Human and wildlife usage of a protected area buffer zone in an area of high immigration

Bamford, Andrew J.; Ferrol-Schulte, Daniella; Wathan, Jennifer

doi:10.1017/s0030605313000215

Cited by 27 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The success record of CBNRM in general is highly variable (Kellert et al , Tallis et al , Brooks et al , Brooks ), and the socio‐economic performance of WMAs has been criticized (Benjaminsen et al , Bamford et al , Bluwstein et al , Moyo et al ). However, evidence is beginning to indicate that positive social and ecological outcomes can result from WMA projects (Tetra Tech and Maliasili Initiatives , Pailler et al , Salerno et al , Lee and Bond ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating conservation effectiveness in a Tanzanian community wildlife management area

Lee

2018

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Tanzania, community‐based natural resource management (CBNRM) of wildlife occurs through wildlife management areas (WMAs). The WMAs consist of multiple villages designating land and managing it for wildlife conservation in return for a portion of subsequent tourism revenues. The ecological success or failure of WMAs for wildlife conservation is rarely quantified but is important for evaluating the efficacy of specific projects and the general concept of CBNRM. I used 3 analyses to evaluate the ecological effectiveness of wildlife conservation actions in the Burunge WMA. I compared wildlife and livestock densities inside and outside a WMA using 1 year of distance sampling data and compared wild and domestic ungulate densities before and after the implementation of management changes that increased wildlife protections within a subsection of Burunge WMA using 6 years of distance sampling surveys. I also compared giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) survival and population growth rate before and after the implementation of management changes that increased wildlife protections in a subsection of Burunge WMA using 5 years of photographic capture‐recapture data. I found greater densities of wildlife and lower densities of livestock inside the WMA compared with outside. After the management changes, I documented significantly higher densities of several wild ungulate species and lower densities of domestic ungulates in the WMA. I found giraffe survival and population growth rate both increased in response to the management changes. Results indicated the WMA is effectively providing habitat and protection for wild ungulates while generally excluding domestic livestock. Ungulate densities, and giraffe survival and population growth rate over time indicated the management changes enacted in 2014–2015 resulted in positive effects for wild ungulates. These combined results indicate the ecological effectiveness of Burunge WMA and provide evidence that CBNRM can have positive effects on wildlife populations, particularly when support to grassroots law enforcement is provided. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating conservation effectiveness in a Tanzanian community wildlife management area

Lee

2018

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If lions benefit pastoralists financially, both the frequency and severity of retaliation for depredation may be reduced (Dickman ; Hemson et al . ; Bamford, Ferrol‐Schulte & Wathan ). The Mara conservancies increase and stabilize the distribution of profits from wildlife, most likely promoting tolerance (Thompson et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such incentives may be best achieved through community-based conservancies which involve local people in tourism and wildlife management (Groom & Harris 2008;Hemson et al 2009;Lindsey, Romañach & Davies-Mostert 2009). However, these regions inherently support pastoralism, and thus offer potential for conflict between wildlife and people, and may not exclude all human activities that negatively impact large carnivores (Parks & Harcourt 2002;Bamford, Ferrol-Schulte & Wathan 2014). Conflict mitigation strategies such as compensation schemes may not be effective if they do not also promote livestock husbandry practices which reduce depredation and thus retaliatory killings (Bulte & Rondeau 2003;Woodroffe et al 2006;Maclennan et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human–wildlife conflict, benefit sharing and the survival of lions in pastoralist community‐based conservancies

Blackburn

Hopcraft

Ogutu

et al. 2016

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. Like many wildlife populations across Africa, recent analyses indicate that African lions are declining rapidly outside of small fenced areas. Community conservancies -privately protected areas that engage community members in conservation -may potentially maintain wildlife populations in unfenced pastoralist regions, but their effectiveness in conserving large carnivores has been largely unknown until now. 2. We identify drivers of lion survival in community conservancies within the Masai Mara ecosystem, Kenya, applying mark-recapture analyses to continuous sight-resight surveys. We use the number of livestock and human settlements as proxies for potential human-lion conflict whilst controlling for environmental variables and lion socioecology. and manyattas) that were not members of a conservancy, and that fell within a pride home-range, had a large negative effect on female survival and was the most influential external predictor in models. These nonconservancy settlements accounted for 37Á2% of total observed variation in survival, whereas conservancy settlements, which benefit financially from wildlife through their membership, had no effect on lion survival. 5. Internal drivers of survival agreed with known ecology and social behaviour including age plus a negative effect of male takeovers on cub survival <6 months. Vegetation cover, prey availability and the density of grazing livestock within a pride's range did not explain patterns in lion survival. 6. Synthesis and applications. We show that lion densities have increased substantially within the Mara conservancies over the last decade and suggest that the creation of community conservancies has benefitted their survival. This suggests that lions can survive outside of fenced areas within pastoral regions if communities gain benefits from wildlife. We highlight the importance of expanding existing conservancies beyond their current geographical and political scope and forming buffer zones if wildlife ranges outside them. We suggest that changing attitudes to predators should be a key goal of community-based conservancies. Further work is recommended to identify what specific aspects of conservancy membership promote lion survival.

show abstract

“…However, most migrants to the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda, from 1998 to 2008, came because of land availability or the presence of family members (Zommers and MacDonald, 2011). Sometimes it is unknown whether living next to a protected area provided any economic benefit (Estes et al, 2012;Foerster et al, 2011;Hartter and Goldman, 2011) even during times of high immigration (Bamford et al, 2014).…”

Section: Human Migrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, local people, including members of indigenous populations, must be involved in some way (Bamford et al, 2014). In South Africa, national park buffer zones have ''complementary legal and management restrictions placed on their use and development'' (Molewa, 2012, p. 5).…”

Section: Summationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Shafer

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• Although IUCN protected area management categories V-VI were adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, the fears of some skeptics have not been resolved.• Although promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people may be linked, tradeoffs are inevitable.• The expected win-win success stories for categories V-VI have not been abundant although evaluation methods are still unrefined. • Categories V-VI will be more effective for biological diversity conservation if the buffer zones have land use restrictions and adequate governance.• Local participation in buffer zone management is a wise strategy but enforcement by protected area authorities, and some coercion, may be essential to insure that land use practices are biologically optimal for the core area and its buffer zone. a b s t r a c tThe debate about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) protected area management categories V-VI has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. Even though these two categories were officially adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, and approved at the Fourth IUCN World Parks Conference in Barcelona, in 2008, this has not completely alleviated the fears of some debate participants. The question persists, can the perceived dual role of these two categories in promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people actually work in synergy? One aspect of categories V-VI needs careful scrutiny: buffer zone land use restrictions and adequate governance. Although local participation in buffer zone management marks a wise cooperative policy, some coercion and enforcement by protected area (PA) authorities seems essential to assure that land use practices in the buffer zone are optimal for core area biota. Buffer zone policy and governance is key to PA biological diversity conservation success.

show abstract

Human and wildlife usage of a protected area buffer zone in an area of high immigration

Abstract: Population growth near protected areas threatens

Cited by 27 publications

References 38 publications

Evaluating conservation effectiveness in a Tanzanian community wildlife management area

Evaluating conservation effectiveness in a Tanzanian community wildlife management area

Human–wildlife conflict, benefit sharing and the survival of lions in pastoralist community‐based conservancies

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About