Status of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Mpanga/Kipengere ...

Copyright © 2015 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA

International Journal of Environment and Bioenergy, 2015, 10(1): 26-40

International Journal of Environment and Bioenergy

Journal homepage: www.ModernScientificPress.com/Journals/IJEE.aspx

ISSN: 2165-8951

Florida, USA

Article

Status of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Mpanga/Kipengere Game

Reserve, Tanzania

Allan Mashalla1 & Japhet Ringo 2,*

1Wildlife Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, P.O. Box 61, Mbeya, Tanzania

2 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Dodoma, P.O. Box 395, Dodoma,

Tanzania

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +255 (0)

786578813;

Article history: Received 18 November 2014, Received in revised form 3 January 2015, Accepted 10

January 2015, Published 17 January 2015.

Abstract: This study assessed the status of Human Wildlife Conflicts (HWC’s) in

Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve. The study took place in Igomelo, Igando, and Luduga

villages which are administratively in Wanging’ombe and Mbarali Districts. Data were

collected by using questionnaire survey, key informants interviews, archive information,

and physical site visits. A total of 100 respondents were involved in this study. Results

indicated that respondents perceived crop raiding, boundary disputes, and restricted access

to reserve resources as the major HWC’s in the study area which led to reduced household

income and food insecurity. Major mitigation measures used by local people to mitigate the

problem included crop guarding, digging trenches, and informing game reserve officials.

For the MKGR to be effective in improving the livelihood of the local people and

enhancing conservation, the study suggested the preparation of compensation schemes for

destructions made by wildlife, benefits sharing from wildlife-related activities, and

boundary demarcation.

Keywords: Conservation, Human-wildlife conflicts, Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve.

Int. J. Environ. Bioener. 2015, 10(1) : 26-40


27

1. Introduction

Over 5% of our planet's land surface has been allocated for conservation purposes in virtually

all countries (Jonathan, 2011). The management of protected areas has been based on the idea that the

protected areas are of primary importance to a nation and they must be protected and shielded from

people living adjacent to them (Mogaka et al., 2010; Sarker, 2010). This is often achieved through the

strict enforcement of rules to prevent illegal activities. Attempts to protect forest and wildlife reserves

through exclusion have often led local people to develop hostile attitudes towards forests and wildlife

(Paul, 2008; Nyahongo, 2010), hence exacerbate conflicts which result into losses of life and property

(Coser, 2010).

Conflicts between wildlife and people, particularly those who share the immediate boundaries

with protected areas, are common phenomenon all over the world (Kidegesho & Shemweta, 2005), and

are a major conservation problem which conservation organizations all over the world are dealing with

(Antoine et al., 2012). Human–Wildlife conflicts have a long history of competition between man and

wildlife from time immemorial in various parts of the world (Coser, 2002; Kweka, 2010). These

conflicts usually occur when wildlife requirements overlap with those of human populations, creating

costs to residents and wild animals (Vivek & Richard, 2012). Interaction with wildlife occurs in both

urban and rural areas, but it is generally more common inside and around protected areas, where

wildlife population density is higher and domestic animals often stray into adjacent cultivated fields or

grazing areas (Vijayan & Pati, 2009). Globally, protected areas are sometimes instrumental in fueling

social conflicts between groups (Kidegesho & Shemweta, 2005; Brockington, 2007; Distefano, 2010).

In many countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, conflict arises from a range of direct and indirect

negative interactions between humans and wildlife (Kidegesho & Shemweta, 2005. These can

culminate in potential harm to all involved, and lead to negative human attitudes, with a decrease in

human appreciation of wildlife and potentially severe detrimental effects for conservation (Nyhus et

al., 2000). Conflicts generally arise from economic losses to agriculture, including loss of cattle

through predation and destruction of crops (Kaswamila et al., 2007). In arid areas it often occurs over

access to water and competition for resources (Nyhus et al., 2000). A wide range of species are

responsible for conflicts, with the principal culprits being primates, rodents, ungulates, lions, leopards,

and hyenas (Larmaque et al., 2009).

Tanzania devoted more than quarter of her land for wildlife protected areas (MNRT, 2010).

Their coverage includes; Ngorongoro Conservation Area (1%), National Parks (6 %), Game Reserves

(14%), Game Controlled Areas (6 %), Wildlife Management Areas (5 %), Open Areas (2%) and other

land areas which are jointly managed with Forest Division (MNRT, 2010). Most of these protected

areas face the challenges of human wildlife conflicts (Jonathan, 2011), which exacerbate significant



28

threats to ecosystem viability, large mammal populations, people’s security and livelihoods (Swai,

2004; Kaswamila et al., 2007; Nyahongo, 2010). This paper intends to: (1) identify human-wildlife

conflicts in the study area (ii) assess the impacts of human wildlife conflicts on local people’s

livelihoods, and (iii) identify measures used by local people to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts and

suggest a way forward.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve covers a total area of 1,574.25 km2. The Reserve is located

between latitude 8o 50’, and 9o 10’, S and longitudes 34o 00’, and 34o 30’, E (MKGR, 2004). The Game

Reserve lies in Wanging’ombe, Makete, and Mbarali Districts. The average annual rainfall of the area

ranges between 594 and 846 mm. The mean monthly maximum temperature ranges from 160 C to 180

C (MKGR, 2004).

Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve consist of lowland, medium and high altitude areas ranging

between 1,080 and 2,858 meters above sea level in the south of the Kipengere ranges. The highlands

form a great arc of high ground from 1,300-3,000 m, where the Kipengere Ranges border Kitulo

Plateau to the west above 2,400m and fall gradually to the east around Kidugala.

Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve has principally three vegetation communities, namely; Tall

montane forest trees (such as Podocarpus gracilis, Polyscias fulva, and Pouteria adolfi-friedericii),

Grassland which have short, tussock grasses and tuberous forbs dominate this vegetation, which

remain dormant during the cold season, and are the richest floristically, and Miombo woodland such as

Brachystegia microphylla and Julbernardia globiflora (MKGR, 2004).

MPKGR harbors a great variety of small to mega fauna species including elephant (Loxodanta

africana), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) bush pig (Potamochoerus

porcus), leopard (Panthera pardus), baboon (Papio hamadryas), hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) etc. The

major land uses in the study area include; agriculture, wildlife conservation, forest conservation,

grazing land, and human settlements.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The study used various methods of data collection including household questionnaire survey,

key informants interviews, archive information, and physical site visits. Thirty households were

randomly sampled from each village and 10 key informants were involved in the study. Quantitative

data from questionnaires were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version

16.0 and Microsoft Excel. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis techniques.



29

Figure 1: Location of the study area

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents



30

Socio-economic characteristics of respondents varied across the villages in the study area

(Table 1). Findings revealed that on average males were the majority (82.2%, n=90). At the village

level, similar trend was also observed. This scenario could have happened by chance. As for age,

overall the majority (58.8%) were aged between 18-49 years implying that the majority are still

economically active population. Regarding education, overall 60% not attended secondary education.

This scenario indicated that illiteracy level was high in the study area particularly on issues demanding

broad understanding and for critical analysis.

Table 1: Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents

Gender (%) Age Category (%) Education (%)

Villages M F 18-29 30-49 > 50 IN PR SE >SE

Igando

(n=30) 66.7 33.3 6.6 66.7 26.7 30 63.3 3.3 3.3

Igomelo

(n=30) 90 10 3.3 30 66.7 20 43.3 30 6.7

Luduga

(n=30) 90 10 6.7 63.3 30 6.7 73.3 16.7 3.3

Total 246.7 53.3 16.6 160 123.4 56.7 179.9 50 13.3

Average 82.2 17.8 5.5 53.3 41.1 18.9 60 16.7 4.4

n=Sample size M=Male F=Female IN=Informal Education PR= Primary Education

SE=Secondary Education >SE=Above Secondary Education. Source: Field data 2013.

3.2. Human-wildlife Conflicts in the Study Area

Respondents were asked to mention the main types of human-wildlife conflicts existed in their

areas. Results in Table 2 indicate that the main types of conflicts reported were crop raiding (41.1%

n=90), boundary conflicts (22.2%), and restrictions on access to reserve resources (12.2%). Other

minor conflicts in order of importance included lack of grazing land, loss of people’s life, land scarcity

for crop cultivation, and livestock depredation.

Results indicate that crop raiding was perceived as one of the major HWC in the study area

(Table 2). Views on crop raiding varied at village specific level as 66.7% (n=30) of the respondents in

Igando, 46.7% in Luduga and 10% in Igomelo perceived this problem. This implied that villagers in

Igando perceived more crop raiding, probably because most villagers’ farms were approximately

located within <1 km from the reserve boundary compared to other villages. Similarly, the village had

one Village Game Scout (VGS) hence patrols were not effectively done. Game species raiding crops

were elephants (Loxodanta africana), wild pigs (Potamochoerus porcus), buffaloes (Syncerus caffer),

and baboons (Papio cynocephalus). Interview with Game Officers and Village Executive Officers



31

revealed that crop raiding by wildlife has made people economically worse-off each year. This

scenario indicates that crop raiding was a problem in the area and it could lead to negative attitudes of

the people towards wildlife conservation. A study by Nahonyo (2001; Kaswamila et al., 2007; Ringo

& Kaswamila, 2014), indicate that crop raiding is a disincentive to wildlife conservation as it escalates

non-conservation activities like poaching, deforestation, and wild fires.

Table 2: Types of Human-wildlife Conflicts

Responses (%)

Types of conflicts Igomelo Igando Luduga

Average (%) (n=30) (n=30) (n=30

Boundary conflicts 46.7 3.3 16.7 22.2

Crop Raiding 10 66.7 46.7 41.1

Restriction on access to

reserve resources 16.7 3.3 16.7 12.2

Land scarcity for crop

cultivation 3.3 10 3.3 5.5

Lack of grazing land 16.7 10 3.3 10

Loss of life 3.3 3.3 10 5.5

Livestock depredation 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

n=Sample size. Source: Field data 2013.

Furthermore, boundary conflicts between villages and the reserve was reported by respondents

as a HWC in the study area (Table 2). The problem pronounced more in Igomelo and Luduga villages.

Local people complained that the part of their land have been taken by the reserve for conservation. In

Igomelo, respondents argued that the expansion of Igomelo irrigation scheme attracted many villagers

to cultivate proximity the game reserve hence fueled encroachment of the reserve land for agriculture.

The situation, however, could be worse as there was no boundary demarcation in place to separate

village land and the reserve. This situation implied that a tug of war was between the game reserve and

the villagers. In order to achieve a win-win situation, mitigation measures such as boundary

demarcation and land use planning should be given an upper hand so as to balance conservation and

development issues.

Similarly, respondents perceived restriction on access to reserve natural resources as a HWC

conflict in the area (Table 2). Results at the village specific level showed that 16.7% (n=30) of the



32

respondents in Igomelo, 3.3% in Igando and 16.7 in Luduga perceived this problem. This implied that

restrictions on accessing reserve resources perceived more in Igomelo and Luduga. The plausible

reason could be lack of buffer zones between these villages and the reserve which could set an area

where local people could be legally allowed to access reserve resources. However, wildlife

conservation legislations strictly prohibit local people to hunt wild animals, cut trees, collect honey,

collect fire wood, and graze livestock or cultivating inside the reserve (URT, 2009). This study found

that restricting local people to harvest game reserve’s resources to sustain their livelihoods had fueled

poaching and deforestation. A study by Kaswamila (2010), indicated that denying local access to

resources is a disincentive to conservation because it escalate illegal killing of wild animals and

wildfires in the protected areas. Therefore, provision of conservation education to the public is

necessary so as to ensure that local people comply with conservation regulations.

Moreover, association between gender and HWC’s were explored. Results in (Table 3)

indicated that crop raiding was associated more to males than females. This could be due to the time

spent by men, both at the day and night, guarding crops against destructive wild animals. Moreover,

most women were associated with land scarcity for agriculture, restrictions on the access to reserve

resources and boundary disputes. This could be probably that most women depend on forest resources

for fire wood, charcoal, traditional medicine, and land for crop production to feed their families.

Table 3: Association between Gender and Human-wildlife Conflicts (%)

Gender of Respondents

Types of Conflicts Male Female

Crop Raiding 37 2

Boundary disputes 13 3

Restriction to use resources 3 8

Loss of Life 1 0

Land scarcity for agriculture 12 2

Pastoralists and GR over grazing land 7 1

Livestock depredation 1 0

Total 74 16

Source: Field data, 2013.

3.3. Impacts of Human-wildlife Conflicts on Livelihoods

Respondents and key informants were further asked to assess the impacts of HWC’s on their

livelihoods. Results in Table 4 show that the most impacts included household food insecurity (66.7%,



33

n=90) and reduced household income (33.7%). At the village specific level, views on these impacts

varied. For example, in Luduga 76.7% (n=30) perceived food insecurity while 70% and 53.3%

perceived this problem in Igando and Igomelo respectively.

As for reduced household income, results indicated that 47.7% (n=30) of the respondents in

Igomelo perceived this problem while views in Igando were 30% and 23.3% for Luduga. Respondents

reported that the most game species which raided crops were bush pigs (Potamochoerus porcus),

baboons (Papio cynocephalus), African elephants (Loxodanta africana), and buffaloes (Syncerus

caffer) and those depredated livestock were mainly hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) and leopard (Panthera

pardus).

Table 4: Impacts of Human-wildlife Coflicts

Responses (%)

Impacts Igando

(n=30)

Igomelo

(n=30)

Luduga

(n=30) Average (%)

Food Insecurity 70 53.3 76.7 66.7

Reduced income 30 47.7 23.3 33.7

Source: Field data 2013.

Results of the study on the impacts of HWC’s in the study area indicated substantial losses to

people’s livelihoods in various ways. Records by Wanging’ombe District Agriculture officer revealed

that crop loss due to game species between 2006 and 2010 was 5 tons which amounted to Tshs. 30

million (US $48,000). This study found out that most incidents involved damage to maize, sweet

potatoes, and rice crops. Meanwhile, records by MPKGR office showed that livestock losses in the

area due to game species amounted to Tshs. 6,500,000 in 2012 (US $4333). These records imply that

food security was aggravated severely by wildlife in the area. Therefore in such circumstances, it is

difficult to expect local people to value wildlife since wildlife exacerbates losses to their livelihoods.

Nahonyo (2001), argued that in Africa than elsewhere in the world, the average loss caused by wildlife

is about 40% of all crops which are planted.

As for reduced household’s income, results indicated that this problem led deprived livelihoods

to the local people. Discussion with key informants revealed that when crop damage occurs finances

were diverted from other uses to cover the costs of staple foods. Discussions with Game officers,

Village executive officers and Natural resources committee members revealed that local people lost

income due to the damages of main staple crops in the area (maize and irish potatoes). These results

concurs by a study by Kaswamila et al., (2007) in Mkonga Ijinyu, Barabarani and Chemchem villages



34

in Northern Tanzania that crop damages by wildlife reduced household cash income by 1.3%. This

scenario indicate that crop damages by wildlife in the study villages had not only affected local

people’s ability to feed their families, but also reduced income and had repercussions for health,

education, nutrition, and ultimately development.

3.4. Measures Used to Mitigate Human-wildlife Conflicts

Various mechanisms were used by local people to mitigate HWC’s in the study area. The major

mechanisms included crop guarding, digging trenches, and informing Game Reserve officials. Other

minor measures in order of importance included simple barriers, noise/shouting, raised livestock

enclosures and scarecrows (Table 5).

Table 5: Mechanisms used to Mitigate Conflicts

Responses (%)

Methods of control Igomelo

(n=30)

Igando

(n=30)

Luduga

(n=30)

Average (%)

Crops guarding 46.7 66.7 46.7 53.4

Noise/Shouting 3.3 3.3 6.7 4.4

Simple barriers 16.7 3.3 3.3 7.8

Informing GR officials 10 10 16.7 12.2

Digging trenches 16.7 10 16.7 14.5

Raised livestock enclosures 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

Scarecrows 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

n=Sample size. Source: Field data 2013.

Results in Table 5 show that overall 53.4% (n=90) of the respondents had the view that crop

guarding was the major mechanism used by local people to control wild animals in their farms.

Respondents argued that crop guarding was mainly done both at day and night. Crop guarding was

perceived to be the most effective tool to deter wild animals such as baboon (Papio cynocephalus)

which were very mobile species as they are capable to jump both trenches and barriers to raid crops.

This was confirmed by one respondent who commented: “If I don’t stay in this hut from morning to

evening, this maize in the farm will be raided and I will not have enough food to survive”. This

scenario indicated that local people spent most of their time and efforts at their farms guarding crops.

This could have indirect impacts on reduced school attendance and increased exposure to diseases like

Malaria.



35

Figure 2: Maize farm guarding against wild animals in Luduga village.

Photo by Allan Mashalla, 2013.

The findings have revealed that 14.5% (n=90) of the respondents mentioned that digging

trenches was used to control wild animals in the farms (Table 5). Digging trenches to stop animals

from entering the farm could lead to kill some wild animals when they fall into trenches. This could

have negatively impact wild animal’s populations. Studies in Amboseli ecosystem on HWC’s showed

that similar method has been used and it was lethal (Kagiri, 2010). Therefore, there is need to sensitize

the community on the importance of conserving the species around the area and the danger involved by

digging trenches around their farms.

Similarly, results indicate that 12.2% of the respondents argued that local people have been

providing information to the game reserves’ administration when problem animals entered their farms

(Table 5). However, it was revealed by respondents that local people were tired to report problem

animals to the management of MPKGR because several cases were reported, but nothing positive was

done to that effect. Instead they were told to be patient and sometimes the GR officials do not take any

measure about reported cases. This study found out that this problem existed probably because the

MPKGR had few Game Officers and Game Wardens. Discussions with MPKGR officials revealed that

the reserve has only 11 Game wardens who are not adequate as it indicated that the reserve size is

1,574 km2 and surrounded by more than 15 villages. This implied that one ranger patrolled 143 km2



36

which was disproportional. Therefore, MPKGR could recruit more Game officers and Wardens to

effect patrols and control problem animals.

3.5. Suggestions to Mitigate Human-wildlife Conflicts

Local people and Game Reserve officials were further probed on mechanisms required to be in

place to ameliorate HWC’s in order to improve the livelihoods of the local people and enhancing

conservation. The most suggested measures included compensation for damage caused by wildlife,

benefits sharing, and boundary marking (Table 6).

Table 6: Suggestions to Mitigate Human-wildlife Conflicts

Responses (%)

Suggestions Igando

n=30

Igomelo

n=30

Luduga

n=30 Average

(%)

Sharing benefits 16.7 30 30 25.6

Fencing the GR 30 3.3 16.7 16.7

Boundary marking 3.3 46.7 10 20

Compensation 40 10 30 26.7

Problem animal control unit 3.3 3.3 10 5.5

Effective patrols 6.7 6.7 3.3 5.6

n=Sample size. Source: Field data, 2013.

Most of the local people perceived compensation scheme as a way forward to off-set loses

exacerbated by wildlife in their villages (Table 6). This perception of respondents is an indication that

they are already aggrieved due to the losses and consistently suffered seasonally without any

compensation. However, discussions with Game Reserve’s officials revealed that according to the

wildlife conservation (Dangerous Animals Damage Consolation) regulation, 2011 the Director of

Wildlife (DW) is the one responsible for consolation. Furthermore, they added that some people are

not consoled because they are not eligible for consolation according to the Regulation stated above. For

example section 4 (2) of the regulation states that; “The director shall not make any payment under

these regulations where; - the damage of livestock or crops occurred in any area within the buffer

zone, migratory routes, wildlife corridors and dispersal areas” (URT, 2011).

This study found out that the study villages were in the Igando-Igawa wildlife corridor which

link Mpanga/Kipengere Game reserve and Ruaha National Park. So this could be a reason why most



37

respondents claimed that they were not compensated for losses done by wildlife; and that is why most

of them suggested compensation as one of the best way of mitigating HWC’s. Natural resources and

Agriculture Officers suggested that amounts of money for consolation should be raised in order to

ensure that the amount paid especially for crop raiding is equivalent to the damaged crops.

The study findings indicate that boundary marking was also suggested by respondents in the

study area to control HWC’s, especially in Igomelo village (Table 6). In Igomelo village boundary

conflicts were reported to be severe. This could be the reason as to why most of the respondent’s

recommended boundary marking as a way forward. Village Executive officers in all study villages

suggested that the boundaries could be marked in order to have buffer zones which separate reserve

and villagers land. Kaswamila (2009), argued that buffer zones are decisive tool to withstand HWC’s

and enhancing conservation as they are helpful in reducing encroachment to the reserve by local

people. Similarly, Ringo & Kaswamila, (2014) asserted that buffer zones lengthen the distance

between the reserve and villages, hence minimizing contacts between wild animals and human

activities for this reason lessen poaching, crop raiding, livestock depredation, and wildfires.

Benefits sharing were also suggested by respondents as mechanisms to ameliorate HWC’s in

the study area (Table 6). In this context benefit sharing refers to mutual socio-economic gains realized

from photographic safaris done inside the game reserve. Respondents argued that obtaining benefits

from wildlife would definitely reduce their pains for wildlife damages. However, GR officials pointed

out that the GR is surrounded by more than 15 villages and the Wildlife Department does not allocate

enough fund for local communities’ development. For example, between 2009 and 2012 Wildlife

Division allocated only Tshs. 20 Million (US $32,000) for socio-economic projects in villages adjacent

to MPKGR. The amount was used to build two classrooms of Luduga Ward Secondary School. In

2012/2013 fund was not allocated for development projects in the adjacent villages. This scenario

implies that not only fund allocated for benefit sharing was insufficient, but also local peoples’

priorities were not met. Kaswamila (2010), suggest that efforts should be made to ensure that

income/benefits trickle down to the household or individual level for sustainable conservation.

4. Conclusions

The results of the research have revealed that HWC’s were severe in the study area. It was

found that HWC’s in the area have led to antagonism between local communities and MPKGR

Authority due to crop raiding and reduced household income. These impacts have acted as a

disincentive to conservation and development in the area. In such circumstances it was difficult to

involve local people in conservation as a result non-conservation activities like poaching,

deforestations, and wild fires were escalated in the study area. Therefore, measures to mitigate HWC’s



38

and enhancing conservation in the area are of prime importance. These include putting in place

compensation schemes, improving benefit sharing, boundary demarcation, and provision of

conservation education to the local people on the importance of a MKGR.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to appreciate the assistance given to us by the local communities,

Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve management and the Wanging’ombe and Mbarali District officials

during the period of data collection. Similarly the team acknowledges support from the University of

Dodoma for granting us permission to undertake this study.

References

Antoine, J. Eyebe, G. Patrice, D. & Dominique, E. (2012), Overview of Human Wildlife Conflict in

Cameroon, Poverty and Conservation Learning Group Discussion, 3: 656-660.

Brockington, D. (2007). Wildlife, Community Conservation, and Local Government Performance: The

Village Wildlife Reserves of Tanzania. Society & Natural Resources.

Coser, L. (2010), Conflicts and their resolutions, in Ottie, O. and Albert, I. (eds), Transformation and

Management in Community Conflicts in Nigeria. Spectrum Books, Ibadan.

Distefano, E. (2010). Human-Wildlife Conflict Worldwide: Collection of Case Studies, Analysis of

Management Strategies and Good Practices. FAO, Rome.

Jonathan, U. (2011). Human-Wildlife Conflict in Tanzania.

[http//www.tanzaniawildlifeconflicts.org/field-activities/ruaha-carnivore-programme], site visited

on 03/05/2013.

Kagiri, J. (2010). Human – Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya: A Conflict Resolution Concept, 4: 1-2.

Kaswamila, A. & Songorwa, A. (2009). Participatory Land Use Planning and Conservation in

Northern Tanzania Rangelands. African Journal of Ecology, 1(6): 47.

Kaswamila, A. Russell, S. McGibbon, M. (2007). Impacts of Wildlife on Household Food Security and

Income in Northern Tanzania. Human Dimension on Wildlife. 12.

Kaswamila, A. (2010). An Analysis of the Contribution of Community Wildlife Management areas on

Livelihood in Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 5(4): 199-

207.

Kideghesho, J. & Shemwetta, D. (2005). Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Tanzania: What Research and

Extension could offer to conflict resolution. Proceedings of the 1st University Wide Conference,

5th – 7th April 2000: Volume 3.



39

Kweka, D. (2010). Establishing Wildlife Management Areas: Impacts of Community Based Natural

Resources Management on Biodiversity and Communities in Tanzania. Tanzania Elephant

Management Plan Workshop Report 25-28 May 2010: 51-53.

Lamarque, F. Anderson, J. Fergusson, R. Lagrange, M., Osei-Owusu, Y. & Bakker. L. (2009), Human-

wildlife conflict in Africa Causes, Consequences and Management Strategies, FAO press, Rome.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2010), The Wildlife Division Statistical Bulletin,

Government press, Dar es Salaam.

Mogaka, H. Simons, J. Turpie, L. Emerton, F. & Karanja, E. (2010). Aspects of Community

Involvement in Sustainable Wildlife Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. Wildlife and

Social Perspectives in Conservation. IUCN Eastern Africa Programme.

Nahonyo, C. (2001). Human-elephant Conflict in the Greater Ruaha Ecosystem, Tanzania. Ph.D.

Thesis, Canterrbury, UK, University of Kent.

Nyhus, P. Osofsky, S. Ferraro, P. Madden, F. Fitcher, H. (2005). Bearing the Costs of Human-wildlife

Conflict: The Challenges of Compensation Schemes. Conservation Biology, 9: 107-121

Paul, B. (2008). Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural

Resources Management. Altamira Press.

[http//www.conbio.org/images/content_groups/.../pbr.pdf], site visited on 14/06/2012.

Sarker, A. (2010). Conservation of Natural Resources (Human-wildlife conflict). A comparison

between Asia and Africa with special reference to elephants. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.

Norway.

Ringo, J. & Kaswamila, A. (2014). Effectiveness of a general management plan in mitigating human-

wildlife conflicts and enhancing conservation. A case study of Wami-Mbiki Wildlife

Management Area, Tanzania. International journal of environment and bioenergy. 9(1): 44-55.

Swai, A. (2004). Reconnaissance survey on agriculture among communities bordering conservation

sites located in the Great Ruaha River Catchment Area, Proceedings report from 22nd April to 2nd

may, 2003, WWF, Dar ES Salaam, Tanzania.

United Republic of Tanzania (2004). Mpanga/Kipengere Game Reserve General Management Plan

2004-2009, Dar es salaam, Tanzania

United Republic of Tanzania (2009). Tanzania Wildlife Act. Government Printer: Dar es Salaam.

United Republic of Tanzania (2011). The Wildlife conservation (Dangerous Animals Damage

Consolation) regulation. Government printer press, Dar es salaam.

Vijayan, S. & Pati, B. (2009). Impact of Changing Crop Patterns on Man-Animal Conflicts around Gir

Protected Area with Specific Reference to Talala Sub-District, Gujarat India. Journal of

Population and Environment. 23(6): 541-559.

http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/aaa/series_landing.jsf;jsessionid=506D5CEE1360B7C8B3069E6A8D0590DF?seriesCode=CBS&seriesTitle=Conservation+Biology&sort=series_number



40

Vivek, T. & Richard, G. (2012). Using Threatening Sounds as a Conservation Tool: Evolutionary

Bases for Managing Human–Elephant Conflict in India. Journal of International Wildlife Law

and Policy, 15(2):167-185.

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Thuppil%2C+Vivek)

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Coss%2C+Richard+G.)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13880292.2012.678794

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13880292.2012.678794

Status of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Mpanga/Kipengere ...

Documents

Transcript of Status of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Mpanga/Kipengere ...