search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
104 K. M. Hariohay et al.


interval. We used cumulative linked mixed models to ana- lyse the frequency of conflict events over time, incorporating incident history, socio-economic activity and village-level factors to examine the drivers of human–African buffalo conflict.


Results


Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents


All 131 respondents were residents of Kambi ya Simba (55, 42%), Oldeani (46, 35%) and Tloma (30, 23%). The majority of respondents were male (56%). Respondent age groups were 18–30 years (34%), 31–45 years (31%), 46–60 years (32%) and .60 years (3%). The social and economic activities of most of the respondents were agriculture (cultivation of maize, wheat, pigeon peas, beans and coffee; 64%) followed by business (21%), livestock-keeping (8%), casual labour (3%) and other combined economic activities (4%). The residency durations of the respondents were 1–5 years (10%), 6–10 years (8%), 11–15 years (21%) and .15 years (61%).


Causes of human–African buffalo conflict


Perception of the factors causing human–African buffalo conflict varied significantly between villages, with the majority of respondents in Kambi ya Simba (69%) and Oldeani (63%) reporting the main factor to be competition for food andwater resources, whereas 33%of 30 respondents in Tloma reported encroachment on the buffalo migration route and 23% reported human population increases as the main factors (χ2 = 21.53,df = 6,P = 0.001). Reported conflict varied significantly between seasons, with the majority of respondents (61%) reporting conflict during rainy seasons, 27% reporting conflict during dry seasons, and 12% being unsure (χ2 = 20.31,df = 4,P = 0.001).


The extent of human–African buffalo conflict


Most respondents (66%) reported incidents of human– African buffalo conflict in their village, and we recorded numerous examples of buffalo incursions. Respondents noted that they had experienced threats and attacks from buffaloes during 2016–2022;many (44%) reported that fam- ily members had been attacked by buffaloes, with most attacks (56%) occurring whilst people tended their farms (Table 1). The perceived extent of the reported conflict var- ied significantly between villages, with the highest reported in Oldeani (98%of 46 respondents) followed by Kambi ya Simba (71%of 55) and Tloma (10%of 30; χ2 = 63.65,df = 2, P,0.0001). Data from the Karatu District Wildlife Officer indicated


that in 2019–2021 a total of 36.62 ha of crops in the vicinity of the three villages had been damaged by buffaloes. The great- est annual mean loss per household was recorded in Oldeani (0.93 ha), followed by Kambi ya Simba (0.89 ha) and Tloma (0.49 ha) but with no significant difference between the villages (F = 1.03,df = 2,P = 0.367), and no relationship between crop area damaged and distance of the farm from the protected area boundary (β = 2.2, SE = 1.4, t(42)= 4.8,P = 0.830). Respondents indicated that the crop most frequently damaged by African buffaloes was maize (38% of respondents) followed by coffee (34%), wheat (11%), beans (11%) and peas (6%). There was a significant difference between villages with respect to the type of crop grown: most of the respondents in Oldeani (52%) and Tloma (63%) cultivated coffee, whereas 64%of the respondents in Kambi ya Simba cultivated maize (χ2 = 54.64,df = 8,P,0.001). During 2016–2021 four people were killed and six in-


jured by buffaloes in the study area, whilst guarding their crops or searching for firewood. Of the four people killed, three were from Kambi ya Simba and one was from Olde- ani. Three of the reported injuries were in Oldeani, two in Kambi ya Simba and one in Tloma.


TABLE 1 The occurrence and extent of human–African buffalo conflict in three villages bordering Ngorongoro Conservation Area, northern Tanzania, determined from responses to quesions regarding occurence of conflict, threats from buffaloes, attacks on family members and damage to crops (Fig. 1).


Response by village (%) Question Are there human–buffalo conflicts in your village?


Did you face attacks/threats from buffaloes during 2016–2022?


Have your family members faced attacks from buffaloes?


Response n Yes


No Yes No Yes No


Have any of your farms been damaged by buffaloes? Yes No


87 51.7 44 2.3 100 35.0 31 35.5 57 36.8 74 33.8 73 53.4 58 12.1


Oldeani Kambi ya Simba Tloma 44.8


3.5


36.4 42.0 41.9 45.6 39.2 41.1 43.1


61.3 23.0 22.6 17.6 27.0 5.5


44.8 χ2 df P


63.64 2 , 0.0001 0.003 2 1.66 2


0.998 0.435


37.62 2 , 0.0001


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