Human–African buffalo conflict: perceptions of damage, and mitigation strategies, in villages bordering Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania
KWAS L EMA MALL E HAR I O H A Y * 1 ,EBE NE ZE R B. MARANDU1 EMMANUEL H. L YIMO1 and E LI BA RIK I S. B AJ U T A 2
Abstract Human–wildlife conflict is a critical and complex challenge in wildlife conservation. It arises when humans and wildlife interact and one or both parties suffer negative consequences from the interaction. This research assessed the extent of damage resulting from human–African buffalo Syncerus caffer conflict and explored mitigation strategies. We used a semi-structured questionnaire-based survey of 131 households randomly selected in Kambi ya Simba, Oldeani and Tloma villages surrounding Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Our results revealed that re- source competition was the main factor inducing human– African buffalo conflict. The impacts reported most frequently were crop damage (especially during the wet seasons) and human casualties. Crops that were most often damaged included maize, beans, wheat, peas and coffee. To minimize buffalo crop depredation, farmers currently use traditional mitigation approaches such as guarding farms, lighting fires, using torchlight and vocal and other auditory deterrents. In addition, a local coffee estate in- stalled electrified fencing around its plantation. Our find- ings demonstrate the impacts of human–African buffalo conflict on local communities and the importance of continuing human–African buffalo conflict monitoring to improve conservation action and increase the participation of the local community in conservation activities. To mini- mize human–African buffalo conflict, we recommend conservation strategies that improve the natural habitat of the African buffalo. Most importantly, providing communi- ties affected by human–African buffalo conflict with modern andmore effective mitigation methods, paired with increased community awareness of the use of these methods, could re- sult in significant reductions in the human cost of human– African buffalo conflict.
Keywords African buffalo, crop damage, crop raiding, human–buffalo conflict, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Syncerus caffer, Tanzania
The supplementary material for this article is available at
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605324000784
*Corresponding author,
kwaslema2000@gmail.com 1College of AfricanWildlifeManagement,Mweka,Moshi, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania 2Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, Ngorongoro, Arusha, Tanzania
Received 22 September 2023. Revision requested 22 January 2024. Accepted 17 April 2024. First published online 13 November 2024.
Introduction
(Lamarque et al., 2009; Erena et al., 2019; Zimmermann et al., 2020; Kiffner et al., 2021). Human–wildlife conflict occurs when interactions between humans and wildlife lead to negative outcomes for one or both parties (Hariohay et al., 2018, 2019; Abukari &Mwalyosi, 2020). Although this problem has been recognized for many years, an escalation in conflicts, especially in areas with large or increasing wildlife populations, underscores the need for improved management strategies to facilitate human–wildlife coexis- tence (Acharya et al., 2016). Human–wildlife conflict is a growing problem globally, occurring in almost every region where human communities and wildlife share limited re- sources (Barua et al., 2013; Dickman et al., 2014; Mukeka et al., 2019; IUCN, 2023). Various management approaches have been used to mitigate such conflicts, but they are often ineffective, inadequate, technologically challenging or too costly for rural communities (Zahle, 2013). In East African countries most human–wildlife conflicts
H
arise because of changing land uses in regions close to pro- tected areas (Hariohay&Røskaft, 2015;Hariohay et al., 2017; Mayengo et al., 2017). Most rural people in East Africa depend on livestock herding and agriculture, livelihoods that are vulnerable to increased human–wildlife conflict (Raikes, 1981; Dickman et al., 2014; Togoch et al., 2018). Conflicts occur in the form of livestock depredation, crop damage or human injuries or deaths caused by wildlife (Mashalla & Ringo, 2015). Many large mammals are in- volved in human–wildlife conflict, including large carni- vores such as the lion Panthera leo, leopard Panthera pardus and spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta, and large herbivores such as the African savannah elephant Loxo- donta africana, hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius and African buffalo Syncerus caffer (Mukeka et al., 2019). Human–wildlife conflict can result in the death of both an- imals and people, and threatens the livelihoods of millions of people, potentially jeopardizing the long-term goals of conservation. Losses incurred by farmers and livestock owners have considerable consequences for community livelihoods, affecting the safety and well-being of people and also leading to food shortages (Dickman et al., 2014). People often retaliate by killing problem animals (Megaze
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article. Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 101–108 © Crown Copyright - College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000784
uman–wildlife conflict is a critical and complex challenge facing wildlife conservation in many areas
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
