Human–African buffalo conflicts 105


FIG. 2 Human–African buffalo conflict mitigation measures used by the 131 respondents in the villages of Oldeani, Kambi ya Simba and Tloma in Karatu district, northern Tanzania (Fig. 1).


Using multinomial logistic regression to examine the


influence of village, age, gender, economic activity and dur- ation of residency on the opinion of respondents regarding the extent of human–African buffalo conflict, only village significantly explained variation in the opinions of respon- dents on the extent of the conflict (67.2%; χ2 = 112.69,df = 4, P,0.001). Most Oldeani respondents (94%) rated the extent of


damage by buffaloes as severe, whereas 83% of respondents in Tloma perceived buffaloes as not being a problem in their village and 38%of the respondents in Kambi ya Simba rated the extent of damage as moderate. The cumulative link mixed model showed that the perceived extent of conflict was the result of a mixed interaction between frequency of


occurrence (Oldeani: Z =−1.11,P,0.0001; Tloma: Z = 1.35, P,0.0001) and number of years of residency in the village (Oldeani: Z =−6.49,P,0.0001;Tloma: Z = 2.5,P,0.0001).


Strategies to minimize human–African buffalo conflict


Various mitigation measures are used to minimize human– African buffalo conflict in villages bordering Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and the main mitigation measures varied significantly between villages (χ2 = 39.94,df = 8, P,0.0001; Fig. 2). In Tloma 63% of respondents reported that electrified fencing installed around coffee farms is the main mitigation measure, whereas in Oldeani 53% reported using primarily vocal noise tactics, and in Kambi ya Simba 52% reported the use of deterrence tactics such as vocal noise, fire and flashlight torches as the main methods (Fig. 2). All other mitigation measures combined comprised 47%of the methods used. These included the use of beehives and chili fences, especially in Oldeani.


Discussion


Factors underlying human–African buffalo conflict Competition for water and food resources was the main factor underlying human–African buffalo conflict reported


by most of the respondents in the three villages. According to the respondents, buffaloes leaveNgorongoroConservation Area during the rainy seasons to forage in crops when they are most palatable and nutritious, and during the dry season they remain within the protected area as it is a reliable source of water. These findings support our second hypothesis and are consistent with findings in Kenya (Mukeka et al., 2019) and Ethiopia (Geleta et al., 2019). Other studies, however, found that African buffaloes move out of protected areas in search of water in the dry season when water is a limited resource there (Erena et al., 2019; Moehlman et al., 2020). Consistent with previous findings around Ngorongoro (Nyerembe & Bushesha, 2021), our study shows that human–African buffalo conflict involves crop depredation, human injuries and deaths and damage to property. Land-use changes are another major reason for human–


African buffalo conflict in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, where buffer zones have been converted to agricultural crop fields. Farms nearest the Conservation Area face the highest threats of conflict, especially at night, when many wildlife species are most active before re-entering the protected area early in the morning, as has been shown previously (Meyer & Börner, 2022). However, according to the respon- dents, during the rainy season buffaloes do not return to the protected area but remain concealed in small patches of bushes, shrubs and unfenced coffee farms outside the protected area. The respondents suggested that buffaloes do not return to the protected area at night to avoid predators and because their movement is restricted by blocked wildlife corridors, most of which have been converted to crop fields and settlements. Previous research has indicated that the conversion of natural habitats to farms results in increased human–wildlife conflict because of crop predation and attacks on humans (Von Gerhardt et al., 2014;Stoldt et al., 2020). Buffaloes require a large home range, and loss of habitat results in changes in their activity pattern and height- ens anti-predator aggressive behaviours as they move out of protected areas to forage (Kaszta et al., 2016).


The extent of human–African buffalo conflict


The extent of damage resulting from human–African buffa- lo conflict varied between the three villages, with 80%of the reported conflict occurring in Oldeani, where the most reported impacts were human deaths and injuries, and crop damage. The African buffalo is an aggressive species and, in many of these cases, human injuries or deaths result from a physical confrontation in which people attempt to defend themselves or interfere with buffalo activity. There was, however, a perceived reduction in the extent of human–African buffalo conflict in Oldeani because of the erection of electric fences around coffee plantations com- pared with perceptions at Kambi ya Simba, which had unfenced maize and wheat farms.


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