ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Trade-Offs of Conservation Fencing in Western Serengeti: Enhancing Agricultural Security While Navigating Unintended Consequences on Land-Use Dynamics.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protected areas (PA) in African savannas support biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are increasingly surrounded by hard land-use transitions as surrounding human populations grow. Fencing PAs is a potential, yet contested, response to mitigate growing human-wildlife conflicts at their edges. We test the consequences of such conservation fencing for communities neighboring PAs in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania, in a multi-year before-and-after study of an adjacent fenced (Ikorongo Game Reserve) and unfenced (Serengeti National Park) area, using remote sensing, ground transects, and community interviews. We found that conservation fencing contributed to changes in cropland or livestock grazing coverage. In addition, conservation fencing did not have a clear impact on the spatial zonation of specific crop types. Positive perceptions expressed by community members towards the conservation fence were: (i) more success with crop farming due to less time needed for guarding crops against nocturnal elephant damage, (ii) youth shifting their focus from (risky) poaching to crop farming and small business. Negative perceptions included: (i) more land use conflict because grazing lands close to the fence became cropland, where few livestock keeping households with large herds moved to the unfenced site, (ii) restricted access to resources (livestock grazing, thatch grass, water) within the reserve, despite the illegality of their use. We conclude that conservation fencing can strongly benefit farmers near PAs while protecting wildlife, particularly along hard boundaries, but also risks leakage effects (unwanted spillover into nearby areas). Implementing conservation fencing, therefore, requires careful consideration of the larger socio-ecological landscape, for instance, by accounting for current land uses and changes in the spatial availability of resources resulting from fencing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.