ArticleEnvironmental management2017
Micro-Credit and Community Wildlife Management: Complementary Strategies to Improve Conservation Outcomes in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.
Article in Environmental management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conservation benefit-sharing mechanisms and their effectiveness in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem: local communities' perspectives.Biodiversity and conservation · 2023Article
- Factors influencing lion movements and habitat use in the western Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community wildlife management programs in African protected areas aim to deliver livelihood and social benefits to local communities in order to bolster support for their conservation objectives. Most of these benefits are delivered at the community level. However, many local people are also seeking more individual or household-level livelihood benefits from community wildlife management programs because it is at this level that many of the costs of protected area conservation are borne. Because community wildlife management delivers few benefits at this level, support for their conservation objectives amongst local people often declines. The study investigated the implications of this for reducing poaching in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Three community wildlife management initiatives undertaken by Park management were compared with regard to their capacity to deliver the individual and household-level benefits sought by local people: community conservation services, wildlife management areas and community conservation banks. Interviews were carried out with poachers and local people from four villages in the Western Serengeti including members of village conservation banks, as well as a number of key informants. The results suggest that community conservation banks could, as a complementary strategy to existing community wildlife management programs, potentially provide a more effective means of reducing poaching in African protected areas than community wildlife management programs alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28382488What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.