Consequences of different forms of conservation for large mammals in Tanzania: preliminary analyses

M, T.; Pelkey, Neil W.; Borner, Markus; Campbell, Kenneth L.; Woodworth, Bethany L.; Farm, Brian P.; Kuwai, J. Ole; Huish, S.; Severre, E. L. M

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2028.1998.00147.x

Cited by 58 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More realistically, as money is invested into the other three subpopulations and anti-poaching patrols are implemented, it would deter the poachers from CS1, CS3, and CS4 (Caro et al 1998) and thus possibly increase poaching activity in the remaining, currently secure, subpopulation (CS2). In addition, after a few years of management one or more of the other subpopulations' abundance might increase enough so they are no longer at risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened species: How important is patch quality?

Chauvenet

Baxter

McDonald‐Madden

et al. 2010

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Money is often a limiting factor in conservation, and attempting to conserve endangered species can be costly. Consequently, a framework for optimizing fiscally constrained conservation decisions for a single species is needed. In this paper we find the optimal budget allocation among isolated subpopulations of a threatened species to minimize local extinction probability. We solve the problem using stochastic dynamic programming, derive a useful and simple alternative guideline for allocating funds, and test its performance using forward simulation. The model considers subpopulations that persist in habitat patches of differing quality, which in our model is reflected in different relationships between money invested and extinction risk. We discover that, in most cases, subpopulations that are less efficient to manage should receive more money than those that are more efficient to manage, due to higher investment needed to reduce extinction risk. Our simple investment guideline performs almost as well as the exact optimal strategy. We illustrate our approach with a case study of the management of the Sumatran tiger, Panthera tigris sumatrae, in Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP), Indonesia. We find that different budgets should be allocated to the separate tiger subpopulations in KSNP. The subpopulation that is not at risk of extinction does not require any management investment. Based on the combination of risks of extinction and habitat quality, the optimal allocation for these particular tiger subpopulations is an unusual case: subpopulations that occur in higher-quality habitat (more efficient to manage) should receive more funds than the remaining subpopulation that is in lower-quality habitat. Because the yearly budget allocated to the KSNP for tiger conservation is small, to guarantee the persistence of all the subpopulations that are currently under threat we need to prioritize those that are easier to save. When allocating resources among subpopulations of a threatened species, the combined effects of differences in habitat quality, cost of action, and current subpopulation probability of extinction need to be integrated. We provide a useful guideline for allocating resources among isolated subpopulations of any threatened species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened species: How important is patch quality?

Chauvenet

Baxter

McDonald‐Madden

et al. 2010

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although protected areas are recognised as a key element in conservation, studies show that partially protected areas (IUCN category B IV) do not protect biodiversity as well as strictly protected areas (Caro et al 1998;Caro 1999;Pelkey et al 2000;Setsaas et al 2007). Nevertheless, partially protected areas compose a significant part of the protected area network in Southern Africa (WRI 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Does illegal hunting affect density and behaviour of African grassland birds? A case study on ostrich (Struthio camelus)

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Widespread bushmeat hunting represents one of the major threats to many mammals and birds in Africa. We studied the influence of illegal bushmeat hunting on large grassland birds in the Serengeti National Park (SNP) and adjoining protected areas, by using the ostrich (Struthio camelus) as a case study. First, we documented illegal hunting of both small and large birds by using a questionnaire in the villages on the western and eastern side of the SNP. Second, we studied the effect of illegal hunting on density by driving 4,659 km of transects inside SNP and on the adjacent protected areas, where the data were analysed by DISTANCE sampling. Last, we used flight initiation distance (FID, i.e. the distance between an approaching predator (human) and prey when flight is started), to assess possible impacts on behaviour from illegal hunting. We found that people from the western side of the SNP admitted to hunting both small and large grassland birds, and collect ostrich feathers and eggs. Although the Maasai also hunted small birds, only ostrich feathers and eggs of the large grassland birds were used. Surprisingly, we found no significant differences in densities between the SNP and adjoining partially protected areas, but ostriches had longer FID to an approaching human outside the SNP. Currently illegal hunting does not appear to affect the ostrich population, but given the extensive use of birds for consumption more awareness educational programs accompanied by provision of agricultural incentives within the protected areas are needed.

show abstract

“…If the harvest exceeds maximum sustainable yield, the wildlife stock will decrease over time and so will the supply of wildlife products, which may again increase the prices in the local markets and thereby motivate increased harvesting intensity. Caro et al (1998a) found that poaching activity in Tanzania was high in areas used by legal hunters, but not patrolled by guards. Poachers move into such areas after the end of the hunting season.…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach still has a strong standing in Tanzania, and some scholars argue that sustainability can be achieved that way. Caro et al (1998a) studied the effect of human activities on 21 mammal species in Tanzania based on an aerial census. They found relatively high densities of animals in areas that were patrolled by guards.…”

Section: Conclusive Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Striving for sustainable wildlife management: the case of Kilombero Game Controlled Area, Tanzania

Haule¹,

Johnsen

Maganga

2002

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sustainability of wildlife resources in Africa is threatened by poaching for trophies and meat as well as changes in land use. In order to motivate local people for sustainable wildlife management, efforts to transfer decision-making power as well as bene®ts from central to local level have been made in several countries. Such efforts have not yet been seen in Kilombero Game Controlled Area, which is the area covered by the present study. The paper documents the importance of wildlife to local people, explores local people's perceptions on wildlife management and identi®es constraints to sustainable wildlife management. A total of 177 household interviews in 5 villages and 129 interviews of pupils in schools have been conducted. The majority of pupils reported that their latest meal of meat was from a wild animal, and the most common species was buffalo. Apart from availability of cheap wildlife meat, advantages from living close to wildlife include the use of various parts of animals for, e.g. medical and ritual uses, and various plant products from wildlife habitats. Disadvantages include damages to crops, predation on livestock, and injuries to humans. The estimated loss of yield due to raiding by wildlife amounted to 21Á9 and 47Á8% of the harvest of rice and maize, respectively. Traditional wildlife management in Kilombero includes few rules to avoid resource depletion, because depletion has traditionally not been a problem due to low hunting technology and low human population. Government management includes strict rules, with hunting quotas as the main instrument, but the government has failed to enforce the rules. Ongoing discussions on new approaches to wildlife management like co-management and community-based management were largely unknown to the villagers in the area. Both poaching and agricultural expansion threaten the sustainability of Kilombero Game Controlled Area. It is suggested that transfers of decision-making power and bene®ts to local people is necessary in order to achieve sustainable management.

show abstract

Consequences of different forms of conservation for large mammals in Tanzania: preliminary analyses

Cited by 58 publications

References 13 publications

Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened species: How important is patch quality?

Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened species: How important is patch quality?

Does illegal hunting affect density and behaviour of African grassland birds? A case study on ostrich (Struthio camelus)

Striving for sustainable wildlife management: the case of Kilombero Game Controlled Area, Tanzania

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About