Human-elephant interactions in areas surrounding the Rungwa, Kizigo, and Muhesi Game Reserves, central Tanzania
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Human–elephant interactions in areas surrounding
the Rungwa, Kizigo, and Muhesi Game Reserves,
central Tanzania
K W A S L E M A M A L L E H A R I O H A Y , W I L B R I G H T A B R A H A M M U N U O and E I V I N R Ø S K A F T
Abstract This study assesses the patterns of crop damage Introduction
by elephants Loxodonta africana in areas adjacent to the
Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves in Tanzania.
We used a questionnaire survey to collect data from a
total of household heads from seven villages, with
E ncroachment on wildlife habitats as a result of human
activities, such as crop cultivation and settlement, re-
sults in the fragmentation and loss of elephant habitat
household heads in each village, during June–August . (Dublin & Hoare, ; Kikoti et al., ; Western et al.,
Proximity was a significant factor influencing losses, with ; Shaffer et al., ). This has brought elephants and
crop farms within , km from the reserves having higher humans into close proximity, intensifying interactions be-
losses, followed by those – km and . km distant. Most tween them (Hoare, ; Redpath et al., ). Tanzania
households (.%) , km from a reserve reported crop has a large population of African elephants Loxodonta afri-
damage whereas those within – km (.%) and . km cana (Mduma et al., ; Chase et al., ) that inhabits
(.%) reported less damage. Most of the losses (.%) c. , km of central Tanzania, where relatively sparse
occurred in the first half of the year (the wet season). human populations are living in scattered communities,
Immigrants reported higher average losses to crops than relying predominantly on subsistence farming (Mduma
Indigenous respondents. Noise making, flashlights, setting et al., ). Within this area the Rungwa, Kizigo and
fire around fields and disturbance by shooting were the Muhesi Game Reserves support a high concentration of
methods used to deter elephants from entering crop fields. elephants (Mduma et al., ; Tanzania Wildlife Research
We recommend that communities around these game re- Institute, ; Chase et al., ). These reserves are un-
serves avoid areas that are , km from the reserve bound- fenced, facilitating elephant movements into the surrounding
ary, plant crops such as chilli, use honeybee Apis mellifera areas (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, ).
fences to deter elephants from their crops, and receive edu- Crop farmers need access to fertile land and water, but the
cation on available mitigation methods, to help minimize elephants also use the same areas as corridors for move-
crop losses to elephants. ment, leading to conflicts (Sitienei et al., ; Von
Gerhardt et al., ; Røskaft et al., ). Elephants receive
Keywords Crop damage, game reserve, human–elephant
conservation attention from various institutions, including
interaction, impacts of elephants, Loxodonta africana, wildlife authorities, non-governmental organizations, in-
mitigation, Tanzania ternational organizations and inter-governmental organiza-
Supplementary material for this article is available at tions (Røskaft et al., ). The species is imbued with a
https://doi.org/./SX high existence value by people in the developed world,
who find elephants alluring because of their power, beauty,
size and connection to wild nature (Dickman, ). This
high existence value has generated considerable market
value globally, manifested predominantly through photo-
graphic tourism, trophy hunting, and zoos (Dickman, ;
Dickman & Hazzah, ). Although the international
community ascribes a high value to elephants, local human
communities may incur substantial costs from living close to
KWASLEMA MALLE HARIOHAY* Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Arusha, them, including economic losses from crop damage. This
Tanzania
can be devastating in impoverished rural communities where
WILBRIGHT ABRAHAM MUNUO† and EIVIN RØSKAFT (Corresponding author,
orcid.org/0000-0003-0262-8443) AfricanBioServices, Department of Biology,
crop farming is a major livelihood (Graham et al., ;
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Realfagbygget, No-7491, Røskaft et al., ; Dickman & Hazzah, ). Other direct
Trondheim, Norway. Email roskaft@bio.ntnu.no costs include damage to property such as infrastructure and
*Also at: AfricanBioServices, Department of Biology, Norwegian University water systems, attacks on people, and injuries or loss of life.
of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
†Also at: Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority, Morogoro, Tanzania
Coexistence with elephants entails both indirect and op-
portunity costs (Barua et al., ; Khumalo & Yung, ;
Received February . Revision requested May .
Accepted October . First published online November . Blair & Meredith, ). The economic cost can be
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core.
written IP address:
permission of Cambridge University Press must176.9.8.24, onfor
be obtained 23 commercial
Sep 2020 atre-use.
03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128X
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128XHuman–elephant interactions 613
substantial for people who invest in crop farming, guarding to find any evidence of the use of these criteria, and the
and elephant control systems. The time required for farm compensation scheme is not well known. The Wildlife
protection limits the amount of time available for activities Conservation Act of (United Republic of Tanzania,
such as attending school, and families who are affected , , ) discourages human activities within . km
severely by crop damage are unable to pay expenses such of protected areas, but there has not been any research on how
as school fees (Alcamo et al., ; Khumalo & Yung, the Act affects settlement close to protected areas.
; Røskaft et al., ). Additionally, people feel unsafe There is increasing pressure on protected areas from
during daily activities such as walking to and from surrounding communities as a result of expansion of crop
school, collecting firewood and accessing shops (Dickman farming fuelled by an annual human population growth
& Hazzah, ; Mayberry et al., ). This may affect rate in Tanzania of c. .% (United Republic of Tanzania,
the socio-economic development of communities (Alcamo ). Farming is encroaching on elephant habitats, and
et al., ; Graham et al., ; Barua et al., ; Chapman there is a need to document and analyse the pattern of
et al., ; Røskaft et al., ; Fisher, ). impacts of elephants on crop farms. Improved knowledge
In human-modified landscapes, animals with large home of the pattern and frequency of impacts based on distance
ranges, such as the African and Asian Elephas maximus from protected area boundaries will enable wildlife man-
elephants, may enter fields, causing crop damage either agers to educate farmers regarding safe distances from
by foraging on crops or trampling (Gubbi, ; Blair & reserve boundaries for farming (Blair & Meredith, ;
Meredith, ; Shaffer et al., ). Human–elephant inter- Shaffer et al., ). Acharya et al. () recommended
action is a major challenge facing the management of pro- avoiding areas nearest to reserve boundaries in Nepal.
tected areas in both Africa and Asia (Sarker, ; Gubbi, Gubbi () and Hill () found greater damage to
; Mace et al., ). The negative impacts of elephants farms closest to reserve boundaries in southern India and
are associated with increasing settlement and farming activ- western Uganda, respectively. However, the relationship
ities close to protected areas. This increases the likelihood between distance from a protected area and the types of
of contact with elephants when they leave the protected crop damage by African elephants requires further investi-
area (Shaffer et al., ). Elephants tend to move outside gation. Apart from avoiding areas close to protected areas,
protected areas when crops are ripening, attracted by crop other mitigation measures used to prevent elephants
sugar content and palatability (Stearns & Stearns, ; damaging crops include planting unpalatable crops such
Gubbi, ; Blair & Meredith, ). Frequent crop damage as chilli around farms, and beehive fences (Enukwa, ).
causes farmers to develop negative attitudes towards the The challenge of managing co-existence between ele-
conservation of elephants and to be disinclined to share phants and people arises because different people have
land with them (Hoare, ; Hariohay et al., ). different views or interests, and also because elephants are
Mitigating the impacts of elephants is hindered by viewed as dangerous and destructive animals (Dublin &
poor living standards in developing countries, where Hoare, ; Blair & Meredith, ). Research on human–
people may still clear new fields by cutting trees in areas elephant interactions can therefore improve knowledge
of former elephant habitat (Dublin & Hoare, ; Gubbi, of the costs associated with land-sharing between people
; Hariohay et al., ; Shaffer et al., ). Increased and elephants (Graham et al., ; Barua et al., ).
human population density results in increased contact Understanding the dynamics of these interactions can help
between elephants and people, especially in areas adjacent identify management strategies to protect both humans and
to protected areas (Khumalo & Yung, ; Acharya et al., elephants. Traditional mitigation measures, such as chasing
). The Tanzanian government has introduced a com- elephants away by shouting, drum-beating, noise-making,
pensation scheme for people affected by problem animals use of fire crackers, or using lights and torches, are diverse
such as elephants, based on the distance people live from yet often ineffective because they address the symptoms of
a protected area (United Republic of Tanzania, ). The the problem rather than its causes (Graham et al., ;
scheme covers crop losses and property damage, depre- Hoare, ). Sustainable solutions that reduce or minimize
dation of livestock, and injuries and fatalities to people elephant impacts require that spatial and temporal patterns
(United Republic of Tanzania, , ). Compensation of elephant movement are incorporated into land-use plan-
for crop losses is per ha up to a maximum of ha, with ning and, in addition, that the needs of local communities
no compensation for farms within . km of a protected are recognized in mitigation schemes.
area. Compensation for crop farms .– km, – km, The main objective of this study was to assess the spatio-
– km and . km from a protected area is USD , , temporal impacts of elephants on crop farms in areas
and per acre (. ha), respectively (United Republic adjacent to the Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves,
of Tanzania, ). At the time of the establishment of this Tanzania. We tested three hypotheses: () elephant impacts
project we used these distances, set by the Government are higher on farms , km from protected area boundaries
(United Republic of Tanzania, ), but we were not able than on farms located – km or . km from the
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128X614 K. M. Hariohay et al.
FIG. 1 Locations of the households
(circles) in the seven villages ( house-
holds in each) in which we conducted
the questionnaire survey.
boundaries (because crops are more accessible close to the Methods
boundary); () there will be a higher frequency of crop dam-
age incidents in the wet than in the dry season because the wet Sample units and design
season (January–June) is when crops are cultivated; () immi-
grant farmers experience more frequent damage to their We conducted a questionnaire-based survey in a total of
crops by elephants than do Indigenous farmers because the households in seven villages around the three game reserves
former tend to establish fields closer to reserve boundaries. during June–August . In each village we selected
households, and in each household only the head or a rep-
resentative adult male or female responded to our question-
Study area
naire. Here, an adult means any member of the household
Rungwa, Kizigo, and Muhesi Game Reserves, covering a to- who was $ years old. As defined by the United Republic
tal area of , km, lie in the Manyoni District in central of Tanzania () a household ‘refers to a person or group
Tanzania (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, of persons who reside in the same homestead/compound
; Fig. ). According to the most recent dry season aerial but not necessarily in the same dwelling unit, have same
census, in , these reserves have the largest elephant cooking arrangements and are answerable to the same
population in Tanzania, with an estimated , individuals household head’. We used stratified random sampling to
(Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, ; Chase et al., select the villages for surveying, where the attributes of
). The reserves are unfenced, with no clearly established the strata were villages that used to be corridors for
buffer zone, and are bordered by a public road to the north. elephants. Elephants used to pass through Kanoge, Majojoro,
Along this public road, people have established settlements Rungwa and Kintanula villages to the Rukwa/Lukwati and
and crop farms. Formerly there were no restrictions on Ugala Game Reserves. Three other villages (Damwelu,
the establishment of human settlements and crop farm- Ipande and Njirii) are in wildlife corridors and dispersal
ing outside the reserves but the Tanzania Wildlife Con- areas for elephants. These corridors connect the Muhesi
servation Act no. of sections (b) and , and Game Reserve to Chaya and Wembere Game Controlled
recent regulation on wildlife corridors and dispersal areas Areas (Mduma et al., ). In the selected villages we
(United Republic of Tanzania, ), describe the require- used random sampling to select households. Estimates of
ment for securing buffer zones, wildlife corridors, disper- the number of households in each village were obtained
sal areas, and critical habitats for core protected areas. from village leaders at the time of the survey: Kanoge
Settlements and farming are banned in these areas (United (), Majojoro (), Rungwa (), Kintanula (),
Republic of Tanzania, , ). The landscape of the Damwelu (), Ipande () and Njirii (). Village lea-
study area is characterized by shrublands, open forests, set- ders created registers of the names of available households,
tlements and urbanization. Within these open forests and and we randomly sampled from these. The total number of
shrublands people cultivate crops; these areas also provide households in the seven villages was ,, and thus we
habitat for elephants (Fig. ). sampled .% of the total. For each household we
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128XHuman–elephant interactions 615
estimated the distance of its farm to the nearest reserve years, .% –, and .% – years. The majority of
boundary, which we later grouped into three distance cate- respondents (.%) were male. Ninety households were
gories: , km, – km, and . km from the game reserve . km from the reserves’ boundary, were , km, and
boundary. The Tanzanian government considers a distance were within – km. Of the respondents, .% were
of , . km from the protected area boundary as a buffer immigrants and .% were Indigenous. Kanoge village had
zone and, therefore, there is no compensation of crop loss the greatest proportion of immigrant respondents (.%),
to animals for farms at this distance (United Republic of followed by Damwelu (.%), Majojoro (.%), Kintanula
Tanzania, ). (.%), Ipande (.%), Rungwa (.%) and Njirii (.%).
Mean household size was . ± SD . people (range –).
Immigrants had a greater mean household size (. ± SD
Questionnaire survey . individuals) than Indigenous people (. ± SD .).
The questionnaire survey included both closed and open- When we asked respondents to mention the major
ended questions (Supplementary Material ). The questions problem caused by elephants, .% mentioned crop damage,
enquired about immigration status (migration from regions followed by damage to infrastructure such as water taps
other than Singida, Dodoma, Tabora and Mbeya), farm size (.%), fear of collecting firewood (.%), and impeded
and distance to the nearest reserve boundary, and incidents access to shops and schools (.%). The frequencies of
and proportion of crop damaged by elephants (and any miti- reported crop damage incidents varied significantly be-
gation measures) during June – May . The ethnic tween villages, with the highest numbers of crop damage
groups resident in the study area were Taturu, Nyaturu, Gogo, incidences recorded in Kanoge, followed by Kintanula,
Kimbu and Nyamwezi; immigrants were recorded as Sukuma Rungwa, Damwelu, Ipande and Majojoro, and the fewest
and others. Immigrants were people who had moved to the reports from Njirii (Table ). Crop damage incidents varied
area after so-called operation village (the process of establish- significantly with distance from farm to the nearest reserve
ment and formal recognition of villages) during –. All boundary (Table ). Most of the respondents with farms
interviewees gave prior, informed consent before they were , km from the boundry (.%) reported crop damage by
included in the survey. At the beginning of the interviews, elephants as a major problem, followed by those with arms
respondents were informed they could seek clarification at – km (.%). Few respondents with farms . km
any time during the interview. KMH and WAM conducted (.%) reported this as a major problem.
the questionnaire survey, in Swahili. We anonymized respon- The estimated annual total losses as a result of elephant
dents by not asking their names and assigned a number damage were . ha of crops, a mean of . ± SD . ha per
to each questionnaire. affected household per year. The estimated losses varied
with distance to the nearest reserve boundary, with those
, km reporting the greatest mean crop losses and those
Data analysis . km the lowest mean crop losses (Table ). The villages
of Rungwa, Damwelu, Kanoge and Kintanula reported
We performed all statistical data analyses using SPSS . significantly more losses than the villages of Ipande, Njirii
(IBM, New York, USA). We examined differences in crop and Damwelu. Among the households that incurred crop
damage incidence (with a χ test) and mean area of crop damage, most respondents (.%) reported the wet season
damaged (with an F test to compare two variances) by to be the time in which most crop damage by elephants
elephants, partitioned by six independent variables: village, occurred, followed by the dry season (.%); some respon-
farm distance to nearest game reserve boundary (, km, dents (.%) reported damage throughout the year.
– km and . km), season (wet: January–June; dry: July– Among the immigrant households, .% had farms
December; annual: January–December), immigration status close to the nearest reserve boundary, .% . km, and
(Indigenous, immigrants), farm size (, , –, . ha), .% – km distant; the majority of the Indigenous
and water sources shared with elephants (yes/no). We also respondents (.%) owned farms far from the nearest re-
used a generalized linear model to investigate the effect of serve boundary (. km), followed by .% , km and
village, farm distance to nearest game reserve boundary, sea- .% – km distant (χ = ., df = , P , .. Most im-
son, immigration status, farm size, and water sources shared migrants (.%) reported crop damage incidents by ele-
with elephants on the area of crop damaged. Significance phants as the major problem whereas only a few of the
level was P , .. Indigenous people (.%) reported this as a major problem
(Table ). Immigrants were farming larger areas (mean . ±
Results SD . ha) than Indigenous people (mean . ± SD . ha;
F = ., df = , P , .). Immigrants experienced greater
Mean age of respondents was . ± SD . years, with mean losses of crops to elephants than Indigenous respon-
.% of the respondents aged –, .% . dents (Table ).
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128X616 K. M. Hariohay et al.
TABLE 1 Crop damage reported by respondents, by village, nearest distance to game reserve boundary, season, immigration status, and
water sources shared with elephants Loxodonta africana, with Pearson χ test for differences within each of the four variables.
Crop damage (%)
Variable Attribute Yes No n χ2 df P
Village Kanoge 93.3 6.7 30 79.28 6 , 0.001
Kintanula 83.3 16.7 30
Rungwa 60.0 40.0 30
Damwelu 56.7 43.3 30
Ipande 53.3 46.7 30
Majojoro 10.0 90.0 30
Njirii 6.7 93.3 30
Farm distance to nearest game reserve boundary (km) , 1 km 81.0 19.0 79 53.96 2 , 0.001
1–5 km 65.9 34.1 41
. 5 km 20.0 80.0 90
Season Wet 61.7 38.3 141 22.79 2 , 0.001
Dry 35.8 64.2 53
Both wet & dry 18.8 81.2 16
Immigration status Indigenous 28.0 72.0 100 51.51 1 , 0.001
Immigrants 73.6 26.4 110
Water sources shared with elephants Yes 75.2 24.8 158 41.15 1 , 0.001
No 24.8 75.2 52
TABLE 2 Estimated mean area of crops damaged by elephants reported by the households that indicated crop damage was a major
problem, by village, nearest distance to reserve boundary, season, immigration status, farm size and water sources shared with elephants,
with F test for differences within each of the four variables.
Variable Attribute Mean ± SD (ha) n F df P
Village Damwelu 7.9 ± 5.8 17 8.60 6 , 0.001
Rungwa 6.2 ± 4.8 18
Kanoge 5.2 ± 4.1 28
Kintanula 1.5 ± 1.7 25
Njirii 1.0 ± 0.0 2
Ipande 0.9 ± 0.7 16
Majojoro 0.8 ± 0.3 3
Farm distance to nearest game reserve boundary (km) ,1 5.5 ± 4.9 64 15.64 2 , 0.001
1–5 2.4 ± 3.6 27
.5 0.8 ± 1.2 18
Season Wet 4.6 ± 4.8 87 4.85 2 0.010
Dry 1.1 ± 1.9 19
Both wet & dry 0.7 ± 0.4 3
Immigration status Indigenous 1.8 ± 2.1 28 10.36 1 0.002
Immigrants 4.8 ± 4.9 81
Farm size (ha) , 11 2.5 ± 2.4 82 60.73 2 , 0.001
11–20 10.0 ± 4.8 22
. 20 0.8 ± 0.0 5
Water sources shared with elephants Yes 5.8 ± 4.4 82 5.40 1 0.022
No 3.4 ± 4.7 27
In the generalized linear model, village, distance to near- the crop most damaged by elephants, .% of farmers
est reserve boundary, farm size, shared water sources, pres- mentioned maize only, followed by multiple crops (.% of
ence/absence of elephants, and immigration status together farmers), sorghum (.%), beans (.%) and groundnuts
explained .% of variation in crop damage area, but season (.%). When asked the common reasons for crop damage
did not make a significant contribution (Table ). The ma- by elephants, respondents mentioned the field being close to
jority of respondents (.%) were engaged in multi-crop the reserve boundary (.%), elephants searching for water
cultivation of maize, millet, sorghum, tobacco and beans, on village land (.%), the preference of elephants for
and .% cultivated only maize. When asked to describe cultivated crops rather than wild plants (.%), and a
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128XHuman–elephant interactions 617
TABLE 3 Generalized linear model with crop damage area as the dependent variable and six independent variables: village, distance of farm
to nearest reserve boundary, season, immigration status, farm size, and water sources shared with elephants.
Parameter Independent variable B SE Wald χ2 df P
Intercept 3.79 1.59 5.66 1 0.014
Village Ipande −1.82 0.35 27.33 1 , 0.001
Damwelu 1.44 0.31 21.86 1 , 0.001
Njirii −1.41 0.76 3.44 1 0.064
Majojoro −2.50 0.81 9.65 1 0.002
Rungwa 1.54 0.32 23.81 1 , 0.001
Kintanula 1.76 0.29 36.24 1 , 0.001
Kanoge 01
Farm distance to nearest game reserve boundary (km) ,1 2.73 0.44 34.84 1 , 0.001
1–5 2.55 0.42 33.77 1 , 0.001
.5 1.97 0.41 22.97 1 , 0.001
Season Wet 0.24 0.65 0.14 1 0.709
Dry −0.54 0.69 0.59 1 0.440
Both wet & dry 01
Immigration status Immigrant 1.97 0.41 22.97 1 , 0.001
Indigenous 01
Farm size (ha) , 11 −0.53 1.30 0.16 1 0.885
11–20 5.50 1.32 17.38 1 , 0.001
. 20 01
Water sources shared with elephants Yes −2.64 0.49 29.44 1 , 0.001
No 01
This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
combination of reasons (.%); .% indicated they did Other studies have also shown that farms close to protected
not know why elephants damage crops. areas experience more crop damage compared to those further
Most of the respondents (, .%) were aware of away (Nahonyo, ; Okello et al., ; Sarker, ; Blair &
mitigation measures, with significantly more Indigenous re- Meredith, ). However, estimates of crop losses caused
spondents (.%) aware of these measures than immigrants by elephants can be exaggerated by affected communities
(.%; χ = ., df = , P , .). Most of the respondents (Enukwa, ; Shaffer et al., ). In our study, we dimin-
using mitigation (.% of ) used a combination of noise ished this possibility by elaborating the questions to the
making, lighting fires during the night, and launching stones respondent before we recorded answers. This ensured that
with hand catapults. Other methods included employing respondents understood the questions and provided correct
someone to guard the fields (.% of ), planting unfavour- answers, by giving them time to crosscheck their answers.
able crops such as chilli around the farm (.%), seeking help Not all farms close to reserves experience crop losses to ele-
from wildlife rangers, who used disturbance shooting (.%), phants, and the frequency of crop losses often varies: not all
placing hives of honeybees Apis mellifera around crop farms closest to reserve boundaries are damaged (Graham
fields (.%), and placing oil-smeared cloths attached to ropes et al., ; Von Gerhardt et al., ). Similarly, we found
around crop fields (.%). Those who employed a combi- that c. % of farmers who had farms , km from a reserve
nation of methods suffered less mean damage (. ± SD . boundary did not experience crop damage by elephants.
ha), followed by those who planted chilli around the farm Crop damage is only a part of the Tanzania consolation
(. ± SD . ha), used beehives (. ± SD . ha), employed scheme regulation (United Republic of Tanzania, ).
guards (. ± SD . ha), used oil-smeared cloths on ropes Crop loss to elephants is not fully compensated, and
(. ± SD . ha) or used disturbance shooting (. ± SD compensation varies with distance from protected areas;
. ha; F = ., df = , P , .). losses to farms within . km do not receive any compen-
sation. Our findings support our first hypothesis that crop
damage incidents increase with decreasing distance of
Discussion farms to a game reserve boundary.
Distance to reserve boundary
Season
Mean crop damage losses and the frequency with which crop
damage by elephants was reported were greatest , km Respondents indicated that crop damage by elephants was
from the Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves. higher during the wet season. Although in the generalized
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128X618 K. M. Hariohay et al.
linear model season did not make a significant contribution elephants. Disturbance shooting, and the destruction of
to the area of crop damaged, this result could have been in- problem elephants have been used by wildlife authorities
fluenced by interactions of other variables in the model, as near protected areas in Kenya to deter elephants from fields
the univariate analysis indicated greater average losses of (Dublin & Hoare, ; Hoare, ). Respondents in our
crops in the wet season. Rainfall determines the growth of study area also used chilli to help deter elephants. Compared
the farm–bush mosaic, which is attractive to elephants, to crops such as maize and sorghum, chilli is less palatable
and rainfall promotes growth of crops, such as maize, to elephants and is a cash crop with high economic value
which when mature attract elephants (Barnes et al., ; (Parker & Osborn, ; Khumalo & Yung, ). Our re-
Gubbi, ). During the dry season there was a lower fre- spondents also reported the use of beehives. Noise from
quency of crop damage, as we hypothesized, because during honeybees is a deterrent to elephants, which upon hearing
these months there is less crop cultivation. However, during the sound from disturbed honeybees produce alarm calls
the dry season a few crops, such as vegetables and tobacco that cause members in the group to move away from the
seedlings, are grown near rivers in the study area. In this source of the sound (King et al., ). The use of beehive
season elephants will move outside the reserves to search fences, although effective, is potentially limited by lack of
for water and may cause damage to vegetables grown funds.
along the river and at water points (Barnes & Dunn, ;
Sitati et al., ; Barnes et al., ; Sitienei et al., ).
Conclusion
Immigration status
Farmers cultivating crops , km from the nearest bound-
Our findings indicated that Indigenous respondents were ary of the Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves ex-
more aware than immigrants of mitigation measures. As perienced more crop damage by elephants compared to
envisaged in our third hypothesis, more immigrants than those with farms further away, damage was higher in the
Indigenous respondents experienced crop damage by wet season when palatable crops are mature, and immi-
elephants, mainly because of differences in farming prac- grants to the area, who tend to farm closer to the reserves,
tices, with most immigrants farming near the borders of suffered greater crop damage by elephants than did In-
the game reserves, similar to the findings of research digenous respondents. Based on our findings, we make
elsewhere (Lyamuya et al., ; Acharya et al., ). four recommendations. Firstly, farmers should be discour-
Indigenous people whose families have resided in the area aged from planting crops , km from a reserve boundary,
for several generations are more likely to be aware of in combination with the establishment of a km buffer zone
local geography, seasonality and elephant dynamics. In our within which only activities such as beekeeping and tree
study immigrants, who are from agro-pastoralist groups, planting are allowed. Secondly, we recommend the use of
cultivated larger farms than Indigenous people, possibly be- a combination of mitigation methods, including increased
cause they had larger households and consequently greater planting of crops that are less palatable to elephants, such
food requirements (Redpath et al., ; Acharya et al., as chilli, and the use of honeybee fences around farms.
). Thirdly, we recommend increasing the amount of compen-
sation available to farmers when they lose crops to ele-
phants, rather than the current situation in which affected
Types of crops damaged and mitigation methods farmers are compensated for only a small proportion of
the total loss. Fourthly, we recommend education on avail-
Most of the respondents in our study area listed maize as the able mitigation methods, to help farmers living in areas
crop most vulnerable to elephants, probably because maize adjacent to the game reserves minimize crop losses to
is the main food crop in this area. During the maturing stage, elephants.
in the wet season, maize attracts elephants because of its
high sugar content (Barnes & Dunn, ; Gubbi, ). Acknowledgements We thank the Norwegian government and
Measures applied by the farmers in our study to deter ele- the EU Horizon-2020 financed project under GA 641918 (to
AfricanBioServices) for funding the compilation of this research, the
phants included simple, affordable methods such as noise
Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority and the Tanzania Wildlife
making, use of flashlights, setting fire around the fields, Research Institute for granting us access to conduct this research,
and firing stones from hand catapults. Noise making Patrice Richard for his help in the field, and two anonymous reviewers
involves hitting tins and drums, yelling, and sometimes for helpful comments.
whistling, to deter elephants away from the fields (Osborn
Author contributions Study design: WAM, KMH, ER; data
& Parker, ; Khumalo & Yung, ). The farmers also collection and analysis: WAM; writing: KMH, ER, WAM.
noted that the wildlife authorities used disturbance shooting
to deter elephants from fields, but rarely destroyed problem Conflicts of interest None.
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128XHuman–elephant interactions 619
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on H I L L , C.M. () Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmer’s
ethical standards. A permit to conduct research was obtained from perspective in an agricultural community in western Uganda.
the relevant wildlife authority prior to field work. International Journal of Pest Management, , –.
H O A R E , R. () Lessons from years of human–elephant conflict
mitigation in Africa: perspective on human–wildlife conflict.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, , –.
References K H U M A LO , K.E. & Y U N G , L.A. () Women, human–wildlife
conflict, and CBNRM: hidden impacts and vulnerabilities in
A C H A R Y A , K.P., P A U D E L , P.K., N E U P A N E , P.R. & K Ö H L , M. () Kwandu Conservancy, Namibia. Conservation and Society, ,
Human–wildlife conflicts in Nepal: patterns of human fatalities and –.
injuries caused by large mammals. PLOS ONE, , e. K I KOT I , A.P., G R I F F I N , C.R. & P A M P H I L , L. () Elephant use and
A L C A M O , J., B E N N E T T , E. & A S S E S S M E N T , M.E. () Ecosystems and conflict leads to Tanzania’s first wildlife conservation corridor.
Human Well-Being: a Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Pachyderm, , –.
Washington, DC, USA. K I N G , L.E., S O LT I S , J., D O U G L A S -H A M I LT O N , I., S AVA G E , A. &
B A R N E S , R.F.W. & D U N N , A. () Estimating forest elephant density V O L L R AT H , F. () Bee threat elicits alarm call in African
in Sapo National Park (Liberia) with a rainfall model. African elephants. PLOS ONE, , e.
Journal of Ecology, , –. L Y A M U Y A , R.D., M A S E N G A , E.H., M B I S E , F., F Y U M A G WA , R.D.,
B A R N E S , R.F.W., D U B I U R E , U.F., D A N Q U A H , E., B O A F O , Y., N A N D J U I , M W I T A , M. & R Ø S K A F T , E. () Human–carnivore conflict
A., H E M A , E.M. & M A N F O R D , M. () Crop-raiding elephants over livestock in the eastern part of the Serengeti ecosystem,
and the moon. African Journal of Ecology, , –. with a particular focus on the African wild dog Lycaon pictus.
B A R U A , M., B H A G WAT , S.A. & J A D H AV , S. () The hidden Oryx, , –.
dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity M AC E , G.M., B A R R E T T , M., B U R G E S S , N.D., C O R N E L L , S.E., F R E E M A N ,
and transaction costs. Biological Conservation, , –. R., G R O OT E N , M. & P U R V I S , A. () Aiming higher to bend the
B L A I R , A. & M E R E D I T H , T. () Community perception of the real curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability, , –.
impacts of human–wildlife conflict in Laikipia, Kenya: capturing the M AY B E R R Y , A.L., H O V O R K A , A.J. & E VA N S , K.E. () Well-being
relative significance of high-frequency, low-severity events. Oryx, impacts of human–elephant conflict in Khumaga, Botswana:
, –. exploring visible and hidden dimensions. Conservation and Society,
C H A P M A N , C.A., V A N B AV E L , B., B O O D M A N , C., G H A I , R.R., , –.
G O G A R T E N , J.F., H A R T T E R , J. et al. () Providing health care M D U M A , S.R., L O B O R A , A.L., F O L E Y , C. & J O N E S , T. () Tanzania
to improve community perceptions of protected areas. Oryx, Elephant Management Plan –. Tanzania Wildlife Research
, –. Institute: Conservation Information and Monitoring Unit, Arusha,
C H A S E , M.J., S C H LO S S B E R G , S., G R I F F I N , C.R., B O U C H É , P.J.C., D J E N E , Tanzania.
S.W., E L K A N , P.W. et al. () Continent-wide survey reveals M I N I S T R Y O F N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S A N D T O U R I S M () Rungwa-
massive decline in African savannah elephants. PeerJ, , e. Kizigo-Muhesi Game Reserves General Management Plan.
D I C K M A N , A.J. () Complexities of conflict: the importance of Government Printers, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife N A H O N Y O , C.L. () Assessment of anti-poaching effort in Ruaha
conflict. Animal Conservation, , –. National Park, Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Science, , –.
D I C K M A N , A.J. & H A Z Z A H , L. () Money, myths and man-eaters: O K E L LO , M.M., M A N K A , S.G. & D’ A M O U R , D.E. () The relative
complexities of human–wildlife conflict. In Problematic Wildlife—a importance of large mammal species for tourism in Amboseli
Cross-Disciplinary Approach (ed. F.M. Angelici), pp. –. National Park, Kenya. Tourism Management, , –.
Springer, New York, USA. O S B O R N , F.V. & P A R K E R , G.E. () Towards an integrated approach
D U B L I N , H.T. & H OA R E , R.E. () Searching for solutions: for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review of
the evolution of an integrated approach to understanding and current research. Oryx, , –.
mitigating human–elephant conflict in Africa. Human Dimensions P A R K E R , G.E. & O S B O R N , F.V. () Investigating the potential
of Wildlife, , –. for chilli Capsicum spp. to reduce human–wildlife conflict in
E N U K WA , E.H. () Human–elephant conflict mitigation methods: Zimbabwe. Oryx, , –.
a review of effectiveness and sustainability. Journal of Wildlife and R E D P AT H , S., B H AT I A , S. & Y O U N G , J. () Tilting at wildlife:
Biodiversity, , –. reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, , –.
F I S H E R , M. () Whose conflict is it anyway? Mobilizing research to R Ø S K A F T , E., L A R S E N , T., M O J A P H O KO , R., S A R K E R , A.H.M.R. &
save lives. Oryx, , –. J AC K S O N , C. () Human dimensions of elephant ecology. In
G R A H A M , M.D., N O T T E R , B.M., A D A M S , W.M., L E E , P.C. & O C H I E N G , Elephants and Savanna Woodland Ecosystems: a Study From Chobe
T.N. () Patterns of crop-raiding by elephants, Loxodonta National Park, Botswana, Vol. (eds C. Skarpe, J.T. Du Toit &
africana, in Laikipia, Kenya, and the management of human– S.R. Moe), pp. –. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
elephant conflict. Systematics and Biodiversity, , –. S A R K E R , A.H.M.R. () Human–wildlife conflict: a comparison
G U B B I , S. () Patterns and correlates of human–elephant conflict between Asia and Africa with special reference to elephants. In
around a south Indian reserve. Biological Conservation, , –. Conservation of Natural Resources: Some African & Asian Examples
H A R I O H AY , K.M., F Y U M A G WA , R.D., K I D E G H E S H O , J.R. & R Ø S K A F T , (eds E. Gereta & E. Røskaft), pp. –. Tapir Academic Press,
E. () Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife Trondheim, Norway.
conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. S H A F F E R , L.J., K H A D K A , K.K., V A N D E N H O E K , J. & N A I T H A N I , K.J.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, , –. () Human–elephant conflict: a review of current management
H A R I O H AY , K.M., R A N K E , P.S., F Y U M A G WA , R.D., K I D E G H E S H O , J.R. strategies and future directions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,
& R Ø S K A F T , E. () Drivers of conservation crimes in the , .
Rungwa-Kizigo-Muhesi Game Reserves, Central Tanzania. S I T AT I , N.W., W A L P O L E , M.J. & L E A D E R -W I L L I A M S , N. ()
Global Ecology and Conservation, , e. Factors affecting susceptibility of farms to crop raiding by African
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128X620 K. M. Hariohay et al.
elephants: using a predictive model to mitigate conflict. Journal of U N I T E D R E P U B L I C O F T A N Z A N I A () Population and Housing
Applied Ecology, , –. Census: Population Distribution by Administrative Areas.
S I T I E N E I , A.J., J I W E N , G. & N G E N E , S.M. () Assessing the cost of Government Printers, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
living with elephants (Loxodonta africana) in areas adjacent to U N I T E D R E P U B L I C O F T A N Z A N I A () Tanzania Total Population by
Meru National Park, Kenya. European Journal of Wildlife Research, District-Regions –: Sub-Divisional Population Projection for
, –. Year , Based on Population and Housing Census.
S T E A R N S , B.P. & S T E A R N S , S.C. () Still watching, from the edge of Government printers, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
extinction. BioScience, , –. U N I T E D R E P U B L I C O F T A N Z A N I A () The Wildlife Conservation
T A N Z A N I A W I L D L I F E R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E () Aerial Census of (Wildlife Corridors, Dispersal Areas, Buffer Zones and Migratory
Large Animals in the Ruaha-Rungwa Ecosystem, Dry Season, Routes) Regulations, . Government Printers, Dar es Salaam,
Population Status of African Elephant. Government of Tanzania, Tanzania.
Ausha, Tanzania. V O N G E R H A R D T , K., V A N N I E K E R K , A., K I D D , M., S A M WAY S , M. &
U N I T E D R E P U B L I C O F T A N Z A N I A () Wildlife Conservation H A N K S , J. () The role of elephant Loxodonta africana pathways
Act No of . Government Printers, Dar es Salaam, as a spatial variable in crop-raiding location. Oryx, , –.
Tanzania. W E S T E R N , D., W A I T H A K A , J. & K A M A N G A , J. () Finding space for
U N I T E D R E P U B L I C O F T A N Z A N I A () The Wildlife Conservation wildlife beyond National Parks and reducing conflicts through
(Dangerous Animals Damage Consolation) Regulations. community-based conservation: the Kenya experience. Parks,
Government of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. , –.
Oryx, 2020, 54(5), 612–620 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531800128X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 176.9.8.24, on 23 Sep 2020 at 03:47:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800128XYou can also read
