Assessing the Effectiveness of Buffer Zones in Reducing Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda

Abel Ndikumana; Pancras Ndokoye

doi:10.37284/eajenr.8.3.3841

Abel Ndikumana University of Lay Adventists of Kigali
Pancras Ndokoye, PhD University of Lay Adventists of Kigali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37284/eajenr.8.3.3841

Keywords: Effectiveness, Buffer Zones, Human-Wildlife Conflicts, Nyungwe National Park

Share Article:

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs) present a major challenge to conservation efforts and local livelihoods, particularly in areas surrounding protected ecosystems like Nyungwe National Park (NNP), Rwanda. Buffer zones have been established as mitigation strategies to minimise these conflicts by creating transitional spaces between human settlements and wildlife habitats. However, their effectiveness remains unclear, necessitating a comprehensive assessment. This study evaluated the effectiveness of buffer zones in mitigating HWCs around NNP by analysing their current status, the impact of conflicts on local communities, and the relationship between land cover characteristics and conflict frequency. A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating GIS and remote sensing with household surveys and key informant questionnaires. Data were collected from 400 households neighbouring NNP, and analysis involved descriptive statistics, spatial mapping, and qualitative content analysis. Findings indicate that the existing buffer zone, covering 100.83 km², varies in width from 0.08 km to 2.99 km, leaving some villages vulnerable to wildlife incursions. Over 71% of respondents perceived buffer zones as ineffective, particularly in preventing crop raiding by primates such as baboons and monkeys. GIS analysis revealed that land-use changes, including agricultural expansion and settlements within buffer zones, have reduced their effectiveness in mitigating HWCs. The study underscored the need for a multi-layered buffer approach integrating natural forests, non-palatable agroforestry crops, and deterrent plant species. Strengthening community participation, improving land-use planning, and incorporating wildlife tracking data into buffer zone management are recommended to enhance human-wildlife coexistence. Findings provided valuable insights for policymakers, conservationists, and local stakeholders to improve conservation strategies in NNP and similar ecosystems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Berker & Folk. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications.

Bhatta, M. &. (2019). (2019). Analysis of Human-Wildlife Conflict in Buffer Zone Area: A Case Study of Shuklaphanta National Park, Nepal. International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management.

Dickman, A. J. (2019). The challenges of living with large carnivores in human-dominated landscapes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44(1), 55-78.

Dudley et al. (2010). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and human well-being. In Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hill. (2004). Human-wildlife conflict: A review of the literature and approaches to mitigation. Oryx, 38(1), 1-19.

Kamugisha. (2020). Buffer zones and their role in mitigating human-wildlife conflict in Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda. Journal of Environmental Management and Conservation, 19(2), 54-68.

Karanth, K. K. (2017). The role of incentives in mitigating human-wildlife conflict in India. Biological Conservation, 211, 316-324.

Kissui. (2008). Livestock predation by lions and other carnivores on the central Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1), 1-11.

Madden. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human dimensions of wildlife, 9(4), 247-257.

McLennan, M. R.-7. (2016). Wild chimpanzees show group differences in selection of agricultural crops.

Mukwaya, M. &. (2018). Conservation and management of Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda: Opportunities and challenges. African Journal of Ecology, 56(5), 1297-1304.

Nyhus. (2016). Human-wildlife conflict and the challenge of coexistence. In J. M. Mace (Ed.), Conservation: The Science of Sustainability. Cambridge University Press.

Pitman &Treves. (2019). Human-wildlife conflict: Insights from global case studies. Biological Conservation.

Poudel, S. P. (2017). Contribution of Buffer Zone Programs to Reduce Human-Wildlife Impacts: The Case of the Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Human Ecology.

RDB. (2020). Rwanda’s national parks and the role of buffer zones in wildlife conservation. Kigali: https://www.rdb.rw.

Redpath et al., S. M. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trend in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2),100-109.

REMA. (2020). State of Environment Report for Rwanda. A focus on biodiversity and conservation.

Titeca et al. (2019). Human-wildlife conflict and land-use changes in Nyungwe National Park. African Journal of Ecology, 57(3), 254-263.

Treves & McManus. (2019). Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(3), 180-188.

UNESCO. (2023). World Hertage Convention. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8407

Woodroffe et al., T. S. (2005). People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press.

WWF. (2020). The state of human-wildlife conflict. WWF International. World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved from http://www.WWF.og

Young & Redpath. (2015). Comparing approaches to human-wildlife conflict management. Science Advances, Comparing approaches to human-wildlife conflict management. Science Advances, 1(5).