Environmental Management

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 1533–1546 | Cite as

Integrating the Management of Ruaha Landscape of Tanzania with Local Needs and Preferences

  • Michel Masozera
  • Jon D. Erickson
  • Deana Clifford
  • Peter Coppolillo
  • Harrison G. Sadiki
  • Jonna K. Mazet


Sustainable management of landscapes with multiple competing demands such as the Ruaha Landscape is complex due to the diverse preferences and needs of stakeholder groups involved. This study uses conjoint analysis to assess the preferences of representatives from three stakeholder groups—local communities, district government officials, and non-governmental organizations—toward potential solutions of conservation and development tradeoffs facing local communities in the Ruaha Landscape of Tanzania. Results demonstrate that there is little consensus among stakeholders about the best development strategies for the Ruaha region. This analysis suggests a need for incorporating issues deemed important by these various groups into a development strategy that aims to promote conservation of the Ruaha Landscape and improve the livelihood of local communities.


Africa Community-based conservation Community wildlife management associations Conjoint analysis National parks Ruaha Tanzania 



This publication was made possible through support provided to the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program by the Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, United States Agency for International Development under terms of Grant No. PCE-G-00-98-00036-00, support from a Borlaug LEAP Fellowship and Jim Ellis Award (MM), and the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAID.


  1. Baidu-Forson JB, N’tare R, Waliyar F (1997) Utilizing conjoint analysis to design modern crop varieties: empirical example for groundnut in Niger. J Agric Econ 16(3):219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett CB, Grizzle RE (1999) A holistic approach to sustainability based on pluralistic stewardship. Environ Ethics 21:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, Chitty LS, Longworth L, Buxton MJ, Berlin C (2004) Women and health care professionals’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 111:775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blom B, Sunderland T, Murdiyarso D (2010) Getting REDD to work locally: lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environ Sci Policy 13:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cattin P, Wittink DR (1982) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J Mark 46:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cernea MM, Schmidt-Soltau K (2006) Poverty risks and national parks: policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Dev 34:1808–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coppolillo P, Dickman A (2007) Livelihoods and protected areas in the Ruaha landscape: a preliminary review. In: KH Redford and E Fearn (Eds), Protected areas and human livelihoods. Working Paper No. 12. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, pp 6–16Google Scholar
  9. Coppolillo P, Demment M, Mbano B, Bergin S, Forrest J (2006) Current wetlands management practices in the Usangu Sub catchments: a review of drivers, pressures, state, impacts and responses. Wildlife Conservation Society, Consultancy Report, 26pGoogle Scholar
  10. Clifford D, Kazwala R, Coppolillo P, Mazet, J (2008) Evaluating and managing zoonotic disease risk in rural Tanzania. Research Brief 08-01-HALI. Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program (GL-CRSP), University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis DF (1998) Analyzing public inputs to multiple objective decisions on national forests using conjoint analysis. Forest Sci 44(3):421–429Google Scholar
  12. Doornbos M, Saith A, White B (2000) Forest lives and struggles: an introduction. Dev Change 31:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ervin J (2003) Rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience 53(9):833–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farber S, Griner B (2000) Using conjoint analysis to value ecosystem change. Environ Sci Technol 34(8):1407–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzpatrick E, Coyle DE, Durieux-Smith A, Graham ID, Angus DE, Gaboury I (2007) Parents’ preferences for services for children with hearing loss: a conjoint analysis study. Ear Hearing 28(6):842–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flintan F (1999) Unheard voices in a white man’s wilderness? Women in conservation and development. Master’s thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gbadegesin A, Ayileka O (2000) Avoiding the mistakes of the past: towards a community oriented management strategy for the proposed national park in Abuja, Nigeria. Land Use Policy 17(2):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz W (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment-design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ Resour Econ 11(3–4):413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hermans C, Erickson JD, Sheldon A, Noordewier T, Kline M (2007) Collaborative environmental planning in river management: an application of multicriteria decision analysis in the white river watershed of Vermont, USA. J Environ Manage 84:534–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Himmelfarb D (2007) Locating trade-offs in conservation: looking back over three decades of changes in conservation practice and decision making. Working paper. Advancing conservation in a social context. MacArthur Foundation and University of GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutton JM, Leader-Williams N (2003) Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx 37:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA) (2007) Assessment and evaluation of wildlife management areas in Tanzania. Consultancy Report, 87 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Ite UE (1996) Community perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria. Environ Conserv 23:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Judge CG, Griffiths WE, Hill RC, Lutkepohl H, Lee TC (1985) The theory and practice of econometrics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, 109 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Kadigi RMJ, Kashaigili JJ, Mdoe NS (2004) The economics of irrigated paddy in Usangu Basin in Tanzania: water utilization, productivity, income and livelihood implications. Phys Chem Earth 29(15–18):1091–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kouadio T, Mulumba K, Merle DF, Brent S (2003) Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer’s preferences for cattle traits in West Africa. Ecol Econ 45(3):393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 31(4):545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lancaster KJ (1991) Modern consumer theory. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  29. Louviere JJ (1994) Conjoint analysis. In: Bagozzi R (ed) Advanced marketing research. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA, pp 223–259Google Scholar
  30. Masozera M, Erickson JD, Clifford D, Coppolillo P, Mazet J, Nguvava M, Sadiki H (2010) Public health and rural livelihoods under water scarcity in the Ruaha Landscape, Tanzania. Research brief 10-04-HALI. Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program (GL-CRSP), University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  31. McElwee PD (2010) Resource use among rural agricultural households near protected areas in Vietnam: the social costs of conservation and implications for enforcement. Environ Manage 45:113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKelvey RD, Zavoina W (1975) A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol 4:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McPeak J, Doss C (2006) Do pastoral husbands and wives in Northern Kenya view milk markets differently? Research Brief 06-02-PARIMA. Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program (GL-CRSP), University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  34. Mills MGL, Freitag S, Van Jaarsveld AS (2001) Geographic priorities for carnivore conservation in Africa. In: Gittleman JL, Funk SM, Macdonald DW, Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 467–480Google Scholar
  35. MNRT (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism) (2005) The wildlife conservation (tourist hunting) regulations. Government Printer, Dar es SalaamGoogle Scholar
  36. Neumann RP (1998) Imposing wilderness: struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 256 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Nguvava M, Clifford D, Masozera M, Coppolillo P, Sadiki H, Mazet J, Erickson, JD (2009) Capturing women’s voices: socioeconomics and gender-roles in pastoralist households in the Ruaha Landscape, Tanzania. Research Brief: 09-03-HALI. Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program (GL-CRSP), University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson DM, Dinerstein E (1998) The global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol 12:502–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ratchford BT (1975) The new economic theory of consumer behavior: an interpretive essay. J Consum Res 2:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rolfe J, Barnett J, Louviere JJ (2000) Choice modeling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35(2):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan M (1999) Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application of in vitro fertilization. Soc Sci Med 48(4):535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan M, Farrar S (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J 320:1530–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salafsky N, Wollenberg E (2000) Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Dev 28:1421–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sayer J, Wells MP (2004) The pathology of projects. In: McShane T, Wells M (eds) Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 35–48Google Scholar
  45. Schwartzman S, Nepstad D, Moreira A (2000) Arguing tropical forest conservation: people versus parks. Conserv Biol 14:1370–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Songorwa AN (1999) Community based wildlife management in Tanzania: are communities interested? World Dev 27(12):2061–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Songorwa AN, Buhrs T, Hughey KFD (2000) Community based wildlife management in Africa: a critical assessment of the literature. Nat Resour J 40:603–643Google Scholar
  48. Terborgh J, van Schaik C, Davenport L, Rao M (eds) (2002) Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Wainwright C, Wehrmeyer W (1998) Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia. World Dev 26(6):933–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wardman M (1988) A comparison of revealed preference and stated preference models. J Transp Econ Policy 22:71–91Google Scholar
  51. Wells M, Brandon K (1992) People and parks: linking protected areas management with local communities. Washington, DC: World Bank/World Wildlife Fund/US Agency for International Development. ISBN: 0-821-32053-XGoogle Scholar
  52. Wells M, McShane T (2004) Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. AMBIO 33(8):513–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Western D, Wright RM (eds) (1994) Natural connections: perspectives in community based conservation. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilhelm WB, Mottner S (2005) A conjoint analysis approach to understanding the generational shift toward an experience economy. J Shopp Center Res 12(1):23–52Google Scholar
  55. Wilkie DS, Morelli GA, Demmer J, Starkey M, Telfer P, Steil M (2006) Parks and people: assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 20:247–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilkie DS, Redford KH, McShane (2010) Taking of rights for natural resource conservation: a discussion about compensation. J Sustain Forest 29(2–4):135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wittermyer G, Elsen P, Bean WT, Coleman A, Burton O, Brashares JS (2008) Accelerated human population growth at protected areas edges. Science 321:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zia A, Hirsch P, Songorwa A, Mutekanga D, O’Connor S, McShane T, Brosius JP, Norton B (2011) Cross-scale value trade-offs in managing social-ecological systems: the politics of scale in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Ecol Soc 16(7):7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Masozera
    • 1
  • Jon D. Erickson
    • 2
  • Deana Clifford
    • 3
  • Peter Coppolillo
    • 4
  • Harrison G. Sadiki
    • 5
  • Jonna K. Mazet
    • 6
  1. 1.Widlife Conservation Society - Africa ProgramKigaliRwanda
  2. 2.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.California Department of Fish and GameWildlife Investigations LaboratoryRancho CordovaUSA
  4. 4.Working Dogs for ConservationBozemanUSA
  5. 5.PREDICT TanzaniaIringaUnited Republic of Tanzania
  6. 6.Wildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations