Human–African buffalo conflicts 103
FIG. 1 The Karatu district, showing the three study villages of Oldeani, Tloma and Kambi ya Simba adjacent to Ngorongoro Conservation Area in northern Tanzania.
Methods Sample units and design
During May–June 2022, we conducted a questionnaire- based survey of 131 households in the three villages (Supplementary Material 1) and key informant interviews with the district Game Officer and Village Executive officer of each village (Supplementary Material 2). We purposively selected three of the 14 villages that have a shared boundary with the southern border of Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The estimated number of households, as obtained from each village leader at the time of this survey, were 1,762 in Oldeani, 2,541 in Tloma and 1,308 in Kambi ya Simba. We used a mixed methods approach to obtain data on
human–African buffalo conflict, including primary data from the questionnaires and key informant interviews, and secondary data from human–wildlife conflict official reports. The 131 heads of household were randomly selected from the register books of the three selected villages. Before the questionnaires were administered, we explained the main purpose of the study to the village executive officer or chairperson, to obtain permission to administer question- naires in the respective households. To ensure we obtained a representative sample, questionnaires were administered to any adult member of the household if the head of the house- hold was not present. We prepared the questionnaire in English, and the interviewer translated it into Kiswahili or into a local language with the help of local translators if the respondent did not understand Kiswahili. Respondents were asked whether they had encountered conflict with African buffaloes during 2016–2022. Authors KMH and EBM administered the question- naires and conducted the key informant interviews. We
anonymized respondent data by numerically coding the names of the 131 heads of
household.Wedid not ask respon- dents for their names at any time during the data collection stage, and we avoided leading questions. We recorded age, gender, level of education and occupa-
tion, and anecdotal information on the nature and causes of any human–African buffalo conflict in the area, specifically the extent and type of damage and mitigation strategies used by local communities over the previous 12 months. We collected secondary information from human–
wildlife conflict reports for 2016–2022 prepared by the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, the Karatu District Wildlife Officer and the coffee estate managers in Karatu (personal communications). To understand the extent and impact of human–African buffalo conflict in the study area, we also supplemented these data with field observations and photographed evidence of human– African buffalo conflict and mitigation methods used by local communities.
Data analysis
We coded and analysed the questionnaire data forms using SPSS 24 (IBM, 2011). We used descriptive statistics to sum- marize the questionnaire response data, and Pearson’s χ2 analyses to examine any differences in factors causing human–African buffalo conflict and variation in extent of crop damage between the villages. We used multinomial logistic regression analysis to examine the influence of village, gender, age, education level, residency and occupa- tion on the opinion of respondents regarding the extent of human–African buffalo conflict (categorized as severe, moderate, not a problem and do not know). All statistical tests were two-tailed and based on a 95% confidence
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
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
