Ranger perceptions of, and engagement with, monitoring of elephant poaching

1. Ranger-based monitoring has enormous potential to inform conservation globally, with hundreds of thousands of rangers patrolling extensive areas and recording observations of illegal activities and biodiversity. Much quantitative research has demonstrated the pitfalls and potential of data collection by rangers, but little work has considered its human dimensions. Yet poor engagement with, and ownership of, monitoring by those undertaking it may compromise data quality and thereby limit evidence-based conservation. 2. We interviewed rangers and supervisors involved in a programme for monitoring and managing elephant poaching in the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. We assess the importance that rangers ascribed to data collection within their broader occupation, and their level of engagement with data management and use. 3. We found that rangers saw the collection of biodiversity data as a routine duty that helped guide patrol strategy. Reporting these data was perceived as


| INTRODUC TI ON
Monitoring changes in biodiversity and threats within protected areas is essential for understanding their status and evaluating conservation interventions. Collecting systematic, robust data on features like wildlife distribution or poaching levels requires technical capacity and resources, as do later analytical stages in the adaptive management cycle (Canessa et al., 2015). Therefore, when resources for management are scarce, more direct interventions (like anti-poaching operations) may be prioritized over baseline monitoring (Nuno et al., 2017). Rangers across the world spend large amounts of time patrolling extensive areas and are therefore well-placed to make observations of illegal activities and biodiversity. Ranger-based monitoring is thus a valuable management resource, providing a cost efficient alternative to skill and resource intensive ecological surveys (Gray & Kalpers, 2005;Kuiper et al., 2020). Rangers must, however, balance collecting data with other patrol-based activities such as direct law enforcement and anti-poaching (Moreto & Matusiak, 2017;Stokes, 2010). Ranger-collected data may also be subject to systematic bias because patrols are seldom consistent over space and time, and favour certain areas and species over others (Dobson et al., 2018).
We use the term 'ranger' to refer to 'a field-based operative whose regular work involves surveillance, protection and maintenance of species and ecosystems' (Belecky et al., 2019). We define ranger-based monitoring as the collection of data by rangers, which may include evidence of illegal activity, animal sightings and behaviour and vegetation status (Gavin et al., 2010).
The global programme for the Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) is a prominent example of the value of rangerbased monitoring. Rangers across 90 MIKE sites in 30 African and 13 Asian countries report elephant mortality data from regular patrols. The resultant data is used both for local protected area management and to inform international wildlife trade policy (CITES Secretariat, 2019). The large information potential of ranger-collected data has encouraged quantitative research into understanding and overcoming biases inherent in these data, such as effort-adjusted indices (Dobson et al., 2019) and hierarchical statistical models (Critchlow et al., 2015). Furthermore, quantitative models have been developed for translating biased data into future patrol strategies (Fang et al., 2017). Significantly less work, however, has investigated the social and human dimensions of ranger-based monitoring, such as ranger occupational culture, and how these intersect with the day-to-day realities of being a ranger.
Thus an important prerequisite for understanding the mechanisms underlying the process of ranger-collected data is missing; modelling alone cannot provide the insights required for more effective protected area management.
A recent survey of over 7,100 government rangers across 28 Asian and African countries revealed that 50% of rangers lack access to clean water, one in three contracted malaria in the preceding year and less than a fifth of the 74% who are married are able to live with their spouses (Belecky et al., 2019). Rangers' salaries are often low and they feel under-equipped, while 81% of rangers believed their jobs were dangerous. Seminal qualitative work on ranger perceptions has provided rangers' insights into poacher motivations (Moreto & Lemieux, 2015), the occupational stresses they face (Moreto, 2016a), their relations with local communities  and their understanding of professionalism and misconduct .
These studies are unified in their demonstration of the value of meaningfully engaging rangers in conceptualizing and tackling conservation problems, rather than seeing them as passive nodes through which conservation strategies are enacted. The well-being and perceptions of rangers are important both ethically (they are at the frontline of conservation management), and practically (the sustainability and rigour of ranger-based monitoring relies on commitment from rangers).
Drawing on these insights, we argue that understanding the value that rangers ascribe to data collection requires understanding the context of their broader occupation, and specifically ranger occupational culture. Occupational culture encompasses the shared norms, values, beliefs and priorities of members of a particular occupation (Van Maanen & Barley, 1982). The culture developed among a group of people in the same occupation defines what is valued, emphasized and accepted in this community, and therefore influences behaviour and conduct (Christensen & Crank, 2001;Schein, 1990). Occupational culture focuses on human behaviour and social processes through the lens of occupational communities, rather than the lens of the organization, to help explain social behaviour and performance in the workplace (Van Maanen & Barley, 1982). Glomseth et al. (2007), for example, identified four dimensions of occupational culture amongst police officers in Norway, finding that the extent and nature of 'team culture' had a significant influence on knowledge sharing amongst officers during police investigations. Importantly, occupational culture has a direct bearing on performance at work. Occupational culture is thus a useful lens to understand how members of an occupation (rangers) engage with a particular aspect of their work (data collection and monitoring), in order to identify pathways to more effective organizational practice.
Using a case study of rangers involved in a long-term programme for monitoring and managing elephant poaching in the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe, we draw on insights from occupational culture as well as existing work on ranger perceptions and culture to examine K E Y W O R D S adaptive management, elephant, job satisfaction, law-enforcement monitoring, motivation, observational data, occupational culture, poaching, ranger-based monitoring and understand a core aspect of rangers' work, namely data collection and monitoring. We ask the following questions: Finally, we discuss how rangers' level of engagement with monitoring might affect data quality and the evidence-based management that depends on it. Rangers encounter elephant mortalities (poached and natural) while on regular patrols, with data from these sites reported annually to MIKE offices at regional and global levels. The lead author visited two ranger bases in each of Chewore and Mana, between the 1 and 24 August 2018, living in ranger accommodation in close proximity to rangers themselves. This allowed for many informal conversations with rangers, supervisors and observation of their daily activities (recorded using field notes). The lead author also accompanied rangers on 2-day-long patrols to have a first-hand observation of how rangers collect data.

| Interviews, respondent recruitment and thematic analysis
The first author conducted individual semi-structured interviews with park rangers and their supervisors ( Table 1). The semi-structured format helped balance the need to stimulate discussion rather than elicit particular answers, while also maintaining focus on our research questions (Newing, 2010;Young et al., 2018). Two types of respondent were interviewed: rangers (n = 23) and their immediate on-site supervisors (n = 8), out of a total of c. 94 rangers and 11 supervisor across the two protected areas. Each respondent was interviewed individually in a private room. At each of the four ranger stations, rangers were randomly selected for interview from those available in camp and not out on patrol (rangers take a few days off between extended patrols). We continued sampling until saturation was achieved, that is, the point where more interviews yielded minimal new information (Ritchie et al., 2013;  ZAVARU ranger station 2 (9 ± 3.2 years) 1 (9 years) management (analysed elsewhere), but also included questions on ranger supervision and monitoring (analysed here).
Based on triangulation among interviews, personal observations and the general impression given by respondents, the first author judged that responses were honest and did not find evidence for any strong social desirability bias. The first author established rapport with respondents by approaching them as a young student with no ulterior agenda, emphasizing that he was not affiliated with any NGOs operating in the area or with the MIKE programme, such that respondents were willing to candidly share their frustrations. All respondents were male Zimbabwean nationals, except for two female rangers (there are very few female rangers overall). The families of the majority of respondents lived in towns outside the Zambezi Valley region.
We analysed interview responses using thematic analysis to identify patterns of meaning in the data and then developed a narrative account of key themes in relation to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Analysis started with a period of immersion in the data followed by the generation of flexible notes and annotations (Newing, 2010). Nvivo software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2018) was then used for thematic analysis, using a combination of deductive (focussed on our prior research questions) and inductive (bottom-up) coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The importance of a theme was judged either by its prevalence (repeat occurrence across and within respondents) or by how informatively it spoke to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006

| Overview of ranger-based monitoring in the Zambezi Valley
Rangers described having diverse duties, including patrols, law enforcement, fire management, road maintenance, monitoring trophy hunts and office duties (amongst others). Their primary responsibility was routine multi-day patrols. Typically, four rangers are deployed by a vehicle to a particular area of the park, either at a temporary or permanent camp, and remain for 7 days. Each day is spent patrolling the surroundings in different directions (4-8 hr per day, within 5-10 km of the base). A secondary patrol strategy involves rangers changing base every night or two, covering a more linear area. Less common patrol types include day-long foot patrols from the main station, and 1-to 3-day vehicle patrols. Patrol areas are chosen based on expected illegal activity, animal distribution, water availability and accessibility (    (Figure 4), leading to significantly more detail and consistency (e.g. GPS locations, times and dates, auxiliary information) in reporting of elephant mortalities compared to other illegal activities and animal sightings.

| Rangers' appreciation for the broader value of monitoring data
Interviews revealed several possible reasons for poor ranger engagement with monitoring, including the time it takes to record data in the field, limited capacity to use devices like GPSes and the feeling that data recording devices were tracking ranger performance. A deeper, and perhaps more prominent, reason for poor engagement is a low level of appreciation for the broader purpose of data collection. Whilst rangers value data collection as an important duty to their supervisors, they tended not to value data for its own sake and tended not to see its broader (ranger 12). Overall, rangers appear to face a tension between simply fulfilling data collection as a duty, and a desire to know more and be involved in the full data cycle: Now for me I am OK… I collect exact data from patrol and give to our officers here, I am happy to just collect the data. And also to know everything also, from the computer and how to send the data… I just want to know, I am interested (ranger 20).
Although most rangers expressed mixed sentiments, a fair proportion expressed the sentiment that they would be more engaged with their data collection duties if they knew more about how the data they collected were used ( Figure 5). Many rangers desired more involvement in the full ranger-based monitoring and management cycle. Another supervisor with significant previous experiences as a ranger demonstrated a particularly deep appreciation for the value of data: Some rangers do not appreciate the use of data…so when you tell them to collect data in the field, they end up compromising the whole lot because they don't see the value of the data. They don't understand the actual essence of data collection. We need to involve them [rangers] in whatever we do so they can start to appreciate the data collection (supervisor 9).
As an example of a data champion, this supervisor organizes weekly individual sessions with rangers to train them in data entry and show them maps and graphs of the data they collect. Rangers may also have an important role as data champions. One ranger was given responsibility for managing the SMART data management system at his station and he felt strongly about the value of data for management, an attitude he wanted to inspire among other rangers: When new things come into place [SMART]… there is that resistance… but if someone of their rank is doing it and then explains to them, they really understand.
If you know the importance of the data, then you have to be more precise and more focussed. When we started this SMART thing, rangers thought these guys wanted to monitor their movements, but then I explained that we need this data for us to get donor funding and for us to go to CITES to argue for the process of selling ivory… and now they [rangers] are starting to appreciate it (ranger 18).
Another ranger had experience with patrols and monitoring for 11 years and had recently become involved with data management.
His experience suggested rangers may become apathetic about data collection if they do not see tangible outcomes: If you send someone to do data collection at the end of the day you have to come back and say, 'Oh with that data you have collected I have come up with such and such..'. If they don't see a tangible outcome, they will focus only on law enforcement and leave this monitoring (ranger 21).
Next we examine how ranger occupational culture might intersect with this mixed engagement and appreciation for monitoring.

| The occupational culture of rangers
We identified three specific elements of the broader occupational culture of rangers that influenced ranger engagement with monitoring: (a) a strong sense of duty and service, (b) deference to authority and (c) rangers understanding their defined role in the organizational hierarchy. These are interconnected; rangers see their duty as fulfilling their defined roles within the organization and as a way of serving their supervisors. These three elements permeated interview responses. While they do not comprehensively describe the occupational culture of rangers at our site, they did have a significant bearing on rangers stated motivations and behaviours (especially in relation to monitoring but also more generally; Table 3).

| Rangers have a strong sense of duty
Rangers demonstrated a strong sense of their responsibilities within the organization, and a desire to fulfil them: 'I will do any duty assigned to me' (ranger 8). The most commonly reported motivation for rangers' work could be summarized simply as 'That is our duty' (ranger 9).
I have a feeling that I need to finish my goal. I need to catch the poacher… I'm just interested in doing my job, the results I get motivates me (ranger 22).
Rangers described their dominant duties as (a) monitoring and reporting on illegal activities: 'I will keep on collecting data for them [supervisors], that is my job' (ranger 10) and (b) defending wildlife from poachers: 'We are here to conserve, so that no one is going to disturb our animals' (ranger 20). Rangers saw their duty as to their supervisors, their organization, their country, to future generations and to their God (Table 3).
A sense of duty repeatedly emerged in a variety of discussions, from the purpose of patrols and data collection, to the challenges and motivations of being a ranger (Table 3). The notion of duty was closely tied to deference to authority, particularly that of on-site supervisors. This points to the second identified dimension of ranger occupational culture: A strong motivation for rangers to fulfil their duties is by pleasing their supervisors and others above them in their organization.
I make sure everything is in order on behalf of my su-

| Rangers defer to authority
Questioning supervisors may occasionally happen, but is mostly considered inappropriate: 'According to the military… it says that the seniors come first, and the juniors follow… if you say jump, I will jump' (ranger 9).
Rangers were mostly content with occupying the base of the organi-

| Rangers understand their defined role within the organizational hierarchy
Rangers had a strong sense of their defined place in the organizational hierarchy, as distinct from their supervisors. This is tied to their sense of duty; rangers understood that they were responsible mainly for patrolling and reporting findings, and their supervisors were re-

| Key elements of ranger occupational culture shape engagement with monitoring
The three elements of ranger occupational culture identified above help explain how rangers approach and perceive data collection, the importance they ascribe to it and their level of awareness of and involvement in stages after data collection (Table 3; Figure 2). We began this work with the expectation that the level of understanding and appreciation of the value of data amongst rangers would correlate with their level of engagement with ranger-based monitoring. A notable TA B L E 3 Interview quotes illustrating (A) three elements of the occupational culture of rangers emerging from the interview responses, and (B) how these influence the level and nature of engagement of rangers with monitoring Adam was given a duty by God to take care of everything… this is the same job we as rangers were given to look after our wildlife (R23) I have my own notebook, then for the bosses I write patrol reports (R12)

(B) As key factors influencing ranger engagement with ranger-based monitoring
We are happy to bring back the information [data from field] because that is our duty (R2)

I want to play my side and give my bosses exact information I get from patrols (R20)
We collect the data and we pass it onto our supervisors. Then they send it to their superiors at the regional level (R10) That is an operating procedure… whoever is in the bush will be looking for those things [signs of illegal activity]… and informing the office (S1).

I have never seen those MIKE carcass forms… maybe our seniors do that…what we do is just give them the loc stats [GPS location of elephant carcass] (R10)
Both sides is so good, monitoring and also some anti-poaching. Both is important, because we are here for that purpose (R17) We sit down, and I tell them to make sure they collect the correct carcass information (S4)

It [data] will help us to know even the hotspots, then this will make our superiors decide how to do our patrols, where to deploy (R23)
Yes it [ranger-collected data] helps management, it is our duty (R20)

Monitoring carcasses is a big part of my job… because I have to see everything that is happening in my area (R2)
That is our duty to monitor and report [poached]  (ranger 12). This attitude is re-enforced by supervisors: We have standard operating procedures for antipoaching and data collection. We came up with standing orders… it will force rangers to love data col-lection…everyone who goes on patrols, they have to collect data… when they come back they have to tell us what they collect (supervisor 7).
While the ranger-based monitoring and management cycle involves multiple stages after data collection-office data entry, reporting of data to regional and national levels, data analysis and finally the use of data to inform management and patrol strategies (Figure 2)-rangers' involvement in this cycle is limited, and tends to end with data collection. Rangers nonetheless have a good basic understanding of why they are required to collect data ( where to deploy us' (ranger 2). Whilst rangers did have a good basic understanding of why animal sightings and illegal activities were important to report for anti-poaching purposes, they generally did not know the details of how supervisors used these data and tended to see stages after collection as beyond their remit. Yet, even though many rangers were not aware of how the data they collected on patrol were used by their supervisors, they were still engaged with monitoring as a fundamental duty. The duty and deference elements of occupational culture identified here are crucial in explaining this discrepancy. Recording illegal activities and animal sightings while on patrol was seen by rangers as an important duty to fulfil, and reporting such observations to their supervisors was one of the main ways they demonstrated a job well done.
This suggests that data collection would continue even in the absence of a deeper appreciation among rangers of its broader purpose, as long as supervisors provide clear imperatives and instructions for it. Indeed, the greater consistency in the reporting of MIKE elephant carcass data versus regular patrol data (Figures 3 and 4) might reflect a clearer imperative and set of instructions to rangers in the case of MIKE data. Nevertheless, a fair proportion of rangers reported a desire to know more about how the collected data were used, saying it would motivate more focussed and enthusiastic data collection ( Figure 5). The insights of the 'data champions' also suggested that a greater appreciation amongst rangers for the value of data was crucial to engaging them more effectively in monitoring, and highligted the possibility of compromised data collection in the absence of such an appreciation. On balance, our results suggests that whilst a sense of duty can motivate data collection to a certain extent, the quality (consistency, detail, etc.) of data (though not measured here) is likely to be improved when rangers appreciate the purpose of these data.

F I G U R E 2
The data cycle for the ranger-based monitoring and management system, showing four distinct stages. Line thickness around each stage represents the level of engagement of rangers in that stage

| Creating an enabling environment: Ranger job-satisfaction and resource/capacity needs
In addition to these three elements of ranger culture at our study site, our interviews and observations highlight how the work and living conditions of rangers also help shape engagement with monitoring. For example, rangers spoke extensively about job satisfaction and well-being. A love for nature was the most common reason rangers cited for enjoying their jobs: 'My love for these wild animals motivates me to be a ranger' (ranger 7).
While this motivated a desire to protect nature, for many rangers it also had a strong intrinsic element of enjoying nature for its own sake: Harnessing the parts of their work that rangers enjoy, while minimizing the challenges they face, is likely to lead to a more enabling environment in which rangers work more effectively ( Notably, a number of rangers reported having to purchase their own tents and resorting to cheap options: 'We have to buy our own tent because of the economic situation. I had to pay $40. I bought one with bright colours…poachers, they will see it' (ranger 14). This had consequences for morale: 'If we can get these things [equipment and vehicles] our morale will be more' (ranger 5). One supervisor felt strongly about this: 'I think the best motivator is to equip the ranger with enough apparatus to use in data collection' (supervisor 7). A lack of equipment may also compromise data quality: 'If the information is to be clear…needs lots of equipment on the ground' (ranger 14).
Both field and office resources are necessary for proper data management, as one supervisor highlighted: We need batteries, GPSes, computers in order for MIKE to be moving smoothly. There are no batteries for the GPSes… how can I collect data? (supervisor 4).
Vehicles were identified by rangers and supervisors as the most important resource for general operations, yet most stations had only one vehicle and small fuel budgets. Rangers also said that vehicle limitations significantly reduced patrol coverage, and hence the accuracy and breadth of data collection. Rangers commonly said they felt they did not have adequate capacity for monitoring and that they would like more training, specifically in data collection (e.g. how to properly record elephant carcass data, how to use mobile devices such as Cybertrackers) and data management (e.g. the use of SMART software).
'I have to be educated to enter the data on the computer' (ranger 1). 'I feel we need more and more training' (ranger 5). While SMART training workshops are offered through local NGOs, these are infrequent and involve few rangers. Those that did attend training reported that they found these mostly useful. However, some complained that training sessions were difficult to follow: 'I didn't understand what was the database and what was the data model…it was short period over which he did all these things….I was entering data but not completely understanding' (ranger 5). One older ranger was not keen on learning how to use a computer, however, saying '[I will] leave for the younger guys to play with the computers' (ranger 16).

| D ISCUSS I ON: A THEORY OF CHANG E FOR IMPROVING ENG AG EMENT OF R ANG ER S IN DATA COLLEC TI ON AND MONITORING
Drawing on our results and existing literature, we develop a theory of change for engaging rangers more meaningfully and effectively in data collection. A theory of change describes how an initiative or intervention achieves its stated goal, or the particular assumptions, steps and outcomes between the particular initiative and the final goal (Stein & Valters, 2012). Our theory of change identifies two drivers of engagement and two enabling conditions for achieving the overall goal of more meaningful engagement of rangers in monitoring.
We see the achievement of this goal as itself contributing towards more effective species and habitat conservation through adaptive protected area management ( Figure 6). We first discuss two main drivers of ranger engagement with data collection. These are: 1. The occupational culture of rangers at our site: particularly a strong sense of duty, deference to authority and knowing their defined role within the organizational hierarchy.

2.
Seeing the value of data: understanding the broader purpose of data (how it is used) motivates data collection.
These two drivers may be thought of as distinct sources of motivation for effective data collection, and we argue that both are important to understand and engage if the goal of effective and sustainable rangerbased monitoring is to be realized. The importance of each of these motivations, and how they might be encouraged, is discussed below.

| Engaging ranger culture
The elements of ranger occupational culture identified here are crucially important because of how embedded we observed them to be within the ranger community in the Zambezi Valley. Interventions to better engage rangers with ranger-based monitoring will work best if they are sensitive to these aspects of existing occupational culture, and have incentives that work with and not against them ( Figure 6).
An important implication of the strong themes of duty and deference is that recognition of the work that rangers do, particularly from their superiors, is essential for their motivation. Results indicate that rangers were eager to work well for their supervisors, and hence were encouraged when their good performance was valued and rewarded. This may be as simple as a 'well done' from the supervisor. A survey of 570 rangers across 60 sites in Africa, for example, demonstrate that 'little or no recognition as a professional' was one of the most commonly cited answers to the question of what the worst aspect of rangers' jobs was (Moreto, 2016b). A key strategy for engaging rangers more effectively in ranger-based monitoring is to recognize good practices, such as a high volume or quality of raw data collected, consistent GPS recording of patrol routes or a clearly written patrol report. This might be in the form of simple verbal affirmation and encouragement, the award of a good service certificate, notching towards promotion or even recognition in the form of monetary incentives.  (Charles, 1982).
Dynamics of authority and deference can likely be traced to the paramilitary training that many rangers receive at our site (2 weeks of such training was mandatory for all rangers at our site). Such training is becoming increasingly common for rangers (Duffy et al., 2019).

| Fostering a greater appreciation of the value of data
We find the rangers' appreciation for the value of the data they collect to be important for two main reasons. First, most rangers interviewed expressed a desire for feedback on how the data they collected were used, with seven expressing clearly that this would create strong incentives for engaged data collection in the future ( Figure 5). Of these seven, three 'data champions' expressed the desire (and showed the potential) to influence other rangers to appreciate the broader value of data, through peer-to-peer training ( Figure 6). Secondly, interview responses suggested a deeper level of appreciation of the value of data is likely to affect the accuracy and consistency of data collection, where ranger culture alone may not. While our data does suggest a sense of duty alone can motivate data collection, data also suggest that this will not guarantee consistency and accuracy in data recording. If the requirement is simply to report data, there may be no incentive to report accurate, consistent and comprehensive data (e.g. rangers may become selective in what they record and how they record it). Furthermore, such an approach may not be sustainable because it relies on supervisors continually enforcing the imperative to collect data. Authority structures and division of duties mean that the ranger-based monitoring and management cycle itself is divided, with little interaction and F I G U R E 6 A theory of change for more meaningful engagement of rangers in ranger-based monitoring, highlighting key drivers of engagement and additional conditions that enable/disable such engagement. Possible actions to leverage these drivers and enabling conditions and achieve the overall goal are also indicated (these are only illustrative and more focussed action development is recommended) feedback between the collection of data by rangers and the use of these data by supervisors. Data champions were the rare exception.
There is a danger that rangers will not take ownership of data collection if they do not understand its broader purposes. This might lead to rangers prioritizing other duties for which the broader purpose is clearer, such as anti-poaching operations and less on biological monitoring (see e.g. Warchol & Kapla, 2012 (Stokes, 2010). One strategy that could contribute towards fostering greater data appreciation is active feedback workshops in which managers (or representatives of external bodies like MIKE) explain to rangers how field data are used, thereby giving rangers the sense that their data are making an important contribution.
Knowing how data are used not only ties into sentiments of wanting to be recognized as a professional, but to a sense of pride among rangers in fulfilling their various services to society. Our observations of this are mirrored amongst rangers in other contexts as well (Charles, 1982;Spira et al., 2019). In a study of the job satisfaction of rangers in Uganda, for example, Moreto et al. (2016) found that rangers saw their work as serving future generations and supporting national development by conserving wildlife. This sense of service was a key factor determining their job satisfaction. Helping rangers understand how their day-to-day data collection and monitoring fits into a bigger local, national and even global picture and decision-making, such as is the case with MIKE, can help foster a greater appreciation for data collection and more effective collection and monitoring practices.
Engaging the elements of ranger occupational culture identified here, and fostering a greater appreciation for the value of data amongst rangers, will depend on good site-level leadership from supervisors. Indeed, our results indicate that good leaders have the potential to motivate rangers. Interventions and innovation should therefore be directed at both rangers and their supervisors.

| Enabling conditions for ranger-based monitoring
In addition to understanding the drivers of engagement in monitoring, our results highlight the importance of both ranger well-being and the availability of capacity and resources as conditions that enable effective monitoring. Moreto (2016a)  ing their work. Given this congruence, we demonstrate the value of occupational culture as a lens through which we can understand the engagement of rangers in the data collection and data use stages of ranger-based monitoring. In this regard, our case study does provide analytical generalizability in the sense, described by Yin (2009)

| Conclusion
Many governmental and non-governmental initiatives seek to promote adaptive protected area management through the implementation of sophisticated data collection, management and analysis protocols (Malpas & D'Udine, 2013;Stokes, 2010). However, the on-the-ground day-to-day reality of data collection for rangers may be very different.
Drawing on research with rangers in our study area and existing literature on ranger motivation, occupational culture and attitudes, we developed a Theory of Change towards improving the implementation and outcomes of ranger-based monitoring. Specifically, we demonstrate how a more thorough understanding of key elements of the occupational culture of rangers and fostering the appreciation of the value of data among rangers and their supervisors could act as motivators for more effective ranger data collection. We also complement recent work on the lived experiences of rangers by highlighting wellbeing and adequate resources as necessary enabling conditions for effective data monitoring.
Our study began with the assumption that the motivations and values of rangers have significant implications for conservation interventions that depend on rangers as key actors, and are therefore worth investigating. Our findings contribute to a small but growing literature on the social dimensions of the ranger occupation Spira et al., 2019). We reveal particular elements of the occupational culture among rangers in our case study that influence engagement with monitoring-a strong sense of duty and service, deference to hierarchy and clearly defined occupational roles. As discussed above, these findings complement existing research on the topic. Understanding this culture was essential to properly contextualize and indeed assess the importance rangers ascribe to data collection and the nature and level of their engagement in the broader data-based management cycle.
Rangers are at the frontline of conservation practice and protected area management globally, in the sense that they are directly involved in the practical implementation of interventions to protect nature. This includes anti-poaching and law enforcement operations, but also extends to duties such as baseline monitoring and evaluation (Stokes, 2010), and park-community relations . It follows that the success of conservation management in many contexts is closely tied to the performance and meaningful engagement of rangers. Furthermore, engaging ranger perspectives and lived experiences is necessary to ensure a just working environment, which is necessary both from an ethical and a pragmatic standpoint.

ACK N OWLED G EM ENTS
We thank the rangers of Mana and Chewore for their participation and insights. We thank the Zimbabwe Parks and Widlife Management

CO N FLI C T O F I NTE R E S T
We declare that none of the authors have any conflict of interest to declare.