were paid a low salary. | 0 | 25 (20.3%) |
| Previous initiatives to conserve biodiversity in the park had failed. | 0 | 6 (4.9%) |
| The park had been newly created. | 0 | 9 (7.3%) |
|
