Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0694-2
Mobile Phone Use and Human–Wildlife Conflict in Northern
Tanzania
Ashley L. Lewis1 • Timothy D. Baird2 • Michael G. Sorice3
Received: 7 December 2015 / Accepted: 18 March 2016 / Published online: 26 March 2016
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Throughout the developing world, mobile
phones are spreading rapidly into rural areas where sub-
sistence livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and
human–wildlife conflict (HWC) are each common. Despite
this trend, little is known about the relationship between
mobile phones and HWC in conservation landscapes. This
paper examines this relationship within ethnically Maasai
communities in northern Tanzania on the border of Tar-
angire National Park. Mixed qualitative and quantitative
methods of data collection and analysis are used to (1)
describe how Maasai agro-pastoralists use phones to
manage human–wildlife interactions; and (2) assess the
relationship between phone use and measures of HWC,
controlling for other factors. The findings indicate that
households use phones to reduce the number and severity
of HWC events and that the relationship between phones
and HWC varies according to the type of HWC.
Keywords Human–wildlife conflict
Mobile phones

Conservation
Maasai
Tanzania
& Timothy D. Baird
tbaird@vt.edu
Ashley L. Lewis
alewis19@vt.edu
Michael G. Sorice
msorice@vt.edu
1
Department of Geography, Virginia Tech, 115 Major
Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
2 effect of increased communication and coordination on
Department of Geography, Virginia Tech, 127 Major
Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
3 2004; Hoekstra 2014).
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental
Conservation, Virginia Tech, 310 West Campus Drive,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Introduction
Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is an important threat to
biodiversity conservation and economic development
around the world, but especially so in rural areas
throughout many developing countries (Dickman 2010;
Woodroffe et al. 2005; Salerno et al. 2015; Browne-Nuñez
and Jonker 2008). As human populations and modern
development expand into biologically diverse areas and
compete with wildlife for resources, environmental
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation can follow
(Lamarque et al. 2009). In addition, wildlife can undermine
human livelihoods and threaten human lives (Packer et al.
2005). As various pressures mount on the borders of parks
and protected areas around the world (Barrett et al. 2011),
new strategies are needed to manage the interactions
between humans and wildlife.
Alongside these growing trends in human expansion and
pressure on conservation areas comes an increase in access
to mobile phones and other information and communica-
tion technologies (ICTs). Bolstered by the United Nations
target for widespread information and communications
development through the Millennium Development Goals
initiative (United Nations 2013), there are now approxi-
mately 5.4 billion mobile phone subscriptions in develop-
ing countries (ITU 2014). Rapid expansion of mobile
phones into rural areas important for conservation and
characterized by HWC raises a number of questions. As
phones lower barriers to communication and information
exchange across a range of actors, questions regarding the
HWC have yet to be widely examined (Banks and Burge
In this paper, we view information barriers as important
factors contributing to HWC and mobile phones as tools to
123
118
reduce information barriers. Furthermore, we see this
approach as an extension of a rural livelihoods perspective
wherein livelihoods are viewed in terms of their access to,
or possession of, various types of capital for particular
means of living (Ellis 2000). From this perspective,
households access and mobilize various resources (e.g.,
land, water, money, education, social networks, technol-
ogy, etc.) to promote wellbeing and reduce risk and
uncertainty. In rural areas, a major source of risk and
uncertainty can be HWC. Broadly, HWC includes events
where: (1) wildlife activities result in human losses (i.e.,
damage to property, human injury or death); and (2) human
activities result in wildlife losses (to life or habitat). And
while ICTs may affect both types of activities, our study
focuses on the former situation.
Well before the widespread diffusion of mobile phones,
Madden (2004) identified communication and information
exchange as key, but under-addressed, factors in HWC
mitigation. Nonetheless, studies of HWC and human loss
have generally focused on coping and mitigation strategies
including fencing, guarding, retaliation (i.e., poisoning,
hunting), and other techniques to avoid encounters with
wildlife (Treves 2007; Kaswamila et al. 2007).
An undercurrent within this field of scholarship is the
broad uncertainty that characterizes human interactions
with wildlife. In other words, humans operate within a
context where: (1) they have extensive local spatial
knowledge (Debolini et al. 2013), but limited information
about the locations, movements and behaviors of various
species at various times; and (2) barriers exist between
individuals with information (e.g., regarding wildlife) and
those who would benefit from it (e.g., herders, farm-own-
ers, travelers, etc.) or could provide assistance. In some
cases, the difference between moderate and catastrophic
losses can be a matter of minutes (as with crop raiding or
livestock predation) and efficient communication between
parties is critical. However, research on information,
communication, and HWC has tended to focus on com-
munication between land-users and authorities (Graham
et al. 2012; Madden 2004). We are aware of no studies that
have examined how subsistence land-users use mobile
phones to communicate with each other to manage HWC.
To address this opportunity, we examined the relation-
ship between mobile phone use and HWC in northern
Tanzania within four Maasai communities on the eastern
border of Tarangire National Park (TNP) where HWC is
longstanding and mobile phones have become widely
adopted in recent years.
Given the scarcity of research on phones and HWC, we
focused on two broad, exploratory questions: (RQ1) How
do people use mobile phones to manage human–wildlife
interactions? and (RQ2) Is there an association between
mobile phone use and HWC, controlling for other factors?
123
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
Literature Review
This study relates most directly to research in two broad
fields, both in the context of the developing world: HWC
and ICTs. Here, we discuss these bodies of scholarship,
especially in the context of East Africa, where much
research on HWC has occurred.
HWC in the Developing World
While HWC is found in many contexts, a great number of
studies have focused on rural areas of the developing world
(Fascione et al. 2004; Madden 2004; Verdade et al. 2014).
Despite many types of HWC a key generalization is evi-
dent: where wildlife come into direct conflict with human
health and livelihoods, especially subsistence livelihoods,
significant challenges can arise for biodiversity conserva-
tion (Verdade et al. 2014; Manfredo and Dayer 2004;
Woodroffe et al. 2005). Towards a better understanding of
the relationships between livelihoods and conservation,
research on HWC has worked to define HWC and examine
both its causes and effects (Woodroffe et al. 2005; Man-
fredo and Dayer 2004).
Dickman (2010) has defined HWC as: (1) direct damage
caused by wildlife; and (2) conflict arising from pre-ex-
isting human social values. We address the issue of direct
damage here. Broadly, direct damage from wildlife can
include crop and livestock predation, disease transmission,
vehicle collisions, and human injury and death (Holmern
et al. 2007; Dickman 2010; Lamarque et al. 2009; Woo-
droffe et al. 2005). In East Africa, where subsistence
agriculture, pastoralism and agro-pastoralism are common,
research has focused primarily on crop and livestock pre-
dation, and attacks by wildlife on humans (Lamarque et al.
2009; Treves et al. 2006).
And while changes in livelihoods and land uses have
contributed to HWC throughout East Africa (Okello 2005;
Ottichilo et al. 2001), the primary driver of direct damage
HWC is the proximity of people and wildlife. Studies in
East Africa and throughout the world have found that
communities bordering protected areas, forest edges, and
other wildlife habitat areas are more likely to experience
HWC than communities further afield (Mwakatobe et al.
2014; Linkie et al. 2007; Soto-Shoender and Giuliano
2011).
In Tanzania, regular attacks from species ranging from
bushpigs (Potamochoerus larvatus) and zebra (Equus
burchellii) to elephants (Loxodonta africana) and lions
(Panthera leo) lead to significant losses for communities
and households (Kaswamila et al. 2007; Naughton-Treves
1998; Lynn 2010; Gillingham and Lee 2003). Estimates of
losses to agriculturalists due to crop predation range from
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
as little of 1.3 % of household income (Kaswamila et al.
2007) to as much as 20 % (Mwakatobe et al. 2014; Mc
Guinness and Taylor 2014). Similarly, studies of pastoralist
groups in East Africa have found that carnivores depredate
between 1 and 4.5 % of livestock annually (Holmern et al.
2007; Kolowski and Holekamp 2006; Patterson et al. 2004;
Kissui 2008; Røskaft et al. 2013) with significant losses to
household income (Holmern et al. 2007). Furthermore,
attacks on humans resulting in injury or death further
reduce households’ abilities to conduct their livelihoods
(Packer et al. 2005).
Responses to HWC
To respond to HWC, humans generally pursue strategies to
either mitigate their exposure to attacks or retaliate. In
Africa, where crop-raiding is the most common type of
HWC, common mitigation strategies include building
fences, erecting makeshift scarecrows and posting guards
around cultivated fields (Lamarque et al. 2009; Sitati et al.
2005). Similarly, pastoralists use dogs, fences, and repel-
lents around their homesteads to deter carnivores and keep
livestock safe (Goldman et al. 2010; Kissui 2008; Holmern
et al. 2007). For cases where mitigation efforts fail and
livestock or humans are attacked, retaliatory killings may
be common (Dickman 2010).
Understandably, conservation organizations have
worked within rural communities to promote mitigation
and reimbursement strategies over retaliation. Studies of
the efficacy of these efforts, which have included com-
pensation for losses, and programs to improve livestock
husbandry and farm management, have found mixed
results (Wunder 2007; Packer et al. 2013; Treves et al.
2006). Programs to compensate households for livestock
losses to predators and reduce retaliatory killings have
developed various monitoring and reporting strategies
(Treves et al. 2006; Nyhus et al. 2005). Other initiatives
have focused on cultural norms to reduce activities like lion
killings (Hazzah 2006). Despite some progress, many
opportunities remain for new strategies to reduce HWC
(Dickman 2010).
ICTs in the Developing World
A new strategy to reduce HWC may be found in the dra-
matic rise in access to ICTs, especially mobile phones,
across the developing world. In Africa, phone subscriptions
doubled between 2009 and 2014 to an estimated 629 mil-
lion (ITU 2014). This growth has been attributed to the
growing awareness of how mobile technology can meet the
needs of low-income users (Mtenziet al. 2008), especially
services such voicemail, short messaging service (SMS)
and wireless application services like mobile banking and
119
internet access. These applications have supported liveli-
hoods in Africa in a number of ways (Martin and Abbott
2011). Pastoralists use phones to share information about
the location of forage and water, livestock health and
nearby predators (Butt 2014; Souter et al. 2005). Fisherman
use mobile phones to identify the best markets for each
day’s catch (Myhr and Nordstrøm 2006; Salia et al. 2011).
And farmers use phones throughout the year to manage
labor, gather information about seeds and pesticides,
maintain social networks and sell their crops (Martin and
Abbott 2011; Furuholt and Matotay 2011; Souter et al.
2005; Sife et al. 2010).
Given the role that phones are playing in shaping social
and economic concerns, scholars have noted that greater
attention must be paid to the role that phones play shaping
ecological issues (Feldmann and Zerdick 2005), especially
human–environmental interactions and conservation (Arts
et al. 2015; Maffey et al. 2015). One example of how phones
may be supporting conservation can be found in Kenya where
Graham et al. (2012) have found that they have reduced
human–elephant conflict by facilitating better communication
between communities and authorities, earlier warnings, and
more effective coordination to respond to specific events.
Still, much more research is needed to understand the
implications of mobile technologies for HWC, especially in
cases when the primary forms of environmental communi-
cation are within communities and existing social networks.
This paper targets both of these concerns.
Study Area
Tanzania’s Simanjiro District is well suited to study the
relationships between mobile phone use and HWC. Loca-
ted adjacent to Tarangire National Park (TNP) in northern
Tanzania, Maasai, agro-pastoralist communities in this area
regularly face multiple types of HWC (Kissui 2008; Lynn
2010) and have been steadily adopting mobile phones over
the past several years (Baird 2012).
The semi-arid Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem, which
contains TNP and Simanjiro District (Fig. 1), is one of the
most diverse grasslands on the planet (Olson and Diner-
stein 1998). It supports the second largest migration of
zebra and blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) in East
Africa (Msoffe et al. 2010) and the largest population of
elephants (Loxodanta africana) in northern Tanzania. The
region is also host to important populations of carnivores
including lions, leopards (Panthera pardus), spotted hyena
(Crocuta crocuta) and wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). Migra-
tory species, which congregate within TNP during the dry
seasons, disperse widely outside the park and into local
communities during wet season months (Kahurananga and
Silkiluwasha 1997; Msoffe et al. 2010). In addition, resi-
dent populations of carnivores and herbivores across the
123
120
Fig. 1 Map of the study areas
in Simanjiro district, Northern
Tanzania
entire ecosystem make HWC a year-round issue for local
communities.
Prior to the creation of TNP in 1970, the areas that are
now the park and Simanjiro District were portions of the
territory of the Kisongo Maasai (Igoe and Brockington
1999). The District now comprises predominantly Maasai
communities (Mackenzie et al. 2014), which have steadily
incorporated agriculture into their traditionally pastoralist
livelihoods over the last few decades. While scholars have
variously framed this trend towards agriculture as a
response to new social and cultural expectations (Home-
wood et al. 2009; Baird 2015), a response to the disruptive
forces of conservation or simply a strategy to support
pastoralism (McCabe et al. 2010; Baird and Leslie 2013),
pastoralists’ increasing diversification into agriculture cre-
ates new tensions with wildlife (Okello 2005).
As in much of sub-Saharan Africa, Tanzania lacks
various types of accessible and reliable infrastructure
(Souter et al. 2005). In Simanjiro, where basic access to
schools, health clinics, and clean water is limited (Baird
2014), communities do not have access to the national
power grid or fixed line telephone system. However, since
2005, communities in this area have steadily gained access
to mobile phone networks (Sachedina and Trench 2009).
Notably, between 2010 and 2014, phone ownership in the
study area increased by 67 % (unpublished data). Despite
this growth, little is known about how Maasai communities
123
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
use mobile phones. Recently, Butt (2014) has described
how Maasai in Kenya use phones to support herding
activities, but we are aware of no other examples. Many
opportunities remain to examine how Maasai, and other
groups, have embraced mobile technologies, and what the
implications of this may be for HWC and for biological
conservation more broadly.
Methods
Multiple methods of data collection and analysis were used
to address each research question. Data were collected in
2014 by a team of researchers led by the first two authors.
Data Collection
To control for the effect of proximity to wildlife, which
varies in Simanjiro, data were collected in four com-
munities within three strata of proximity to TNP: one
community adjacent to TNP, two near TNP but not
adjacent, and one far from TNP (see Fig. 1). We con-
ducted semi-structured group interviews and a quanti-
tative survey in each community. Informed consent was
obtained from all individual participants included in the
study.
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
Qualitative: Group Interviews
To identify the mechanisms by which Maasai use mobile
phones to manage human–wildlife interactions (RQ1), we
conducted qualitative, semi-structured group interviews
(N = 12) with community leaders and members in the
study area. Male community members (including house-
hold heads and older herders) and leaders were selected to
participate based on their knowledge of, and willingness to
discuss, mobile phones. This interview method allowed for
open discussion about individual mobile phone use (in-
cluding spatial variation in signal coverage), livelihoods,
and HWC. Discussion of wildlife included issues related to
problem species, recent attacks and responses, sightings or
evidence of dangerous wildlife nearby, and communication
regarding wildlife (incl. face-to-face and phone based). All
group interviews were conducted in mixed Maa and Swa-
hili with the help of 1 or 2 Maasai translators.
Quantitative: Survey
To examine the association between mobile phone use and
HWC (RQ2), we conducted a structured survey of house-
hold heads (N = 144) in each study community. While
many types of people use phones and experience HWC
(e.g., herders, women, farm workers, school children),
household heads serve as the most appropriate survey
respondents for this study as they are the main hubs for all
economic activity, information exchange and conflict res-
olution within the household. Data collected included
measures of HWC events, mobile phone use, and basic
household demographic and economic variables. To cap-
ture information on the incidence of HWC and the use of
phone to share information about wildlife, we asked each
respondent to identify the three most dangerous wildlife
species he perceived for each of three different categories
of HWC: attacks on farms, livestock, and humans. Then,
for each species in each category, we asked each respon-
dent to recall how long it had been since the most recent
attack affecting his boma (i.e., homestead). For each of
these events, we asked if the respondent used a phone to
communicate about the event. Then, for each species, we
asked how long it had been since the respondent had seen
evidence of the animal (i.e., sighting, scat, footprints, etc.)
and whether or not they had used a phone to communicate
about it. Lastly, we asked how long it had been since the
respondent had received information that someone else had
encountered evidence of this species and whether or not
they received this information via mobile phone.
Our survey solicited additional phone use measures
including: years of phone ownership, perceptions of local
signal strength, call and SMS volume over the 24 h prior to
the survey, and money spent on phone vouchers over
121
the prior week. Vouchers (or vocha in Swahili), which are
purchased in various denominations, are used to add money
to phone accounts so as to make calls and send SMSs. We
also collected information on covariates including house-
hold demographic (i.e., number, age and sex of others
living in the household) and economic factors (e.g., live-
stock holdings, including breed types, age and sex; land
allocation; land area farmed; crop types farmed; agricul-
tural yields in 2014; off-farm employment by household
members; and remittances to the household).
Without access to a reliable census or village lists on
which to base a strictly random sample, we surveyed
respondents who have been part of an ongoing study of
land-use in the region. This sample, which was estab-
lished in 2005, and has been added to intermittently, is
based on a quota sampling strategy (Bernard 2011) to
draw a representative sample. Local leaders have been
enlisted to help identify: households from different
community sub-villages (in general proportion to the size
of these sub-villages); household heads from each major
age-set; and households representing a spectrum of
wealth statuses (proportional to levels of wealth in the
area). Trained Maasai enumerators conducted this survey
with household heads between August and November
2014.
Data Analyses
Our analyses of the relationship between mobile phone use
and HWC proceeded in two stages. First, we analyzed the
content of our semi-structured group interviews to identify
how respondents are using mobile phones to communicate
about wildlife. Second, we estimated a series of regression
models to identify how phone use is associated with
measures of HWC.
Qualitative: Descriptions of HWC and Phone Use
To examine how humans are using mobile phones in the
study area (RQ1), we analyzed transcripts of the group
interviews using qualitative analytical software (Dedoose).
Codes were developed with attention to: (1) earlier studies
of HWC (i.e., deductive coding); and (2) the specific issues
highlighted in the interviews (i.e., inductive coding). Ear-
lier studies have tended to focus on distinct categories of
HWC (especially wildlife attacks) including attacks on
humans, livestock and crop (i.e., depredation) (Dickman
2010; Lamarque et al. 2009; Woodroffe et al. 2005; Lynn
2010). These distinctions, which we included in our data
collection strategy, were retained for analyses of the
interviews and ultimately structured our coding. Basic
descriptive statistics of survey respondents’ perceptions of
123
122 Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129

dangerous wildlife are displayed below to provide addi-
tional context regarding HWC.
Quantitative: Statistical Modeling
We estimated three logistic regression models to examine
the association between types of mobile phone use and
types of HWC (RQ2). Table 1 provides descriptions and
descriptive statistics for all of the variables included in the
regression analyses. Dependent variables for farm attacks,
livestock attacks, and human attacks were constructed by
first averaging, for each respondent, the number of months
since the most recent attack for all species identified in
each attack category (i.e., farm, livestock, human). This
average was then dichotomized according to the broad
frequency and seasonality for each type of attack. For

Table 1 Description of variables used in regression analyses

Variable Description Full sample Low High Low versus
phone usea phone usea high phone useb

Dependent variables (i.e., measures of attacks)

Attacks on farms (0/1) Respondent identified wildlife attack on farm 0.67 0.61 0.70
within 6 months prior to the survey
Attacks on livestock (0/1) Respondent identified wildlife attack on 0.29 0.35 0.27
livestock within 12 months prior to the
survey
Attacks on humans (0/1) Respondent identified wildlife attack on 0.25 0.29 0.23
human within 24 months prior to the survey
Phone use measures
Vouchers Spending on phone vouchers in 7 days prior 1.72 0.44 2.85 ***
to survey (US$)
SMS Text messages sent or received in the 24 h 4.57 3.29 5.88
prior to the survey
Calls Phone calls made or received in the 24 h 10.61 4.38 15.97 ***
prior to the survey
Evidence (0/1) Used phone (at least once) to relay or receive 0.23 0.20 0.27
information about most recent sighting or
evidence (e.g., tracks) of dangerous wildlife
Household (HH) and household head (HHH) demographic measures
HHH age 24–38 (0/1) Age of HHH; Korianga age-set 0.27 0.16 0.35 *
HHH age 39–53 (0/1) Age of HHH; Landis age-set 0.31 0.24 0.39
HHH is 54 or older (0/1) Age of HHH; Makaa age-set or older 0.42 0.60 0.26 ***
HH size Total number of individuals in household 11.29 11.94 10.8
Household economic measures
TLUc Tropical Livestock Units: a measure of 60.27 53.40 64.83
livestock holdings that accounts for
differences across species
TLUc in cattle (%) Percentage of TLU in form of cattle (vs. 0.60 0.58 0.62
sheep or goats)
Land allocation Size of household’s total land allocation 24.56 26.72 22.45
(acres)
Herfindahl indexd (%) Measure of income concentration, (i.e., 0.69 0.67 0.71
inverse of diversification)
Proximity to TNP Distance from HH’s sub-village centroid to 42.15 43.93 42.08
TNP border (km)
a
Low phone use is less than or equal to US$1.50 on phone vouchers in the 7 days prior to the survey. High phone use is greater than $1.50
b
Cluster-adjusted difference in means between low and high phone use tested using Student’s t tests (continuous) or Chi squared tests
(categorical). * P \ 0.05; ** P \ 0.01; *** P \ 0.00
c
Tropical livestock units (TLUs) are defined here as: 1 adult zebu cow = 0.71; adult sheep/goat = 0.17 (Homewood et al. 2009)
d
The Herfindahl index is calculated as the sum of the squared percentage of income per source of total household income. Sources of income
include: livestock, agriculture, wage labor, business activities, and proceeds from leased land

123
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
example, farm attacks occur during the growing season but
attacks on livestock may occur at any time in the year,
though wildlife distributions vary with the seasons. Attacks
on humans may also occur at any time, but are much less
common. Correspondingly, our dependent variables mea-
sure: farm attacks in the 6 months prior to the survey
(which was conducted following the harvest), livestock
attacks in the prior 12 months (Salerno et al. 2015), and
human attacks in the prior 24 months.
We measured a number of variables related to phone use
and found four that did not exhibit multicollinearity with
each other and provided a good fit to the model: phone
calls made and received in the prior 24 h, SMSs (i.e., texts)
sent and received in the prior 24 h, money spent on phone
vouchers in the prior 7 days, and a dichotomous measure
indicating whether or not the respondent had used a phone
to convey or receive information regarding recent evidence
(e.g., sighting, scat, footprint, etc.) of dangerous wildlife.
These variables, which serve as proxies for phone use,
represent different types and temporal scales of
communication.
The regression models included several independent
variables to isolate the relationship between phone use and
HWC from the relationships of other factors that may
contribute to HWC. Household demographic factors
included a categorical measure of the age-set of the
household head and the total number of members living in
the household. Economic factors included a common
measure of household wealth among pastoralist groups,
Tropical Livestock Units (TLUs), a measure of herd
composition (i.e., percent of TLU in the form of cattle),
total household land allocation, and a measure of income
diversity (i.e., Herfindahl index). These measures, which
are standard covariates for research on Maasai groups, also
represent nuances in how individuals use land-based
resources and are variably exposed to wildlife. Given that
protected areas and wildlife habitat are known risk factors
for HWC (Mwakatobe et al. 2014; Nyhus et al. 2005), we
also included a measure of proximity to TNP. Lastly, each
model is adjusted for clustering at the level of the com-
munity (Angeles et al. 2005), which corrects for any
community-level correlation arising from our clustered
sampling strategy.
Strengths and Weaknesses of This Approach
The methodological approach described above has several
strengths. First, our mixed methods design of data collec-
tion and analysis allows us to integrate detailed qualitative
accounts of Maasai experiences with mobile phones and
wildlife with an exploratory quantitative assessment of the
relationship between phone use and self-reported wildlife
attacks, controlling for other factors. This study, therefore,
123
contributes to the HWC literature in two important ways:
by investigating how phones are used to manage HWC
and by integrating respondents’ qualitative descriptions of
causal mechanisms with statistical tests of the relation-
ships between variables. Second, this study examines
respondents’ perceptions of multiple wildlife species
across several types of HWC. Many studies focus only on
species that attack farms, or on species that threaten
humans and depredate livestock—fewer studies examine
HWC in a broader sense. Third, this study draws on
several measures of mobile phone use, which span tem-
poral scales from days to months, and includes general
phone-use measures as well as measures that are specific
to dangerous wildlife.
The central weaknesses of this approach are that the
sample size is small, the sampling strategy was not random,
and HWC data were not drawn from formal attack reports,
but from respondents’ recollections. First, despite the small
sample, we’re confident that our research design allows us
to detect larger relationships. Second, while our sampling
strategy was not random, mean measures of household
livestock holdings taken from this sample population in
2010 (Baird and Leslie 2013) are quite similar to measures
from other studies of Maasai in Tanzania that used strati-
fied random sampling strategies (Homewood et al. 2009),
suggesting that our sample is not necessarily skewed with
regard to livestock-based wealth. Third, given that many
attacks are not officially reported, especially for events
with farms, we decided to capture respondents’ perceptions
of dangerous animals and recent attacks in order to capture
a broad sense of HWC. This reflects our view of phone use
as a potential response to perceived risk, which is, in turn, a
function of an individual’s recollection and perception of
past events. To minimize recall error, we limited both the
number of species (i.e., 3 for each attack type) and the
number of events (i.e., the most recent) the respondent was
asked to recall.
Another potential concern relates to the issue of
‘‘strategic answers.’’ Studies of the humans dimensions of
wildlife, particularly in developing areas, face many chal-
lenges insofar as ensuring the reliability of data collection
and the validity of the resulting data (Browne-Nuñez and
Jonker 2008). Respondents may have an incentive to
exaggerate their losses from wildlife if they perceive the
opportunity for some form of compensation. We have
conducted ethnographic and survey-based research in this
study site for more than a decade and we recognize that
wildlife protection is a politically charged and longstanding
issue among these developing communities. Furthermore,
we are known throughout the study area as university
researchers with no connections to any conservation or
development organizations. To further minimize the risk of
eliciting strategic answers we: (1) used qualitative
123
124
interviews to inform the design of the survey; (2) used
trained Maasai enumerators (3) allowed respondents to
free-listed specific species; and (4) asked about specific
times of conflict for each species. Ultimately, our measures
of livestock attacks are consistent with other research in
this area (Salerno et al. 2015).
Findings
Descriptions of Mobile Phone Use
Content analysis of our qualitative interviews on phone use
and HWC revealed several general themes (RQ1). By
facilitating the distribution of information, mobile phones
are generally used to reduce the incidence of attacks as
well the consequences (or severity) of attacks. Below, we
discuss these themes within the context of human safety
and pastoral and agricultural land uses.
Reducing the Incidence of Attacks
A critical way that mobile phones help to reduce HWC is
as tools for communicating with others about evidence of
wildlife. Here, ‘‘evidence’’ is used broadly to represent
both visual sightings of wildlife or evidence (i.e., sign or
spoor) of the presence or passage of wildlife in/or through
an area (e.g., dung, tracks, etc.). While much of this type of
communication takes place between herders (typically
younger men and boys), household heads also reported that
they use phone to communicate with herders and other
household heads about the location and movements of
various species.
In this environment where wildlife are ubiquitous,
respondents pointed to several factors that influence their
decisions about whether to use phones to distribute infor-
mation about wildlife. These factors include species type,
freshness of sign, recency of related sightings, location and
direction of wildlife relative to people and property, and
the familiarity of parties (sending or receiving information)
with the local area. For example, herders reported that they
were more likely to communicate about potentially dan-
gerous animals if they were less familiar with an area. On
the other hand, they indicated that the presence of a
familiar individual animal (e.g., a local leopard that lived
nearby) was less likely to elicit a phone call. In other cases,
evidence of certain predators was more likely to be com-
municated in cases where a herder was known to be in the
same area or direction. In these situations, a call would be
made to the herder in question so that he could determine
an appropriate course of action, which may include heading
in an alternative direction or simply being more prepared
and alert. The freshness of evidence (e.g., tracks, scat, etc.)
123
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
also shapes phone use, where fresher tracks or sign are
understandably more important to communicate.
Species type also plays an important role in determining
phone use patterns. Group interview respondents noted that
they are most concerned with species that pose the greatest
threats to humans and livestock. (Table 2 presents basic
descriptive statistics of survey respondents’ perceptions of
the most dangerous species.) While infrequent, attacks on
humans by lions, buffalo, and elephants can be fatal and
sightings are taken seriously. For livestock, problem
wildlife include jackals, leopards, hyenas, lions and snakes.
And in the case of agriculture, respondents highlighted
elephants, zebra and baboons.
In one interview, participants described how phones are
used to organize community events to drive away baboons,
a notorious crop-raiding species. In this case, community
members use phones to coordinate the timing, location and
execution of these hazes, which may take place several
times during the growing season. At the scheduled time,
participants will create a type of line and march forward
while making loud noises, driving the baboons away from
cultivated areas and back towards TNP. This will generally
keep baboons away for 2–3 weeks.
Despite agreement that phones are valuable tools to
communicate about wildlife, group interviews revealed
notable diversity across groups about which species and
which contexts would prompt communication. While most
groups agreed that elephant, lion or leopard sightings or
tracks would definitely be communicated, evidence of
jackal or hyena was not necessarily important to every
group. One reason for these types of differences relates to
species abundances and patterns of behavior. For example,
many species can raid agricultural fields, including:
baboons, vervet monkeys, eland, warthogs, porcupines,
bushpigs and zebra. These species are common in this area,
so it generally takes more than a simple sighting of an
animal to elicit communication. Respondents described
how, in these cases, they would typically only use phones
where wildlife were observed in the act of crop-raiding.
Reducing the Consequences of Wildlife Attacks
In addition to the role phones play in reducing the likeli-
hood of HWC by helping individuals and groups distribute
information about dangerous wildlife, respondents also
noted how phones help them to reduce the severity of
wildlife attacks. Specifically, phones have greatly expan-
ded individuals’ and groups’ capacities to communicate
real-time attacks efficiently and to coordinate effective
responses like driving away wildlife or delivering medicine
and other support to herders and livestock.
With phones, herders are now able to communicate
directly with household heads and others when attacks
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129 125

Table 2 Most reported

Rank Farm attacks Livestock attacks Human attacks
dangerous wildlife by conflict
a b a b
type Species N Months Species N Months Species Na Monthsb

1 Zebra 79 6 Lion 122 39 Lion 123 52

2 Bushpig 76 6 Snake 111 21 Snake 119 96
3 Warthog 68 7 Hyena 74 13 Buffalo 90 54
4 Baboon 50 6 Leopard 26 18 Elephant 22 19
5 Porcupine 28 5 Baboon 11 3 Hyena 21 13
a
Total number of attacks of that species reported by all respondents for that type of attack (i.e., farm,
livestock, human)
b
Average time (in months) since the last attack by that species across all respondents who reported an
attack from that species

occur. Before phones were commonplace, messages
between herding parties and homesteads were delivered
through messengers, generally boys, who traveled by foot
often over long distances. Now, with phones, messages can
be passed instantaneously when livestock or herders are
under attack. During one group interview, respondents
described a recent case where herders were able to call for
help during an attack where lions seized multiple cattle.
Warriors quickly arrived on the scene and scared off the
lions and then arranged for the carcasses to be transported
back to the homestead. This meant that the families would
retain the meat even where they lost the cattle. The
respondents described how, in the past, the lions would
have consumed the meat before much could be done.
Emergency care was also cited in multiple interviews as
a major benefit of mobile phones, which has led to ‘‘big
changes in saving livestock.’’ Respondents described how
herders use phones to communicate about the need for
veterinary or medical aid for livestock or their caretakers.
Often, successful treatment requires a quick response. This
is especially the case for certain snakes where the toxins in
venom can quickly cause permanent disabilities or death.
In these and other cases, herders use phones to call for
veterinary or medical assistance. Available vehicles are
used like ambulances to deliver treatments and expertise
and transport victims to clinics or other facilities.
Throughout our interviews, respondents described the
phone as a tool, now akin to their herding sticks and
swords, which is indispensable for herding.
Household heads also communicate with family mem-
bers, laborers and other community members about the
security of their farms. In this context, they use phones to
coordinate general activities like annual planting and har-
vesting efforts, fence building and repair, and regular guard
rotations to monitor cultivated fields. In addition, these
groups communicate with each other about crop-raiding
animals during the growing season. As an example,
respondents noted that a passerby who observed crop-
raiding in another’s farm would call the owner directly.
Owners would then alert family members or other laborers
to take action. Ultimately, these efforts serve to reduce the
consequences of attacks.
Predictors of HWC
The results of the regression analyses of the association
between mobile phone use and HWC (RQ2) are presented
in Table 3. For the model predicting attacks on farms,
measures of phone vouchers and evidence are significantly
associated with decreased odds of attacks in the 6 months
prior to the survey. For the model predicting attacks on
livestock, phone vouchers are significantly associated with
decreased odds of attacks in the 12 months prior to the
survey, while SMS and evidence are significantly associ-
ated with increased odds. For the model predicting attacks
on humans, phone vouchers and evidence are significantly
associated with increased odds of attacks in the 24 months
prior to the survey, whereas SMS is significantly associated
with decreased odds.
Discussion and Conclusions
The qualitative results of this study provide evidence that
Maasai use mobile phones to help reduce both the inci-
dence and the severity of wildlife attacks. These findings
also elucidate a broad set of mechanisms whereby humans
use phones to manage interactions with wildlife (RQ1) –
concerns that have been under-examined in the scholarship
on HWC.
As may be expected, Maasai use phones to manage
HWC in ways that are broadly similar to the ways that
other groups, in other contexts, use phones: to gather and
distribute information, to coordinate activities, and to net-
work with others (Martin and Abbott 2011). In Simanjiro,
where infrastructural development is low (Baird 2014) and
HWC is comparatively high, mobile phones represent an

123
126 Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129

Table 3 Logistic regression

Predictor Attacks on farms Attacks on livestock Attacks on humans
models of wildlife attacks (odds
ratios reported) Phone use measures
Vouchers 0.97* 0.98** 1.02***
SMS 0.91  1.05** 0.97**
Calls 1.06 0.98 1.03
Evidence (0/1) 0.36* 2.28* 6.30***
HH demographic measures
HHH is age 24–38 (0/1) 1.03 1.49 3.44*
HHH is 39–53 (0/1) 1.92 0.88 1.09
HH size (log) 0.55  1.76 3.04
HH economic measures
TLU (log) 1.19 1.21  0.86
TLU in cattle (%) 0.93 0.30 6.23*
Land allocation (acres) 1.01 1.00 1.00
Herfindahl index (%) 3.43  0.25 0.35*
Wildlife measure
Proximity to TNP 0.97*** 1.03*** 1.07***
N 129 133 120
Pseudo R2 0.19 0.10 0.39
Reference category is age 54 or older
 
P \ 0.10
* P \ 0.05
** P \ 0.01
*** P \ 0.00

important new tool to reduce uncertainty and support
livelihoods. Here, phones are not only used to communi-
cate about HWC (e.g., property damage, human injury or
death) but also the location and movements of certain
species before attacks occur. In these cases, households
work to reduce the incidence of HWC events by commu-
nicating about sightings or other evidence (e.g., footprints,
dung, etc.) of dangerous wildlife. In cases where events do
occur, households use phones to reduce the severity of
these events by reaching out to important social networks
and mobilizing rapid responses.
Quantitatively assessing the relationship between HWC
and phone-use raised a number of challenges for us. First,
phone-use is a common, daily activity whereas wildlife
attacks on humans are rare. Correspondingly, respondents’
most accurate measures of phone use are from a period of
time after their most recent HWC event. Second, by defi-
nition, we were not able to measure attacks that did not
occur. Therefore, we were unable to show that phone-use
(or anything else) is the cause of a non-event, or even that
phone-use preceded it. Given these challenges, our strategy
was: (1) to first use an ethnographic approach to identify
the ways that people use phones to manage HWC, (2) to
determine whether respondents who reported higher phone
use had gone longer periods of time without HWC events.
Despite challenges, the quantitative results of this study
provide evidence that phone use is associated with HWC in
multiple ways. With farms, where minor attacks can be
daily during the growing season, we find that phone mea-
sures are broadly associated with lower HWC. Alterna-
tively, with livestock and human attacks, which are much
less common, we find variation in how phones are asso-
ciated with HWC events. For example, vouchers are
associated with less recent attacks on livestock, while SMSs
are associated with more recent attacks. And these asso-
ciations are flipped in the case of human attacks. However,
both human and livestock attacks are positively associated
with evidence. While this could indicate that by supporting
economic development and/or increasing household
awareness of attacks, phones increase actual and/or per-
ceived HWC, it may be more likely that households that
have experienced human or livestock attacks more recently
are more likely to use their phones to communicate about
wildlife evidence. Notably, these diverse findings point to
the contingency, complexity, and importance of the rela-
tionships between phones and HWC and the need for
future, longitudinal research to untangle issues of
directionality.
Taken together, our qualitative and quantitative findings
offer support for the idea that, by reducing barriers to

123
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
communication (Martin and Abbott 2011), mobile phones
serve as important new technologies for managing HWC.
Throughout our interviews, participants highlighted the
phone’s status as ‘‘a good tool’’ and pointed out that they’ve
seen big changes in saving livestock with phones, as others
have found (Butt 2014). Phones have become such impor-
tant tools for herding that herd boys are now chosen as much
for their phone skills as for their abilities to manage live-
stock. Our findings are also aligned with research that has
found phones to reduce the severity and incidence of HWC
in agricultural settings (Graham et al. 2012). More broadly,
evidence of the utility of mobile phones for agro-pastoral
activities is aligned with the growing body of literature
highlighting the importance of ICTs for rural livelihoods
(Aker and Mbiti 2010; Furuholt and Matotay 2011; Sife
et al. 2010). In fact, during one group interview, the role of
phones as a key resource was exemplified when participants
described their community’s primary concerns as poor
access to water, education and network signal. This raises
the question of whether signal will become limiting factor
for patterns of mobility in the future.
By reducing barriers to communication and leveraging
types of local knowledge (incl. ecological and spatial),
mobile phones offer many new opportunities to promote
human development and manage HWC, but new concerns
for biodiversity conservation are also evident. First among
these concerns may be the positive effect that phones can
have in promoting human development, including infras-
tructural development and land conversion. While it is
problematic to view human development and conservation
as mutually exclusive, especially where local communities
are poor (Child 2004), challenges remain to bring these
goals into alignment (Mulder and Coppolillo 2005).
Another concern with phones is that users’ attention to
certain species and not others may be amplified. For
example, scholars have pointed out that smaller species
(incl. rodents, birds, invertebrates) can cause more crop
damage than larger species, like elephants (Dudley et al.
1992; Lahm 1994; Naughton-Treves and Treves 2005).
More often, however, land-users focus on large punctuated
events over small daily ones. Where phones entrench these
misperceptions, mismanagement may follow.
Perhaps the most immediate challenge for conservation
in the mobile phone era is poaching. Predictably, tech-
nologies to facilitate communication serve poaching
groups as well as anti-poaching authorities. The current
question is which group benefits the most. While research
on poaching is difficult to conduct, scholars have hypoth-
esized that rule-breakers use phones to coordinate poaching
activities and to evade authorities (Martin 2010; Banks and
Burge 2004). Similarly, pastoralists have used phones to
help them graze livestock illegally in protected areas by
alerting each other to the whereabouts of wildlife patrols
127
(Butt 2014). Alternatively, others have found that phones
have empowered local people to report poaching more
effectively (Stevens et al. 2013).
This paper has described how an agro-pastoralist group
uses mobile phones to manage HWC in an important
conservation landscape in East Africa. Also, it has char-
acterized the associations between measures of HWC and
phone use. Our hope is that these contributions help
to improve our understanding of the factors that shape
HWC and to raise new questions for further research
throughout developing areas. Specifically, we assert that
barriers to communication and information exchange are
important but under-examined drivers of HWC, which
emerging technologies may help assuage. Furthermore, our
findings indicate that the opportunities that phones present
may vary according to the type of HWC in question. While
HWC is likely to endure, mobile technologies offer new
strategies to empower local communities, manage natural
resources and protect biodiversity (Ansell and Koenig
2011; Ens 2012).
Acknowledgments Data collection for this study was supported by
a grant to the second author from the National Geographic Soci-
ety Committee for Research and Exploration (#9293-13) and grants to
the first author from the Department of Geography and the Graduate
School at Virginia Tech and the Virginia Chapter AU of the P.E.O.
We thank Gabriel Ole Saitoti and Isaya Rumas for their dutiful
assistance in the field and Terry McCabe, Joel Hartter and Emily
Woodhouse for their counsel. Lastly, we thank Luke Juran for his
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest The authors have no potential conflicts of
interest to disclose.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all indi-
vidual participants included in the study.
References
Aker J, Mbiti I (2010) Mobile phones and economic development in
Africa. Center for Global Development Working Paper 211
Angeles G, Guilkey DK, Mroz TA (2005) The impact of community-
level variables on individual-level outcomes. Sociol Methods
Res 34(1):76–121
Ansell S, Koenig J (2011) CyberTracker: an integral management tool
used by rangers in the Djelk indigenous protected area, central
arnhem land, Australia. Ecol Manage Restor 12(1):13–25
Arts K, Wal R, Adams WM (2015) Digital technology and the
conservation of nature. Ambio 44(4):661–673
Baird TD (2012) Conservation as disturbance: development, diver-
sification and social networks near Tarangire National Park,
Northern Tanzania. Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill
Baird TD (2014) Conservation and unscripted development: proxim-
ity to park associated with development and financial diversity.
Ecol Soc 19(1):4
123
128
Baird TD (2015) Conservation implications of the diffusion of
Christian religious ideals in rural Africa. Popul Environ
36(4):373–399
Baird TD, Leslie PW (2013) Conservation as disturbance: upheaval
and livelihood diversification near Tarangire National Park,
northern Tanzania. Glob Environ Change 23(5):1131–1141
Banks K, Burge R (2004) Mobile phones: an appropriate tool for
conservation and development? Fauna and flora international
conservation reports. Fauna and Flora International, Cambridge
Barrett CB, Travis AJ, Dasgupta P (2011) On biodiversity conser-
vation and poverty traps. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
108(34):13907–13912
Bernard HR (2011) Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative
and quantitative approaches. Rowman Altamira, New York
Browne-Nuñez C, Jonker SA (2008) Attitudes toward wildlife and
conservation across Africa: a review of survey research. Hum
Dimens Wildl 13(1):47–70
Butt B (2014) Herding by mobile phone: technology, social networks
and the ‘‘transformation’’ of pastoral herding in East Africa.
Human Ecology 43(1):1–14
Child B (ed) (2004) Parks in transition: biodiversity, rural develop-
ment and the bottom line. Earthscan, London
Debolini M, Marraccini E, Rizzo D, Galli M, Bonari E (2013)
Mapping local spatial knowledge in the assessment of agricul-
tural systems: a case study on the provision of agricultural
services. Appl Geogr 42:23–33
Dickman A (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of
considering social factors for effectively resolving human–
wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv 13(5):458–466
Dudley J, Mensah-Ntiamoah A, Kpelle D (1992) Forest elephants in a
rainforest fragment: preliminary findings from a wildlife
conservation project in southern Ghana. Afr J Ecol
30(2):116–126
Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries.
Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ens E (2012) Monitoring outcomes of environmental service
provision in low socio-economic indigenous Australia using
innovative CyberTracker Technology. Conserv Soc 10(1):42
Fascione N, Delach A, Smith M (2004) People and predators: from
conflict to coexistence. Island Press, Washington
Feldmann V, Zerdick A (2005) E-merging media. Springer, Berlin
Furuholt B, Matotay E (2011) The developmental contribution from
mobile phones across the agricultural value chain in rural Africa.
Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 48(7):1–16
Gillingham S, Lee PC (2003) People and protected areas: a study of
local perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area
bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx
37(03):316–325
Goldman M, Roque De Pinho J, Perry J (2010) Maintaining complex
relations with large cats: Maasai and lions in Kenya and
Tanzania. Hum Dimens Wildl 15(5):332–346
Graham MD, Adams WM, Kahiro GN (2012) Mobile phone
communication in effective human elephant–conflict manage-
ment in Laikipia County, Kenya. Oryx 46(01):137–144
Hazzah LN (2006) Living among lions (Panthera leo): coexistence or
killing? Community attitudes toward conservation initiatives and
the motivations behind lion killing in Kenyan Maasailand.
Masters of Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Hoekstra J (2014) Networking nature: how technology is transform-
ing conservation. Foreign Aff 93:80
Holmern T, Nyahongo J, Røskaft E (2007) Livestock loss caused by
predators outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biol
Conserv 135(4):518–526
Homewood K, Kristjanson P, Trench P (2009) Changing land use,
livelihoods and wildlife conservation in Maasailand. In:
123
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
Homewood K, Kristjanson P, Trench P (eds) Staying Maasai?.
Springer, New York
Igoe J, Brockington D (1999) Pastoral land tenure and community
conservation: a case study from North-east Tanzania. Pastoral
land tenure series. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London
ITU (2014) World telecommunication/ICT indicators database. 18th
ed
Kahurananga J, Silkiluwasha F (1997) The migration of zebra and
wildebeest between Tarangire National Park and Simanjiro
Plains, northern Tanzania, in 1972 and recent trends. Afr J Ecol
35(3):179–185
Kaswamila A, Russell S, McGibbon M (2007) Impacts of wildlife on
household food security and income in northeastern Tanzania.
Hum Dimens Wildl 12(6):391–404
Kissui B (2008) Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted
hyenas, and their vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the Maasai
steppe, Tanzania. Anim Conserv 11(5):422–432
Kolowski J, Holekamp K (2006) Spatial, temporal, and physical
characteristics of livestock depredations by large carnivores
along a Kenyan reserve border. Biol Conserv 128(4):529–541
Lahm S (1994) The impact of elephants and other wildlife on
agriculture in Gabon. African Elephant Conservation Coordi-
nating Group/European Community, Libreville
Lamarque F, Anderson J, Fergusson R, Lagrange M, Osei-Owusu Y,
Bakker L (2009) Human–wildlife conflict in Africa: causes,
consequences and management strategies. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
Linkie M, Dinata Y, Nofrianto A, Leader-Williams N (2007) Patterns
and perceptions of wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci
Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Anim Conserv 10(1):127–135
Lynn SJ (2010) Cultivating the Savanna: implications of land use
change for Maasai livelihoods and wildlife conservation in East
Africa. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University
Mackenzie CA, Baird TD, Hartter J (2014) Use of single large or
several small policies as strategies to manage people–park
interactions. Conserv Biol 28(6):1645–1656
Madden F (2004) Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife:
global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife
conflict. Hum Dimens Wildl 9(4):247–257
Maffey G, Homans H, Banks K, Arts K (2015) Digital technology and
human development: a charter for nature conservation. Ambio
44(4):527–537
Manfredo MJ, Dayer AA (2004) Concepts for exploring the social
aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context. Hum
Dimens Wildl 9(4):1–20
Martin E (2010) Effective law enforcement in Ghana reduces
elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade. Pachyderm 48:24–32
Martin BL, Abbott E (2011) Mobile phones and rural livelihoods:
diffusion, uses, and perceived impacts among farmers in rural
Uganda. Inf Technol Int Dev 7(4):17–34
Mc Guinness S, Taylor D (2014) Farmers’ perceptions and actions to
decrease crop raiding by forest-dwelling primates around a
Rwandan forest fragment. Hum Dimens Wildl 19(2):179–190
McCabe JT, Leslie PW, Deluca L (2010) Adopting cultivation to
remain pastoralists: the diversification of Maasai livelihoods in
northern Tanzania. Hum Ecol 38(3):321–334
Msoffe FU, Ogutu JO, Kaaya J, Bedelian C, Said MY, Kifugo SC,
Reid RS, Neselle M, Van Gardingen P, Thirgood S (2010)
Participatory wildlife surveys in communal lands: a case study
from Simanjiro, Tanzania. Afr J Ecol 48(3):727–735
Mtenzi FJ, Chachage BL, Ngumbuke F (2008) The growth of
tanzanian mobile phone sector: triumph of quantity, failure of
quality? Proceedings of 1st International Conference on M4D
Mobile Communication Technology for Development. M4D
Environmental Management (2016) 58:117–129
Mulder MB, Coppolillo P (2005) Conservation: linking ecology,
economics, and culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Mwakatobe A, Nyahongo J, Ntalwila J, Roskaft E (2014) The impact
of crop raiding by wild animals in communities surrounding the
Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Conserv
6(9):637–646
Myhr J, Nordstrøm L (2006) Livelihood changes enabled by mobile
phones: the case of Tanzanian fishermen. Bachelor Thesis,
Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Sweden
Naughton-Treves L (1998) Predicting patterns of crop damage by
wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conserv Biol
12(1):156–168
Naughton-Treves L, Treves A (2005) Socio-ecological factors
shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants
and other wildlife in Africa. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S,
Rabinowitz A (eds) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Nyhus PJ, Osofsky SA, Ferraro PJ, Madden F, Fischer H (2005)
Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of
compensation schemes. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabi-
nowitz A (eds) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence.
Cambridge University, New York
Okello MM (2005) Land use changes and human–wildlife conflicts in
the Amboseli Area, Kenya. Hum Dimens Wildl 10(1):19–28
Olson DM, Dinerstein E (1998) The Global 200: a representation
approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable
ecoregions. Conserv Biol 12(3):502–515
Ottichilo WK, de Leeuw J, Prins HH (2001) Population trends of
resident wildebeest [Connochaetes taurinus hecki (Neumann)]
and factors influencing them in the Masai Mara ecosystem,
Kenya. Biol Conserv 97(3):271–282
Packer C, Ikanda D, Kissui B, Kushnir H (2005) Conservation
biology: lion attacks on humans in Tanzania. Nature
436(7053):927–928
Packer C, Loveridge A, Canney S, Caro T, Garnett S, Pfeifer M,
Zander K, Swanson A, Macnulty D, Balme G (2013) Conserving
large carnivores: dollars and fence. Ecol Lett 16(5):635–641
Patterson BD, Kasiki SM, Selempo E, Kays RW (2004) Livestock
predation by lions (Panthera leo) and other carnivores on
ranches neighboring Tsavo National Parks, Kenya. Biol Conserv
119(4):507–516
Røskaft E, Mwakatobe A, Nyahongo J (2013) Livestock depredation
by carnivores in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania. Environ Nat
Resour Res 3(4):46
Sachedina H, Trench PC (2009) Cattle and crops, tourism and
tanzanite: poverty, land-use change and conservation in
129
Simanjiro District, Tanzania. In: Homewood K, Kristjanson P,
Trench PC (eds) Staying Maasai? Livelihoods conservation and
development in East African Rangelands. Springer, New York
Salerno J, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Grote MN, Ghiselli M, Packer C
(2015) Household livelihoods and conflict with wildlife in
community-based conservation areas across northern Tanzania.
Oryx. doi:10.1017/S0030605315000393
Salia M, Nsowah-Nuamah NN, Steel WF (2011) Effects of mobile
phone use on artisanal fishing market efficiency and livelihoods
in Ghana. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 47:1–26
Sife AS, Kiondo E, Lyimo-Macha JG (2010) Contribution of mobile
phones to rural livelihoods and poverty reduction in Morogoro
Region, Tanzania. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 42:1–15
Sitati NW, Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2005) Factors affecting
susceptibility of farms to crop raiding by African elephants:
using a predictive model to mitigate conflict. J Appl Ecol
42(6):1175–1182
Soto-Shoender JR, Giuliano WM (2011) Predation on livestock by
large carnivores in the tropical lowlands of Guatemala. Oryx
45(04):561–568
Souter D, Scott N, Garfoth C, Jain R, Mascarenhas O, McKemey K
(2005) The economic impact of telecommunications on rural
livelihoods and poverty reduction: a study of rural communities
in India (Gujarat), Mozambique and Tanzania. In: C. T. O. F. U.
D. F. I. (ed) Development
Stevens M, Vitos M, Lewis J, Haklay M (2013) Participatory
monitoring of poaching in the Congo basin. EXCITES. Univer-
sity College London, London
Treves A (2007) Balancing the needs of people and wildlife. In:
Studies NIOE (ed) When wildlife damage crops and prey on
livestock. Land Tenure Center, Madison
Treves A, Wallace RB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales A (2006) Co-
managing human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Hum Dimens
Wildl 11(6):383–396
United Nations (2013) The Millennium Development Goals Report
2013. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-
report-2013-english.pdf. Accessed 2 Dec 2013
Verdade LM, Lyra-Jorge MC, Piña CI (2014) Applied ecology and
human dimensions in biological conservation. Springer,
Heidelberg
Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) The impact of
human–wildlife conflict on natural systems. In: Woodroffe R,
Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) People and wildlife: conflict or
coexistence. Cambridge University, New York
Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental
services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21(1):48–58
123