22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A quasi-experimental study of impacts of Tanzania’s wildlife management areas on rural livelihoods and wealth

      data-paper

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Since the 2000s, Tanzania’s natural resource management policy has emphasised Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), designed to promote wildlife and biodiversity conservation, poverty alleviation and rural development. We carried out a quasi-experimental impact evaluation of social impacts of WMAs, collecting data from 24 villages participating in 6 different WMAs across two geographical regions, and 18 statistically matched control villages. Across these 42 villages, we collected participatory wealth ranking data for 13,578 households. Using this as our sampling frame, we conducted questionnaire surveys with a stratified sample of 1,924 household heads and 945 household heads’ wives. All data were collected in 2014/15, with a subset of questions devoted to respondents’ recall on conditions that existed in 2007, when first WMAs became operational. Questions addressed household demographics, land and livestock assets, resource use, income-generating activities and portfolios, participation in natural resource management decision-making, benefits and costs of conservation. Datasets permit research on livelihood and wealth trajectories, and social impacts, costs and benefits of conservation interventions in the context of community-based natural resource management.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas

          Protected areas (PAs) are a key strategy for protecting biological resources, but they vary considerably in their effectiveness and are frequently reported as having negative impacts on local people. This has contributed to a divisive and unresolved debate concerning the compatibility of environmental and socioeconomic development goals. Elucidating the relationship between positive and negative social impacts and conservation outcomes of PAs is key for the development of more effective and socially just conservation. We conducted a global meta-analysis on 165 PAs using data from 171 published studies. We assessed how PAs affect the well-being of local people, the factors associated with these impacts, and crucially the relationship between PAs' conservation and socioeconomic outcomes. Protected areas associated with positive socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to report positive conservation outcomes. Positive conservation and socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to occur when PAs adopted comanagement regimes, empowered local people, reduced economic inequalities, and maintained cultural and livelihood benefits. Whereas the strictest regimes of PA management attempted to exclude anthropogenic influences to achieve biological conservation objectives, PAs that explicitly integrated local people as stakeholders tended to be more effective at achieving joint biological conservation and socioeconomic development outcomes. Strict protection may be needed in some circumstances, yet our results demonstrate that conservation and development objectives can be synergistic and highlight management strategies that increase the probability of maximizing both conservation performance and development outcomes of PAs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: TheMatchingPackage forR

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Protected areas and poverty

              Protected areas are controversial because they are so important for conservation and because they distribute fortune and misfortune unevenly. The nature of that distribution, as well as the terrain of protected areas themselves, have been vigorously contested. In particular, the relationship between protected areas and poverty is a long-running debate in academic and policy circles. We review the origins of this debate and chart its key moments. We then outline the continuing flashpoints and ways in which further evaluation studies could improve the evidence base for policy-making and conservation practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sci Data
                Sci Data
                Scientific Data
                Nature Publishing Group
                2052-4463
                03 July 2018
                2018
                : 5
                : 180087
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen , Rolighedsvej 25, 1958- Frederiksberg, Denmark
                [2 ]Department of Anthropology, University College London , 14 Taviton St, London WC1H 0BW, UK
                [3 ]UNEP—WCMC , Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
                [4 ]Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, Community Development and Tourism , P.O. Box 1, Arusha, Tanzania
                [5 ]Tanzania Natural Resource Forum , P.O. Box 15605, Arusha, Tanzania
                [6 ]Environment and Society Program, 233 UCB, University of Colorado , Boulder, USA
                [7 ]Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT) , P.O. Box 15111, Arusha, Tanzania
                [8 ]Department of Natural Sciences, Mbeya University of Science and Technology , PO Box 131, Mbeya, Tanzania
                [9 ]Department of Conservation Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Dodoma , P.O. Box 259, Dodoma, Tanzania
                [10 ]School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh , EH9 3FF, Edinburgh, UK
                Author notes
                [a ] J.B. (email: j.bluwstein@ 123456gmx.de ).
                []

                JB: Conceptualization, data curation, methodology, questionnaire design, digitisation of survey into ODK and implementation in the field, analysis, writing-original draft preparation; AK: Data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, software, visualisation, writing — review & editing; KH: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, questionnaire design, project administration, supervision, writing — review & editing; JL: Conceptualization, methodology, questionnaire design, analysis, project administration, supervision, writing — review & editing; NB: Writing — review & editing; MM: Field supervision, aerial survey, policymaker engagement and dissemination; MN: Conceptualization, methodology, questionnaire design, analysis, writing — review & editing; JO: Project administration, policymaker engagement and dissemination; SS, JM, HL, FE: Acquisition of data.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1162-5028
                Article
                sdata201887
                10.1038/sdata.2018.87
                6029570
                29969117
                8daa15ad-cbae-41b7-a7e3-8c1cac032ac1
                Copyright © 2018, The Author(s)

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ applies to the metadata files made available in this article.

                History
                : 21 November 2017
                : 15 March 2018
                Categories
                Data Descriptor

                socioeconomic scenarios,sustainability,developing world,agriculture,interdisciplinary studies

                Comments

                Comment on this article