Adapting a global conservation perspectives assessment for local relevance: Evaluating perspectives on protected area management across diverse groups in South Africa

Abstract Conservation governance has traditionally focussed on biological and scientific expertise while often avoiding value‐based conflicts. However, ignoring the value dimension overlooks conservation's dual nature. Understanding the values that guide the actions and narratives of conservationists and those interested in or affected by conservation is crucial for fostering better understanding, relationships and resolving conflicts. Few studies have directly compared the conservation values of those employed in conservation and other groups. This gap makes it difficult to identify and address value differences between them, potentially leading to distrust and conflict. We adapted an existing instrument used to assess global conservation perspectives to evaluate local challenges and trade‐offs faced by protected areas (PAs) in South Africa. Our Conservation Perspectives Assessment Tool (CPAT) consists of 55 Likert‐scale statements, which enabled us to identify key conservation dimensions and assess perspective differences between South African conservation agency staff, national park visitors and other conservation professionals. Descriptive statistics, followed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, unveiled four major conservation dimensions: people and community‐centric conservation, capitalism‐driven conservation, ecocentric conservation and compassionate conservation. These dimensions underlie many decisions and trade‐offs PA managers make routinely. Group membership (professional conservationist/visitor), gender, age and location (national/international) are intricately linked to these dimensions. Groups explored here generally scored high on ecocentric conservation, fostering common ground for dialogue among these groups, yet divergence emerged between groups on specific aspects (e.g. compassionate conservation; community‐centric conservation), highlighting differences both within and between groups. Synthesis and application : Our approach can be used to develop further locally contextualised CPATs for conservation agencies to reflect on their values, identify areas of internal agreement or disagreement, address internal conflicts and assess alignment with certain interest groups. It emphasises that conservation is not solely about ecological science but is heavily influenced by the varied values, perspectives and characteristics of interest groups. Considering these insights, we recommend that conservation agencies must understand, respect and navigate these differences; adapt to societal and ideological shifts when needed; and be transparent about their values in decision‐making. In addition to biological and scientific knowledge, there is a need to incorporate adaptive, value‐based approaches that acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within and beyond the conservation community. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.