Human-elephant interactions in areas surrounding the Rungwa, Kizigo, and Muhesi Game Reserves, central Tanzania

Page created by Guy Erickson
 
CONTINUE READING
Human-elephant interactions in areas surrounding the Rungwa, Kizigo, and Muhesi Game Reserves, central Tanzania
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/./SX                                                  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/S003060531800128X
Human–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/S003060531800128X
614         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/S003060531800128X
Human–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/S003060531800128X
616         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/S003060531800128X
Human–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/S003060531800128X
618         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/S003060531800128X
Human–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/S003060531800128X
620         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/S003060531800128X
You can also read