status of human-wildlife conflicts in mpanga/kipengere
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
International Journal of Environment and Bioenergy, 2015, 10(1): 26-40
International Journal of Environment and Bioenergy
Journal homepage: www.ModernScientificPress.com/Journals/IJEE.aspx
ISSN: 2165-8951
Florida, USA
Article
Status of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Mpanga/Kipengere Game
Reserve, Tanzania
Allan Mashalla1 & Japhet Ringo 2,*
1Wildlife Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, P.O. Box 61, Mbeya, Tanzania
2 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Dodoma, P.O. Box 395, Dodoma,
Tanzania
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +255 (0)
786578813;
Article history: Received 18 November 2014, Received in revised form 3 January 2015, Accepted 10
January 2015, Published 17 January 2015.
Abstract: This study assessed the status of Human Wildlife Conflicts (HWC’s) in
Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve. The study took place in Igomelo, Igando, and Luduga
villages which are administratively in Wanging’ombe and Mbarali Districts. Data were
collected by using questionnaire survey, key informants interviews, archive information,
and physical site visits. A total of 100 respondents were involved in this study. Results
indicated that respondents perceived crop raiding, boundary disputes, and restricted access
to reserve resources as the major HWC’s in the study area which led to reduced household
income and food insecurity. Major mitigation measures used by local people to mitigate the
problem included crop guarding, digging trenches, and informing game reserve officials.
For the MKGR to be effective in improving the livelihood of the local people and
enhancing conservation, the study suggested the preparation of compensation schemes for
destructions made by wildlife, benefits sharing from wildlife-related activities, and
boundary demarcation.
Keywords: Conservation, Human-wildlife conflicts, Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve.
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
27
1. Introduction
Over 5% of our planet's land surface has been allocated for conservation purposes in virtually
all countries (Jonathan, 2011). The management of protected areas has been based on the idea that the
protected areas are of primary importance to a nation and they must be protected and shielded from
people living adjacent to them (Mogaka et al., 2010; Sarker, 2010). This is often achieved through the
strict enforcement of rules to prevent illegal activities. Attempts to protect forest and wildlife reserves
through exclusion have often led local people to develop hostile attitudes towards forests and wildlife
(Paul, 2008; Nyahongo, 2010), hence exacerbate conflicts which result into losses of life and property
(Coser, 2010).
Conflicts between wildlife and people, particularly those who share the immediate boundaries
with protected areas, are common phenomenon all over the world (Kidegesho & Shemweta, 2005), and
are a major conservation problem which conservation organizations all over the world are dealing with
(Antoine et al., 2012). Human–Wildlife conflicts have a long history of competition between man and
wildlife from time immemorial in various parts of the world (Coser, 2002; Kweka, 2010). These
conflicts usually occur when wildlife requirements overlap with those of human populations, creating
costs to residents and wild animals (Vivek & Richard, 2012). Interaction with wildlife occurs in both
urban and rural areas, but it is generally more common inside and around protected areas, where
wildlife population density is higher and domestic animals often stray into adjacent cultivated fields or
grazing areas (Vijayan & Pati, 2009). Globally, protected areas are sometimes instrumental in fueling
social conflicts between groups (Kidegesho & Shemweta, 2005; Brockington, 2007; Distefano, 2010).
In many countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, conflict arises from a range of direct and indirect
negative interactions between humans and wildlife (Kidegesho & Shemweta, 2005. These can
culminate in potential harm to all involved, and lead to negative human attitudes, with a decrease in
human appreciation of wildlife and potentially severe detrimental effects for conservation (Nyhus et
al., 2000). Conflicts generally arise from economic losses to agriculture, including loss of cattle
through predation and destruction of crops (Kaswamila et al., 2007). In arid areas it often occurs over
access to water and competition for resources (Nyhus et al., 2000). A wide range of species are
responsible for conflicts, with the principal culprits being primates, rodents, ungulates, lions, leopards,
and hyenas (Larmaque et al., 2009).
Tanzania devoted more than quarter of her land for wildlife protected areas (MNRT, 2010).
Their coverage includes; Ngorongoro Conservation Area (1%), National Parks (6 %), Game Reserves
(14%), Game Controlled Areas (6 %), Wildlife Management Areas (5 %), Open Areas (2%) and other
land areas which are jointly managed with Forest Division (MNRT, 2010). Most of these protected
areas face the challenges of human wildlife conflicts (Jonathan, 2011), which exacerbate significant
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
28
threats to ecosystem viability, large mammal populations, people’s security and livelihoods (Swai,
2004; Kaswamila et al., 2007; Nyahongo, 2010). This paper intends to: (1) identify human-wildlife
conflicts in the study area (ii) assess the impacts of human wildlife conflicts on local people’s
livelihoods, and (iii) identify measures used by local people to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts and
suggest a way forward.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve covers a total area of 1,574.25 km2. The Reserve is located
between latitude 8o 50’, and 9o 10’, S and longitudes 34o 00’, and 34o 30’, E (MKGR, 2004). The Game
Reserve lies in Wanging’ombe, Makete, and Mbarali Districts. The average annual rainfall of the area
ranges between 594 and 846 mm. The mean monthly maximum temperature ranges from 160 C to 180
C (MKGR, 2004).
Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve consist of lowland, medium and high altitude areas ranging
between 1,080 and 2,858 meters above sea level in the south of the Kipengere ranges. The highlands
form a great arc of high ground from 1,300-3,000 m, where the Kipengere Ranges border Kitulo
Plateau to the west above 2,400m and fall gradually to the east around Kidugala.
Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve has principally three vegetation communities, namely; Tall
montane forest trees (such as Podocarpus gracilis, Polyscias fulva, and Pouteria adolfi-friedericii),
Grassland which have short, tussock grasses and tuberous forbs dominate this vegetation, which
remain dormant during the cold season, and are the richest floristically, and Miombo woodland such as
Brachystegia microphylla and Julbernardia globiflora (MKGR, 2004).
MPKGR harbors a great variety of small to mega fauna species including elephant (Loxodanta
africana), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) bush pig (Potamochoerus
porcus), leopard (Panthera pardus), baboon (Papio hamadryas), hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) etc. The
major land uses in the study area include; agriculture, wildlife conservation, forest conservation,
grazing land, and human settlements.
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis
The study used various methods of data collection including household questionnaire survey,
key informants interviews, archive information, and physical site visits. Thirty households were
randomly sampled from each village and 10 key informants were involved in the study. Quantitative
data from questionnaires were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version
16.0 and Microsoft Excel. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis techniques.
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
29
Figure 1: Location of the study area
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
30
Socio-economic characteristics of respondents varied across the villages in the study area
(Table 1). Findings revealed that on average males were the majority (82.2%, n=90). At the village
level, similar trend was also observed. This scenario could have happened by chance. As for age,
overall the majority (58.8%) were aged between 18-49 years implying that the majority are still
economically active population. Regarding education, overall 60% not attended secondary education.
This scenario indicated that illiteracy level was high in the study area particularly on issues demanding
broad understanding and for critical analysis.
Table 1: Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents
Gender (%) Age Category (%) Education (%)
Villages M F 18-29 30-49 > 50 IN PR SE >SE
Igando
(n=30) 66.7 33.3 6.6 66.7 26.7 30 63.3 3.3 3.3
Igomelo
(n=30) 90 10 3.3 30 66.7 20 43.3 30 6.7
Luduga
(n=30) 90 10 6.7 63.3 30 6.7 73.3 16.7 3.3
Total 246.7 53.3 16.6 160 123.4 56.7 179.9 50 13.3
Average 82.2 17.8 5.5 53.3 41.1 18.9 60 16.7 4.4
n=Sample size M=Male F=Female IN=Informal Education PR= Primary Education
SE=Secondary Education >SE=Above Secondary Education. Source: Field data 2013.
3.2. Human-wildlife Conflicts in the Study Area
Respondents were asked to mention the main types of human-wildlife conflicts existed in their
areas. Results in Table 2 indicate that the main types of conflicts reported were crop raiding (41.1%
n=90), boundary conflicts (22.2%), and restrictions on access to reserve resources (12.2%). Other
minor conflicts in order of importance included lack of grazing land, loss of people’s life, land scarcity
for crop cultivation, and livestock depredation.
Results indicate that crop raiding was perceived as one of the major HWC in the study area
(Table 2). Views on crop raiding varied at village specific level as 66.7% (n=30) of the respondents in
Igando, 46.7% in Luduga and 10% in Igomelo perceived this problem. This implied that villagers in
Igando perceived more crop raiding, probably because most villagers’ farms were approximately
located within <1 km from the reserve boundary compared to other villages. Similarly, the village had
one Village Game Scout (VGS) hence patrols were not effectively done. Game species raiding crops
were elephants (Loxodanta africana), wild pigs (Potamochoerus porcus), buffaloes (Syncerus caffer),
and baboons (Papio cynocephalus). Interview with Game Officers and Village Executive Officers
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
31
revealed that crop raiding by wildlife has made people economically worse-off each year. This
scenario indicates that crop raiding was a problem in the area and it could lead to negative attitudes of
the people towards wildlife conservation. A study by Nahonyo (2001; Kaswamila et al., 2007; Ringo
& Kaswamila, 2014), indicate that crop raiding is a disincentive to wildlife conservation as it escalates
non-conservation activities like poaching, deforestation, and wild fires.
Table 2: Types of Human-wildlife Conflicts
Responses (%)
Types of conflicts Igomelo Igando Luduga
Average (%) (n=30) (n=30) (n=30
Boundary conflicts 46.7 3.3 16.7 22.2
Crop Raiding 10 66.7 46.7 41.1
Restriction on access to
reserve resources 16.7 3.3 16.7 12.2
Land scarcity for crop
cultivation 3.3 10 3.3 5.5
Lack of grazing land 16.7 10 3.3 10
Loss of life 3.3 3.3 10 5.5
Livestock depredation 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
n=Sample size. Source: Field data 2013.
Furthermore, boundary conflicts between villages and the reserve was reported by respondents
as a HWC in the study area (Table 2). The problem pronounced more in Igomelo and Luduga villages.
Local people complained that the part of their land have been taken by the reserve for conservation. In
Igomelo, respondents argued that the expansion of Igomelo irrigation scheme attracted many villagers
to cultivate proximity the game reserve hence fueled encroachment of the reserve land for agriculture.
The situation, however, could be worse as there was no boundary demarcation in place to separate
village land and the reserve. This situation implied that a tug of war was between the game reserve and
the villagers. In order to achieve a win-win situation, mitigation measures such as boundary
demarcation and land use planning should be given an upper hand so as to balance conservation and
development issues.
Similarly, respondents perceived restriction on access to reserve natural resources as a HWC
conflict in the area (Table 2). Results at the village specific level showed that 16.7% (n=30) of the
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
32
respondents in Igomelo, 3.3% in Igando and 16.7 in Luduga perceived this problem. This implied that
restrictions on accessing reserve resources perceived more in Igomelo and Luduga. The plausible
reason could be lack of buffer zones between these villages and the reserve which could set an area
where local people could be legally allowed to access reserve resources. However, wildlife
conservation legislations strictly prohibit local people to hunt wild animals, cut trees, collect honey,
collect fire wood, and graze livestock or cultivating inside the reserve (URT, 2009). This study found
that restricting local people to harvest game reserve’s resources to sustain their livelihoods had fueled
poaching and deforestation. A study by Kaswamila (2010), indicated that denying local access to
resources is a disincentive to conservation because it escalate illegal killing of wild animals and
wildfires in the protected areas. Therefore, provision of conservation education to the public is
necessary so as to ensure that local people comply with conservation regulations.
Moreover, association between gender and HWC’s were explored. Results in (Table 3)
indicated that crop raiding was associated more to males than females. This could be due to the time
spent by men, both at the day and night, guarding crops against destructive wild animals. Moreover,
most women were associated with land scarcity for agriculture, restrictions on the access to reserve
resources and boundary disputes. This could be probably that most women depend on forest resources
for fire wood, charcoal, traditional medicine, and land for crop production to feed their families.
Table 3: Association between Gender and Human-wildlife Conflicts (%)
Gender of Respondents
Types of Conflicts Male Female
Crop Raiding 37 2
Boundary disputes 13 3
Restriction to use resources 3 8
Loss of Life 1 0
Land scarcity for agriculture 12 2
Pastoralists and GR over grazing land 7 1
Livestock depredation 1 0
Total 74 16
Source: Field data, 2013.
3.3. Impacts of Human-wildlife Conflicts on Livelihoods
Respondents and key informants were further asked to assess the impacts of HWC’s on their
livelihoods. Results in Table 4 show that the most impacts included household food insecurity (66.7%,
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
33
n=90) and reduced household income (33.7%). At the village specific level, views on these impacts
varied. For example, in Luduga 76.7% (n=30) perceived food insecurity while 70% and 53.3%
perceived this problem in Igando and Igomelo respectively.
As for reduced household income, results indicated that 47.7% (n=30) of the respondents in
Igomelo perceived this problem while views in Igando were 30% and 23.3% for Luduga. Respondents
reported that the most game species which raided crops were bush pigs (Potamochoerus porcus),
baboons (Papio cynocephalus), African elephants (Loxodanta africana), and buffaloes (Syncerus
caffer) and those depredated livestock were mainly hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) and leopard (Panthera
pardus).
Table 4: Impacts of Human-wildlife Coflicts
Responses (%)
Impacts Igando
(n=30)
Igomelo
(n=30)
Luduga
(n=30) Average (%)
Food Insecurity 70 53.3 76.7 66.7
Reduced income 30 47.7 23.3 33.7
Source: Field data 2013.
Results of the study on the impacts of HWC’s in the study area indicated substantial losses to
people’s livelihoods in various ways. Records by Wanging’ombe District Agriculture officer revealed
that crop loss due to game species between 2006 and 2010 was 5 tons which amounted to Tshs. 30
million (US $48,000). This study found out that most incidents involved damage to maize, sweet
potatoes, and rice crops. Meanwhile, records by MPKGR office showed that livestock losses in the
area due to game species amounted to Tshs. 6,500,000 in 2012 (US $4333). These records imply that
food security was aggravated severely by wildlife in the area. Therefore in such circumstances, it is
difficult to expect local people to value wildlife since wildlife exacerbates losses to their livelihoods.
Nahonyo (2001), argued that in Africa than elsewhere in the world, the average loss caused by wildlife
is about 40% of all crops which are planted.
As for reduced household’s income, results indicated that this problem led deprived livelihoods
to the local people. Discussion with key informants revealed that when crop damage occurs finances
were diverted from other uses to cover the costs of staple foods. Discussions with Game officers,
Village executive officers and Natural resources committee members revealed that local people lost
income due to the damages of main staple crops in the area (maize and irish potatoes). These results
concurs by a study by Kaswamila et al., (2007) in Mkonga Ijinyu, Barabarani and Chemchem villages
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
34
in Northern Tanzania that crop damages by wildlife reduced household cash income by 1.3%. This
scenario indicate that crop damages by wildlife in the study villages had not only affected local
people’s ability to feed their families, but also reduced income and had repercussions for health,
education, nutrition, and ultimately development.
3.4. Measures Used to Mitigate Human-wildlife Conflicts
Various mechanisms were used by local people to mitigate HWC’s in the study area. The major
mechanisms included crop guarding, digging trenches, and informing Game Reserve officials. Other
minor measures in order of importance included simple barriers, noise/shouting, raised livestock
enclosures and scarecrows (Table 5).
Table 5: Mechanisms used to Mitigate Conflicts
Responses (%)
Methods of control Igomelo
(n=30)
Igando
(n=30)
Luduga
(n=30)
Average (%)
Crops guarding 46.7 66.7 46.7 53.4
Noise/Shouting 3.3 3.3 6.7 4.4
Simple barriers 16.7 3.3 3.3 7.8
Informing GR officials 10 10 16.7 12.2
Digging trenches 16.7 10 16.7 14.5
Raised livestock enclosures 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Scarecrows 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
n=Sample size. Source: Field data 2013.
Results in Table 5 show that overall 53.4% (n=90) of the respondents had the view that crop
guarding was the major mechanism used by local people to control wild animals in their farms.
Respondents argued that crop guarding was mainly done both at day and night. Crop guarding was
perceived to be the most effective tool to deter wild animals such as baboon (Papio cynocephalus)
which were very mobile species as they are capable to jump both trenches and barriers to raid crops.
This was confirmed by one respondent who commented: “If I don’t stay in this hut from morning to
evening, this maize in the farm will be raided and I will not have enough food to survive”. This
scenario indicated that local people spent most of their time and efforts at their farms guarding crops.
This could have indirect impacts on reduced school attendance and increased exposure to diseases like
Malaria.
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
35
Figure 2: Maize farm guarding against wild animals in Luduga village.
Photo by Allan Mashalla, 2013.
The findings have revealed that 14.5% (n=90) of the respondents mentioned that digging
trenches was used to control wild animals in the farms (Table 5). Digging trenches to stop animals
from entering the farm could lead to kill some wild animals when they fall into trenches. This could
have negatively impact wild animal’s populations. Studies in Amboseli ecosystem on HWC’s showed
that similar method has been used and it was lethal (Kagiri, 2010). Therefore, there is need to sensitize
the community on the importance of conserving the species around the area and the danger involved by
digging trenches around their farms.
Similarly, results indicate that 12.2% of the respondents argued that local people have been
providing information to the game reserves’ administration when problem animals entered their farms
(Table 5). However, it was revealed by respondents that local people were tired to report problem
animals to the management of MPKGR because several cases were reported, but nothing positive was
done to that effect. Instead they were told to be patient and sometimes the GR officials do not take any
measure about reported cases. This study found out that this problem existed probably because the
MPKGR had few Game Officers and Game Wardens. Discussions with MPKGR officials revealed that
the reserve has only 11 Game wardens who are not adequate as it indicated that the reserve size is
1,574 km2 and surrounded by more than 15 villages. This implied that one ranger patrolled 143 km2
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
36
which was disproportional. Therefore, MPKGR could recruit more Game officers and Wardens to
effect patrols and control problem animals.
3.5. Suggestions to Mitigate Human-wildlife Conflicts
Local people and Game Reserve officials were further probed on mechanisms required to be in
place to ameliorate HWC’s in order to improve the livelihoods of the local people and enhancing
conservation. The most suggested measures included compensation for damage caused by wildlife,
benefits sharing, and boundary marking (Table 6).
Table 6: Suggestions to Mitigate Human-wildlife Conflicts
Responses (%)
Suggestions Igando
n=30
Igomelo
n=30
Luduga
n=30 Average
(%)
Sharing benefits 16.7 30 30 25.6
Fencing the GR 30 3.3 16.7 16.7
Boundary marking 3.3 46.7 10 20
Compensation 40 10 30 26.7
Problem animal control unit 3.3 3.3 10 5.5
Effective patrols 6.7 6.7 3.3 5.6
n=Sample size. Source: Field data, 2013.
Most of the local people perceived compensation scheme as a way forward to off-set loses
exacerbated by wildlife in their villages (Table 6). This perception of respondents is an indication that
they are already aggrieved due to the losses and consistently suffered seasonally without any
compensation. However, discussions with Game Reserve’s officials revealed that according to the
wildlife conservation (Dangerous Animals Damage Consolation) regulation, 2011 the Director of
Wildlife (DW) is the one responsible for consolation. Furthermore, they added that some people are
not consoled because they are not eligible for consolation according to the Regulation stated above. For
example section 4 (2) of the regulation states that; “The director shall not make any payment under
these regulations where; - the damage of livestock or crops occurred in any area within the buffer
zone, migratory routes, wildlife corridors and dispersal areas” (URT, 2011).
This study found out that the study villages were in the Igando-Igawa wildlife corridor which
link Mpanga/Kipengere Game reserve and Ruaha National Park. So this could be a reason why most
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
37
respondents claimed that they were not compensated for losses done by wildlife; and that is why most
of them suggested compensation as one of the best way of mitigating HWC’s. Natural resources and
Agriculture Officers suggested that amounts of money for consolation should be raised in order to
ensure that the amount paid especially for crop raiding is equivalent to the damaged crops.
The study findings indicate that boundary marking was also suggested by respondents in the
study area to control HWC’s, especially in Igomelo village (Table 6). In Igomelo village boundary
conflicts were reported to be severe. This could be the reason as to why most of the respondent’s
recommended boundary marking as a way forward. Village Executive officers in all study villages
suggested that the boundaries could be marked in order to have buffer zones which separate reserve
and villagers land. Kaswamila (2009), argued that buffer zones are decisive tool to withstand HWC’s
and enhancing conservation as they are helpful in reducing encroachment to the reserve by local
people. Similarly, Ringo & Kaswamila, (2014) asserted that buffer zones lengthen the distance
between the reserve and villages, hence minimizing contacts between wild animals and human
activities for this reason lessen poaching, crop raiding, livestock depredation, and wildfires.
Benefits sharing were also suggested by respondents as mechanisms to ameliorate HWC’s in
the study area (Table 6). In this context benefit sharing refers to mutual socio-economic gains realized
from photographic safaris done inside the game reserve. Respondents argued that obtaining benefits
from wildlife would definitely reduce their pains for wildlife damages. However, GR officials pointed
out that the GR is surrounded by more than 15 villages and the Wildlife Department does not allocate
enough fund for local communities’ development. For example, between 2009 and 2012 Wildlife
Division allocated only Tshs. 20 Million (US $32,000) for socio-economic projects in villages adjacent
to MPKGR. The amount was used to build two classrooms of Luduga Ward Secondary School. In
2012/2013 fund was not allocated for development projects in the adjacent villages. This scenario
implies that not only fund allocated for benefit sharing was insufficient, but also local peoples’
priorities were not met. Kaswamila (2010), suggest that efforts should be made to ensure that
income/benefits trickle down to the household or individual level for sustainable conservation.
4. Conclusions
The results of the research have revealed that HWC’s were severe in the study area. It was
found that HWC’s in the area have led to antagonism between local communities and MPKGR
Authority due to crop raiding and reduced household income. These impacts have acted as a
disincentive to conservation and development in the area. In such circumstances it was difficult to
involve local people in conservation as a result non-conservation activities like poaching,
deforestations, and wild fires were escalated in the study area. Therefore, measures to mitigate HWC’s
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
38
and enhancing conservation in the area are of prime importance. These include putting in place
compensation schemes, improving benefit sharing, boundary demarcation, and provision of
conservation education to the local people on the importance of a MKGR.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to appreciate the assistance given to us by the local communities,
Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve management and the Wanging’ombe and Mbarali District officials
during the period of data collection. Similarly the team acknowledges support from the University of
Dodoma for granting us permission to undertake this study.
References
Antoine, J. Eyebe, G. Patrice, D. & Dominique, E. (2012), Overview of Human Wildlife Conflict in
Cameroon, Poverty and Conservation Learning Group Discussion, 3: 656-660.
Brockington, D. (2007). Wildlife, Community Conservation, and Local Government Performance: The
Village Wildlife Reserves of Tanzania. Society & Natural Resources.
Coser, L. (2010), Conflicts and their resolutions, in Ottie, O. and Albert, I. (eds), Transformation and
Management in Community Conflicts in Nigeria. Spectrum Books, Ibadan.
Distefano, E. (2010). Human-Wildlife Conflict Worldwide: Collection of Case Studies, Analysis of
Management Strategies and Good Practices. FAO, Rome.
Jonathan, U. (2011). Human-Wildlife Conflict in Tanzania.
[http//www.tanzaniawildlifeconflicts.org/field-activities/ruaha-carnivore-programme], site visited
on 03/05/2013.
Kagiri, J. (2010). Human – Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya: A Conflict Resolution Concept, 4: 1-2.
Kaswamila, A. & Songorwa, A. (2009). Participatory Land Use Planning and Conservation in
Northern Tanzania Rangelands. African Journal of Ecology, 1(6): 47.
Kaswamila, A. Russell, S. McGibbon, M. (2007). Impacts of Wildlife on Household Food Security and
Income in Northern Tanzania. Human Dimension on Wildlife. 12.
Kaswamila, A. (2010). An Analysis of the Contribution of Community Wildlife Management areas on
Livelihood in Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 5(4): 199-
207.
Kideghesho, J. & Shemwetta, D. (2005). Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Tanzania: What Research and
Extension could offer to conflict resolution. Proceedings of the 1st University Wide Conference,
5th – 7th April 2000: Volume 3.
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
39
Kweka, D. (2010). Establishing Wildlife Management Areas: Impacts of Community Based Natural
Resources Management on Biodiversity and Communities in Tanzania. Tanzania Elephant
Management Plan Workshop Report 25-28 May 2010: 51-53.
Lamarque, F. Anderson, J. Fergusson, R. Lagrange, M., Osei-Owusu, Y. & Bakker. L. (2009), Human-
wildlife conflict in Africa Causes, Consequences and Management Strategies, FAO press, Rome.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2010), The Wildlife Division Statistical Bulletin,
Government press, Dar es Salaam.
Mogaka, H. Simons, J. Turpie, L. Emerton, F. & Karanja, E. (2010). Aspects of Community
Involvement in Sustainable Wildlife Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. Wildlife and
Social Perspectives in Conservation. IUCN Eastern Africa Programme.
Nahonyo, C. (2001). Human-elephant Conflict in the Greater Ruaha Ecosystem, Tanzania. Ph.D.
Thesis, Canterrbury, UK, University of Kent.
Nyhus, P. Osofsky, S. Ferraro, P. Madden, F. Fitcher, H. (2005). Bearing the Costs of Human-wildlife
Conflict: The Challenges of Compensation Schemes. Conservation Biology, 9: 107-121
Paul, B. (2008). Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural
Resources Management. Altamira Press.
[http//www.conbio.org/images/content_groups/.../pbr.pdf], site visited on 14/06/2012.
Sarker, A. (2010). Conservation of Natural Resources (Human-wildlife conflict). A comparison
between Asia and Africa with special reference to elephants. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.
Norway.
Ringo, J. & Kaswamila, A. (2014). Effectiveness of a general management plan in mitigating human-
wildlife conflicts and enhancing conservation. A case study of Wami-Mbiki Wildlife
Management Area, Tanzania. International journal of environment and bioenergy. 9(1): 44-55.
Swai, A. (2004). Reconnaissance survey on agriculture among communities bordering conservation
sites located in the Great Ruaha River Catchment Area, Proceedings report from 22nd April to 2nd
may, 2003, WWF, Dar ES Salaam, Tanzania.
United Republic of Tanzania (2004). Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve General Management Plan
2004-2009, Dar es salaam, Tanzania
United Republic of Tanzania (2009). Tanzania Wildlife Act. Government Printer: Dar es Salaam.
United Republic of Tanzania (2011). The Wildlife conservation (Dangerous Animals Damage
Consolation) regulation. Government printer press, Dar es salaam.
Vijayan, S. & Pati, B. (2009). Impact of Changing Crop Patterns on Man-Animal Conflicts around Gir
Protected Area with Specific Reference to Talala Sub-District, Gujarat India. Journal of
Population and Environment. 23(6): 541-559.
Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40
Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
40
Vivek, T. & Richard, G. (2012). Using Threatening Sounds as a Conservation Tool: Evolutionary
Bases for Managing Human–Elephant Conflict in India. Journal of International Wildlife Law
and Policy, 15(2):167-185.