Abstract

Interactions between humans and red-billed Queleas (Quelea quelea) in Kondoa District, central Tanzania, have shaped the attitudes of the local inhabitants toward these birds. These birds are considered as serious pest because they consume small grain cereal crops. The red-billed Queleas are caught and consumed as food by local communities. Harvested birds are also sold at bus stops to passengers, as well as to local villagers, as a source of household income. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of differential costs and benefits of the red-billed Quelea, as well as the socio-economic factors (education level, gender, age and economic activity) that might shape the attitudes of the local inhabitants of Kondoa. To explore their attitudes, a questionnaire survey was randomly conducted among 360 households in six villages from June to August 2012. Most of the inhabitants who incurred costs of crop damage exhibited negative attitudes toward the red-billed Quelea, despite the benefits obtained from them. In contrast, those who benefitted from harvested Quelea birds exhibited positive attitudes towards the red-billed Quelea. The most important socio-economic factors influencing both positive and negative attitudes were education and gender. In contrast, economic activity only influenced negative attitudes. To change negative attitudes towards the birds; practical, economical and applicable solutions for the Quelea pest problem are needed while considering the future conservation of the species in the area. Key words: Attitudes, costs, benefits, red-billed Quelea, socio-economic factors, local inhabitants, Kondoa-Tanzania.

Highlights

  • The interactions between humans and wildlife have led to both positive and negative attitudes toward conservational objectives

  • The positive attitudes are predominantly associated with wildlife-derived benefits, whereas the negative attitudes are created by wildlife-related costs, including the opportunity costs of conservation (Gereta and Røskaft, 2010; Røskaft, 2012; Røskaft et al, 2007)

  • Among the respondents who claimed that the Quelea populations were increasing (N = 247), 40.6% claimed that it was due to their fecundity, 31.9% claimed that it was due to increased food availability in recent years as a result of increased human population and expansion of cereal crops cultivation and 27.5% claimed that it was due to both breeding efficiency and food availability

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The interactions between humans and wildlife have led to both positive and negative attitudes toward conservational objectives. A number of species are regarded as problem animals because of their conflicts with humans in terms of crop damage, livestock depredation and human attacks (Ikanda, 2010; Løe and Røskaft, 2004; Packer et al, 2005) Such conflicts significantly affect the survival of both humans, as well as wildlife, either directly or indirectly through retaliatory killings of animals and habitat loss (Ikanda and Packer, 2008; Løe and Røskaft, 2004). It creates negative attitudes for people, when wildlife-related costs are increased compared to wildlife-related benefits and when compensation schemes are lacking (Holmern et al, 2007; Kideghesho et al, 2007; Nyahongo, 2010)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call