Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Local Community Perceptions Towards Lion Conservation: A Case of the Selous Game Reserve,Tanzania

Abstract

We assessed the factors influencing local community perceptions towards lions in the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Data were collected from 384 households through questionnaire surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions, and analyzed by content analysis and IBM SPSS version 20. About 86% (n=331) of respondents had negative perceptions towards lions. Education (p=0.0016, R=1.68), occupation (p=0.0021, R=−2.07), livestock numbers (p=0.0011, R=0.-0.43), livestock management (p=0.0006, R=0.373), water sources (p=0.0019, R=−0.21), and distance from the protected area (p=0.0183, R=2.11) were significant factors for community perceptions towards lions. We recommend compensation for the victims of lion attacks to reduce negative attitudes towards the species.

Keywords

Depredation livestock lion local community perception retaliation Selous Game Reserve

Introduction

The global lion population substantially declined by 43% between 1993 and 2014 (Funston et al., 2017; IUCN SSC, 2018). The reasons for this are related to humans and the climate (Bauer et al., 2016). Human-lion conflicts (HLCs) are a major threat contributing to the alarming rate of decrease in the African lion population (Mbise et al., 2018). Exponential human population growth and increasing herds of livestock in Africa are among the important indirect drivers of the continued shrinking of habitats for wildlife, including lions (Becker et al., 2013). Furthermore, climate change has accelerated the effects and the situation is severe during dry seasons when lions come close to the land inhabited by humans in search of prey and water (Kaeslin et al., 2012). In contrast, climate changes drive the local communities and their herds to invade the protected areas in the search of agricultural and grazing land, thus causing increased HLCs (Becker et al., 2013).

In Tanzania, HLCs are characterized by lions preying on livestock and humans, which eventually leads to retaliatory killings (Nyahongo and Røskaft, 2011a). It is estimated that illegal lion killings could be five to 10 times as high as the trophy hunting offtake rate (Funston et al., 2017). Lion retaliatory killing in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, for example, is approximately equal to the number of cattle depredated (Ikanda and Packer, 2008). The loss of nomadic lions through persecution from pastoralists along the Serengeti National Park buffer zones is quite high (Mbise et al., 2018). The escalating bushmeat poaching across the country has become a serious concern because it reduces lions’ wild prey base and increases livestock susceptibility as an alternative prey (Mwakatobe et al., 2013).

The Selous Game Reserve (SGR) is part of the Selous ecosystem. It has 7200 lions and a high record of HLCs mainly in the form of human attacks (Nyahongo and Røskaft, 2011b). The ongoing increase of pastoralist immigration in SGR buffer zones has intensified the conflict (Kyando et al., 2017). The affected communities indiscriminately kill lions through persecution and retaliation, which hampers species sustainability (Kushnir and Packer, 2019). Failure to address HLCs increases negative impacts on rural livelihoods and exacerbates species vulnerability (Dickman and Hazzah, 2016). Human attacks and livestock depredation by lions are emphasized in the literature as major sources of HLCs globally (Ikanda, 2009; Ikanda and Packer, 2008; Kushnir and Packer, 2019; Nyahongo and Røskaft, 2011a; Packer et al., 2005). However, less is known about how heterogeneity in socioeconomic characteristics of the rural communities bordering protected areas aggravates the conflicts. This gives a need for research on this area, especially on the factors accelerating negative perceptions of lions among local communities. This article is partly a response to this need. It reports the findings of the investigation of the socioeconomic factors influencing negative perceptions of the rural people living around the SGR. The focus was on the assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the African lion and the socioeconomic characteristics of the communities that influence their perceptions of lion conservation.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

The SGR has an area of 50,000 km² (before 60% of it was upgraded to the Nyerere National Park in November 2019) and is part of the Selous ecosystem (Kyando et al., 2017). The ecosystem includes other protected areas such as the Mikumi National Park, Udzungwa Mountains National Park, Kilombero Game Controlled Area, and a series of open areas and wildlife management areas (WMAs) forming the dispersal areas and migratory corridors such as the Selous-Niassa and Selous Greater Ruaha corridors (Kushnir and Packer, 2019). However, in the game reserve and national parks, humans coexist with wildlife in the protected areas hence increasing the human-wildlife interactions (Brink et al., 2013). It is surrounded by more than 100 villages with about 1,500,000 rural people distributed in four regions of Coast, Morogoro, Ruvuma, and Lindi (URT, 2013).

Data collection

Purposive sampling was employed to select the four districts to be involved in the study. The districts selected are Kilombero, Rufiji, Liwale, and Namtumbo; their selection depended on the fact that they experience acute HLCs and some are dominated by pastoralists (Brink et al., 2013; Kyando et al., 2017). These characteristics made the districts suitable for the assessment on how local communities perceive lions in their vicinity. With the help of district game officers and Selous game officers, at least two villages were purposively sampled for the Household Questionnaire Survey (HQS) from each study district. A total of 10 villages (Figure 1) were selected based on their high level of human-wildlife interactions, proximity to the game reserve, and nature of occupation (livestock keeping).

Figure 1.

Map of the Selous Game Reserve showing the study villages.

Poate and Daplyn’s (1993) formula was used to determine the sample size for the HQS:

n = \frac{Z^{2} C^{2}}{X^{2}}

Where n = sample size, Z = 1.96 at 95% confidence interval (CI), C = 50%, the variation within the population as no previous similar studies were found, and X =5% estimated level of accuracy.

Thus,

n = \frac{{(1.96)}^{2} {(50)}^{2}}{{(5)}^{2}} = 384.16 \approx 384

Using a village roster book, a sample size of 384 households was drawn from the villages through stratified random sampling to ensure those with a high human population contributed more respondents to the sample. Thereafter, systematic random sampling based on predetermined sampling interval for each village was used to obtain the households for the survey.

Using the HQS method, household heads were interviewed with open- and close-ended questions. The aspects assessed included the socioeconomic impacts of lions and how socioeconomic characteristics such as gender, age, education level, type of occupation, number of livestock, livestock management, frequency of livestock depredation, and the type of livestock depredated influence the local communities’ perceptions of lions. Other factors assessed included the water sources for domestic and livestock consumption, household labor, and distance of the household from protected area boundaries influence the perception of lions among rural people. The perceptions were captured using Likert questions. The responses were grouped into four levels from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. To determine the overall local community perceptions towards lion conservation, a composite variable was computed to find the mean of the three Likert questions. Individuals with a score of 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree) were considered to have a negative perception towards lion conservation, otherwise the perception was positive.

Focus group discussions (FGDs) were carried out in the same villages to ensure a deeper investigation of the study themes. At least two FGDs with five people per group were conducted in each study village. Separate FGDs were carried out with youths, women, men, and elders to capture the diversity in perception among various community groups. Key informant interviews (KIIs) were also employed to solicit the information from village executive officers of the study villages, district game officers, and district livestock officers. A checklist of questions guided the researchers in soliciting detailed information on the socioeconomic impacts of lions, retaliatory killing of lions, management initiatives to control problem lions in the village, and the perceptions of local communities of lions.

Data analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using IBM SPSS version 20. The community perception of lions was determined using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). A GEE for binary outcome variables was preferred due to its effectiveness in investigating the overall population average trend as a function of the covariates while accounting for the correlations in the data (Agresti, 2002). The association structure was captured using a set of association parameters such as correlations and odds ratios (ORs) (Molenberghs, 2005). The respondents’ perceptions of lions were assessed using GEE by accounting for correlation among the members from the same villages (clusters). A two-stage approach was undertaken for the analysis. Firstly, a bivariate model was fitted for each independent variable and outcome variables to estimate the crude ORs and 95% CI. Secondly, to obtain adjusted ORs (AORs) for the association between local community perception towards lions and socioeconomic factors, a multiple GEE model was then fitted. The model included all independent variables with a p value of less than or equal to 0.25 in the bivariate analysis (Agresti, 2002). All probabilities, namely two-tailed and p values <0.05, were regarded as significant. To detect the strength of the relationship between independent variables (socioeconomic characteristics) and the dependent variable (community perception towards lions), a multiple regression model (MRM) was employed to determine the regression coefficient (R). The MRM was preferable to simple linear regression because of its effectiveness in explaining the effects of all independent variables irrespective of being non-linearly related to the dependent variable and in giving an estimation of the general impact in totality (Molenberghs, 2005). Therefore, the multiple regression equation used is indicated below:

Y = β_{0} + β_{1} X_{1} + β_{2} X_{2} + β_{3} X_{3} + \dots + β_{n} X_{n} + e

Where the dependent variable (y) is lion perception and the independent variables (X₁, X₂, X₃, . . . X_n,) are the socioeconomic factors assessed. β₀ depicts the intercept of the equation and β₁, β₂, β₃ . . . β_n are the coefficients of the independent variables, whereas “e” denotes the error term. The magnitude of the association between the independent variables and the dependent variable was captured by computing the coefficient of determination (R²).

Qualitative data from key informants, FGDs, observations, and documentary review were analyzed by content analysis following the four stages of the technique as summarized by Bengtsson (2016): (a) decontextualization—familiarization with the raw data by reading the transcribed text to learn about the themes before breaking them into smaller meaning units that were labeled with codes; (b) the recontextualization—re-reading the original text alongside the final list of the identified meaning units; (c) the categorization—before creating categories, the extended meaning units mainly from interviews were condensed by reducing the number of words in the texts without losing the content of the unit; thereafter, themes and categories were identified and the process of categorization continued until a reasonable explanation was reached; and (d) the compilation—this came after all the relevant categories were created and involved writing up the obtained findings, which were presented as quotes. Each stage was conducted several times to ensure the validity and reliability of the technique.

Results and discussion

As for socioeconomic characteristics of the 384 household respondents interviewed, 70% (n=269) were males, 75% were aged 18–45 years, and 87% had informal or primary education. The main economic activities were crop production (64%) and mixed farming (21%). Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the surveyed communities live less than 10 km from the SGR boundary. More than one-third (39%, n=150) of the surveyed households had livestock: goats, sheep, cattle, or all three. The estimated numbers of livestock were 5366 goats, 1667 sheep, and 34,026 cattle, mostly found in Kimambi, Ndapata, Lilombe, and Msolwa station villages.

Socioeconomic impacts of African lions

The increase in human-carnivore interaction in the study area was characterized by adverse impacts on humans and wildlife. One-third (32%, n=49) of the interviewed pastoralists experienced a total loss of about 108 goats, 44 sheep, and 84 cattle due to various wild carnivores between 2009 and 2018. The main predators were hyenas, leopards, and lions, with the first two responsible for the loss of goats and sheep whereas cattle were mostly preyed on by lions. Despite the difference in the study setting and study area size, the reported number of depredated livestock around the SGR was low compared to other similar studies conducted elsewhere. For instance, in 2016, 53% of the households in western Serengeti lost 157 cattle through lions (Snyder et al., 2017). In the Rungwa-Katavi corridor, south-western Tanzania, wild predators cause a mean loss of 216 cattle, 144 goats, 72 sheep, and 22 donkeys per year among 240 households (Hariohay et al., 2017). In total 75% (n=135) of the respondents along the eastern Serengeti ecosystem experienced a loss of 105 cattle, 310 goats and 247 sheep through wild carnivores in 2016 alone (Mbise et al., 2018). The low rate of livestock loss by wild predators in the study area could be attributed to three reasons: (a) the livestock numbers around the SGR are relatively low as the majority of farmers are crop producers compared to those areas where similar studies were undertaken; (b) the wild prey base is adequate to support the existing wild carnivores; and (c) despite the observed habitat destruction, the SGR is still buffered extensively against human encroachment, hence it is rare for wild predators to reach village lands compared to similar case studies. The long record of 22 years between 1987 and 2007 presented by Ikanda (2009) in south-eastern Tanzania including the SGR shows that 51 cattle, 590 goats, and 54 sheep were predated, with 80% of that loss due to lions. Nonetheless, quantitative assessment of livestock loss due to wildlife is quite difficult as local communities sometimes exaggerate the impacts (Ikanda and Packer, 2008). Nevertheless, the smaller economic loss due to livestock depredation is felt at household and/or individual levels, hence it aggravates the negative perceptions and attitudes towards conservation.

Another serious threat posed by lions to rural communities in the study area is human attack. In total, 26% (n=100) of the surveyed households perceived lack of free movement, human injury, and loss of life due to lions as a classic case of conflict affecting their wellbeing. Through FGDs, it was revealed that between 2008 and 2018 more than 40 people around the SGR were attacked by lions, of which 28 were killed. The key informants (district game officers) in the surveyed districts reported a total of 37 human-lion attacks in which 28 people lost their lives in the same period. Most human attacks occurred when people were working in the farms, grazing, or defending livestock against lions. At least 563 people were killed by lions in central and southern Tanzania between 1990 and 2004 (Ikanda, 2009; Packer et al., 2006). More than 657 people were attacked by wildlife in south-eastern Tanzania between 1987 and 2007, of which lions accounted for 72% of the victims (Ikanda, 2009). Although the statistics for the SGR are seemingly low compared to the data from south-eastern Tanzania, the number of attacks and killings are an important alarm for the SGR authorities for increased efforts towards ensuring fewer effects on human wellbeing from lion attacks.

According to discussions with respondents, there are efforts to increasing local communities’ positive perceptions of conservation of the SGR. For example, among the interviewed households, nine (18%) respondents stated they had received consolation funds ranging from TSh 30,000 to TSh 3,400,000 depending on the type of attack. The Wildlife Conservation (Dangerous Animals Damage Consolation) Regulations of 2011 allows consolation of TSh 1,000,000/= for loss of human life and TSh 500,000/= for human injury due to dangerous wild animal attacks (URT, 2011). The same regulations allow consolation of TSh 50,000/= for cattle depredation, TSh 25,000/= for depredation of sheep, goats, pigs, mules, or donkeys, and TSh 10,000/= for the depredation of other domesticated animals due to dangerous wild animals (URT, 2011). However, for compensation to be given to the victims, the attack must be 500 m outside the protected area boundary. Such criteria could be the reason for many communities in the study area receiving less consolation money as the livestock depredation mostly happened when they were illegally grazing within or close to the protected area. Lack of consolation schemes in the past was reported to worsen the efforts of local people to support wildlife conservation and enhance HLCs among others (Dickman and Hazzah, 2016). Maasai and Sonjo pastoralists had a negative relationship with wildlife management authorities in the Serengeti ecosystem after claiming consolation for livestock depredated by wild predators with no response (Mbise et al., 2018).

During FGD, it was reported that many lions were anonymously killed in different administrative sectors of the SGR, as it was stated that:

Lions are dangerous animals causing the death of both humans and livestock, thus when encountered in our areas people kill them and rarely report it to the wildlife authorities, as we always know that wildlife managers consider wild animals first then our lives. Kimambi pastoralist, October 2018.

The observed disregard of lions and their increased impact on human life and livestock in the study areas could have resulted in an increased number of silent lion killings by local communities. Field data indicate that approximately 370 lions were indiscriminately killed between 1995 and 2018. However, the number could be higher as most of the lions involved in human and livestock attacks were directly killed through animal control or retaliation from communities. One of the key informants said that:

Lions illegally killed by local people are rarely noticed a situation that could have resulted in the loss of many more individuals than estimated. Namtumbo district game officer, September 2018.

This observation is consistent with the findings of the study by Benyr et al. (2017), who observed that retaliation is a dominant driver of lion depopulation in Tanzania and is caused the loss of more than 200 individuals between 1990 and 2004. The increased human-carnivore conflicts around protected areas have aggravated the negative attitudes and hostile behaviors among rural people towards the wild predators (Naughton-Treves and Treves, 2005). For instance, the western Serengeti lost 14 lions that were shot or poisoned in the adjacent villages between 2014 and 2016 (Snyder et al., 2017). Local communities around the SGR cited that illegal killing of lions is largely a defense against attack or are done in revenge. Such actions could have caused a drastic population decline as most of the killings remain unnoticed. Other effects may be the reduction in species range, exacerbating other negative ecological behaviors of the species such as infanticide, resulting in cub mortality, especially when pride males are killed as well as local extinction of lions (Funston et al., 2017).

Local community perception towards lion conservation

The community perception was assessed using Likert questions as indicated in Table 1. The results show that, on average, people had a negative perception towards the increase in the lion population (mean=2.0). Similarly, there was a negative perception on the readiness to accept and tolerate lion-related challenges (mean=1.8) and lions not being extirpated in their villages and the SGR (mean=1.6). The overall local community perception score towards lion conservation was captured by determining the mean score of the three Likert questions presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Local community perception towards lion conservation in SGR.

Variable	Strongly disagree, n (%)	Disagree,n (%)	Agree,n (%)	Strongly agree, n (%)	Mean
Are you happy with the lion population increase in your village and the SGR?	105 (27)	174 (45)	94 (24)	11 (3)	2.0
Are you ready to accept and tolerate lion challenges in your village?	116 (30)	235 (61)	29 (8)	4 (1)	1.8
Would you like lions not to be extirpated in your village and the SGR?	180 (45)	182 (47)	21 (5)	1 (0.3)	1.6

Source: Field data 2018.

SGR: Selous Game Reserve.

Individuals with the score of 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree) were considered to have a negative perception towards lion conservation. The results show that 86% (n=331) of the respondents have a negative perception towards lion conservation (Table 2).

Table 2.

General perception of local community towards lion conservation in SGR.

Response category	Frequency (n)	Percent (%)	Score
Strongly disagree	134	35	1
Disagree	197	51	2
Agree	48	13	3
Strongly agree	5	1	4

Source: Field data 2018.

SGR: Selous Game Reserve.

Negative perception was similarly expressed during FGD, as one participant asserted:

Lion conservation is useless and dangerous to human life and livestock. We are losing our people and cattle due to lion attacks and there is no compensation given to victims rather than a little consolation, which does not even motivate our interests towards lions. When one loses a cow whose market price is TSh 500,000/= but he/she is given TSh 50,000/= as consolation, do you think such person will value lion and support wildlife conservation? Certainly he/she will not. Participant of FGD in Msolwa village, September 2018.

A negative perception among respondents could be due to the risk of human injury and/or loss of life as a result of lion attacks. The people living near protected areas have inherited the general perception that lions are dangerous wild animals with little or no socioeconomic and cultural value (Kushnir and Packer, 2019). Thus, lion perception among the surveyed communities is negative and suggests ad hoc management intervention is needed to address problem lions. However, for species sustainability non-lethal methods are highly encouraged (Hariohay et al., 2017).

Factors influencing local community perceptions of lions

The results from GEE models revealed that, in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, education level (p=0.0016), occupation (p=0.002), livestock numbers per household (p=0.0011), distance of the household from the SGR boundary (p=0.0183), water sources (p=0.0019), frequency of livestock depredated (p=0.0003), and livestock management (p=0.0006) were significantly associated with perceptions of lion conservation (Table 3). With respect to education levels, respondents with informal education (AOR=3.09, p=0.0006) and those with primary education (AOR=4.04, p=0.0431) had a negative perception compared to those with secondary and college education. Similarly, Table 4 indicates that education level has a positive regression coefficient (1.68) with lion perception. This implies that people with low education had a low awareness of the importance of lion conservation. Negative perceptions held by the respondents with low education could be due to their low knowledge of the ecological roles of the species. Lack of awareness on the intrinsic value of lions among rural communities bordering protected areas could be one reason for the ongoing retaliation threatening the species.

Table 3.

Factors influencing local community perception towards lion conservation in SGR.

Variable	Unadjusted analysis		Adjusted analysis
Variable	Unadjusted odd ratio (95% CI)	p value	Adjusted odd ratio (95% CI)	p value
Age (years)		0.0379		0.0489
18–35	2.59 (0.98, 6.85)	0.0548	1.54 (0.50, 4.72)	0.4504
36–45	1.22 (0.58, 2.57)	0.6024	0.88 (0.38, 2.06)	0.7646
46–55	2.55 (1.11, 5.86)	0.0271	2.31 (1.52, 5.60)	0.0243
>55	1
Gender
Male	2.18 (1.27, 3.74)	0.0473	1.90 (1.04, 3.44)	0.0497
Female	1
Education level		0.0111		0.0016
No formal education	2.25 (1.30, 3.89)	0.0037	3.09 (1.63, 5.88)	0.0006
Primary	2.31 (0.65, 8.18)	0.1929	4.04 (1.05, 15.58)	0.0431
Secondary/college	1
Occupation
Pastoralism	2.99 (1.43, 6.27)	0.0037	3.57 (1.60, 8.01)	0.0020
Non pastoralism	1
Livestock numbers per household				0.0011
<100	1
100–1000	2.28 (1.30, 3.89)	0.0027	3.01 (1.43, 5.79)	0.0012
>1000	2.39 (1.03, 5.22)	0.0033	3.69 (1.49, 7.01)	0.0003
Distance from the SGR				0.0183
<2 km	2.75 (1.49, 6.01)	0.0039	3.08 (1.57, 7.61)	0.0025
2–10 km	2.45 (1.31, 5.46)	0.0171	2.39 (1.56, 5.20)	0.0143
>10 km	1
Water sources				0.0019
For domestic consumption	1
For livestock	3.39 (1.52, 4.28)	0.0047	3.37 (1.60, 5.61)	0.0021
Frequency of livestock depredated				0.0003
<5	1
5–10	4.26 (1.60, 3.29)	0.0027	3.05 (1.43, 4.29)	0.0022
>10	3.34 (1.06, 6.28)	0.0023	2.69 (1.39, 7.06)	0.0013
Livestock management				0.0036
Housed	3.15 (1.49, 6.99)	0.0399	3.08 (1.57, 7.61)	0.0495
Housing sometimes	2.41 (1.31, 3.46)	0.0121	2. 93 (3.56, 5.19)	0.0143
Non housed	1
Type of livestock depredated		0.0379		0.1489
Goats	3.29 (1.98, 4.85)	0.5511	1.54 (0.47, 3.32)	0.1304
Sheep	1.12 (2.18, 2.37)	0.6424	1.88 (0.41, 2.36)	0.1646
Cattle	2.55 (1.11, 5.86)	0.0271	2.31 (1.52, 5.60)	0.0343
Household labor				0.0482
Men	2.58 (1.44, 3.14)	0.0413	1.90 (1.04, 3.44)	0.0495
Women	2.34 (0.35, 3.78)	0.1405	2.74 (1.85, 6.52)	0.0423
Children/youths	2.25 (1.30, 3.89)	0.0037	3.09 (1.63, 5.88)	0.0356

Source: Field data 2018.

CI: confidence interval; SGR: Selous Game Reserve.

Table 4.

Factors influencing local community perception towards lions with their regression coefficients.

Independent variables	Regression of determination (R²) =0.99
Independent variables	Regression coefficient	Standard error	Students’ t test	Significance level (p value)
Constant	24.100	1.840	14.5	0.043
Age	0.169	0.029	10.4	0.0499
Gender	−3.45	0.410	−6.71	0.0518
Education	1.68	0.183	4.31	0.0016^a
Occupation	−2.07	0.149	−14.8	0.0029^a
Livestock number per household	−0.43	0.021	−11.5	0.0011^a
Distance of household from SGR	2.11	0.109	18.2	0.0025^a
Water sources	−0.21	0.037	−12.3	0.0019^a
Frequency of livestock depredation	−5.38	0.479	−21.6	0.0003^a
Livestock management	0.373	0.188	2.71	0.0006^a
Types of livestock depredated	−1.87	0.160	−12.4	0.1510
Household labor	−0.510	0.193	−10.5	0.0582

Statistically significant at 0.05 level.

Source: Field data 2018.

SGR: Selous Game Reserve.

As for occupation, pastoralists were highly negative towards lion conservation (AOR=3.57, p=0.0020) compared to non-pastoralist respondents (Table 3). However, occupation revealed a negative regression coefficient (−2.07) with lion perception as indicated in Table 4, implying that major human activities, such as crop cultivation and livestock keeping, in rural areas are negatively affected by lions. Pastoralists perceived lions as the immediate major threat irrespective of other factors such as diseases and drought, which can lead to great loss in their herds. Livestock keepers around the SGR felt highly negative towards lions probably because of experiencing frequent attacks as most inhabit and graze large herds in the WMAs adjacent to the reserve. This finding was reiterated through FGD, where one of the participants clarified that:

Pastoralists are more vulnerable to lions due to their habit of taking cattle in the wildlife habitats searching for pasture, eventually encountering lion attacks. In our village three people have been killed by lions in the past 2 years and all of them were young men grazing livestock in the WMA. A participant of the FGD in Ndapata village, October 2018.

The constant conflict between livestock herders and wild predators tends to be aggravated when depredation occurs. Similar studies have documented that pastoralists are very supportive of the idea of lion extirpation irrespective of other factors such as theft, drought, and diseases, which substantially drive down their stocks (Gebresenbet et al., 2018; Nyahongo and Røskaft, 2011b). In the same situation, livestock depredation in the eastern Serengeti leads to negative attitudes and fosters lion retaliatory killings among the Maasai and Sonjo tribes (Mbise et al., 2018).

However, households with large numbers of livestock were more highly negative towards lions (AOR=3.69, p=0.0003) than those with smaller numbers, as indicated in Table 3. Similarly, Table 4 shows that livestock numbers have a negative regression coefficient (-0.43) with lion perception, implying that as the numbers of livestock per household increased, interest in lion conservation is lost. Our findings are supported by other studies, for example, Mbise et al. (2018) reported that Maasai owning large herds of cattle were highly negative towards carnivores, unlike the Sonjo communities who are agropastoralists living in the eastern Serengeti. Also, an increase in livestock population raised community aspirations to see the local extinction of lions in Gambella National Park, Ethiopia (Gebresenbet et al., 2018). Through KIIs, it was revealed that Liwale District Council is overwhelmed with the influx of livestock through immigration of pastoralists with a large number of herds. On this, one informant stated that:

Initially, we did not have many problems with the issues of land scarcity and land use conflicts in our district, but after the arrival of livestock keepers with many cattle, for sure the conflicts are increasing. When you receive one household with a certain number of cattle and finish all the preliminary procedures for registration, another household comes as a relative of the former and pretending not to have cattle, but after few weeks you find the number of livestock has increased tremendously. Because individuals with large herds require large tracts of land for grazing, they eventually find themselves in the protected areas where they experience conflicts with predators (lions) and wildlife officers. Liwale district game officer, October 2018.

The frequency of livestock depredation per household was revealed to differentiate the perception of local communities towards lions whereby households experienced higher frequencies (more than 10) of livestock attacks by lions were highly negative (AOR= 2.69, p=0.0013) as shown in Table 3. The frequency of depredation has a negative regression coefficient (-5.38) with respondents’ perceptions of lions, entailing that an increase in livestock attacks by lions provoked the negative perception of people. Similar results were reported by Mwakatobe et al. (2013) in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania, whereby villages with many cases of wildlife attacks were reluctant to support conservation initiatives. It is possible the high conservation cost through livestock depredation could explain the negative perception noted in the study area.

Livestock management strategies, particularly housing of cattle, can explain the lion perception among respondents. The households, especially those with a large herd size, reported having temporary livestock housing in the wild rangelands where the risk of lion attacks is high. These respondents were more negative towards lion conservation initiatives (AOR=2.93, p=0.0143) than those who had a permanent enclosure for their stocks. Table 4 shows that livestock management has a positive regression coefficient (0.373), with lion perception implying that poor livestock housing increased the likelihood of livestock attacks by lion, hence lowering interest in species conservation. The study revealed that, during the dry season, pastoralists herd cattle in the buffer zones of the SGR and establish temporal settlements with livestock housing that do not effectively prevent attacks from wild predators.

As for sources of water for domestic and livestock consumption, the study realized that respondents who required water for cattle were highly negative towards lions (AOR, p=0.0021) unlike those fetching water for domestic consumption. It was revealed that in non-pastoralists’ villages, such as Tapika, Ngarambe, Likuyu-seka, Mchomoro and Mandela, the water pumps and man-made ponds available in the villages were adequate to supply water for domestic use. However, the villages dominated by livestock herders, particularly Kimambi, Ndapata, Lilombe, and Msolwa station, had conflicts between pastoralists and farmers on land and water. The conflicts were commonly resolved by livestock keepers taking their cattle to village forests bordering the reserve. Therefore, livestock herders utilizing the wildlife habitats for both pasture and water consumption experience a high risk of lion attacks unlike crop producers, who mostly depend on water pumps available in the villages for domestic use. Traditionally, the SGR is highly buffered with a series of WMAs, which could offer the reserve better protection against anthropogenic pressure. Unfortunately, the immigration of pastoralists to the area increased encroachment to the SGR, whereby livestock herders take advantage of the weak management of WMAs; hence, they travel a long distance in wildlife habitats to seek good pasture and available water sources such as rivers (Nyahongo and Røskaft, 2011b). Despite this, water sources, particularly distant ones, show a negative regression coefficient (-0.21) with lion perception, implying that an individual travelling long distances to access water sources increased the negative perception towards dangerous wild animals including lions.

Regarding the location or distance of households from the SGR boundary, those settled closer to the reserve (less than 2 km) had a more negative perception (AOR=3.08, p=0.0025) than those staying at a distance. The increased, regular risk of lion attacks that result in the deaths of people or animals could be the reason for such perceptional differences. Similarly, the distance of the household from the reserve has a positive regression coefficient (2.11) with the perception of an individual towards lion. This suggests that as one stays closer to the SGR, it increases the likelihood of lion attacks and decreases interest in lion conservation. The distance from the protected area influences livestock depredation such that it rarely occurs in the furthest villages (Mwakatobe et al., 2013). Lion attacks mostly happen in the nearby villages as larger predators only leave the reserve for a short time (Hariohay et al., 2017; Nyahongo and Røskaft, 2011b). Mwakatobe et al. (2013) revealed the distance from the Serengeti National Park boundary influences the frequencies of depredation. These scholars argue that depredation in the closer villages was 75%, in the medium distance villages was 63%, and in the distant villages was 42%. Herding households and community members living very close to protected areas had more negative attitudes towards wild predators than the other rural community groups (Alemkere, 2018; Hariohay et al., 2017; Snyder et al., 2017; Snyman, 2014; Tessema et al., 2007).

Gender and age were not effective in explaining the difference in lion perception among communities, probably because household members were unable to accept lion-related problems. Likewise, there was a difference in household labor whereby women and children/youths were largely engaged in cultivation, firewood collection, and grazing and men headed the household, but the perception towards lions did not differ among household members. The impact of human injury and death felt at a household level could be the reason for both males and females at all age groups not accepting lions in their vicinity. Similarly, the negative perception of lions in rural communities bordering protected areas is highly influenced by regular attacks and apparent risks occurring due to lions (Dickman and Hazzah, 2016). People have generally inherited the perception that lions are dangerous wild animals with little or no socioeconomic and cultural worth (Kushnir and Packer, 2019).

Conclusion and recommendations

The socioeconomic impacts of wild predators, including lions, on rural communities and their livelihoods determine how local people perceive wildlife. The adverse impacts of lions increase people’s negative perceptions of the species. The analysis of data revealed that local people around the SGR lost 236 animals between 1998 and 2018 to predators, mainly lions. It is revealed that more than 40 people were attacked by lions between 1998 and 2018 and 28 of them died from their injuries. Despite such high levels of human life loss and livestock predation by wild carnivores, there has been little or unsatisfactory consolation for victims. Such limitations are associated with increased conflicts between lions and humans in the affected areas. It is noteworthy that as humans lose their lives, lions have also been anonymously persecuted and killed by rural people in acts of defense and revenge. Generally, the study revealed negative lion perceptions among the respondents, necessitating a review of the ongoing conservation approach for sustainable management of the species.

Socioeconomic characteristics of the communities around the SGR were useful in describing how rural people perceive lions. Important socioeconomic characteristics that were analyzed include gender, age, occupation, education, household labor, water sources, and distance of the household from the protected area boundary. Other factors were livestock numbers per household, types of livestock depredated, frequency of livestock depredation, and livestock management. However, occupation, education level, livestock numbers per household, frequency of livestock depredation, livestock management strategy involving housing, water sources, and distance of the household from the SGR boundary were the best factors explaining communities’ perceptions towards lions. Respondents with a low education, households engaged in mixed farming or livestock keeping, those who required water for livestock, and those who travelled long distances to access water sources had a negative perception towards lions. Likewise, households that experienced frequent livestock depredation, pastoralists who had temporary housing for their herds, people living within 2 km of SGR boundary, and pastoralists with large herds were similarly negative towards lions. Gender, age, household labor, and type of livestock depredated did not differentiate local community perceptions towards lions because the impacts of lions within the household were felt by almost every household member irrespective of gender and age.

As the communities bordering the SGR revealed huge conservation costs, including socioeconomic impacts associated with lion attacks, the study recommends the following for effective management of the species and local livelihood improvement: (a) authorities responsible for lion conservation in the SGR should provide timely, realistic benefits including adequate compensation funds for rural people affected by lions as the way of managing HLCs; (b) non-lethal methods of controlling problem lions should be encouraged to avoid local extinction of the species through retaliation; (c) based on the socioeconomic factors aggravating negative human lion interactions, awareness should be built among rural dwellers to avoid non-environmental activities such as pastoralism, crop cultivation, and human settlements in the lion ranges (SGR and associated WMAs) through adherence to suggested land use plans.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received financial support for the research of this article from the University of Dodoma, Tanzania.

ORCID iD

Leopody Gayo

Author biographies

Leopody Gayo is a PhD Candidate in Natural Resources Assessment at the Institute of Resources Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam. He is also Assistant Lecturer at the Department of Biology, University of Dodoma. His research interests center on natural resources management and wildlife ecology.

Cuthbert Leonard Nahonyo is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Dar es Salaam. He is engaged in research covering aspects of biodiversity inventory, biological impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, ecological monitoring and human wildlife interaction.

Catherine Aloyce Masao is a Lecturer at the Institute of Resources Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam. She is also a Postgraduate Studies Coordinator at the Institute of Resources Assessment. Her research interests cover biodiversity management, environmental assessments, wildlife ecology and tropical ecosystems.

References

Agresti

(2002) Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.320–332.

Alemkere

(2018) Perception, attitude and impacts of local communities on Senkele Swaynes Hartebeest Sanctuary, Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 10(8): 337–347.

Bauer

Packer

Funston

, et al (2016) Panthera leo. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016: e.T15951A107265605. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en (accessed 17 February 2018).

Becker

Watson

Droge

, et al (2013) Estimating past and future male loss in three Zambian lion populations. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(1): 128–142.

Bengtsson

(2016) How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nursing Plus Open 2: 8–14.

Benyr

Littlewood

Czirak

(2017) A report to the EU CITES Scientific Review Groups on the experts mission to Tanzania, 19–27 August 2016. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=33600&no=48 (accessed 13 October 2019).

Brink

Smith

Skinner

(2013) Methods for lion monitoring: A comparison from the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 51(2): 366–375.

Dickman

Hazzah

(2016) Money, myths and man-eaters: Complexities of human–wildlife conflict. In: Angelici

(ed.) Problematic Wildlife. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp.339–356.

Funston

Henschel

Hunter

, et al (2017) Beyond cecil: Africa’s lions in crisis. Panthera and WILDCRU. Available at: https://wildaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Beyond-Cecil-English.pdf (accessed 28 April 2019).

10.

Gebresenbet

Bauer

Vadjunec

, et al (2018) Beyond the numbers: Human attitudes and conflict with lions (Panthera leo) in and around Gambella National Park, Ethiopia. PloS One 13(9): e0204320.

11.

Hariohay

Fyumagwa

Kideghesho

, et al (2017) Assessing crop and livestock losses along the Rungwa-Katavi wildlife corridor, South-Western Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 9(8): 273–283.

12.

Ikanda

Packer

(2008) Ritual vs. retaliatory killing of African lions in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Endangered Species Research 6(1): 67–74.

13.

Ikanda

(2009) Dimensions of a human-lion conflict: The ecology of human predation and persecution of African lions Panthera leo in Tanzania. PhD thesis in Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, p.102.

14.

IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2018) Guidelines for the Conservation of Lions in Africa. Version 1.0. Muri/Bern, Switzerland, p.147. Available at: https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/publication (accessed 14 October 2019).

15.

Kaeslin

Redmond

Dudley

(2012) Wildlife in a changing climate: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available at: www.fao.org/3/i2498e/i2498e00.htm (accessed 21 November 2019).

16.

Kushnir

Packer

(2019) Perceptions of risk from man-eating lions in Southeastern Tanzania. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7: 47.

17.

Kyando

Ikanda

Røskaft

(2017) Hotspot elephant-poaching areas in the Eastern Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 55(3): 365–371.

18.

Mbise

Skjærvø

Lyamuya

, et al (2018) Livestock depredation by wild carnivores in the Eastern Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 10(3): 122–130.

19.

Molenberghs

Verbeke

(2005) Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. New York: Springer.

20.

Mwakatobe

Nyahongo

Røskaft

(2013) Livestock depredation by carnivores in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania. Environment and Natural Resources Research 3(4): 46.

21.

Naughton-Treves

Treves

(2005) Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: Crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. Conservation Biology Series-Cambridge 9(26): 252–277.

22.

Nyahongo

Røskaft

(2011a) Assessment of livestock loss factors in the Western Serengeti, Tanzania. In: Kaswamila

(ed.) Sustainable Natural Resource Management. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, pp.155–163.

23.

Nyahongo

Røskaft

(2011b) Perception of people towards lions and other wildlife killing humans, around selous game reserve, Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 3(4): 110–115.

24.

Packer

Ikanda

Kissui

, et al (2005) Lion attacks on humans in Tanzania. Nature 436(7053): 927–928.

25.

Packer

Whitman

Loveridge

, et al (2006) Impacts of trophy hunting on lions in East and Southern Africa: Recent offtake and future recommendations. Paper presented at the Background paper for the Eastern and Southern African lion conservation workshop, Johannesburg, South Africa.

26.

Poate

Daplyn

(1993) Data for Agrarian Development. Cambridge University Press.

27.

Snyder

Mbise

Kibwe

, et al (2017) Monitoring human-wildlife conflict in Western Serengeti. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh TAWIRI Scientific Conference, 6–8 December, Arusha International Conference Center, Tanzania.

28.

Snyman

(2014) Assessment of the main factors impacting community members’ attitudes towards tourism and protected areas in six southern African countries. Koedoe 56(2): 1–12.

29.

Tessema

Ashenafi

Lilieholm

, et al (2007) Community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in Ethiopia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 George Wright Society Conference, Assessing public attitudes and experiences. Available at: http://www.georgewright.org/0755tessema.pdf (accessed 20 June 2019).

30.

United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2011) The Wildlife Conservation (Dangerous Animals Damage Consolation) Regulations 2011. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Government Printer. Available at: www.tnrf.org (accessed 13 August 2019).

31.

United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2013) Population Distribution by Age and Sex. 2012 Pupulation and Housing Census (PHC). National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance, Dar es Salaam and Office of Chief Government Statistician President’s Office, Finance, Economy and Development Planning, Zanzibar. Available at: http://www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/census2012/2012_CENSUSVol3DATAsheet.pdf (accessed 9 July 2018).