Every time a militarised conservation scandal hits global media – a suspect killed, a community member injured, a ranger accused of crossing a line – fierce debate erupts. Some decry the actions as unacceptable abuses of power; others view them as necessary to protect wildlife. People working across conservation, research, and community development – as well as those in public forums and online spaces – debate what is right and wrong, good and bad. And sweeping narratives harden about what is acceptable or not. 

Rangers, who safeguard wildlife, deter criminal networks, and often operate in dangerous conditions, carry out essential work that is physically and psychologically demanding. How people perceive their actions affects whether conservation law enforcement is seen as legitimate and can shape the way it is carried out in the future. Yet the perspectives of the people who live in and around Protected and Conserved Areas (PCAs) – the rural communities who encounter rangers regularly – are often absent from debates about militarised conservation. 

So, we set out to understand what some of these communities think. 

A unique opportunity for discovery 

Working with five rural communities in high-biodiversity regions of Kenya, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe gave us an invaluable opportunity to ask over 2,200 people whose daily lives intersect with conservation law enforcement what they think. We also asked around 1,600 people from the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA), as well as urban centres in sub-Saharan Africa – creating a powerful international data set on public attitudes towards militarised conservation law enforcement. We asked people whether it is acceptable or not for rangers to monitor people’s movements, and to stop, search and arrest people. We also asked whether it is acceptable or not for rangers to carry guns and shoot at suspected criminals. 

Militarised conservation is often framed in public debates with an assumed divide between Global South opposition and Global North support, so we expected to see a clear split in views. But that was not the case. 

Acceptability isn’t a yes-or-no question 

Respondents across the board do not view militarised conservation as either entirely acceptable or entirely unacceptable. While respondents from the UK, USA, and urban areas in sub-Saharan Africa were generally more supportive of militarised conservation, their views – like those of the rural community respondents – depended on what rangers are doing, where they are doing it, and why. Overall, respondents viewed rangers carrying guns or using lethal force as less acceptable; but shooting at suspected criminals in self-defence as more acceptable. Ranger law enforcement actions inside PCAs were seen as more acceptable than the same actions outside PCAs. Why? Because PCAs are widely understood as “ranger territory”, whereas community lands are not. 

Acceptability Depends on Livelihood Realities 

 Across the southern African community sites, people did not judge all ranger actions equally. When asked to rate the same law enforcement activities for different purposes, community responses aligned closely with the dominant livelihood strategies in their area. In Hwange and northern Tanzania where livestock rearing underpins household economies, actions associated with preventing illegal grazing were rated as the most unacceptable. In Kariba, where people rely on fishing in the PCA and Mau where households depend on harvesting wild resources such as honey and other forest products, ranger activities aimed at stopping illegal harvesting were viewed as the most unacceptable. 

 Ranger activities that directly restrict livelihood opportunities are therefore consistently rated as less acceptable, mirroring a widely recognised issues in conservation: that PCA restrictions limit access to natural resources used for economic, cultural or traditional purposes. 

Surprising results from a politically sensitive landscape 

The Mau region is known for long-standing tensions between communities and forest rangers; thus, we expected the respondents from this region to find all forms of conservation law enforcement for any purpose unacceptable. That was not the case. The overall pattern of acceptability closely mirrored those of respondents in the UK. This challenges the assumption that attitudes towards militarised conservation split neatly along Global North–Global South lines. It also shows that people living in very different ecological and socio-cultural context can converge in their views on contentious issues – even if the reasons behind those views may differ. 

Distance from wildlife areas matters 

Across our sample, people living near high-biodiversity areas tended to be more cautious about militarised ranger activities. Acceptability was higher among people living further away – whether in African cities or abroad in the UK and USA. Lived experience clearly shapes perceptions, and geography alone cannot predict opinion. 

What these findings mean for conservation 

Our findings reveal that militarised conservation is far from a simple, one-dimensional issue. People living around PCAs evaluate ranger activities with nuance: acceptability depends on what rangers do, where it happens, and why. This nuance matters for conservation. Understanding how local perspectives differ from assumptions held elsewhere can help refine law enforcement approaches so they align more closely with the expectations and lived experience of the people most directly affected. 

These insights also challenge a common narrative: that people in the Global South uniformly oppose militarised conservation. Instead, perceptions are shaped by personal experience, local context, and proximity to wildlife areas – in ways that international debates often overlook. Recognising this complexity can support those tasked with conserving biodiversity while navigating competing public expectations, political pressures, and intense international scrutiny. 

By grounding decisions in local realities alongside broader evidence, conservation practitioners, policymakers, and ranger teams can move beyond polarised headlines and towards approaches that are both socially credible and operationally effective.  Overall, our work highlighted the importance of rangers understanding local people’s needs and local people understanding the pressures rangers experience to effectively safeguard PCAs. Open communication between PCA managers, rangers, and communities could help reduce tensions between conservation law enforcement and people who live near PCAs. 

By Dr Lovemore Sibanda and Dr Darragh Hare

If this edition has sparked your curiosity, you can continue exploring the research by reading the full published work.

‘On the Contrary…’ is a thought leadership series. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jamma Conservation & Communities. We provide a platform for diverse, evidence-based perspectives to inform and enrich the conservation conversation.