106 K. M. Hariohay et al. Our first hypothesis, that farms located,1 km from the
protected area boundary would experience greater crop losses compared to those . 1 km away, was not supported because distant farms also experienced significant losses. This is most likely because most of the farms are within the historical wildlife corridor (Mangewa et al., 2009; Linuma et al., 2022). Elsewhere, crop farms close to a pro- tected area boundary have sufferred more crop damage by wildlife (Eustace et al., 2022), and crop damage and threats to human safety are the most significant aspects of human– wildlife conflict, resulting in negative attitudes towards animals that pose such problems (Datiko & Bekele, 2013). AroundNgorongoro, patches of bushes and shrubs in the
villages and unfenced coffee plantations allowed buffaloes to remain concealed, posing a threat, especially to women gathering firewood for domestic use. Similarly, research elsewhere has reported that elephants and buffaloes remain concealed in small habitat patches in human-dominated landscapes during the day and then emerge during the night, damaging crops and property (Buchholtz et al., 2019). Such damage reports by farmers can be subject to exaggeration and therefore require verification by agricul- tural extension officers (Gillingham & Lee, 2003). In our study, the famers’ self-reported data were verified by the Karatu District Wildlife Officer. The losses incurred by farmers can result in negative attitudes towards wildlife (Dickman et al., 2014). Buffaloes were reported to mostly damage maize, beans,
peas and wheat, but coffee farms were also affected, as buffaloes entered to feed on the grasses that grow between the lines of coffee bushes, often resulting in damage to the coffee plants. Buffaloes prefer monocotyledonous to dicoty- ledonous plants (Macandza et al., 2004), and this was also the case in our study, with cereal crops experiencing more depredation from buffaloes than crops such as beans.
Mitigation strategies
Around Ngorongoro, respondents mostly used traditional methods to mitigate human–African buffalo conflict, except around Tloma, where respondents on the coffee estate farms have installed electrified fencing. This installation has played a key role in mitigating human–African buffalo conflict, and Tloma experienced few conflicts. Farmers in Oldeani are greatly affected by human–African buffalo conflict, and most of them reported that traditional methods of acoustic repellence such as vocalizing, whistling and percussion (with tins and drums) are ineffective. Farmers in Kambi ya Simba and Tloma reported that they had recently begun using other mitigation strategies, including beehive fences and chili fences comprising pieces of cloth soaked in oil mixed with strong chili and hung on a rope between poles. However, in Ngorongoro, and elsewhere (Denninger & Rentsch, 2020), farmers in rural villages
still generally rely on inexpensive methods to mitigate human–wildlife conflict, such as cooperative farm guarding during the night. Farmers in villages bordering Ngorongoro Conservation Area use less effective, traditional methods to reduce human–wildlife conflict, in part because of the prohibitive cost of implementing modern, more effective methods (Kiffner et al., 2021).
Conclusions
Human–African buffalo conflict remains a significant con- cern in the villages studied. The most significant reported impacts of human–African buffalo conflict in the study area are incursions into crops and human casualties. Buffaloes were reported to damage maize and wheat most frequently, whereas pigeon peas, beans and coffee trees were less frequently damaged. Farmers reported using mostly inexpensive and traditional mitigation approaches that require few resources but are often ineffective, such as cooperative farm guarding, fire-lighting and torch-waving, as well as vocal and percussive auditory deterrence. In Tloma, electrified fencing around the coffee estates is effective in mitigating human–African buffalo conflict, with few conflict incidents reported since 2016 when the fences were installed. According to the respondents, compe- tition for water and food is the main instigating factor in human–African buffalo conflict. We recommend that local communities be involved in
the development and application of mitigation methods and that these are implemented and modified based on field tests. We also recommend conducting research and testing methods such as the use of chili bombs, drones and intense light torches, which have proved effective at mitigating conflict with elephants (Hahn et al., 2017). Because of the prohibitive costs of these methods,we recom- mend forming communal guard groups in all affected villages, to share resources and implement combined train- ing on how to use these tools. Wealso recommend continu- ing efforts by wildlife conservation authorities to prevent local communities planting crops within the 500-m buffer zone around the protected area boundary, as per the Wildlife Conservation Act (Chapter 283).
Acknowledgements We thank the College of African Wildlife Management through the Department of Research and Consultancy for granting the permit to carry out this research; the staff of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority and the chairpersons and executive officers of Oldeani, Tloma and Kambi ya Simba villages for permitting our research and for their assistance during data collection; the Karatu District Wildlife Officer for reports on human–wildlife conflict; and Leo Atwood and Louis Hunninck for their help with preparing the text.
Author contributions Study design: all authors; data collection: EBM with the assistance of KMH, EHL, ESB; statistical analysis: KMH, EHL; writing and revision: all authors.
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
