Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Exploration and Evaluation of the Alternative Wildlife Management Options for the Loliondo Game Controlled Area in Tanzania: Multi-criteria Analysis|
|School/Discipline:||School of Social Sciences|
|Abstract:||This thesis evaluated wildlife management options in the Loliondo Game Controlled Area (LGCA) in the northern region of Tanzania. There has been a lack of consensus among local governments and other stakeholder communities as to whether trophy hunting is a viable form of wildlife management in the LGCA. The major wildlife management issues include an acute lack of community involvement in the wildlife management planning and decision-making process, poorly defined property rights, and the unequitable distribution of the economic benefits generated from the trophy hunting scheme being implemented. Trophy hunting and ecotourism occur on the pastoral village land within the LGCA. The co-existence of trophy hunting, ecotourism and grazing has triggered land-use conflicts across the LGCA stakeholders. This study explored alternative policy options for the LGCA. Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques were employed to identify which options would be the most preferable wildlife management options. A community survey was conducted to supplement the MCA. This study found that the local communities were not adequately involved in the wildlife management planning and decision-making process. Under the current LGCA scheme, the Maasai communities have no exclusive rights to their pastoral land and resources, and this limited the livelihoods of the pastoral communities. This study found that while investors and the government benefitted substantially, the individual pastoral households did not benefit as much from the revenues accrued from the current LGCA wildlife management scheme. The study identified and analysed alternative wildlife management options, which include the Game Reserve Area, Village-Based Independent Wildlife Management Area, and Joint Venture Wildlife Management Area. The study found that the latter community-based wildlife management option was the most preferred, and that by replacing the current LGCA scheme with this scheme this would lead to an efficient wildlife conservation, with well-defined property rights, and equitable benefits shared across the various stakeholders. Therefore, it is argued here that the institutional framework for wildlife management needs to be set in such a way as to ensure equitable benefit sharing and to support the legitimate decentralisation of wildlife management in the LGCA.|
|Dissertation Note:||Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Social Sciences, 2020|
|Provenance:||This electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exceptions. If you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/legals|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Theses|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.