Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Knowledge of birds of conservation interest among the people living close to protected areas in Serengeti, Northern Tanzania

Knowledge of birds of conservation interest among the people living close to protected areas in... International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 2, 114–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.788566 Knowledge of birds of conservation interest among the people living close to protected areas in Serengeti, Northern Tanzania a b, Emmanuel Clamsen Mmassy and Eivin Røskaft * a b Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, P.O. Box 661, Arusha, Tanzania; Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Realfagbygget, No-7491, Trondheim, Norway We examined the ability to recognise birds of conservation interest among the residents living adjacent to the Serengeti National Park. Data on ability to recognise the photo of eight selected bird species were collected in October 2011, in relation to the respondents’ gender, age, tribe and education. Almost all eight species were known by at least 50% of the respondents. The men, older people between 40 and 42 years of age and the Maasai tribe showed good or perfect ability in recognising these birds. Unexpectedly, we found that people with little or no education had greater ability of recognising birds than those who received secondary and/or higher education. Given that only approximately 50% of respondents recognised the selected bird species regardless of age, education, gender and tribe, we emphasise that education programmes on wildlife resources recognition and biodiversity conservation awareness raising activities are to be introduced to communities surrounding the western Serengeti ecosystem. We discuss the results and how to incorporate traditional knowledge into natural resource management, biodiversity conservation and the management of sustainable resource use. Keywords: bird knowledge; northern Tanzania; conservation interest; age; gender; tribe; education Introduction It is likely that the value, both economic and others (consumptive uses; i.e. activities that deplete bird popu- A firm understanding of wildlife in communities might lations, and socio-cultural uses; i.e. activities that provide lead to improvement of wildlife species conservation. Low spiritual or academic fulfilment) that the public place on public knowledge of wildlife inevitably leads to low con- poorly understood wildlife species is lower than the value servation due to the fact that some wildlife species will they place on more well-known species. However, social- be less known than other species (Clevo & Clem 2004). cultural usage of birds might not always be good for In most cases, wildlife species conservation effort at var- conservation; rare species that are not ecologically viable ious categories depends on information generated by the but are important for traditional healing and ceremonies public (Wilson & Tisdell 2005). Local people who fre- may be exterminated. Increased appreciation of wildlife, quently interact with birds in their local environment especially threatened species, may result in greater support may develop a broader knowledge of the life histories, for the conservation of these species and may increase the behaviour (breeding period and habitat use), movement public’s awareness of, and membership in, organisations and seasonal changes in composition and abundance of that help to protect and conserve wildlife (Wilson & Tisdell those birds (Gichuki 1999). Thus, traditional knowledge 2005). Community knowledge of local birds is important is increasingly used by academics, agency scientists and because birds are the most reliable indicators of terrestrial policy-makers as a source for ideas on ecosystem man- biological richness and environmental conditions (Bibby agement, restoration and conservation biology (Huntington 1999). Numerous studies have demonstrated the signifi- 2000). The public’s knowledge of birds may therefore cance of birds as important mobile links in the dynamics influence decisions about bird conservation taken by both of natural and human-dominated ecosystems (Stiles 1985; governmental and non-governmental organisation conser- Proctor et al. 1996; Levey et al. 2002; Mols & Visser 2002; vation programmes. Lundberg & Moberg 2003; Croll et al. 2005). Moreover, Knowledge of wildlife species not only enables the locals’ knowledge of birds and local bird ecological infor- public to better understand and benefit from wildlife but mation has been accepted within the scientific research may also encourage the public to protect and conserve community as a useful component of impact assessment wildlife, especially threatened species (Wilson & Tisdell and conservation monitoring (Huntington 2000). Local 2005). In the absence of such knowledge, the public may knowledge of birds has been applied in the development gain less satisfaction from conserving wildlife because of management plans for various forests and national park they are unfamiliar with the species being conserved reserves among different communities (Gichuki 1999). (Wilson & Tisdell 2005). *Corresponding author. Email: roskaft@bio.ntnu.no © 2013 Taylor & Francis International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 115 According to Huntington (2000), traditional ecological ecosystem comprises several different conservation areas: knowledge is the knowledge and insight acquired through the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (8288 km ) and extensive observation of an area or species by indige- Serengeti National Park (14,763 km ), Open Areas and 2 2 nous or other people. Scientists normally select birds of Game Reserves (Ikorongo (563 km ), Grumeti (416 km ), the conservation concern on the basis of scientific knowl- Maswa (2200 km ), the Ikona Wildlife Management edge of the protected areas and do not consider the locals’ Area (600 km ), the Loliondo Game Controlled Area knowledge of these ecosystems. The failure to consider the (4000 km ) and the Maasai Mara Natural Reserve to the knowledge of local people may reduce the effectiveness of north in Kenya (Figure 1). scientific and local ecological monitoring. This study was conducted in villages adjacent to the It has previously been found that the ability of local Serengeti ecosystem in north-western Loliondo and the people to identify bird species may vary with gender, age, western Serengeti districts (Figure 1). The ecosystem cur- tribe and education level (Kideghesho et al. 2007; Røskaft rently suffers due to conflict between conservationists and et al. 2007; Sarker & Røskaft 2010, 2011). It is possible local communities (Hofer et al. 1996). The conflicts in that the age of the individual and the individual’s prox- western Serengeti result from the fact that local people are imity to protected areas affect that individual’s knowledge prohibited from accessing the reserved area to meet their and understanding of birds. This may have implication for demand for natural resources, such as pasture and water the conservation of more well-known species in the area of for livestock to sustain their livelihoods (Kideghesho et al. concern. 2007). The aim of this study was to assess the ability to recognise eight selected bird species among local Study species people living adjacent to the Serengeti National Park in northern Tanzania. An understanding of local peo- The study focused on eight bird species, some of which are ples’ ability to recognise selected bird species may help of high conservation concern. Some of these species such management authorities to focus on important species as guinea fowl, ostrich and kori bustard are hunted for food in their conservation programmes by including species (Magige et al. 2009) and for cultural activities by the tribes that are not well known to the people. The follow- that live in the western Serengeti villages (Kaltenborn ing species were selected: ostrich (Struthio camelus), et al. 2003). The helmeted guinea fowl and ostrich are helmeted guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), secretary bird found in almost all habitats of the Serengeti ecosystem, (Sagittarius serpentarius), marabou stork (Leptoptilos cru- whereas kori bustards are found only in grassland and meniferus), lilac-breasted roller (Coracias caudata), mar- lightly wooded savannas (Stevenson & Fanshawe 2002). tial eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus), southern ground horn- Of these eight study species, the ostrich (S. camelus), bill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) and kori bustard (Ardeotis helmeted guinea fowl (N. meleagris), secretary bird kori). We hypothesised that people in the northwest (S. serpentarius) and marabou stork (L. crumeniferus)were Ngorongoro and western Serengeti districts would be able expected to be familiar to the study participants because to recognise these birds because they inhabit villages adja- the villagers are hunters and pastoralists who live close cent to the Serengeti ecosystem, where a variety of birds to the border of the Serengeti National Park (Kaltenborn live. We also hypothesised that the ability to recognise et al. 2003; Holmern et al. 2004). Illegal hunting in the the birds would differ between men and women and with National Park and the presence of these bird species out- age, education and tribal affiliation. We expected that men side of these protected areas when they are in search of would be more knowledgeable in recognising the birds than food may increase awareness of these species. The other women because men spend more time hunting in their nat- four species, the lilac-breasted roller (C. caudata), the ural surroundings and that knowledge would increase as a martial eagle (P. bellicosus), the southern ground hornbill result of age and school education. Finally, we expected the (B. leadbeateri) and the kori bustard (A. kori), were tribes that spend the greatest amount of time in their nat- assumed to be unknown to the villagers because these birds ural surroundings to be able to recognise the birds better inhabit the protected areas and are rarely observed outside than others and that those who living near the National Park of these areas. We took photographs of the eight selected boundary, where the birds are most common, would also bird species in Serengeti National Park and showed them have more knowledge. The results from this study and their to the village residents to determine their ability to identify significance to biodiversity conservation, management and the selected bird species. ecosystem services will also be discussed. Data collection with questionnaires Methods During data collection, some study respondents were Study area unable to recognise the birds by their scientific or ver- nacular names but were able to recognise them in their The Serengeti ecosystem is in northern Tanzania near local/traditional names. Local translators were recruited the north-eastern border with Kenya and covers an 2 ◦ from the study area to help translate the names of the area of 30,830 km . The ecosystem lies between 1 ◦  ◦ ◦ birds from scientific/vernacular to local name so that we 15 to 3 30 S and 34 to 36 E. The Serengeti 116 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft Figure 1. Map of the Serengeti ecosystem indicating the protected areas and villages that are contiguous with the Serengeti ecosystem where the survey was conducted. Oval shapes on the map indicate the villages surveyed. were able to record a precise response. Questionnaires were from these villages belonged to the Maasai, Kurya or prepared in English and later were translated to, and admin- Ikoma tribes. A small number of the individuals inter- istered in, Kiswahili so that the respondents were easily viewed belonged to the Luo, Chaga, Jita, Iraq, Mbulu, able to understand the questions. Meru, Natta, Maragori, Mungurumi, Zanaki, Ikizu, Mwira, Data were collected on locals’ ability to recognise the Sukuma, Isenye and Sonjo tribes. The questionnaires eight selected bird species in October 2011. Questionnaires included questions about the respondent’s gender, age, surveys were conducted in 13 villages in north-western tribe, village of birth, educational level and ability to recog- Loliondo (near the Loliondo Game Controlled Area) and nise the selected bird species. The respondent’s knowledge western Serengeti (near Serengeti National Park), an area of the selected birds was determined using questions that with a total population of approximately 30,000 peo- asked whether the respondent knew the names of the birds ple (United Republic of Tanzania 2003). During the and whether they had observed the birds. research period, a questionnaire survey was conducted in Statistical analyses each village making a total of 13 surveys at all 13 vil- lages. Each questionnaire survey had 23 questions and All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package was administered by investigators at respondents’ home. for Social Science (SPSS) version 19. A non-parametric Surveys were conducted to 330 individuals through ran- test (chi-squared test) was used to assess the relationships dom sampling; respondents were either visited at their between gender, tribe and education level and the respon- homes or were met on the road while investigators dents’ ability to recognise the birds. The respondents’ were on the way to the homes of respondents of prese- knowledge was classified as perfect, good or poor. Those lected villages. Thus respondents were randomly picked who knew seven to eight birds were considered to have per- at their homes or whenever seen in the preselected vil- fect knowledge, those knowing four to six birds were con- lages. Questionnaires were administered in the follow- sidered to have good knowledge, and those knowing only ing villages; Bwitengi, Kebosongo, Kibeyo, Kisangura, one to three birds were considered to have poor knowledge Miseke, Morotonga, Oloipiri, Ololosokwani, Park Nyigoti, (none of the respondents knew zero birds). A parametric Robanda, Soitsambu, Sukenya and Waso, in the Loliondo test, i.e. an analysis of variance (ANOVA), was used to and Serengeti Districts. The majority of the respondents assess whether respondents’ ability to recognise the birds International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 117 differed in relation to their age or the distance between The Maasai tribe demonstrated the best ability to recog- the respondent’s village and the Serengeti National Park nise the eight selected bird species, followed by the Ikoma boarder. Linear regression analyses were used to identify and Sonjo tribes. The Kurya tribe had the poorest ability the respondents’ ability to recognise the birds relative to to recognise the selected bird species (χ = 117.1, df = 8, their gender, age and tribe and education level. The abil- p < 0.001; Table 4). ity of those individuals’ who were interviewed to recognise The respondents who had no education demonstrated the selected birds was assessed using frequency tables better ability (not statistically significant) to recognise the expressed as percentages. The Luo, Chaga, Jita, Iraq, eight selected bird species than the respondents who had Mbulu, Meru, Natta, Maragori, Mungurumi, Zanaki, Ikizu, attended school (χ = 5.70, df = 4, NS; Table 4). Mwira, Sukuma and Isenye tribes were combined into a The respondents who lived the furthest away from the single ‘other tribes’ category due to the small number of park had a better ability to recognise the selected bird respondents from these tribes. However, this category was species than those who lived in close proximity to the park not used in the linear regression analyses. (ANOVA; F = 19.4, p < 0.001; Table 5). Knowledge of all bird species Results A linear regression analysis that used the respondent’s abil- Knowledge of individual bird species ity to recognise birds as the dependent variable and gender, Almost all of the selected bird species were known by at age, tribe (excluding the pooled ‘other tribe’ group), vil- least 50% of the respondents (Table 1). The lilac-breasted lage distance from the Park boundary and educational level roller was the least-known bird species; only 47.9% of as the independent variables explained 27% of the total the respondents knew this species. The helmeted guinea variation in knowledge. All of the variables except the fowl was the most commonly known bird, followed by distance to the Park boundary and educational level con- the marabou stork, ostrich, secretary bird, ground hornbill, tributed significantly to this variation (r = 0.266, df = 5, martial eagle and kori bustard. All respondents stated that p < 0.001; Table 6). they knew the helmeted guinea fowl. Fewer than 5.5% of the respondents stated that they had seen all selected bird species but did not know the name. Discussion Knowledge of individual bird species Overall, the respondents were highly capable of recognis- Knowledge of birds in relation to gender, age, tribe, ing the eight selected birds species. The guinea fowl was education and distance from the Park the best-known species, whereas the kori bustard and the In all, 56% of the men showed a perfect ability to recog- lilac-breasted roller were the least known. The fact that nise the selected birds, compared with only 24.7% of the more than 50% of the respondents were able to recognise women. Furthermore, 43.8% of the women demonstrated a these birds species might be a result of the distribution poor ability to recognise the selected birds. In contrast, only of these species, which are common and widespread in 15.6% of the men demonstrated a poor ability (Table 2). a variety of habitats including open grassland, wooded Thus, the gender difference in the ability to recognise the grassland, woodlands and forests (Stevenson & Fanshawe selected bird species was highly statistically significant 2002). Because these habitats are near the villages sur- = 32.4, df = 2, p < 0.001; Table 2). (χ veyed, these birds are easily observed and thus are familiar The respondents who were perfect or good in their to the respondents. The helmeted guinea fowl was the ability to recognise the selected birds were significantly best-known species (96.4%) by all respondents, poten- older than those who showed only poor ability (ANOVA; tially because these birds are common in cultivated areas, F = 7.118, df = 2, p < 0.001; Table 3). where they feed on cereals during the harvesting season Table 1. Percentage of respondents who recognised the species in question, those who did not, or those who had only seen the species (total number of respondents: n = 330). Respondents who Respondents who did not Respondents who had Species (scientific name) recognised the birds (%) recognise the birds (%) only seen the birds (%) Helmeted guineafowl (Numida meleagris) 96.4 0 3.6 Marabou stork (Leptoptilos crumeniferus) 81.2 13.3 5.5 Ostrich (Struthio camelus) 80.9 14.5 4.5 Secretary bird (Sagittarius serpentarius) 76.7 18.2 5.2 Southern ground hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) 73.0 22.1 4.8 Martial eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus) 70.3 25.5 4.2 Kori bustard (Ardeo tiskori) 56.7 39.7 3.6 Lilac-breasted roller (Coracias caudata) 47.9 46.7 5.5 118 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft Table 2. General ability to recognise all eight species of birds in relation to gender. Perfect ability (7 or Good ability Poor ability Total no. of Gender 8 birds known), (%) (4–6 birds known), (%) (1–3 birds known), (%) respondents Men 56.0 28.4 15.6 257 Women 24.7 31.5 43.8 73 Table 3. Mean age of respondents with different levels of Knowledge of birds in relation to gender, age, education, recognising the eight selected birds in the Serengeti ecosystem. tribe and distance from the National Park The gender-related difference in respondents’ ability to General ability to recognise all birds Total no. of recognise birds was highly significant. This finding sup- based on age Mean age SD respondents ported our hypothesis that the men would be more knowl- edgeable than the women in identifying the selected bird Perfect ability 41.2 14.6 162 species. Good ability 40.6 16.5 96 Poor ability 33.5 13.4 72 This result was consistent with finding from Huxham Total 39.4 15.2 330 et al. (2006) who found that young men had significantly greater wildlife knowledge than young women. The differ- ent roles that exist between men and women, particularly among the Maasai, likely contributed to ability of men to and farmers can see them frequently. The proximity of the recognise birds as was also suggested by Røskaft et al. study villages to Serengeti National Park might also be (2003, 2004). In the western Serengeti, wildlife hunting the reason that guinea fowl are well known. It is prob- has been an integral part of life for centuries (Magige et al. able that human knowledge towards recognising animals 2009; Holmern 2010). Men’s illegal access to the Serengeti is influenced by direct and indirect selection pressures National Park for hunting (Bitanyi et al. 2012) where these (Herzog & Burghardt 1988). Direct pressures result from birds exist potentially allow them to see and identify birds human evolutionary coexistence with animals, whereas more readily than women, who are not hunters. Several indirect pressures are anthropomorphic generalisations of researchers have identified significant gender differences responses that originally evolved towards other people in animals’ identification (Kideghesho et al. 2007; Røskaft (Herzog & Burghardt 1988). et al. 2007; Sarker & Røskaft 2010). The ability to recog- The previous assumption that the lilac-breasted roller nise animals has further been tested by Setalaphruk and was not well known to the people proved to be incorrect. Price (2007) who found that young men were able to list Roughly 50% of all respondents knew this species. This 81 animals compared to young women who listed only familiarity might be due to the bird’s habit of occupying 45 animals. The study suggested further that young men communal or cultivated lands, especially during the season were able to provide more animal names because they spent when the farmers burn the land to prepare for cultivation by more time wandering around the village and playing out- setting fires. During this season, many insects take flight to side compared to young women. It is likely that the most escape the fires and become an available food source for the significant difference in men and women’s ability to recog- lilac-breasted roller. The martial eagle was also well known nise birds may stem from their different roles in outdoor (70.3%). This species plays an important role in the ecosys- activities (Røskaft et al. 2004). tem as an efficient scavenger and has been associated with It is likely that older respondents were able to identify migratory wild animals during the dry season. It travels to and name the selected birds more accurately because they the communal land to seek wild and domestic animals car- resided in the area for a longer period of time (Papworth casses for food. This type of scavenging behaviour might et al. 2009). Various tribes in the Serengeti ecosystem use make the bird better known among residents. Table 4. General knowledge of the eight selected birds according to tribe and education level. Tribe Perfect ability (%) Good ability (%) Poor ability (%) Total no. of respondents Maasai 80.4 7.5 12.1 107 Ikoma 56.8 35.8 7.4 95 Sonjo 55.6 11.1 33.3 9 Other tribes 20.0 33.3 46.7 15 Kurya 13.5 46.2 40.4 104 Education No education 54.9 18.3 26.8 71 Primary school 48.5 31.2 20.3 202 Secondary school and higher 43.9 35.1 21.1 57 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 119 Table 5. General ability to recognise the birds in relation to and water. Such a lifestyle might improve their opportu- village distance from the Park boundary. nities to see and become familiar with a number of bird species. The behaviour of various bird species is frequently General ability to used by Maasai elders to predict the weather. For example, recognise birds Distance (km) SD (N) if ground hornbills make an unusual ‘hoohoohoo’ sound Perfect 22.6 9.9 (162) and ostriches make roaring sounds, the beginning of the Good 15.7 9.2 (96) rainy season is thought to be near. If guinea fowl stop Poor 16.4 9.1 (72) moving after a signal from their leader and make a spe- cial sound, the rainy season is about to begin (Indigenous Knowledge 2005). The use of bird signs as an indicator of the weather might increase Maasai people’s ability to birds as a vital part of their diet (Magige et al. 2009), which recognise different bird species. might contribute to older people’s knowledge and ability In Tanzania, bush meat (meat obtained by killing wild to recognise birds because of their extensive hunting expe- animals) is an important source of protein and cash income rience (Huxham et al. 2006). It has been explained that (Barnett 2000). The Ikoma tribe is traditionally a hunting local knowledge results from experience (Papworth et al. tribe, collecting eggs from game birds (Magige et al. 2009). 2009) and is orally transmitted, cumulative and builds on This tradition might explain this tribe’s relatively strong the experiences of past and present generations through ability to identify the selected birds. The Sonjo tribe also mentoring, storytelling and cooperative work (MacGregor had an almost perfect ability to recognise birds; however, 2000). However, some studies have also found that younger this does not give a clear picture of their ability to recog- people, including school pupils, had a better ability to nise birds compared to other tribes because of the small recognise birds than older pupils (Beck et al. 2001; Prokop number of respondents. The men of the Sonjo tribe are et al. 2008). Bogner (1999) examined the effects of con- hunters, wild honey gatherers and agro-pastoralists which servation programmes on 10- to 16-year-old students’ might explain their ability to recognise birds (Potkanski & attitudes about and knowledge of the common swift (Apus Adams 1998). In contrast, respondents belonging to the apus) and found that specific knowledge about the com- Kurya tribe had the poorest ability to recognise the birds mon swift increased only in younger students. A similar which is likely due to the fact that many Kurya people are study of bird identification skills with visual stimuli (bird exclusively farmers. pictures) conducted with elementary students (mean age Respondents who lived in the villages furthest from the 12.3 years) and university students (mean age 21.2 years) Park were better at recognising the selected bird species found that the ability to identify birds did not differ sig- than those who lived closer distances to the park. However, nificantly between the two groups (Prokop & Rodak 2009; the effect of distance was not present in the multivariate Randler 2009). Surprisingly, we found that the ability to analysis. This might be due to the nomadic and pastoral- recognise birds accurately was not positively related to edu- ist nature of the Maasai living up to 70 km from the park cation level. Interestingly, uneducated respondents had a and the farming habit of the Kurya (living very close to perfect ability to identify birds more frequently than edu- the park) which might influence their ability to recognise cated respondents. However, the effect of education was selected bird species. not present in the multivariate analysis because the edu- cational level of the Maasai people was generally lower, People’s knowledge of birds in relation to biodiversity, but they were found to have the highest general ability to ecosystem services and management recognise birds (see next section). The Maasai tribe was the best at recognising the eight Some bird species which are currently in decline are selected bird species. However, the Maasai people are not characterised by naturally fluctuating populations (Willis wildlife hunters and are often viewed as pastoralist and et al. 2007). Current conservation initiatives pay sub- nomadic, i.e. they follow their herds to better grazing lands stantial attention to identify those species that are Table 6. The results of a linear regression analysis with general ability to recognise eight selected birds as the dependent variable (excluding the pooled ‘other tribe’ group). Constant/independent Dependent variable variables t β p-Value General ability to Gender 4.190 0.096 0.001 recognise selected birds Tribe −5.920 −0.454 0.0001 Age in years −2.878 0.003 0.004 Distance to Park 0.946 0.072 0.345 boundary Education 0.321 0.016 0.749 120 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft mostly threatened by extinction (International Union for 1993). These services include birds’ pollination, seed dis- Conservation of Nature 2004), while little consideration persal and controlling of outbreaks of insect pests (Berkes is paid to other more common species. Human-induced et al. 2000). Populations by seed-dispersing birds are also activities continue to change the environment on both of importance for the renewal of surrounding ecosystems local and global levels, leading to dramatic changes in the (Gadgill et al. 1993). biotic structure and composition of ecological communi- The ability to recognise different species of birds by ties (Hooper et al. 2005). Such activities frequently cause local people surrounding Serengeti National Park is impor- declines in biodiversity that affect ecosystem functioning tant because once they know these species it may be and yield (Russell 1989; Daily 1997). Local knowledge easier for them to understand their status and whether they of birds of conservation interest and their importance to need protection. This understanding may lead management the Serengeti ecosystem is important for successful con- authorities to include the species that have been identified servation and might lead to increased conservation efforts as needing protection when developing conservation pro- and reduction in activities that jeopardise these species or grammes. For example, our findings showed that the Kurya at least important prerequisite for successful conservation. tribe was least able to recognise the birds in our study. This idea is supported by research from Wilson and Tisdell Tribes close to protected areas are often wildlife hunters (2005) who showed that poor public knowledge of bird including selected birds for household food (except for species is likely to result in less support for their conser- the Maasai), rituals and ceremonial events (Magige et al. vation compared to more common and better known bird 2009). They are very aware of the bird species occurring species. Inadequate support might jeopardise the survival in their area (in this paper) but may not have knowledge of of species that are harvested for household food (Magige conservation status of the different bird species. The fact et al. 2009). Thus, the ability to recognise birds is a prereq- that some tribes, such as Kurya, possess little knowledge uisite for protecting birds of conservation interest, even if of the selected birds and their conservation status may have this alone is not sufficient or the only important issue. serious impacts on the conservation of these species. There Due to agricultural expansion and habitat fragmen- is, therefore, a need of promoting wider understanding of tation in the study areas adjacent to Serengeti National the importance of birds in relation to biodiversity conser- Park, the population of birds of conservation interest might vation. There is also a need of raising awareness of the decline. These birds appear in these areas during the farm- Kurya tribe about the importance of not killing birds dur- ing season when food is readily available. Some bird ing farming activities as most of these birds feed on planted species are vulnerable because they are crop pests (guinea seeds. fowl), while others hunt for domestic chickens, goats and lambs (Martial eagle). The application of pesticides dur- Conclusions and recommendations ing the farming period might also be dangerous to birds, including populations of many farmland birds (Donald The aim of this study was to investigate villagers’ knowl- et al. 2001). edge of eight selected bird species of conservation interest As interest increase in incorporating traditional knowl- in villages adjacent to the Serengeti ecosystem. The results edge into natural resource management and biodiversity indicated that the majority of people interviewed had good conservation (Gadgill et al. 1993; Horowitz 1998; knowledge of local birds. However, the knowledge of birds Johannes 1998; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998; Nabhan 2000), of conservation interest varied with the respondents’ gen- the management of ecological processes (Alcorn and der, age and tribe. Though all of the selected bird species Toledo 1998), and general sustainable resource use in were common in the areas of the Park near the villages (Schmink et al. 1992; Berkes 1999), special effort must in northern Loliondo and western Serengeti, the public’s be made by management authorities to involve local peo- knowledge of certain species was poor. The most impor- ple’s understanding of various conservation programmes tant criteria associated with the ability to recognise the that play a role in biodiversity conservation in dif- selected bird species were gender (men knew more about ferent localities. Given the results of this study, it the species than women), age (older people could identify is important for biodiversity conservation in Serengeti more species) and tribe (the Maasai were the best at recog- ecosystem, that management authorities involve educa- nising the birds). These results indicate that among the tion agenda/programmes to schools and local people when people living adjacent to the park, experiencing bush life developing conservation programmes. (wild environment) is the most important factor for devel- Local people in the Serengeti ecosystem might pos- oping such ability. Given that there has been increasing sess a broad knowledge base that has been accumulated interest in incorporating traditional knowledge into natural through observations and transmitted from generation to resource management, biodiversity conservation and sus- generation. Huxham et al. (2006) showed that school chil- tainable resource use, community integration must play an dren rely on a culturally mediated source of information for important role in natural resource management and con- knowledge on the existence of wildlife. Thus, local peo- servation, taking into account individuals’ gender, age and ple in the Serengeti ecosystem may see biological diversity education. The results draw attention to the need for public as a crucial factor in generating the ecological services education, especially about species that are of conservation and natural resources on which they depend (Gadgill et al. status and/or are threatened with extinction. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 121 We further recommend that education programmes Daily GC. 1997. Nature’s services: social dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington (DC): Island Press. be introduced among the communities living close to Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF. 2001. Agricultural intensifica- the Serengeti National Park to increase awareness and tion and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. bird identification skills. Our results may help to guide Proc R Soc Lond, B Biol Sci. 268:25–29. the development of education programmes, allowing for Gadgill M, Berkes F, Folke G. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for a design that fits particular groups. The education pro- biodiversity conservation. AMBIO. 22(2–3):151–156. Gichuki FN. 1999. Threats and opportunities for mountain area grammes should include learning to recognise bird species, development in Kenya. AMBIO. 28(5):430–435. the conservation status of the species, threats to the species Herzog H, Burghardt GM. 1988. Attitudes toward animals: ori- and how to mitigate the threats. These programmes should gins and diversity. Anthrozoös. 1:214–222. involve knowledge of biodiversity conservation as an Hofer H, Campbell KLI, East ML, Huish SA. 1996. The impact important long-term survival tool for the wildlife. These of game meat hunting on target and non-target species in the Serengeti. In: Taylor J, Dunstone N, editors. The exploita- programmes should also include bringing wildlife conser- tion of mammal populations. London: Chapman and Hall; p. vation and management into primary and secondary school 117–146. curricula and the creating of wildlife information centres in Holmern T. 2010. Bushmeat hunting in Western Serengeti: impli- villages. cations for community-based conservation. In: Gereta E, Røskaft E, editors. Conservation of natural resources: some African & Asian examples. Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press; p. 211–236. Acknowledgements Holmern T, Johannesen AB, Mbaruka J, Mkama SY, Muya We express our sincere thanks to the Government of Norway for J, Røskaft E. 2004. Human–wildlife conflicts and hunt- their financial support, without which this study would not have ing in the western Serengeti, Tanzania. NINA Project been possible. We are very grateful to Dr. Robert Fyumagwa, Report Trondheim. Norway: Norwegian Institute of Nature Director of the Serengeti Wildlife Research Centre, for logistic Research. 26th issue; p. 26. support and to Mr. Noel Massawe for field assistance during the Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchaust P, Lavorel questionnaire survey. Thanks are also due to the Director General S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, et al. 2005. of TAWIRI, Dr. Simon Mduma, for granting permission to con- Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus duct such a unique type of study. Finally, we want to acknowledge of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. 75(1):3–35. two anonymous reviewers whose comments improved this paper. Horowitz LS. 1998. Integrating indigenous resource manage- ment with wildlife conservation: a case study of Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Human Ecol. 26:371–404. Huntington HP. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowl- References edge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl. Alcorn JB, Toledo VM. 1998. Resilient resource management 10(5):1270–1274. in Mexico’s forest ecosystems: the contribution of property Huxham M, Welsh A, Berry A, Templeton S. 2006. Factors rights. In: Berkes F, Folke C, editors. Linking social and influencing primary school children’s knowledge of wildlife. ecological systems: management practices and social mech- J Biol Educ. 41(1):9–12. anisms for building resilience. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge Indigenous knowledge in disaster management in Africa. University Press; p. 216–249. 2005. United Nations Environment Programme, Indigenous Barnett R. 2000. Food for thought: the utilization of wild meat Knowledge in Africa, UNEP. Nairobi: UNEP; p. 117. in eastern and southern Africa. Trade Review. Nairobi: International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2004. IUCN red TRAFFIC/WWF/IUCN; p. 264. list of threatened species [Internet]. [cited 2011 Nov 10]. Beck AM, Melson GF, da Costa PL, Liu T. 2001. The educational Available from: www.redlist.org benefits of a ten-week home-based wild bird feeding program Johannes RE. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource for children. Anthrozoös. 14:19–28. management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Berkes F. 1999. Sacred ecology. Traditional ecological knowledge Trends Ecol Evol. 13:243–246. and resource management. Philadelphia (PA) and London: Kaltenborn BP, Nyahongo JW, Mayengo M. 2003. People Taylor and Francis. and wildlife interactions around Serengeti National Park, Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional Tanzania. Biodiversity and the human–wildlife interface in ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl. Serengeti, Tanzania. Trondheim: NINA;p. 31. 10(5):1251–1262. Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E, Kaltenborn BP. 2007. Factors influ- Bibby CJ. 1999. Making the most of birds as environmental encing conservation attitudes of local people in Western indicators. Ostrich. 70:81–88. Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodiv Conserv. 16(7):2213–2230. Bitanyi S, Nesje M, Kusiluka LJM, Chenyambuga SW, Levey DJ, Silva WR, Galetti M, editors. 2002. Seed dispersal and Kaltenborn BP. 2012. Awareness and perceptions of local frugivory: ecology, evolution and conservation. Rio Quente: people about wildlife hunting in western Serengeti commu- CABI Publications. nities. Trop Conserv Sci. 5(2):208–224. Lundberg J, Moberg F. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosys- Bogner FX. 1999. Empirical evaluation of an educational conser- tem functioning: implications for ecosystem resilience and vation programme introduced in Swiss secondary schools. Int management. Ecosystems. 6(1):87–98. J Sci Educ. 21:1169–1185. MacGregor D. 2000. The state of traditional ecological knowl- Clevo W, Clem T. 2004. What role does knowledge of wildlife edge research in Canada: a critique of current theory and play in providing support for species’ conservation? Working practice. In: Laliberte R, Settee P, Waldram J, Innes R, Papers in Economics, Ecology and the Environment. The Macdougall B, McBain L, Barron F, editors. Expressions University of Queensland School of Economics, St Lucia, in Canadian native studies. Saskatoon: University of QLD; p. 10. Saskatchewan Extension Press; p. 436–458. Croll DA, Maron JL, Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd GV. 2005. Magige FJ, Holmern T, Stokke S, Mlingwa C, Røskaft E. 2009. Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grass- Does illegal hunting affect density and behaviour of African land to tundra. Science. 307(5717):1959–1961. 122 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft grassland birds? A case study on ostrich (Struthio camelus). Røskaft E, Händel B, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP. 2007. Human Biodiv Conserv. 18(5):1361–1373. attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildl Biol. Mols CMM, Visser ME. 2002. Great tits can reduce caterpillar 13(2):172–185. damage in apple orchards. J Appl Ecol. 39(6):888–899. Sarker AHMR, Røskaft E. 2010. Human attitudes towards conser- Nabhan GP. 2000. Interspecific relationship affecting endangered vation of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Bangladesh. species recognized by O’odham and Comcáac cultures. Ecol Int J Biod Conserv. 2(10):316–327. Appl. 10:1288–1295. Sarker AHMR, Røskaft E. 2011. Human attitudes towards Papworth SK, Rist J, Coad L, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2009. Evidence the conservation of protected areas: a case study from for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conserv Lett. four protected areas in Bangladesh. Oryx. 45(3):391–400. 2(2):93–100. doi:310.1017/S0030605310001067. Potkanski R, Adams WM. 1998. Water scarcity, property regimes Schmink M, Redford KH, Padoch C. 1992. Traditional peoples and irrigation management in Sonjo, Tanzania. J Develop and the biosphere: framing the issues and defining the terms. Stud. 34(4):86–116. In: Redford KH, Padoch C, editors. Conservation of neotrop- Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A. 1996. The natural history of pollina- ical forests: working from traditional resource use. New York tion. Portland (OR): Timber Press. (NY): Columbia University Press; p. 3–13. Prokop P, Prokop M, Tunnicliffe SD. 2008. Effects of keeping Setalaphruk C, Price LL. 2007. Children’s traditional ecological animals as pets on children’s concepts of vertebrates and knowledge of wild food resources: a case study in a rural invertebrates. Int J Sci Educ. 30(4):431–449. village in Northeast Thailand. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 33(3). Prokop P, Rodak R. 2009. Ability of Slovakian students doi:10.1186/1746-4269-1183-1133. to identify birds. Euras J Math Sci Tech Educ. 5(2): Stevenson T, Fanshawe J. 2002. Field guide to the birds of East 127–133. Africa. London: T & A Poyser Ltd. Ramakrishnan PS, Saxena KG, Chandrashekara UM, editors. Stiles FG. 1985. On the role of birds in the dynamics of 1998. Conserving the sacred for biodiversity management. neotropical forests. In: Diamond AW, Lovejoy TE, editors. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Conservation of tropical forest birds. London: International Randler C. 2009. Learning about bird species on the primary Council for Bird Preservation; p. 49–59. level. J Sci Educ Technol. 18(2):138–145. United Republic of Tanzania. 2003. Population and housing cen- Russell EP. 1989. Enemies hypothesis: a review of the effect of suses. Bureau of Statistics PsOPC. Dar es Salaam: United vegetational diversity on predatory insects and parasitoids. Republic of Tanzania, Government Printer. Environ Entomol. 18:590–599. Willis KJ, Araújo MB, Bennett KD, Figueroa-Rangel B, Froyd Røskaft E, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP, Linnell JDC, Andersen CA, Myers N. 2007. How can a knowledge of the past help to R. 2003. Patterns of self-reported fear towards large car- conserve the future? Biodiversity conservation and the rele- nivores among the Norwegian public. Evol Hum Behav. vance of long-term ecological studies. Philos Trans Roy Soc 24(3):184–198. B. 362:175–186. Røskaft E, Hagen ML, Hagen TL, Moksnes A. 2004. Patterns Wilson C, Tisdell C. 2005. Knowledge of birds and willingness of outdoor recreation activities among Norwegians: an evolu- to support their conservation: an Australian case study. Bird tionary approach. Ann Zool Fennici. 41(5):609–618. Conserv Int. 15(3):225–235. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis

Knowledge of birds of conservation interest among the people living close to protected areas in Serengeti, Northern Tanzania

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/knowledge-of-birds-of-conservation-interest-among-the-people-living-kvEhQJy0m1

References (61)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2151-3732
eISSN
2151-3740
DOI
10.1080/21513732.2013.788566
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 2, 114–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.788566 Knowledge of birds of conservation interest among the people living close to protected areas in Serengeti, Northern Tanzania a b, Emmanuel Clamsen Mmassy and Eivin Røskaft * a b Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, P.O. Box 661, Arusha, Tanzania; Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Realfagbygget, No-7491, Trondheim, Norway We examined the ability to recognise birds of conservation interest among the residents living adjacent to the Serengeti National Park. Data on ability to recognise the photo of eight selected bird species were collected in October 2011, in relation to the respondents’ gender, age, tribe and education. Almost all eight species were known by at least 50% of the respondents. The men, older people between 40 and 42 years of age and the Maasai tribe showed good or perfect ability in recognising these birds. Unexpectedly, we found that people with little or no education had greater ability of recognising birds than those who received secondary and/or higher education. Given that only approximately 50% of respondents recognised the selected bird species regardless of age, education, gender and tribe, we emphasise that education programmes on wildlife resources recognition and biodiversity conservation awareness raising activities are to be introduced to communities surrounding the western Serengeti ecosystem. We discuss the results and how to incorporate traditional knowledge into natural resource management, biodiversity conservation and the management of sustainable resource use. Keywords: bird knowledge; northern Tanzania; conservation interest; age; gender; tribe; education Introduction It is likely that the value, both economic and others (consumptive uses; i.e. activities that deplete bird popu- A firm understanding of wildlife in communities might lations, and socio-cultural uses; i.e. activities that provide lead to improvement of wildlife species conservation. Low spiritual or academic fulfilment) that the public place on public knowledge of wildlife inevitably leads to low con- poorly understood wildlife species is lower than the value servation due to the fact that some wildlife species will they place on more well-known species. However, social- be less known than other species (Clevo & Clem 2004). cultural usage of birds might not always be good for In most cases, wildlife species conservation effort at var- conservation; rare species that are not ecologically viable ious categories depends on information generated by the but are important for traditional healing and ceremonies public (Wilson & Tisdell 2005). Local people who fre- may be exterminated. Increased appreciation of wildlife, quently interact with birds in their local environment especially threatened species, may result in greater support may develop a broader knowledge of the life histories, for the conservation of these species and may increase the behaviour (breeding period and habitat use), movement public’s awareness of, and membership in, organisations and seasonal changes in composition and abundance of that help to protect and conserve wildlife (Wilson & Tisdell those birds (Gichuki 1999). Thus, traditional knowledge 2005). Community knowledge of local birds is important is increasingly used by academics, agency scientists and because birds are the most reliable indicators of terrestrial policy-makers as a source for ideas on ecosystem man- biological richness and environmental conditions (Bibby agement, restoration and conservation biology (Huntington 1999). Numerous studies have demonstrated the signifi- 2000). The public’s knowledge of birds may therefore cance of birds as important mobile links in the dynamics influence decisions about bird conservation taken by both of natural and human-dominated ecosystems (Stiles 1985; governmental and non-governmental organisation conser- Proctor et al. 1996; Levey et al. 2002; Mols & Visser 2002; vation programmes. Lundberg & Moberg 2003; Croll et al. 2005). Moreover, Knowledge of wildlife species not only enables the locals’ knowledge of birds and local bird ecological infor- public to better understand and benefit from wildlife but mation has been accepted within the scientific research may also encourage the public to protect and conserve community as a useful component of impact assessment wildlife, especially threatened species (Wilson & Tisdell and conservation monitoring (Huntington 2000). Local 2005). In the absence of such knowledge, the public may knowledge of birds has been applied in the development gain less satisfaction from conserving wildlife because of management plans for various forests and national park they are unfamiliar with the species being conserved reserves among different communities (Gichuki 1999). (Wilson & Tisdell 2005). *Corresponding author. Email: roskaft@bio.ntnu.no © 2013 Taylor & Francis International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 115 According to Huntington (2000), traditional ecological ecosystem comprises several different conservation areas: knowledge is the knowledge and insight acquired through the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (8288 km ) and extensive observation of an area or species by indige- Serengeti National Park (14,763 km ), Open Areas and 2 2 nous or other people. Scientists normally select birds of Game Reserves (Ikorongo (563 km ), Grumeti (416 km ), the conservation concern on the basis of scientific knowl- Maswa (2200 km ), the Ikona Wildlife Management edge of the protected areas and do not consider the locals’ Area (600 km ), the Loliondo Game Controlled Area knowledge of these ecosystems. The failure to consider the (4000 km ) and the Maasai Mara Natural Reserve to the knowledge of local people may reduce the effectiveness of north in Kenya (Figure 1). scientific and local ecological monitoring. This study was conducted in villages adjacent to the It has previously been found that the ability of local Serengeti ecosystem in north-western Loliondo and the people to identify bird species may vary with gender, age, western Serengeti districts (Figure 1). The ecosystem cur- tribe and education level (Kideghesho et al. 2007; Røskaft rently suffers due to conflict between conservationists and et al. 2007; Sarker & Røskaft 2010, 2011). It is possible local communities (Hofer et al. 1996). The conflicts in that the age of the individual and the individual’s prox- western Serengeti result from the fact that local people are imity to protected areas affect that individual’s knowledge prohibited from accessing the reserved area to meet their and understanding of birds. This may have implication for demand for natural resources, such as pasture and water the conservation of more well-known species in the area of for livestock to sustain their livelihoods (Kideghesho et al. concern. 2007). The aim of this study was to assess the ability to recognise eight selected bird species among local Study species people living adjacent to the Serengeti National Park in northern Tanzania. An understanding of local peo- The study focused on eight bird species, some of which are ples’ ability to recognise selected bird species may help of high conservation concern. Some of these species such management authorities to focus on important species as guinea fowl, ostrich and kori bustard are hunted for food in their conservation programmes by including species (Magige et al. 2009) and for cultural activities by the tribes that are not well known to the people. The follow- that live in the western Serengeti villages (Kaltenborn ing species were selected: ostrich (Struthio camelus), et al. 2003). The helmeted guinea fowl and ostrich are helmeted guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), secretary bird found in almost all habitats of the Serengeti ecosystem, (Sagittarius serpentarius), marabou stork (Leptoptilos cru- whereas kori bustards are found only in grassland and meniferus), lilac-breasted roller (Coracias caudata), mar- lightly wooded savannas (Stevenson & Fanshawe 2002). tial eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus), southern ground horn- Of these eight study species, the ostrich (S. camelus), bill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) and kori bustard (Ardeotis helmeted guinea fowl (N. meleagris), secretary bird kori). We hypothesised that people in the northwest (S. serpentarius) and marabou stork (L. crumeniferus)were Ngorongoro and western Serengeti districts would be able expected to be familiar to the study participants because to recognise these birds because they inhabit villages adja- the villagers are hunters and pastoralists who live close cent to the Serengeti ecosystem, where a variety of birds to the border of the Serengeti National Park (Kaltenborn live. We also hypothesised that the ability to recognise et al. 2003; Holmern et al. 2004). Illegal hunting in the the birds would differ between men and women and with National Park and the presence of these bird species out- age, education and tribal affiliation. We expected that men side of these protected areas when they are in search of would be more knowledgeable in recognising the birds than food may increase awareness of these species. The other women because men spend more time hunting in their nat- four species, the lilac-breasted roller (C. caudata), the ural surroundings and that knowledge would increase as a martial eagle (P. bellicosus), the southern ground hornbill result of age and school education. Finally, we expected the (B. leadbeateri) and the kori bustard (A. kori), were tribes that spend the greatest amount of time in their nat- assumed to be unknown to the villagers because these birds ural surroundings to be able to recognise the birds better inhabit the protected areas and are rarely observed outside than others and that those who living near the National Park of these areas. We took photographs of the eight selected boundary, where the birds are most common, would also bird species in Serengeti National Park and showed them have more knowledge. The results from this study and their to the village residents to determine their ability to identify significance to biodiversity conservation, management and the selected bird species. ecosystem services will also be discussed. Data collection with questionnaires Methods During data collection, some study respondents were Study area unable to recognise the birds by their scientific or ver- nacular names but were able to recognise them in their The Serengeti ecosystem is in northern Tanzania near local/traditional names. Local translators were recruited the north-eastern border with Kenya and covers an 2 ◦ from the study area to help translate the names of the area of 30,830 km . The ecosystem lies between 1 ◦  ◦ ◦ birds from scientific/vernacular to local name so that we 15 to 3 30 S and 34 to 36 E. The Serengeti 116 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft Figure 1. Map of the Serengeti ecosystem indicating the protected areas and villages that are contiguous with the Serengeti ecosystem where the survey was conducted. Oval shapes on the map indicate the villages surveyed. were able to record a precise response. Questionnaires were from these villages belonged to the Maasai, Kurya or prepared in English and later were translated to, and admin- Ikoma tribes. A small number of the individuals inter- istered in, Kiswahili so that the respondents were easily viewed belonged to the Luo, Chaga, Jita, Iraq, Mbulu, able to understand the questions. Meru, Natta, Maragori, Mungurumi, Zanaki, Ikizu, Mwira, Data were collected on locals’ ability to recognise the Sukuma, Isenye and Sonjo tribes. The questionnaires eight selected bird species in October 2011. Questionnaires included questions about the respondent’s gender, age, surveys were conducted in 13 villages in north-western tribe, village of birth, educational level and ability to recog- Loliondo (near the Loliondo Game Controlled Area) and nise the selected bird species. The respondent’s knowledge western Serengeti (near Serengeti National Park), an area of the selected birds was determined using questions that with a total population of approximately 30,000 peo- asked whether the respondent knew the names of the birds ple (United Republic of Tanzania 2003). During the and whether they had observed the birds. research period, a questionnaire survey was conducted in Statistical analyses each village making a total of 13 surveys at all 13 vil- lages. Each questionnaire survey had 23 questions and All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package was administered by investigators at respondents’ home. for Social Science (SPSS) version 19. A non-parametric Surveys were conducted to 330 individuals through ran- test (chi-squared test) was used to assess the relationships dom sampling; respondents were either visited at their between gender, tribe and education level and the respon- homes or were met on the road while investigators dents’ ability to recognise the birds. The respondents’ were on the way to the homes of respondents of prese- knowledge was classified as perfect, good or poor. Those lected villages. Thus respondents were randomly picked who knew seven to eight birds were considered to have per- at their homes or whenever seen in the preselected vil- fect knowledge, those knowing four to six birds were con- lages. Questionnaires were administered in the follow- sidered to have good knowledge, and those knowing only ing villages; Bwitengi, Kebosongo, Kibeyo, Kisangura, one to three birds were considered to have poor knowledge Miseke, Morotonga, Oloipiri, Ololosokwani, Park Nyigoti, (none of the respondents knew zero birds). A parametric Robanda, Soitsambu, Sukenya and Waso, in the Loliondo test, i.e. an analysis of variance (ANOVA), was used to and Serengeti Districts. The majority of the respondents assess whether respondents’ ability to recognise the birds International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 117 differed in relation to their age or the distance between The Maasai tribe demonstrated the best ability to recog- the respondent’s village and the Serengeti National Park nise the eight selected bird species, followed by the Ikoma boarder. Linear regression analyses were used to identify and Sonjo tribes. The Kurya tribe had the poorest ability the respondents’ ability to recognise the birds relative to to recognise the selected bird species (χ = 117.1, df = 8, their gender, age and tribe and education level. The abil- p < 0.001; Table 4). ity of those individuals’ who were interviewed to recognise The respondents who had no education demonstrated the selected birds was assessed using frequency tables better ability (not statistically significant) to recognise the expressed as percentages. The Luo, Chaga, Jita, Iraq, eight selected bird species than the respondents who had Mbulu, Meru, Natta, Maragori, Mungurumi, Zanaki, Ikizu, attended school (χ = 5.70, df = 4, NS; Table 4). Mwira, Sukuma and Isenye tribes were combined into a The respondents who lived the furthest away from the single ‘other tribes’ category due to the small number of park had a better ability to recognise the selected bird respondents from these tribes. However, this category was species than those who lived in close proximity to the park not used in the linear regression analyses. (ANOVA; F = 19.4, p < 0.001; Table 5). Knowledge of all bird species Results A linear regression analysis that used the respondent’s abil- Knowledge of individual bird species ity to recognise birds as the dependent variable and gender, Almost all of the selected bird species were known by at age, tribe (excluding the pooled ‘other tribe’ group), vil- least 50% of the respondents (Table 1). The lilac-breasted lage distance from the Park boundary and educational level roller was the least-known bird species; only 47.9% of as the independent variables explained 27% of the total the respondents knew this species. The helmeted guinea variation in knowledge. All of the variables except the fowl was the most commonly known bird, followed by distance to the Park boundary and educational level con- the marabou stork, ostrich, secretary bird, ground hornbill, tributed significantly to this variation (r = 0.266, df = 5, martial eagle and kori bustard. All respondents stated that p < 0.001; Table 6). they knew the helmeted guinea fowl. Fewer than 5.5% of the respondents stated that they had seen all selected bird species but did not know the name. Discussion Knowledge of individual bird species Overall, the respondents were highly capable of recognis- Knowledge of birds in relation to gender, age, tribe, ing the eight selected birds species. The guinea fowl was education and distance from the Park the best-known species, whereas the kori bustard and the In all, 56% of the men showed a perfect ability to recog- lilac-breasted roller were the least known. The fact that nise the selected birds, compared with only 24.7% of the more than 50% of the respondents were able to recognise women. Furthermore, 43.8% of the women demonstrated a these birds species might be a result of the distribution poor ability to recognise the selected birds. In contrast, only of these species, which are common and widespread in 15.6% of the men demonstrated a poor ability (Table 2). a variety of habitats including open grassland, wooded Thus, the gender difference in the ability to recognise the grassland, woodlands and forests (Stevenson & Fanshawe selected bird species was highly statistically significant 2002). Because these habitats are near the villages sur- = 32.4, df = 2, p < 0.001; Table 2). (χ veyed, these birds are easily observed and thus are familiar The respondents who were perfect or good in their to the respondents. The helmeted guinea fowl was the ability to recognise the selected birds were significantly best-known species (96.4%) by all respondents, poten- older than those who showed only poor ability (ANOVA; tially because these birds are common in cultivated areas, F = 7.118, df = 2, p < 0.001; Table 3). where they feed on cereals during the harvesting season Table 1. Percentage of respondents who recognised the species in question, those who did not, or those who had only seen the species (total number of respondents: n = 330). Respondents who Respondents who did not Respondents who had Species (scientific name) recognised the birds (%) recognise the birds (%) only seen the birds (%) Helmeted guineafowl (Numida meleagris) 96.4 0 3.6 Marabou stork (Leptoptilos crumeniferus) 81.2 13.3 5.5 Ostrich (Struthio camelus) 80.9 14.5 4.5 Secretary bird (Sagittarius serpentarius) 76.7 18.2 5.2 Southern ground hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) 73.0 22.1 4.8 Martial eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus) 70.3 25.5 4.2 Kori bustard (Ardeo tiskori) 56.7 39.7 3.6 Lilac-breasted roller (Coracias caudata) 47.9 46.7 5.5 118 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft Table 2. General ability to recognise all eight species of birds in relation to gender. Perfect ability (7 or Good ability Poor ability Total no. of Gender 8 birds known), (%) (4–6 birds known), (%) (1–3 birds known), (%) respondents Men 56.0 28.4 15.6 257 Women 24.7 31.5 43.8 73 Table 3. Mean age of respondents with different levels of Knowledge of birds in relation to gender, age, education, recognising the eight selected birds in the Serengeti ecosystem. tribe and distance from the National Park The gender-related difference in respondents’ ability to General ability to recognise all birds Total no. of recognise birds was highly significant. This finding sup- based on age Mean age SD respondents ported our hypothesis that the men would be more knowl- edgeable than the women in identifying the selected bird Perfect ability 41.2 14.6 162 species. Good ability 40.6 16.5 96 Poor ability 33.5 13.4 72 This result was consistent with finding from Huxham Total 39.4 15.2 330 et al. (2006) who found that young men had significantly greater wildlife knowledge than young women. The differ- ent roles that exist between men and women, particularly among the Maasai, likely contributed to ability of men to and farmers can see them frequently. The proximity of the recognise birds as was also suggested by Røskaft et al. study villages to Serengeti National Park might also be (2003, 2004). In the western Serengeti, wildlife hunting the reason that guinea fowl are well known. It is prob- has been an integral part of life for centuries (Magige et al. able that human knowledge towards recognising animals 2009; Holmern 2010). Men’s illegal access to the Serengeti is influenced by direct and indirect selection pressures National Park for hunting (Bitanyi et al. 2012) where these (Herzog & Burghardt 1988). Direct pressures result from birds exist potentially allow them to see and identify birds human evolutionary coexistence with animals, whereas more readily than women, who are not hunters. Several indirect pressures are anthropomorphic generalisations of researchers have identified significant gender differences responses that originally evolved towards other people in animals’ identification (Kideghesho et al. 2007; Røskaft (Herzog & Burghardt 1988). et al. 2007; Sarker & Røskaft 2010). The ability to recog- The previous assumption that the lilac-breasted roller nise animals has further been tested by Setalaphruk and was not well known to the people proved to be incorrect. Price (2007) who found that young men were able to list Roughly 50% of all respondents knew this species. This 81 animals compared to young women who listed only familiarity might be due to the bird’s habit of occupying 45 animals. The study suggested further that young men communal or cultivated lands, especially during the season were able to provide more animal names because they spent when the farmers burn the land to prepare for cultivation by more time wandering around the village and playing out- setting fires. During this season, many insects take flight to side compared to young women. It is likely that the most escape the fires and become an available food source for the significant difference in men and women’s ability to recog- lilac-breasted roller. The martial eagle was also well known nise birds may stem from their different roles in outdoor (70.3%). This species plays an important role in the ecosys- activities (Røskaft et al. 2004). tem as an efficient scavenger and has been associated with It is likely that older respondents were able to identify migratory wild animals during the dry season. It travels to and name the selected birds more accurately because they the communal land to seek wild and domestic animals car- resided in the area for a longer period of time (Papworth casses for food. This type of scavenging behaviour might et al. 2009). Various tribes in the Serengeti ecosystem use make the bird better known among residents. Table 4. General knowledge of the eight selected birds according to tribe and education level. Tribe Perfect ability (%) Good ability (%) Poor ability (%) Total no. of respondents Maasai 80.4 7.5 12.1 107 Ikoma 56.8 35.8 7.4 95 Sonjo 55.6 11.1 33.3 9 Other tribes 20.0 33.3 46.7 15 Kurya 13.5 46.2 40.4 104 Education No education 54.9 18.3 26.8 71 Primary school 48.5 31.2 20.3 202 Secondary school and higher 43.9 35.1 21.1 57 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 119 Table 5. General ability to recognise the birds in relation to and water. Such a lifestyle might improve their opportu- village distance from the Park boundary. nities to see and become familiar with a number of bird species. The behaviour of various bird species is frequently General ability to used by Maasai elders to predict the weather. For example, recognise birds Distance (km) SD (N) if ground hornbills make an unusual ‘hoohoohoo’ sound Perfect 22.6 9.9 (162) and ostriches make roaring sounds, the beginning of the Good 15.7 9.2 (96) rainy season is thought to be near. If guinea fowl stop Poor 16.4 9.1 (72) moving after a signal from their leader and make a spe- cial sound, the rainy season is about to begin (Indigenous Knowledge 2005). The use of bird signs as an indicator of the weather might increase Maasai people’s ability to birds as a vital part of their diet (Magige et al. 2009), which recognise different bird species. might contribute to older people’s knowledge and ability In Tanzania, bush meat (meat obtained by killing wild to recognise birds because of their extensive hunting expe- animals) is an important source of protein and cash income rience (Huxham et al. 2006). It has been explained that (Barnett 2000). The Ikoma tribe is traditionally a hunting local knowledge results from experience (Papworth et al. tribe, collecting eggs from game birds (Magige et al. 2009). 2009) and is orally transmitted, cumulative and builds on This tradition might explain this tribe’s relatively strong the experiences of past and present generations through ability to identify the selected birds. The Sonjo tribe also mentoring, storytelling and cooperative work (MacGregor had an almost perfect ability to recognise birds; however, 2000). However, some studies have also found that younger this does not give a clear picture of their ability to recog- people, including school pupils, had a better ability to nise birds compared to other tribes because of the small recognise birds than older pupils (Beck et al. 2001; Prokop number of respondents. The men of the Sonjo tribe are et al. 2008). Bogner (1999) examined the effects of con- hunters, wild honey gatherers and agro-pastoralists which servation programmes on 10- to 16-year-old students’ might explain their ability to recognise birds (Potkanski & attitudes about and knowledge of the common swift (Apus Adams 1998). In contrast, respondents belonging to the apus) and found that specific knowledge about the com- Kurya tribe had the poorest ability to recognise the birds mon swift increased only in younger students. A similar which is likely due to the fact that many Kurya people are study of bird identification skills with visual stimuli (bird exclusively farmers. pictures) conducted with elementary students (mean age Respondents who lived in the villages furthest from the 12.3 years) and university students (mean age 21.2 years) Park were better at recognising the selected bird species found that the ability to identify birds did not differ sig- than those who lived closer distances to the park. However, nificantly between the two groups (Prokop & Rodak 2009; the effect of distance was not present in the multivariate Randler 2009). Surprisingly, we found that the ability to analysis. This might be due to the nomadic and pastoral- recognise birds accurately was not positively related to edu- ist nature of the Maasai living up to 70 km from the park cation level. Interestingly, uneducated respondents had a and the farming habit of the Kurya (living very close to perfect ability to identify birds more frequently than edu- the park) which might influence their ability to recognise cated respondents. However, the effect of education was selected bird species. not present in the multivariate analysis because the edu- cational level of the Maasai people was generally lower, People’s knowledge of birds in relation to biodiversity, but they were found to have the highest general ability to ecosystem services and management recognise birds (see next section). The Maasai tribe was the best at recognising the eight Some bird species which are currently in decline are selected bird species. However, the Maasai people are not characterised by naturally fluctuating populations (Willis wildlife hunters and are often viewed as pastoralist and et al. 2007). Current conservation initiatives pay sub- nomadic, i.e. they follow their herds to better grazing lands stantial attention to identify those species that are Table 6. The results of a linear regression analysis with general ability to recognise eight selected birds as the dependent variable (excluding the pooled ‘other tribe’ group). Constant/independent Dependent variable variables t β p-Value General ability to Gender 4.190 0.096 0.001 recognise selected birds Tribe −5.920 −0.454 0.0001 Age in years −2.878 0.003 0.004 Distance to Park 0.946 0.072 0.345 boundary Education 0.321 0.016 0.749 120 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft mostly threatened by extinction (International Union for 1993). These services include birds’ pollination, seed dis- Conservation of Nature 2004), while little consideration persal and controlling of outbreaks of insect pests (Berkes is paid to other more common species. Human-induced et al. 2000). Populations by seed-dispersing birds are also activities continue to change the environment on both of importance for the renewal of surrounding ecosystems local and global levels, leading to dramatic changes in the (Gadgill et al. 1993). biotic structure and composition of ecological communi- The ability to recognise different species of birds by ties (Hooper et al. 2005). Such activities frequently cause local people surrounding Serengeti National Park is impor- declines in biodiversity that affect ecosystem functioning tant because once they know these species it may be and yield (Russell 1989; Daily 1997). Local knowledge easier for them to understand their status and whether they of birds of conservation interest and their importance to need protection. This understanding may lead management the Serengeti ecosystem is important for successful con- authorities to include the species that have been identified servation and might lead to increased conservation efforts as needing protection when developing conservation pro- and reduction in activities that jeopardise these species or grammes. For example, our findings showed that the Kurya at least important prerequisite for successful conservation. tribe was least able to recognise the birds in our study. This idea is supported by research from Wilson and Tisdell Tribes close to protected areas are often wildlife hunters (2005) who showed that poor public knowledge of bird including selected birds for household food (except for species is likely to result in less support for their conser- the Maasai), rituals and ceremonial events (Magige et al. vation compared to more common and better known bird 2009). They are very aware of the bird species occurring species. Inadequate support might jeopardise the survival in their area (in this paper) but may not have knowledge of of species that are harvested for household food (Magige conservation status of the different bird species. The fact et al. 2009). Thus, the ability to recognise birds is a prereq- that some tribes, such as Kurya, possess little knowledge uisite for protecting birds of conservation interest, even if of the selected birds and their conservation status may have this alone is not sufficient or the only important issue. serious impacts on the conservation of these species. There Due to agricultural expansion and habitat fragmen- is, therefore, a need of promoting wider understanding of tation in the study areas adjacent to Serengeti National the importance of birds in relation to biodiversity conser- Park, the population of birds of conservation interest might vation. There is also a need of raising awareness of the decline. These birds appear in these areas during the farm- Kurya tribe about the importance of not killing birds dur- ing season when food is readily available. Some bird ing farming activities as most of these birds feed on planted species are vulnerable because they are crop pests (guinea seeds. fowl), while others hunt for domestic chickens, goats and lambs (Martial eagle). The application of pesticides dur- Conclusions and recommendations ing the farming period might also be dangerous to birds, including populations of many farmland birds (Donald The aim of this study was to investigate villagers’ knowl- et al. 2001). edge of eight selected bird species of conservation interest As interest increase in incorporating traditional knowl- in villages adjacent to the Serengeti ecosystem. The results edge into natural resource management and biodiversity indicated that the majority of people interviewed had good conservation (Gadgill et al. 1993; Horowitz 1998; knowledge of local birds. However, the knowledge of birds Johannes 1998; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998; Nabhan 2000), of conservation interest varied with the respondents’ gen- the management of ecological processes (Alcorn and der, age and tribe. Though all of the selected bird species Toledo 1998), and general sustainable resource use in were common in the areas of the Park near the villages (Schmink et al. 1992; Berkes 1999), special effort must in northern Loliondo and western Serengeti, the public’s be made by management authorities to involve local peo- knowledge of certain species was poor. The most impor- ple’s understanding of various conservation programmes tant criteria associated with the ability to recognise the that play a role in biodiversity conservation in dif- selected bird species were gender (men knew more about ferent localities. Given the results of this study, it the species than women), age (older people could identify is important for biodiversity conservation in Serengeti more species) and tribe (the Maasai were the best at recog- ecosystem, that management authorities involve educa- nising the birds). These results indicate that among the tion agenda/programmes to schools and local people when people living adjacent to the park, experiencing bush life developing conservation programmes. (wild environment) is the most important factor for devel- Local people in the Serengeti ecosystem might pos- oping such ability. Given that there has been increasing sess a broad knowledge base that has been accumulated interest in incorporating traditional knowledge into natural through observations and transmitted from generation to resource management, biodiversity conservation and sus- generation. Huxham et al. (2006) showed that school chil- tainable resource use, community integration must play an dren rely on a culturally mediated source of information for important role in natural resource management and con- knowledge on the existence of wildlife. Thus, local peo- servation, taking into account individuals’ gender, age and ple in the Serengeti ecosystem may see biological diversity education. The results draw attention to the need for public as a crucial factor in generating the ecological services education, especially about species that are of conservation and natural resources on which they depend (Gadgill et al. status and/or are threatened with extinction. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 121 We further recommend that education programmes Daily GC. 1997. Nature’s services: social dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington (DC): Island Press. be introduced among the communities living close to Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF. 2001. Agricultural intensifica- the Serengeti National Park to increase awareness and tion and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. bird identification skills. Our results may help to guide Proc R Soc Lond, B Biol Sci. 268:25–29. the development of education programmes, allowing for Gadgill M, Berkes F, Folke G. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for a design that fits particular groups. The education pro- biodiversity conservation. AMBIO. 22(2–3):151–156. Gichuki FN. 1999. Threats and opportunities for mountain area grammes should include learning to recognise bird species, development in Kenya. AMBIO. 28(5):430–435. the conservation status of the species, threats to the species Herzog H, Burghardt GM. 1988. Attitudes toward animals: ori- and how to mitigate the threats. These programmes should gins and diversity. Anthrozoös. 1:214–222. involve knowledge of biodiversity conservation as an Hofer H, Campbell KLI, East ML, Huish SA. 1996. The impact important long-term survival tool for the wildlife. These of game meat hunting on target and non-target species in the Serengeti. In: Taylor J, Dunstone N, editors. The exploita- programmes should also include bringing wildlife conser- tion of mammal populations. London: Chapman and Hall; p. vation and management into primary and secondary school 117–146. curricula and the creating of wildlife information centres in Holmern T. 2010. Bushmeat hunting in Western Serengeti: impli- villages. cations for community-based conservation. In: Gereta E, Røskaft E, editors. Conservation of natural resources: some African & Asian examples. Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press; p. 211–236. Acknowledgements Holmern T, Johannesen AB, Mbaruka J, Mkama SY, Muya We express our sincere thanks to the Government of Norway for J, Røskaft E. 2004. Human–wildlife conflicts and hunt- their financial support, without which this study would not have ing in the western Serengeti, Tanzania. NINA Project been possible. We are very grateful to Dr. Robert Fyumagwa, Report Trondheim. Norway: Norwegian Institute of Nature Director of the Serengeti Wildlife Research Centre, for logistic Research. 26th issue; p. 26. support and to Mr. Noel Massawe for field assistance during the Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchaust P, Lavorel questionnaire survey. Thanks are also due to the Director General S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, et al. 2005. of TAWIRI, Dr. Simon Mduma, for granting permission to con- Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus duct such a unique type of study. Finally, we want to acknowledge of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. 75(1):3–35. two anonymous reviewers whose comments improved this paper. Horowitz LS. 1998. Integrating indigenous resource manage- ment with wildlife conservation: a case study of Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Human Ecol. 26:371–404. Huntington HP. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowl- References edge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl. Alcorn JB, Toledo VM. 1998. Resilient resource management 10(5):1270–1274. in Mexico’s forest ecosystems: the contribution of property Huxham M, Welsh A, Berry A, Templeton S. 2006. Factors rights. In: Berkes F, Folke C, editors. Linking social and influencing primary school children’s knowledge of wildlife. ecological systems: management practices and social mech- J Biol Educ. 41(1):9–12. anisms for building resilience. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge Indigenous knowledge in disaster management in Africa. University Press; p. 216–249. 2005. United Nations Environment Programme, Indigenous Barnett R. 2000. Food for thought: the utilization of wild meat Knowledge in Africa, UNEP. Nairobi: UNEP; p. 117. in eastern and southern Africa. Trade Review. Nairobi: International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2004. IUCN red TRAFFIC/WWF/IUCN; p. 264. list of threatened species [Internet]. [cited 2011 Nov 10]. Beck AM, Melson GF, da Costa PL, Liu T. 2001. The educational Available from: www.redlist.org benefits of a ten-week home-based wild bird feeding program Johannes RE. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource for children. Anthrozoös. 14:19–28. management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Berkes F. 1999. Sacred ecology. Traditional ecological knowledge Trends Ecol Evol. 13:243–246. and resource management. Philadelphia (PA) and London: Kaltenborn BP, Nyahongo JW, Mayengo M. 2003. People Taylor and Francis. and wildlife interactions around Serengeti National Park, Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional Tanzania. Biodiversity and the human–wildlife interface in ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl. Serengeti, Tanzania. Trondheim: NINA;p. 31. 10(5):1251–1262. Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E, Kaltenborn BP. 2007. Factors influ- Bibby CJ. 1999. Making the most of birds as environmental encing conservation attitudes of local people in Western indicators. Ostrich. 70:81–88. Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodiv Conserv. 16(7):2213–2230. Bitanyi S, Nesje M, Kusiluka LJM, Chenyambuga SW, Levey DJ, Silva WR, Galetti M, editors. 2002. Seed dispersal and Kaltenborn BP. 2012. Awareness and perceptions of local frugivory: ecology, evolution and conservation. Rio Quente: people about wildlife hunting in western Serengeti commu- CABI Publications. nities. Trop Conserv Sci. 5(2):208–224. Lundberg J, Moberg F. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosys- Bogner FX. 1999. Empirical evaluation of an educational conser- tem functioning: implications for ecosystem resilience and vation programme introduced in Swiss secondary schools. Int management. Ecosystems. 6(1):87–98. J Sci Educ. 21:1169–1185. MacGregor D. 2000. The state of traditional ecological knowl- Clevo W, Clem T. 2004. What role does knowledge of wildlife edge research in Canada: a critique of current theory and play in providing support for species’ conservation? Working practice. In: Laliberte R, Settee P, Waldram J, Innes R, Papers in Economics, Ecology and the Environment. The Macdougall B, McBain L, Barron F, editors. Expressions University of Queensland School of Economics, St Lucia, in Canadian native studies. Saskatoon: University of QLD; p. 10. Saskatchewan Extension Press; p. 436–458. Croll DA, Maron JL, Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd GV. 2005. Magige FJ, Holmern T, Stokke S, Mlingwa C, Røskaft E. 2009. Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grass- Does illegal hunting affect density and behaviour of African land to tundra. Science. 307(5717):1959–1961. 122 E.C. Mmassy and E. Røskaft grassland birds? A case study on ostrich (Struthio camelus). Røskaft E, Händel B, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP. 2007. Human Biodiv Conserv. 18(5):1361–1373. attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildl Biol. Mols CMM, Visser ME. 2002. Great tits can reduce caterpillar 13(2):172–185. damage in apple orchards. J Appl Ecol. 39(6):888–899. Sarker AHMR, Røskaft E. 2010. Human attitudes towards conser- Nabhan GP. 2000. Interspecific relationship affecting endangered vation of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Bangladesh. species recognized by O’odham and Comcáac cultures. Ecol Int J Biod Conserv. 2(10):316–327. Appl. 10:1288–1295. Sarker AHMR, Røskaft E. 2011. Human attitudes towards Papworth SK, Rist J, Coad L, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2009. Evidence the conservation of protected areas: a case study from for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conserv Lett. four protected areas in Bangladesh. Oryx. 45(3):391–400. 2(2):93–100. doi:310.1017/S0030605310001067. Potkanski R, Adams WM. 1998. Water scarcity, property regimes Schmink M, Redford KH, Padoch C. 1992. Traditional peoples and irrigation management in Sonjo, Tanzania. J Develop and the biosphere: framing the issues and defining the terms. Stud. 34(4):86–116. In: Redford KH, Padoch C, editors. Conservation of neotrop- Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A. 1996. The natural history of pollina- ical forests: working from traditional resource use. New York tion. Portland (OR): Timber Press. (NY): Columbia University Press; p. 3–13. Prokop P, Prokop M, Tunnicliffe SD. 2008. Effects of keeping Setalaphruk C, Price LL. 2007. Children’s traditional ecological animals as pets on children’s concepts of vertebrates and knowledge of wild food resources: a case study in a rural invertebrates. Int J Sci Educ. 30(4):431–449. village in Northeast Thailand. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 33(3). Prokop P, Rodak R. 2009. Ability of Slovakian students doi:10.1186/1746-4269-1183-1133. to identify birds. Euras J Math Sci Tech Educ. 5(2): Stevenson T, Fanshawe J. 2002. Field guide to the birds of East 127–133. Africa. London: T & A Poyser Ltd. Ramakrishnan PS, Saxena KG, Chandrashekara UM, editors. Stiles FG. 1985. On the role of birds in the dynamics of 1998. Conserving the sacred for biodiversity management. neotropical forests. In: Diamond AW, Lovejoy TE, editors. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Conservation of tropical forest birds. London: International Randler C. 2009. Learning about bird species on the primary Council for Bird Preservation; p. 49–59. level. J Sci Educ Technol. 18(2):138–145. United Republic of Tanzania. 2003. Population and housing cen- Russell EP. 1989. Enemies hypothesis: a review of the effect of suses. Bureau of Statistics PsOPC. Dar es Salaam: United vegetational diversity on predatory insects and parasitoids. Republic of Tanzania, Government Printer. Environ Entomol. 18:590–599. Willis KJ, Araújo MB, Bennett KD, Figueroa-Rangel B, Froyd Røskaft E, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP, Linnell JDC, Andersen CA, Myers N. 2007. How can a knowledge of the past help to R. 2003. Patterns of self-reported fear towards large car- conserve the future? Biodiversity conservation and the rele- nivores among the Norwegian public. Evol Hum Behav. vance of long-term ecological studies. Philos Trans Roy Soc 24(3):184–198. B. 362:175–186. Røskaft E, Hagen ML, Hagen TL, Moksnes A. 2004. Patterns Wilson C, Tisdell C. 2005. Knowledge of birds and willingness of outdoor recreation activities among Norwegians: an evolu- to support their conservation: an Australian case study. Bird tionary approach. Ann Zool Fennici. 41(5):609–618. Conserv Int. 15(3):225–235.

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jun 1, 2013

Keywords: bird knowledge; northern Tanzania; conservation interest; age; gender; tribe; education

There are no references for this article.