Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Sustainable Resource Management ·

Volume 5 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fsrma.2026.1891779

Demographic and socio-economic influences on self-reported wildlife conservation attitude: a case study of communities adjacent to Mkomazi National Park in Tanzania

  • Gasto Lyakurwa1,2*corresponding author
  • Edwin Sabuhoro1
  1. 1Department of Recreation Parks and Tourism Management, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, United States
  2. 2Department, of Wildlife Management, The College of Africa Wildlife Management, Mweka, Moshi, Tanzania
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

We applied an expectancy-value model of attitude formation to examine how households' attitudes toward wildlife conservation vary based on the combination of social, economic, demographics, benefits perception, and human-wildlife conflicts among communities adjacent to Mkomazi National Park in Tanzania. The finding demonstrated that education, food security, and receipt of conservation benefits significantly determine the conservation attitudes of households adjacent to Mkomazi National Park. However, possession of assets and other factors such as gender may also influence conservation attitude. To promote positive wildlife conservation attitudes, conservation development policies should be designed to provide knowledge, ensure food security through human-wildlife conflict mitigation, and enhance opportunities and ecosystem services provided by wildlife conservation activities such as ecotourism potentials and employment in the wildlife sector.

Keywords

Introduction

Local people's attitudes toward wildlife conservation are often mixed or negative and are influenced by several factors (Mogomotsi et al., 2020; Tessema et al., 2010). Attitude explains the cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors influencing a person's favor or disfavor of something (Krosnick et al., 2018). Household attitudes can determine the success or failure of wildlife conservation outcomes and significantly impact management decisions, governance policies, and laws designed to protect wildlife (Dayer et al., 2016; Kellert, 1994; Tisdell and Wilson, 2006).

Positive attitudes toward wildlife conservation among communities are widely recognized as essential for the success of biodiversity conservation efforts (Obradović et al., 2022; Tessema et al., 2010). Wildlife conservation attitudes are a subset of the pro-environmental conservation domain, encompassing the activities, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that individuals, organizations, and societies engage in to protect and sustainably manage wildlife, wildlife resources, and their ecosystems (Larson et al., 2015). They are an important dimension of wildlife conservation and are implicated in resolving human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) (Larson et al., 2016). Positive community perceptions and attitudes to wildlife conservation are also key ingredients for developing effective wildlife policies that are sensitive and relevant to local conditions (Hariohay et al., 2018). Policies developed based on understanding local attitudes and perceptions reflect our capacity to enhance coexistence between human and wildlife conservation activities (Megaze et al., 2017). Positive attitudes toward wildlife are also fundamental to fostering tolerance and promoting long-term coexistence between people and wildlife (Hariohay et al., 2024). They can further enhance the effectiveness and social acceptability of conservation interventions by encouraging public support for wildlife management and conservation policies (Jacobs et al., 2014; Liordos et al., 2017, 2021). Moreover, understanding attitudes toward wildlife among the public enables wildlife managers and other stakeholders to identify conflicting perspectives, address misconceptions, and design conservation strategies that are both scientifically informed and socially acceptable.

However, securing positive attitudes toward wildlife conservation remains a persistent challenge in many protected-area landscapes where local people experience both benefits and costs associated with wildlife conservation. In the era of increasing human-wildlife interaction due to increasing human population and demand for land and its resources, positive attitude toward wildlife conservation is important to guide wildlife conservation outcomes (Mir et al., 2015; Tessema et al., 2010). Wildlife conservation policies, projects and management actions need to obtain support and participation of local communities living adjacent to protected areas (Sampson et al., 2019).

Conversely negative attitudes toward wildlife can undermine conservation efforts if they are not understood and addressed. Negative attitude toward wildlife are mostly caused by negative interaction between human and wildlife particularly negative livelihood consequences of wildlife (Larsson et al., 2022; Kansky and Knight, 2014). Increased negative attitude toward wildlife among communities reduces support to wildlife conservation projects. The lack of support can ultimately increase retaliatory killing of wildlife (Mogomotsi et al., 2020). Generally, negative attitude toward wildlife tend to threaten wildlife conservation efforts.

Socio-demographics, economic status, and nature of human-wildlife interactions are likely to play a role in shaping how residents living adjacent to protected areas develop positive wildlife conservation attitudes. Previous research has indicated that communities losing crops and livestock to wildlife have negative attitudes toward conservation and engage in retaliatory killing of wildlife (Larson et al., 2016; Mogomotsi et al., 2020). Further, more negative attitudes are shaped by multiple factors such as gender, education, society, economics, and culture (Bencin et al., 2016; Rizzolo et al., 2017; Tomićević et al., 2010). Households with no formal classroom education, few assets, low income, insufficient food, and fewer prospects for conservation benefits are likely to experience adverse negative impacts of wildlife interactions and build more negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation (Mogomotsi et al., 2020). Moreover, households with low socio-economic status have little income to buffer against the damage caused by wildlife (Mayele and Woja, 2022). Formal education, which refers to and education that is structured, institutionalized and planned, has potential to expand wildlife conservation knowledge base and enables recipient to develop awareness about wildlife conservation (Salazar et al., 2024; Peterson, 2025). Studies conducted in different socio-ecological contexts support this relationship (Salazar et al., 2024; Kioko and Kiringe, 2010; Børresen et al., 2023). For example, research in Kenya found that formal schooling and participation in school-based environmental clubs positively influenced young people's perceptions of wildlife and environmental conservation, highlighting the importance of integrating conservation education into formal education systems (Kioko and Kiringe, 2010; Peterson, 2025). Another study conducted in Ngorongoro Tanzania highlighted how formal education improve conservation attitudes for school student (Børresen et al., 2023; Peterson, 2025). Thus, formal education system can be invaluable to fostering positive conservation attitudes.

One framework for understanding and addressing the extent of attitudes toward wildlife conservation is the expectance-value attitude model (EVA) (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2008). According to the EVA model, a person's attitude toward conservation is determined by the subjective value or evaluation of the attributes associated with conservation and the strength of this association. In the EVA, the affective component of attitude is a function of the products of expectancies (a person's belief that the attitude object has certain attributes) and values (a person's evaluation of these attributes) (e.g., Fishbein, 1963). This perspective illustrates how the development of wildlife conservation attitudes is influenced by individual demographic attributes, perceptions of HWC, and expectations of socio-economic benefits from conservation activities. For example, using this model, Dougherty et al. (2003) found that female respondents held negative attitudes toward the outcomes of deer management, such as those related to the reduced risk of a deer-vehicle collision. Other studies have also used this model to identify specific beliefs and evaluate public acceptance of no action and lethal control of wildlife (Fulton et al., 2004).

Data from attitudinal studies are found useful to compare attitudes toward conservation in different regions under different conditions (Browne-Nuñez and Jonker, 2008). Attitude measurement ranges from a single statement to large indexes derived from a series of attitudinal questions (Browne-Nuñez and Jonker, 2008; Whitehouse-Tedd et al., 2021). Attitudes drive people's evaluations of and preferences for wildlife conservation (Manfredo et al., 2016). However, attitude studies are difficult to generalize and specify to local populations in specific areas. Area-specific conservation attitude studies are important because attitudes differ from region to region, and the factors affecting attitudes are spatially heterogeneous, even with the same context (Kansky et al., 2014; Sponarski et al., 2013). Small-scale attitude studies help avoid flawed inferences and improve the strength of decisions for wildlife conflict mitigation. Studies on attitudes toward individual species and protected areas have reported negative perspectives on wildlife among farmers and pastoralists. A study on wild dogs in Botswana showed that subsistence farmers and commercial livestock keepers had different negative perspectives of wild dogs (Fraser-Celin et al., 2017). According to this study, subsistence farmers had more negative perceptions than commercial livestock and game farmers. Similar studies on attitudes toward conservation in Africa have shown that agro-pastoral communities often have strong negative attitudes against consuming large carnivores, which are responsible for livestock depredation that declines local economies (Mkonyi et al., 2017). The fact that we cannot conclude unanimous attitudes and perceptions of wildlife conservation justifies the need to assess human psychological aspects of wildlife conservation for specific locales.

Studies on attitude formation toward conservation have noted the effects of gender, education, economic position, perception of benefits, and the nature of the interactions between humans and wildlife on communities residing adjacent to wildlife-protected areas (Htay et al., 2022; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Mir et al., 2015; Ntuli et al., 2019; Tessema et al., 2010). However, little is known about the wildlife-conservation attitudes of communities adjacent to Mkomazi National Park (MNP; Figure 1). Understanding how social, demographic, and economic factors affect people's perceptions of wildlife conservation in communities around (MNP) is crucial because conservation policies, initiatives, and programs need to be accepted by society to be successful and sustainable (Hariohay et al., 2018; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Lyakurwa et al., 2025). Furthermore, developmental and wildlife conservation NGOs also need to understand people's attitude toward conservation to gain community support in conservation activities and decisions (Obradović et al., 2022; Sampson et al., 2019).

The map of study areas shows surveyed villages.
Figure 1. The map of study areas shows surveyed villages.

Despite growing recognition that local community support is essential for successful wildlife conservation, there is limited understanding of how socioeconomic characteristics and experiences with human-wildlife conflicts influence self -reported conservation attitudes in communities adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania. To address this knowledge gap, this study had two objectives: (1) Examine the association between level of education, income levels and possession of assets such as land and livestock on self-reporting of wildlife conservation attitudes. (2) Examine the influence of human-wildlife conflicts on the self-reported conservation attitude for communities living adjacent MNP. To archive this, we analyzed survey data based on self-reported attitudes to understand the combined effects of demographic, social, and economic factors driving wildlife conservation attitudes in communities adjacent to MNP. Self-reporting conservation attitudes relies on individuals' beliefs and evaluations of wildlife conservation activities. The resulting knowledge on social demographics and wildlife conservation attitudes can facilitate the design and implementation of policies for human-wildlife coexistence.

Methodology

Study area

This study was conducted in a community adjacent to MNP from June 2023 to August 2023 (Figure 1). MNP (latitude 4°11′′-4°25′′ South and longitude 37°41′′-38°45′ East.) is a transboundary national park located on the northern border between Tanzania and Kenya. The Park is surrounded by 22 villages and shares its border with Kenya, making it an important Tsavo-Mkomazi trans-frontier conservation ecosystem. The communities around the parks are a mixture of small-scale farmers and livestock workers who face the impacts of wildlife activities, including crop raids and livestock depredation. These communities have a history of evictions dating back to the 1950s, influencing their perceptions of and relationships with the MNP (Laltaika and Askew, 2021). Currently, MNP falls under Tanzania's National Park system, restricting the consumptive utilization of wildlife resources. The historical presence of conflicting conservation activities, such as illegal harvesting of park resources, eco-tourism, and community livelihood-based activities, such as livestock keeping and small-scale farming, makes MNP and its adjacent community ideal for research. Questionnaires were administered to eight randomly selected villages. Compared to well-known parks such as Serengeti and Kilimanjaro National Parks, MNP has not yet attracted many tourists to enable communities to tap conservation benefits.

Data collection

Respondents were randomly selected from village register books using random number generators. Trained research assistants visited them in their households. The research assistants were fluent in both Kiswahili and English. Sub-village leaders introduced them to the households during the data collection phase. The self-administered questionnaires were completed during face-to-face interviews (survey provided). The research assistant explained the study's main purpose and background to provide residents with an understanding of the project and reduce bias. They also explained interviewees' right to drop out prior to or at any time during the survey. Participation was voluntary, and payment was offered. Questionnaire surveys were conducted in June 2023. Survey participants were asked about their overall position on wildlife conservation, perception of conservation benefits, frequency of encounters with HWCs incidences, their acceptance of conservation activities for the existence of MNP, and socio-economic factors, including estimated income, household size, education, status, access to health services, and possession of property such as land and livestock. A total of 267 respondents were interviewed, of whom 55 were excluded because of incomplete responses (Supplementary Table 1).

Survey

The variables for this project were obtained from a large survey comprised of (i) household demographics, (ii) household composition, income, and assets, (iii) household food production and productivity, (iv) household access to education and healthcare, (v) household quality of life indicators, and (v) HWC and mitigations (See questionnaire in Supplementary material). This project selected socio-economic, demographic, and human-wildlife interaction variables from the household survey to understand the drivers of wildlife conservation attitudes among the studied communities. The study was approved by Commission for Science and Technology of Tanzania permit No 2022-876-NA-2022-0301 and Pennsylvania State University IRB No STUDY00022045.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 30). Multiple Logistic regression analyses the relationship between binary outcomes and multiple influencing factors (Nick and Campbell, 2007). The analysis determined the influence of multiple factors including gender, education, possession of assets, household income, accrual of conservation benefits and distance to health center on the likelihood of household head reporting positive or negative responses to conservation attitudes. Conservation attitude was measured as a binary variable, with positive attitudes coded as 1 (Yes) and negative attitudes coded as 0 (No). To the questions regarding whether it is important to invest in wildlife conservation (See page 22 of the questionnaire in Supplementary material for details). Variables included in this analysis are both continuous and categorical and include household heads' level of education, an estimate of income, the number of people in the household, whether they obtain sufficient food, distance to health centers, number of livestock owned, size of land owned, perception of conservation benefits, and experience with HWC incidences. We considered formal education to be respondents who have completed primary school level and above while informal education to those who have not completed primary school and below.

To ensure the validity of the model, we conducted a Box-Tidwell test for continuous predictor variables (Box and Tidwell, 1962; Hosmer and Sturdivant, 2013). The results showed a non-significant coefficient for the interaction term for all predictors, indicating that the assumption of linearity in the logit was satisfied for our model.

The association between HWC and conservation attitudes was determined using cross-tabulation and chi-square statistics.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

The surveyed communities comprised approximately six times as many farmers (N = 166) as pastoralists (N = 34) from diverse ethnic backgrounds dominated by Pare, and Maasai (Table 1). Slightly more female-headed households were surveyed than male-headed ones (Table 1). The household head in this context refers to adult household members who manage a household and has major part of the decision for a household (FAO, 1995). The average age of the surveyed households was 49 years, and their annual income averaged $1,115 USD. Most households (75.9%) had completed only primary education. The main crops grown in these communities were rice, maize, and beans.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (n = 212).

Name of variablesValue of variable%
Gender
Female11152.4
Male10147.6
Educational level
No formal education3717.5
Primary education16175.9
Secondary education125.7
Vocational education20.9
Occupation
Farmers16678.3
Pastoralists3416.0
Business persons73.3
Casual laborer52.4

The average age = 49, (SD = 15.8) years and the average yearly household income = $1,115 (SD = 1,655).

A one-sample chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicated that respondents were significantly more likely to report negative conservation attitudes (n = 136) than positive attitudes (n = 76), [χ2 (1, N = 212) =16.98, p < 0.001].

Multiple logistic regression results

Multiple regression model fitted to predict the effect of socio-economic, demographic and conservation benefits on wildlife conservation attitude was significant χ2 = 33.776, p = 0.001. Moreover, linearity test of the model revealed a non-significant Homer and Lameshow (HL) statistics (χ2 = 7.919, p = 0.441, Table 2), indicating that the model with the selected predictors provided a significantly better fit to the data than a model without them. Additionally, the Nagelkerke R Square value of 0.202 suggests the model accounts for approximately 20.2% of the variability in conservation attitude, which is an improvement over the null model.

Table 2. Increased attitude to wildlife conservation by socioeconomic and demographic factors of households adjacent to MNP in Tanzania.

VariableBOR95% CIρ
Gender (1)−0.370.69(0.4–1.3)p = 0.285
Level of education 1 = formal education1.866.39(2–20)*p* = 0.001
Household size−0.050.95(0.8–1.1)p = 0.394
Estimated household income0.001.00(1–1)p = 0.607
Household land size−0.110.89(0.8–1)p = 0.064
Livestock no−0.010.99(0.9–1)p = 0.359
Household health insurance 1 = yes0.752.12(0.81–5.6)p = 0.128
Household food sufficiency 1 = yes–0.900.41(0.2–0.9)*p* = 0.035
Household distance to the health center0.061.06(0.99–1.1)p = 0.098
Perception of benefits from wildlife 1 = yes1.394.01(1.3–12.5)*p* = 0.017
Constant−1.570.21

Note that the significance level was (p) 0.05; variables were entered into the model hierarchically. R2 = 0.202 (Nagelkerke), model fit (χ2 = 33.776, p = 0.001), Hosmer and Lemeshow (χ2 = 7.919, p = 0.441), % of correct prediction = 69.3%. Number in bold indicate significant test statistics at 0.05 level.

An examination of the importance of predictors revealed a significant relationship between perceptions of conservation benefits, levels of education, and food sufficiency, which are strong predictors of overall reported conservation attitudes. The results showed that household heads with formal education are associated with a 539% increase in the likelihood of reporting a positive attitude to conservation than non-education household heads (β = 1.86, p = 0.001), when other factors in the model are considered.

Furthermore, the model indicates that reporting positive conservation benefits is associated with a 300% increase in the likelihood of reporting a positive conservation attitude (β = 1.39, p = 0.017), when other factors in the model are held constant. Our results also show that for every person reporting high food sufficiency in the household, there is a 41% decrease in the likelihood of reporting a positive attitude toward conservation (β = −0.9, p = 0.035) when other factors in the model are considered.

Association between human-wildlife conflicts and conservation attitude

A chi-square test for independence indicated a significant association between HWC status, measured as increasing, decreasing, or stable and attitude (p = 0.009; Table 3). Respondents who felt that HWC is decreasing had a higher likelihood of reporting positive conservation attitude. However, there was no association between reporting awareness of HWC and reporting a positive conservation attitude. There was also no significant association between the frequency of HWC encounters among households and whether the respondent reported negative or positive conservation attitude (Table 3). A pairwise chi-square test indicated that residents with stable opinions and those with decreasing conflict contributed to a significant association between status and attitudes (Table 3). Similarly, the association between the frequency of conflict and attitude was due to significant association between those experiencing incidences in a year and those not. This indicates that residents experience HWC incidents within a year.

Table 3. Summary of the Chi-square tests of independence for self-reported wildlife conservation attitudes from human-wildlife conflict factors.

Do you feel the importance of wildlife conservation?
VariableYesNoLikelihood ratio χ2 (p)
N%N%
Human-wildlife conflicts status
Increasing0a0.02a2.69.4 (0.009)
Stable3a2.27b9.2
Decreasing133a97.867 b88.2
Household experience of human-wildlife conflict incidences
No85.967.90.3 (0.576)
Yes12894.17092.1
Household frequency of encountering HWC incidences
Once a year1a0.74b5.310.7 (0.058)
Once in 6 months3a2.22a2.6
Twice a month4a2.90a0.0
Once a month6a4.47a9.2
Once in a week13a9.610a13.2
Almost daily109a80.153a69.7

Dependent and explanatory variables are all categorical.

abNumbers (N) with different superscripts are significantly different at 0.05 level.

Number in bold indicate variable with significant test statistic at 0.05 level.

Discussion

The expectance-value attitude model provides insights into how demographics, socioeconomics, and perceived conservation benefits influence the wildlife-conservation attitudes of local people residing adjacent to protected areas. For harmonious coexistence and sustainability in Protected Areas (PAs), people must be ready to embrace the policies for conservation, and PAs management must realize that people's livelihoods are linked to the resources in PA. The findings of this study demonstrate that households' attitudes toward wildlife conservation in Mkomazi National Park (MNP) are driven by their desire to improve their lives and gain benefits from conservation activities.

The findings suggest education levels, food sufficiency, and perception of conservation benefits were significant in the self-reported wildlife conservation attitudes of households adjacent to MNP. These findings extend previous studies with similar contexts, suggesting that socioeconomics, demographics, conservation benefits, and likely negative human-wildlife interactions impact how people perceive environmental conservation. Some indicated formal education (Kideghesho et al., 2007), high levels of HWC (Kideghesho et al., 2007; Makumbe et al., 2022; Mir et al., 2015), food insecurity (Meyer and Börner, 2022), poor households (Shrestha and Alavalapati, 2006), and low conservation benefits such as opportunities for eco-tourism and employment (Gidebo, 2022; Katswera et al., 2022; Mgonja and Uswege, 2022) lower wildlife conservation attitudes.

Our findings revealed a link between education and attitudes toward conservation. Those with no formal education were more likely to perceive wildlife conservation negatively. This underscores the crucial role of education in shaping conservation attitudes. This finding could have significant implications for conservation policies and initiatives. Several studies in the field of environmental conservation have found an association between formal education and pro-environmental behavior whereby knowledge about environmental conservation improves attitudes toward protecting local environments (Kellert and Berry, 1987; Meyer, 2015; Hoffmann and Muttarak, 2020; Chankrajang and Muttarak, 2017; Peterson, 2025). Several studies report that an improved understanding of ecosystem services increases awareness of the sustainable use and management of wildlife-related conservation benefits (Erhabor and Don, 2016; Kideghesho et al., 2007; van Dalum, 2013; Karris et al., 2020; Meyer, 2015). Education thus provides environmental knowledge of ecosystem services and their importance, thus becoming a stimulus toward positive wildlife conservation attitudes (Børresen et al., 2023).

The perception of benefits seemed to increase positive attitudes. Previous studies have reported mixed effects of conservation benefits on pro-conservation attitudes (Gillingham and Lee, 1999; Bernardo et al., 2021; Brooks et al., 2013; Mkonyi et al., 2017). While access to conservation-related benefits can enhance support for biodiversity conservation, the relationship is often mediated by perceived equity, governance quality, participation in decision-making, and the extent to which benefits offset conservation-related costs (Kegamba et al., 2023; Arjunan et al., 2006; Brooks et al., 2013). Our study recognizes that the relationship between conservation benefits and attitudes is complex; thus, the provision of benefits does not necessarily influence attitude because attitude is the product of multifaceted factors, such as culture and how those benefits are distributed (Scanlon and Kull, 2009). While our study shows that conservation benefits positively promote attitudes toward conservation, a previous study in a community adjacent to the Selous Game Reserve found a positive impact of benefits on conservation projects through game meat provision (Gillingham and Lee, 1999). However, this did not promote a positive perception among the locals in the reserve. In other words, people were ready to enjoy community projects, but not the reserve. These findings emphasize that conservation attitudes are specific to context and area, as Kansky et al. (2014) suggests.

Household food security was also an important determinant of wildlife conservation attitudes. While one might think that people with high food security would rank higher in conservation attitudes, it was interesting that our results found the opposite. This might be attributed to the complexity of food production and biodiversity conservation where increased production threatens biodiversity conservation (Fischer et al., 2017). People who reported higher food security had more negative attitudes than those who reported food insecurity. People who work hard to produce enough food to avoid food insecurity may be more afraid of their crops or livestock being consumed by wildlife than those with less production. For example, Makumbe et al. (2022) found that residents of Save Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe felt unsafe when wildlife affected their lives and food security status. Crop damage caused by wildlife and livestock depredation has had a significant impact on household food security in communities adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania (Kaswamila et al., 2007). Thus, increasing HWC related to the impacts of household food security promotes more negative conservation attitudes among communities and has negative implications for biodiversity conservation.

While several predictors were not statistically significant in the final model, the observed trends are nevertheless noteworthy. Although these findings do not provide strong evidence of an association, they may reflect underlying relationships that were not detected because of limited statistical power, measurement constraints, or contextual factors. Future studies with larger samples and broader spatial coverage could further examine these potential associations. This is because, some studies such as studies in Serengeti National Park found that HWC between locals and conservation to be an important factor in shaping conservation attitudes (Kideghesho et al., 2007). Furthermore, Mir et al. (2015) found that livestock ownership significantly shaped attitudes toward wildlife conservation, with respondents owning larger numbers of livestock exhibiting more negative perceptions of wildlife and conservation initiatives.

Increasing HWC and the frequency of incidences were found to be associated with negative wildlife conservation attitudes. People who felt HWC was increasing reported negative perceptions about wildlife conservation. Similarly, people who experienced HWC more frequently tended to report negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation.. HWC may demoralize people and contribute significantly to the failure of wildlife conservation. Other studies have also indicated it jeopardizes conservation efforts (Karanth et al., 2019; Larson et al., 2016; Makumbe et al., 2022). Mitigating and reducing conflicts might be critical for conservation and promoting a positive attitude toward wildlife conservation.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the relationship between social, economic, and demographic factors, conservation benefits and costs, and self-reported wildlife conservation attitudes. These findings indicate the importance of formal education, food security, and perceptions of conservation benefits in predicting how people living adjacent to national parks perceive conservation attitudes. However, the role of education must be interpreted with caution because other studies have shown a weakness in using education as a causal factor for behavioral changes. It is also important to remember that conservation attitudes are specific to local context and may be temporally dynamic, indicating that conservation efforts need to be tailored to local communities and periodically reassessed.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsrma.2026.1891779/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Selma Lendelvo, University of Namibia, Namibia

Reviewed by: Valerie A. M. Schoof, York University, Canada

Jerry Mauri, Northeast Forestry University, China

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics approval

The studies involving humans were approved by the office of Research Protection: Pennsylvania State University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The Ethics Committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants' legal guardians/next of kin because the study used minimal risk methods of data collection. Also the literacy level of participants necessitated use of verbal consent. This was conducted after we received exempt of IRB.

Author contributions

GL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ES: Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

References

  1. Ajzen I., Fishbein M. (2008). Scaling and testing multiplicative combinations in the expectancy–value model of attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38, 2222 – 2247. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00389.x
  2. Arjunan M., Holmes C., Puyravaud J.-P., Davidar P. (2006). Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the Kalakad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ. Manage. 79, 188 – 197. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.007
  3. Bencin H., Kioko J., Kiffner C. (2016). Local people's perceptions of wildlife species in two distinct landscapes of Northern Tanzania. J. Nat. Conserv. 34, 82 – 92. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2016.09.004
  4. Bernardo F., Loupa-Ramos I., Carvalheiro J. (2021). Are biodiversity perception and attitudes context dependent? A comparative study using a mixed-method approach. Land Use Policy 109: 105703. doi: doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105703
  5. Børresen S. T., Ulimboka R., Nyahongo J., Ranke P. S., Skjaervø G. R., Røskaft E. (2023). The role of education in biodiversity conservation: can knowledge and understanding alter locals' views and attitudes towards ecosystem services? Environ. Educ. Res. 29, 148 – 163. doi: doi:10.1080/13504622.2022.2117796
  6. Box G. E. P., Tidwell P. W. (1962). Transformation of the independent variables. Technometrics 4, 531 – 550. doi: doi:10.1080/00401706.1962.10490038
  7. Brooks J., Waylen K. A., Mulder M. B. (2013). Assessing community-based conservation projects: a systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes. Environ. Evid. 2: 2. doi: doi:10.1186/2047-2382-2-2
  8. Browne-Nuñez C., Jonker S. A. (2008). Attitudes toward wildlife and conservation across Africa: a review of survey research. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 13, 47 – 70. doi: doi:10.1080/10871200701812936
  9. Chankrajang T., Muttarak R. (2017). Green returns to education: does schooling contribute to pro-environmental behaviours? Evidence FROM Thailand. Ecol. Econ. 131, 434 – 448. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.015
  10. Dayer A. A., Bright A. D., Teel T. L., Manfredo M. J. (2016). Application of a stated choice approach to assessing public preferences for wildlife conservation funding. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 21, 379 – 390. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2016.1169565
  11. Dougherty E. M., Fulton D. C., Anderson D. H. (2003). The influence of gender on the relationship between wildlife value orientations, beliefs, and the acceptability of lethal deer control in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16, 603 – 623. doi: doi:10.1080/08941920309187
  12. Erhabor N. I., Don J. U. (2016). Impact of environmental education on the knowledge and attitude of students towards the environment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 11, 5367 − 5375.
  13. FAO (1995). The Collection of Agricultural Data: A Framework for the 1990 World Census of Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. Available online at:
  14. Fischer J., Abson D. J., Bergsten A., French Collier N., Dorresteijn I., Hanspach J.. (2017). Reframing the food–biodiversity challenge. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 335 – 345. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.009
  15. Fishbein M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Hum. Relat. 16, 233 – 239.
  16. Fraser-Celin V.-L., Hovorka A. J., Hovork M., Maude G. (2017). Farmer?African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) relations in the eastern Kalahari region of Botswana. Koedoe 59, 1 – 10. doi: doi:10.4102/koedoe.v59i2.1366
  17. Fulton D. C., Skerl K., Shank E. M., Lime D. W. (2004). Beliefs and attitudes toward lethal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 1166 – 1176. doi: doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[1166:BAATLM]2.0.CO;2
  18. Gidebo H. B. (2022). Linking livelihood and biodiversity conservation in protected areas: community based tourism development perspective from developing country. Tour. Hosp. Res. 23: 14673584221102699. doi: doi:10.1177/14673584221102699
  19. Gillingham S., Lee P. C. (1999). The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ. Conserv. 26, 218 – 228. doi: doi:10.1017/S0376892999000302
  20. Hariohay K. M., Fyumagwa R. D., Kideghesho J. R., Røskaft E. (2018). Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 23, 503 – 514. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2018.1494866
  21. Hariohay K. M., Machaninga A. C., Lyimo E. H., Hunninck L., Kideghesho J. R., Røskaft E. (2024). Can conservation-based incentives promote willingness of local communities to coexist with wildlife? A case of Burunge Wildlife Management Area, Northern Tanzania. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 30, 1 – 14. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2024.2333550
  22. Hoffmann R., Muttarak R. (2020). Greening through schooling: understanding the link between education and pro-environmental behavior in the Philippines. Environ. Res. Lett. 15: 014009. doi: doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab5ea0
  23. Hosmer D. W. Jr, Lemeshow S., Sturdivant R. X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. doi: doi:10.1002/9781118548387
  24. Htay T., Htoo K. K., Mbise F. P., Røskaft E. (2022). Factors influencing communities' attitudes and participation in protected area conservation: a case study from Northern Myanmar. Soc. Nat. Resour. 35, 301 – 319. doi: doi:10.1080/08941920.2022.2032515
  25. Jacobs M. H., Vaske J. J., Sijtsma M. T. (2014). Predictive potential of wildlife value orientations for acceptability of management interventions. J. Nat. Conserv. 22, 377 – 383. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2014.03.005
  26. Kansky R., Kidd M., Knight A. T. (2014). Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 28, 924 – 938. doi: doi:10.1111/cobi.12275
  27. Kansky R., Knight A. T. (2014). Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in conflict with humans. Biol. Conserv. 179, 93 – 105. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.008
  28. Karanth K. K., Jain S., Weinthal E. (2019). Human–wildlife interactions and attitudes towards wildlife and wildlife reserves in Rajasthan, India. Oryx 53, 523 – 531. doi: doi:10.1017/S0030605317001028
  29. Karris G., Martinis A., Kabassi K., Dalakiari A., Korbetis M. (2020). Changing social awareness of the illegal killing of migratory birds in the Ionian Islands, western Greece. J. Biol. Educ. 54, 162 – 175. doi: doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1554597
  30. Kaswamila A., Russell S., McGibbon M. (2007). Impacts of wildlife on household food security and income in northeastern Tanzania. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 12, 391 – 404. doi: doi:10.1080/10871200701670003
  31. Katswera J., Mutekanga N. M., Twesigye C. K. (2022). Community perceptions and attitudes towards conservation of wildlife in Uganda. J Wildl Biodivers, 6, 42 – 65. doi: doi:10.5281/zenodo.6522377
  32. Kegamba J. J., Sangha K. K., Wurm P. A., Garnett S. T. (2023). Conservation benefit-sharing mechanisms and their effectiveness in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem: local communities' perspectives. Biodivers. Conserv. 32, 1901 – 1930. doi: doi:10.1007/s10531-023-02583-1
  33. Kellert S. R. (1994). Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. Bears Biol. Manag. 9, 43 – 50. doi: doi:10.2307/3872683
  34. Kellert S. R., Berry J. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15, 363 – 371.
  35. Kideghesho J. R., Røskaft E., Kaltenborn B. P. (2007). Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 2213 – 2230. doi: doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9132-8
  36. Kioko J., Kiringe J. (2010). Youth's knowledge, attitudes and practices in wildlife and environmental conservation in Maasailand, Kenya. S. Afr. J. Environ. Educ. 27, 91 – 101. doi: doi:10.4314/sajee.v27i0.122876
  37. Krosnick J. A., Judd C. M., Wittenbrink B. (2018). “The measurement of attitudes,” in The Handbook of Attitudes, Volume 1: Basic Principles, edited by D. Albarracin, and B. T. Johnson (Mahwah, NJ: Routledge), 45 – 105.
  38. Laltaika E. I., Askew K. M. (2021). Modes of Dispossession of Indigenous Lands and Territories in Africa. Lands of the Future: Anthropological Perspectives on Pastoralism, Land Deals and Tropes of Modernity in Eastern Africa. New York, Berghahn Books. 99–122. doi: doi:10.2307/j.ctv2tsxkm5.10
  39. Larson L. R., Conway A. L., Hernandez S. M., Carroll J. P. (2016). Human-wildlife conflict, conservation attitudes, and a potential role for citizen science in Sierra Leone, Africa. Conserv. Soc. 14, 205 – 217. doi: doi:10.4103/0972-4923.191159
  40. Larson L. R., Stedman R. C., Cooper C. B., Decker D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 112 – 124. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
  41. Larsson S., Larsson S. O., Bennett J., Sjolander-Lindqvist A. (2022). Contextualizing negative attitudes to wildlife and wildlife governance in the moral economy of Swedish farmers. Front. Conserv. Sci. 3: 1014769. doi: doi:10.3389/fcosc.2022.1014769
  42. Liordos V., Kontsiotis V. J., Anastasiadou M., Karavasias E. (2017). Effects of attitudes and demography on public support for endangered species conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 595, 25 – 34. doi: doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.241
  43. Liordos V., Kontsiotis V. J., Eleftheriadou I., Telidis S., Triantafyllidis A. (2021). Wildlife value orientations and demographics in Greece. Earth 2, 457 – 467. doi: doi:10.3390/earth2030027
  44. Lyakurwa G. J., Chepkwony M. C., Sabuhoro E. (2025). Community perceptions on conservation, livelihood vulnerability and quality of life around Tanzania's Kilimanjaro National Park. Land 14, 334. doi: doi:10.3390/land14020334
  45. Makumbe P., Mapurazi S., Jaravani S., Matsilele I. (2022). Human-wildlife conflict in save valley conservancy: residents' attitude toward wildlife conservation. Scientifica 2022, 1 – 11. doi: doi:10.1155/2022/2107711
  46. Manfredo M. J., Teel T. L., Dietsch A. M. (2016). Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 287 – 296. doi: doi:10.1111/cobi.12619
  47. Mayele J. M., Woja V. S. (2022). Socio-economic and environmental factors influencing human-wildlife conflict in nimule National Park-South Sudan. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 7, 465 – 482.
  48. Megaze A., Balakrishnan M., Belay G. (2017). Human–wildlife conflict and attitude of local people towards conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Afr. Zool. 52, 1 – 8. doi: doi:10.1080/15627020.2016.1254063
  49. Meyer A. (2015). Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 116, 108 – 121. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.018
  50. Meyer M., Börner J. (2022). Rural livelihoods, community-based conservation, and human–wildlife conflict: scope for synergies? Biol. Conserv. 272: 109666. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109666
  51. Mgonja J., Uswege D. (2022). Assessment of factors moderating community attitudes towards wildlife tourism and conservation: a case of Ikona and Makao wildlife management areas. Tanz. J. For. Nat. Conserv. 91, 214−233.
  52. Mir Z. R., Noor A., Habib B., Veeraswami G. G. (2015). Attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation: a case study from the Kashmir Valley. Mt. Res. Dev. 35, 392 – 400. doi: doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00030.1
  53. Mkonyi F. J., Estes A. B., Msuha M. J., Lichtenfeld L. L., Durant S. M. (2017). Local attitudes and perceptions toward large carnivores in a human-dominated landscape of Northern Tanzania. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 22, 314 – 330. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2017.1323356
  54. Mogomotsi P. K., Stone L. S., Mogomotsi G. E. J., Dube N. (2020). Factors influencing community participation in wildlife conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 25, 372 – 386. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2020.1748769
  55. Nick T. G., Campbell K. M. (2007). “Logistic regression,” in Topics in Biostatistics, ed W. T. Ambrosius (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press), 273 – 301. doi: doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-530-5_14
  56. Ntuli H., Jagers S. C., Linell A., Sjöstedt M., Muchapondwa E. (2019). Factors influencing local communities' perceptions towards conservation of transboundary wildlife resources: the case of the Great Limpopo trans-frontier conservation area. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 2977 – 3003. doi: doi:10.1007/s10531-019-01809-5
  57. Obradović S., Stojanović V., Milić D. (2022). The importance of understanding local community attitudes and perceptions regarding nature conservation. Wetlands 43: 2. doi: doi:10.1007/s13157-022-01652-5
  58. Peterson T. (2025). Formal education levels and environmental interest. Soc. Sci. Q. 106: e70059. doi: doi:10.1111/ssqu.70059
  59. Rizzolo J. B., Gore M. L., Ratsimbazafy J. H., Rajaonson A. (2017). Cultural influences on attitudes about the causes and consequences of wildlife poaching. Crime Law Soc. Change 67, 415 – 437. doi: doi:10.1007/s10611-016-9665-z
  60. Salazar G., Satheesh N., Ramakrishna I., Monroe M. C., Mills M., Karanth K. K. (2024). Using environmental education to nurture positive human–wildlife interactions in India. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 6: e13096. doi: doi:10.1111/csp2.13096
  61. Sampson C., Leimgruber P., Rodriguez S., McEvoy J., Sotherden E., Tonkyn D. (2019). Perception of human–elephant conflict and conservation attitudes of affected communities in Myanmar. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 12: 1940082919831242. doi: doi:10.1177/1940082919831242
  62. Scanlon L. J., Kull C. A. (2009). Untangling the links between wildlife benefits and community-based conservation at Torra Conservancy, Namibia. Dev. South. Afr. 26, 75 – 93. doi: doi:10.1080/03768350802640107
  63. Shrestha R. K., Alavalapati J. R. R. (2006). Linking conservation and development: an analysis of local people's attitude towards Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 8, 69 – 84. doi: doi:10.1007/s10668-005-0188-5
  64. Sponarski C. C., Semeniuk C., Glikman J. A., Bath A. J., Musiani M. (2013). Heterogeneity among rural resident attitudes toward wolves. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 18, 239 – 248. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2013.792022
  65. Tessema M. E., Lilieholm R. J., Ashenafi Z. T., Leader-Williams N. (2010). Community attitudes toward wildlife and protected areas in Ethiopia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 489 – 506. doi: doi:10.1080/08941920903177867
  66. Tisdell C., Wilson C. (2006). Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy. Contemp. Econ. Policy 24, 144 – 159. doi: doi:10.1093/cep/byj014
  67. Tomićević J., Shannon M. A., Milovanović M. (2010). Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: case study from Serbia. For. Policy Econ. 12, 157 – 162. doi: doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.006
  68. van Dalum M. (2013). Attitude Change Towards Wildlife and the Role of Environmental Education. Netherlands: Utrecht University Repository.
  69. Whitehouse-Tedd K., Abell J., Dunn A. (2021). Evaluation of the use of psychometric scales in human–wildlife interaction research to determine attitudes and tolerance toward wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 35, 533 – 547. doi: doi:10.1111/cobi.13599

Citation

Lyakurwa, G. & Sabuhoro, E. (2026). Demographic and socio-economic influences on self-reported wildlife conservation attitude: a case study of communities adjacent to Mkomazi National Park in Tanzania. Frontiers in Sustainable Resource Management, Volume 5. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
5 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Lyakurwa and Sabuhoro.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Gasto Lyakurwa

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchThe final count-down: estimating the total value of all the world's natural resources and an estimate of how long they may lastHarald Ulrik Sverdrup, Anders Nordby, Ole van Allen, Anna Hulda Olafsdottir, Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir, Wouter van DierenOriginal ResearchForecasts of United States oil and gas production to 2100J. H. Laherrère, R. W. BentleyPerspectiveConservation concessions or green grabbing? A critical perspective on mega conservation investmentsYamikani Harry Makwinja, Belinda Makare