Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal for Nature Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jnc

Can a legal game meat trade in Tanzania lead to reduced poaching?

Perceptions of stakeholders in the wildlife industry
Reuben M.J. Kadigi a, *, Charles Peter Mgeni b, Joseph Rajabu Kangile b, Aika Okting’ati Aku a,
Prisca Kimaro b
a
Department of Trade and Investment, College of Economics and Business Studies, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3007, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania
b
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusibusiness, College of Economics and Business Studies, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3007, Chuo Kikuu,
Morogoro, Tanzania

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper evaluates stakeholders’ perceptions about authorisation of the game meat trade as a solution to
Game meat trade poaching in Tanzania. It respectively uses a variant of “Likert’s method of summated ratings” and the “cumu­
Regulatory framework lative ordinal regression model” to analyse and compare the opinions of government officials and non-state
Likert’s method of summated ratings
stakeholders about the performance of the recent regulatory framework governing game meat trade in the
Poaching
country. The results support the assertion that the authorisation of the game meat trade can be one of the boldest
Hunting legislations
conservation tools to mitigate poaching if well-planned and regulated. The results of cumulative ordinal
regression model suggest that a unit improvement in the procedures for the application and registration of game
meat selling facilities is likely to improve the performance of the regulatory framework in the country by about
42%. This result was statistically significant at a p-value of 0.010, which corresponds to a 99% confidence level.
We recommend leveraging stakeholders’ active engagement and strengthening cooperation between game meat
value chain actors and law-enforcement authorities. An innovative participatory model for enforcing game meat
sanitary and safety regulations is also recommended to avoid potential health risks to consumers. We underscore
the importance of institutional capacity building, awareness creation, and adequate funding in the fight against
poaching and bushmeat trade.

1. Introduction Chaves et al., 2018). In fact, there are many other scholars and advocacy
organisations who argue that hunting improves both communities and
While the real outcomes of authorising game meat trade to mitigate wildlife and when hunting is banned, poaching drastically increases
poaching are difficult to ascertain, many scholars still subscribe to this (SCI, 2021; Naidoo et al., 2016).
solution (Sung and Fong, 2018; Weber et al., 2015; Challender and Most important in this debate are the issues related to the ecological,
MacMillan, 2014; Biggs et al., 2013; ’t Sas-Rolfes, 2000). Their argu­ political, and economic stakes of poaching and bushmeat trade.
ments are centred on the acknowledgment that banning the game meat Ecologically, poaching and bushmeat trade is considered a great and
trade can also be problematic and can produce adverse conservation immediate threat to biodiversity conservation, especially in Africa and
outcomes (Biggs et al., 2013). It can discourage sustainable harvesting, Asia (Andimile and Floros, 2021; Ingram et al., 2021; Makoye, 2021;
and it can also exacerbate poaching (’t Sas-Rolfes, 2000), or lead to food Teutloff et al., 2021; Luiselli et al., 2020; Benítez-López et al., 2019; van
insecurities and economic shocks (Booth et al., 2021). Consequently, Vliet et al., 2019; van Vliet, 2018; Hema et al., 2017; Luiselli et al., 2017;
many scholars have concluded that if well-managed and regulated, Lindsey et al., 2015; Malone, 2014; Brashares et al., 2011; Lindsey et al.,
hunting and game meat trade can be one of the strongest conservation 2013; Nasi et al., 2011; van Vliet et al., 2011; Fa and Brown, 2009;
methods and can help to mitigate poaching through the enforcement Brashares et al., 2004; TRAFFIC/WWF/IUCN, 1997). It is also viewed as
resources, community employment and ownership, and redistribution of leading to the overexploitation of some wild animal species and dras­
benefits accruing from wildlife management (Wildlife Economy Hub for tically affecting ecosystem health, diversity, and stability. Poaching and
Africa, 2022; Fukushima et al., 2021; Koh et al., 2021; Makoye, 2021; bushmeat trade can also lead to serious health issues because it is

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rmjkadigi@sua.ac.tz (R.M.J. Kadigi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126502
Received 6 March 2023; Received in revised form 8 October 2023; Accepted 8 October 2023
Available online 10 October 2023
1617-1381/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

normally illicit, and difficult to regulate: it can quickly spread diseases existing weaknesses and the right pathways to put in place effective
and pathogens (He & Li, 2021; Borzée et al., 2020; Bonwitt et al., 2018; regulatory frameworks. This paper examines the performance of the new
Doyle 2015; FDA, 2015; WHO, 2015; WHO, 2014; Malone 2014; FDHA, game meat regulatory framework in Tanzania from the perspectives of
2014; Falk et al., 2013; the National Science Foundation, 2013; Zumla different stakeholders, including both public and private or non-state
et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2012; Subramanian 2012; Travis et al. 2011; stakeholders. As argued elsewhere in the literature, incorporating
Greger 2007; Inglesby et al., 1999). their views in a meaningful manner is important for setting out prag­
Examples of these diseases and pathogens include swine fever matic policy suggestions on how to reform wildlife management for
through the consumption of insalubrious bushmeat (Yin et al., 2020; sustainable conservation and utilisation (Kabiri, 2010).
Coastard et al., 2013), or HIV transmitted to humans through hunting The main purpose of the paper is to diagnose what has worked and
and slaughtering of bushmeat (Pike et al., 2010). Examples of these what has not worked during the initial implementation of the new legal
diseases and pathogens include swine fever through the consumption of framework for the game meat trade in the country. The lessons gener­
insalubrious bushmeat (Yin et al., 2020; Coastard et al., 2013), or HIV ated from this study are useful in informing future policy and regulatory
transmitted to humans through hunting and slaughtering of bushmeat reforms not only in Tanzania but also in other countries with similar
(Pike et al., 2010). According to Worobey (2021), COVID-19, caused by contexts and challenges. In the next sections the history or evolution of
the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is believed to have originated from (potentially legislation applied to regulate hunting and game meat trade in the
illegal) wildlife trade. COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is country “after” independence is reviewed by focusing on a wider range
also believed to have originated from (potentially illegal) wildlife trade of legal restrictions and requirements. This is followed by a description
(Worobey, 2021). Poaching may also directly affect tourism, making the of the methods and approaches used in the study and the empirical
bushmeat trade a financial threat to many protected areas, especially analysis as well as a presentation of the study results. The results are
national parks (OCTA, 2011). Governments may lose revenues due to discussed and the key concluding remarks and policy recommendations
illegal wildlife trade hence burdening the socio-economic development are provided in the last section.
of a country because the loss from taxes cannot be invested in public
services (ibid). 2. Evolution of hunting and game meat trade legislations in
Despite their various threats, poaching and bushmeat consumption Tanzania
continue to increase (Albrechtsen et al., 2022; Rogan et al., 2017). In
Tanzania for example, the available estimates indicate that more than Our empirical analysis is preceded by a brief historical exploration of
2,000 tons of illegal bushmeat (valued at $50 million) is seized annually the evolution of hunting and game meat legislation in Tanzania during
(Makoye, 2021). According to Makoye (2021), paramilitary operations the post-independent era as summarised in Fig. 1. This was important to
in key protected areas in the country arrested 11,838 illegal hunters establish the scope of, and motivation for, our study. In general, the
within the period of four years from 2016 to 2020 (ibid). In the Serengeti regulatory framework that governs wildlife conservation in the country
ecosystem alone, between 40,000 and 200,000 animals are illegally has substantially changed from being more restrictive and exclusive in
harvested each year (Hofer et al., 2000; Mduma et al., 1998). In Kindu, the early 1960s through the mid-1970s to being less restraining and
which is one of the largest urban centres in the Democratic Republic of increasingly welcoming private participation and community-based
the Congo (DRC) located near the Lomami National Park, Batumike et al. initiatives in the late 1970s to early 2020s. For example, the first two
(2021) show that more than 40,000 carcasses of bushmeat (valued at decades of independence have experienced more national parks (NPs)
USD 725,000) were annually traded. Kindu is one of the major trading being gazetted. By virtue of their conservation status, no consumptive
centres in DRC not only for bushmeat but also for other products use is allowed in these NPs. The later time window (i.e. a period from the
including; timber, agricultural products, and minerals (Batumike et al., late 1970s to early 2020s) has experienced relatively less restrictive
2021). reforms and has been more inclusive in wildlife management than the
Recent statistics for Cameroon show that for the period from 2020 to former (the period from the early 1960s through the mid-1970s).
the end of August 2021, a total of 1,392 kg of bushmeat from different Typical examples of reforms later time window include the opening of
animal species were seized from poachers in the country’s Campo Ma’an the hunting industry to private companies, empowering communities
National Park (Kubania, 2021). More recent estimates for the Congo with the right to wildlife resources in their areas, and establishing
Basin show that about one million tons of bushmeat are consumed each community-based wildlife management areas (CBWMA).
year in the basin (Lucas et al., 2022). In Zambia, poachers could earn a Substantial reforms occurred in 2020 when the establishment of
median revenue of $48 a month which is more than twice ($15 a month) game meat selling facilities and the sale of game meat was officially
of the median household income in the same area (Lindsey et al., 2015). allowed by the government under special rules stipulated in the Wildlife
In fact, bushmeat is even crossing borders from Africa and Asia to Conservation (Game Meat Selling) Regulations 2020 (URT, 2020a). This
other countries outside these continents (Dawson, 2018; FDHA, 2014; came as part of an effort to curb poaching. The regulations provide a
Chaber et al., 2010). For example, the available estimates indicate that mandate to the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism to designate
approximately 5 tons of bushmeat were smuggled in personal luggage certain areas in the country or vehicles to be used as game meat selling
from Africa to France through the Paris Roissy Charles de Gaulle Airport facilities (URT, 2020a). The first selling point for authorised game meat
every week (Dawson, 2018; FDHA, 2014; Chaber et al., 2010). Of this, a trade was in Dodoma and the selling price was TZS 5,000 per kilo­
third is estimated as being protected under CITES (Dawson, 2018). In gramme (around $2). The new Regulations mandate the Tanzania
December 2021, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA) to provide support to help
at Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) seized over 104 people begin their private wild animal farms, zoos, and ranches (e.g., by
lb of bushmeat (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2021). supplying them with heifers and young animals) and later be able to
To mitigate the threats of poaching and bushmeat trade, many harvest wild animals for commercial purposes. The Regulations indicate
countries have imposed stringent controls and bans. However, as argued the sources of commercial game meat to include resident hunting;
by Koh et al. (2021) and Veríssimo & Wan (2019), regulations and bans tourist hunting; wildlife farms/ranches/zoos; and culling, cropping, and
alone are insufficient. The quality of these instruments matters. Yet, control of problem animals. The Wildlife Conservation (Resident
achieving regulatory quality is increasingly becoming difficult and is Hunting) Regulations of 2020 (URT, 2020b) were also revised in 2022
viewed as one of the major obstacles to sustainable management and (URT, 2022a) together with the Wildlife Conservation Act (Principal
utilization of wildlife resources (OECD, 2022; Coad et al., 2021; Ingram Legislation) (URT, 2022b).
et al., 2021; Fukushima et al., 2021; Moreno-Zarate et al., 2021; van As already mentioned, having legislation in place is one thing but
Vliet et al., 2019). This calls for tailor-made research to identify the guaranteeing its quality (performance) is something else. It is therefore

2
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Fig. 1. Evolution of hunting legislations and game meat trade during the post-independent Tanzania.

important to investigate the question of whether the new legislation in sampling methods lack generalizability (Showkat, 2017; Glen, 2015;
Tanzania is working as expected. We evaluate this using several in­ Doherty, 1994). Even though the findings obtained through these
dicators, that emerged from the stakeholders’ views and opinion ranking methods apply mostly to the group studied, it may be wrong to extend
about the questions of whether a) the new legislation has reduced these findings beyond that particular sample (Glen, 2015). In certain
poaching or not, b) the hunting of wild animals for game meat in areas cases, however, non-probability sampling methods remain the useful
designated for hunting and operationalization of game meat butcheries and convenient techniques for selecting a sample, especially in certain
continued well or not, and c) the actors in the game meat value chain cases where they are appropriate and the only methods available (ibid).
complied with the conditions and requirement specified in the new In our study, we used purposive sampling and snowball sampling as
regulatory framework or not. The next section explains the methods and “non-probability” sampling methods. We selected the initial few par­
procedures applied for carrying out the study. ticipants, keeping in mind the purpose of our study (Glen, 2015). Pur­
posive sampling was preferred because it is somewhat less costly, more
3. Methods readily accessible, and more convenient, and selects only those relevant
to the research design (Enago Academy, 2020; Cambell et al., 2020).
3.1. Sampling procedure and data collection The purposive sampling method puts more emphasis on the ability of
the researcher to assess the elements of the population (Enago Academy,
Motivated by the evolution of hunting legislation and game meat 2020). The snowball sampling method is often used when the population
trade in Tanzania, we conducted a study in March and April 2022 to is unknown or hidden, making it difficult for researchers to access
investigate the perceptions of key wildlife stakeholders about the recent (Raifman, 2022; Atkinson & Flit, 2001). The sampling procedure is such
reforms and the performance of the new regulatory framework for the that the initial research participants recruit other participants for the
game meat trade in the country. Depending on the characteristics of the research. That is, it involves primary data sources nominating other
actor populations, we used both the “probability” and “non-probability” potential primary data sources to be used in the research (Enago
sampling methods to select the respondents of our study. It is important Academy, 2020). The snowball sampling method is based on referrals
to distinguish between the “probability” and “non-probability” sampling from initial subjects to generate additional subjects (Biernacki & Wal­
methods. In “probability” sampling, each element of the population has dorf, 1981). That is, members of the sample group are recruited via
a known non-zero probability of selection meaning that each sample has chain referral (Simkus, 2013; Raifman, 2022). The method doesn’t have
an equal probability of being chosen (Glen, 2015). Some probability the requirement of simple random sampling: where the odds or chances
sampling methods include simple random sampling, stratified random have to be the same for any particular participant being chosen (Enago
sampling, systematic random sampling, cluster sampling, and multi- Academy, 2020). However, while the method can reach difficult target
stage systematic sampling (Glen, 2015). In our study, we used simple audiences through referrals and is a cost-effective way to recruit, it could
random sampling and stratified random sampling methods. lead to sample bias and become representative of smaller networks
In “non-probability” sampling, nonrandomised methods are used to rather than the larger population (Enago Academy, 2020).
draw the sample and the method mostly involves judgment (Showkat, We selected the study districts using the purposive sampling pro­
2017; Glen, 2015; Doherty, 1994). Examples of “non-probability” sam­ cedure based on a criterion of whether wild animal hunting and selling
pling methods include purposive sampling, convenience sampling, of game meat were practiced in the districts. We then used “stratified
quota sampling, and snowball sampling (Glen, 2015). These sampling random sampling” to classify or separate stakeholders into strata as
methods are considered less expensive, less complicated, and easy to summarised in Table 1. The stratified random sampling approach re­
apply as compared to their counterparts “probability” sampling methods duces sampling bias as it allows researchers to estimate within and be­
(Glen, 2015). However, the findings established using non-probability tween strata outcomes and in so doing, it improves the accuracy of

3
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Table 1 within 17 regions in Tanzania (Table 1 and Fig. 2) were selected and
Sample sizes and proportions of interviewees by stakeholder categories. interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire translated into Swa­
S/N Actor or stakeholder category N % hili (the national language in Tanzania). Because of the infantile nature
of the legal game meat trade in the country, there were only a few
1 Hunters 12 8.3
2 Owners of wild animal farm/zoo/ranch 10 6.9 licensed residents and professional hunters, owners of wild animal
3 Operators of game meat butchery or meat shops 42 29.0 farms, zoos, and ranches, and operators of game meat selling facilities in
4 Sellers of game meat food in restaurants 2 1.4 the study districts. For each of these stakeholder categories we randomly
5 Consumer of game meat 21 14.5 selected at least 50 % representatives. Apparently, the members of
6 Representative of communities residing close to hunting 13 9.0
blocks
communities who resided close to hunting blocks in the study districts
7 Staff of District Council (Game and NR Officers) 31 21.4 were many and would require selecting a larger sample. However, as
8 Staff of MNRT/TAWA/TANAPA 14 9.7 already mentioned, the resources to allow this were limiting. Yet, due to
Total 145 100 the commonality of issues amongst the communities residing close to
hunting blocks in the country, we considered the sample size of 13 re­
spondents from this category of stakeholders to be adequate for the
results (Elfil & Negida, 2017; Teddlie & Yu, 2007). As for most proba­
study.
bility sampling methods, stratified random sampling increases sample
representativeness (Howell et al., 2020; Teddlie & Yu, 2007). Re­
searchers divide the study population into strata depending on charac­ 3.2. Data analysis
teristics of interest to them (Howell et al., 2020; Teddlie & Yu, 2007).
The samples are then randomly chosen from each stratum to ensure a 3.2.1. Perception analysis
representative sample of all groups (Howell et al., 2020). The stratified Specifically, the analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions applied a
random samples are generally considered to be more accurate in rep­ standard scaling technique notably the variant of summative construc­
resenting the population than simple random samples (Cochran, 1946) tion of the Likert scale (Likert, 1932) dubbed by Krosnick et al. (2005)
but they require more effort due to the fact that participants have to be and Cooper et al. (2016) as the “Likert’s method of summated ratings.”
chosen randomly from each stratum and a complete list of the popula­ The technique uses a standard scaling procedure or method that attri­
tion should be constructed from each stratum (Howell et al., 2020; Singh butes numerical values to responses (Clason & Dormody, 1994; Pollard
& Masuku, 2014). et al., 2007).
We also selected the sample of government staff or officials using the The respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed or
purposive sampling procedure depending on whether the staff was disagreed with each of the statements provided in Table 2 and the extent
responsible for wildlife management or not. These stakeholders included to which they agreed or disagreed. A five-point Likert scale was used
officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), based on the following response alternatives: strongly disagree (1),
Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA), Tanzania National disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). The
Parks (TANAPA), and District Game Officers. following three main sets of statements or indicators were used to elicit
The representatives of animal hunters, owners of game meat butch­ the opinions of stakeholders:
eries, wild animal farms, zoos, and ranches, as well as, the sellers of
game meat were randomly selected from the registers of key actors and (a) The performance of regulatory framework governing game meat
members of the Tanzania Wildlife Farmers and Game Meat Suppliers trade in the country (PERFORM);
Association (TAWIFAGAMSA) which were obtained from the leaders of (b) The appropriateness of procedures for application and registra­
the Association and the District Game Offices; and from the registers of tion of game meat selling facilities (PARGMF); and
customers kept by operators of game meat selling facilities or game meat (c) The appropriateness of the management and operation of game
shops, respectively. It should be noted here that, every operator of the meat selling facilities as well as the fairness of offenses and
game meat selling facility (shop) is required by law to maintain a reg­ penalties for the person to whom the certificate is issued when
ister that shows, among other things, a list of customers indicating the convicted of an offense under the Act or contravenes any of the
quantity of meat bought [Regulation 11(2c) of the 2020 Wildlife Con­ terms or conditions under which the certificate was issued
servation (Game Meat Selling) Regulations)]. Note also that, the register (MOGMSOP) - as required by Regulation 13(1) of the Wildlife
kept by operators of game meat facilities or shops recorded only the Conservation (Game Meat Selling) Regulations (URT, 2020a).
names of customers who bought the meat directly from their shops. It
did not register the names of consumers who ate processed (cooked or 3.2.2. Correlation analysis
roasted) game meat at home or in restaurants and similar places where Our data were not normally distributed. Thus, it was compulsory to
cooked or roasted game meat recipe is sold. Thus, the number of pop­ conduct a non-parametric correlation analysis (Bhandari, 2022). Spe­
ulations of these latter consumers and operators of restaurants selling cifically, Spearman’s rho was used to investigate whether changes in one
game meat foods was hard to establish but we selected the representa­ variable were associated with changes in other variables (Forthofer,
tives of these stakeholders using the non-probability sampling method et al., 2007). To interpret correlation strength we used the general
known as snowball sampling. Given this difficulty and limitations in guideline suggested by Bhandari (2022). The test results indicated a
time and financial resources, we opted to use the snowball sampling weak correlation strength of 0.182 between PERFORM and MOGMSOP.
method and managed to interview only 21 game meat consumers and It was also weak between PERFORM and PARGMF (0.252) and moder­
only 2 operators of restaurants selling game meat foods. The drawbacks ate between PARGMF and MOGMSOP (0.345) indicating the absence of
of the method not withholding, we considered these samples to be autocorrelation (Bhandari, 2022; Forthofer et al., 2007). We then
adequate for making key statistical inferences. continued with the specification of our ordinal regression model.
Our sample also included the representatives of communities
residing close to hunting areas or blocks. These representatives were 3.3. Cumulative ordinal model
selected from the village registers using the systematic random sampling
method. Specifically, the representatives were selected according to a A cumulative ordinal model, sometimes dubbed the “graded
random starting point but with a fixed sampling interval (Edgar & Manz, response model” (Samejima, 1997), was employed in this study. It falls
2017). This interval was calculated by dividing the population size by under ordinal models which constitute one category amongst the major
the desired sample size (ibid). In total, 145 stakeholders from 40 districts three classes namely; “cumulative models”, “sequential models”, and
“adjacent-category models” (see Bürkner & Vuorre, 2019). The

4
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Fig. 2. Number of respondents by residence region.

“cumulative ordinal model” assumes that the observed ordinal variable (a) The authorisation of the sale of game meat has reduced poaching
(Y) (the opinion rating), originates from the categorization of a latent and encroachment in wildlife-protected areas (PERFORM state­
(not observable) continuous variable (Ý) (i.e the latent opinion about the ment/indicator);
performance of the regulatory framework governing the game meat (b) Since the inauguration of game meat butcheries in early 2020 the
trade in our study). number of customers of raw and grilled game meat has increased
In particular, the study analysed the extent to which the framework day by day (PERFORM statement/indicator);
was perceived to have worked or not worked and the opinions of (c) Licensed and registered places or amenities for slaughtering wild
stakeholders regarding its performance. Three models were formulated animals and selling game meat were regularly inspected by the
using the data collected from the pooled sample (n = 145), government Ministry Committee of Experts (MCE) which includes wildlife
officials (n = 15), and non-state stakeholders (n = 94), who were doctors, wildlife managers, food and drug regulators as well as
interviewed during the study, respectively. The separation of the pooled health control and meat inspection supervisors (PERFORM
sample into the latter two groups of stakeholders was important to statement/indicator);
enable the investigation of whether there were significant differences in (d) The operators of game meat butcheries who did not have certif­
perceptions and opinion rankings between the groups. icates of possession of ivory were surrendering the ivory products
The cumulative ordinal models were specified using the approach (e.g. animal skulls and skins) to the government (PERFORM
suggested by Bürkner & Vuorre (2019). The study wished to predict the statement/indicator);
opinion about authorised game meat regulatory performance, Ý from (e) The procedures for the application and registration of game meat
the quality variables of the regulatory framework, which reflect the selling facilities stipulated in the Regulations of the Wildlife
opinions of respondents about the procedures for the application and Conservation (Game Meat Selling) (URT, 2020a) are appropriate
registration of game meat facilities, the management and operation of (PARGMF statement/indicator);
game meat selling facilities and the offenses and penalties for violators. (f) The qualifications required for registration of facilities for selling
game meat (Regulation 6 in URT, 2020a) are appropriate
4. Empirical results (PARGMF statement/indicator);
(g) The duration for consideration of decisions on application for
4.1. Frequencies of opinion rating establishing or operating facilities for selling game meat (Regu­
lation 9 in URT, 2020a) is appropriate (PARGMF statement/
The detailed results of frequencies and proportions (%) of opinion indicator);
ranking of individual responses for the variables PERFORM, PARGMF, (h) The conditions for operating game meat facilities (Regulation 11
and MOGMSOP are provided in Appendices 1 through 3. In our results, in URT, 2020a) (PARGMF statement/indicator) are appropriate;
the summation of “agree”, and “strongly agree” responses provides the (i) The condition that requires the legal owner of game meat
total count of the stakeholders who agreed (i.e. Total agreed). The butchery (facility) who intends to trade in (sell) trophies to apply
combination of “disagree” and “strongly disagree” gives the total count for a trophy dealer’s license (Regulation 12 in URT, 2020a) is
of the stakeholders who disagreed (Total disagreed). These are sum­ appropriate (MOGMSOP statement/indicator);
marised in Figs. 3, 4, 5 for the pooled sample, government officials, and (j) The regulation, which stipulates that the Director General (the
non-state stakeholders respectively. Additional information in the form Chief Executive of TAWA) may revoke, cancel, or suspend any
of bar charts is provided in Appendices 4 through 6. certificate of legislation issued where the person to whom the
For individual statements of PERFORM, PARGMF, and MOGMSOP certificate was issued is convicted of an offense under the Act or
variables, the results were consistent amongst the pooled sample, gov­ contravenes any of the terms or conditions under which the
ernment officials, and non-state stakeholders (Fig. 3 through Fig. 5). In certificate was issued (Regulation 13(1) in URT, 2020a) is
all these statements, relatively more respondents agreed (than those appropriate (MOGMSOP statement/indicator);
who disagreed) that: (k) The implementation of the system of monitoring and evaluation
of game meat selling facilities (Regulation 14 in URT, 2020a) is
appropriate (MOGMSOP statement/indicator); and

5
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

The variables and indicators used collate information for analysing stake­ Variables Code Statement (claim)/indicator Agreement scale:
holders’ perceptions. 1 2 3 4 5
Variables Code Statement (claim)/indicator Agreement scale: QN- The legislation mandating the
1 2 3 4 5 B2-6 Director General (the Chief
PERFORM QN- Authorisation of the sale of game Executive of TAWA) to revoke,
B1-1 meat has reduced poaching and cancel, or suspend any certificate
encroachment in wildlife- of legislation issued where the
protected areas. person to whom the certificate
QN- The government’s decision to was issued is convicted of an
B1-2 allow individuals to own wildlife offense under the Act or
farms/zoos/animal ranches contravenes any of the terms or
where they can harvest wildlife conditions under which the
will not decrease the demand for certificate was issued (Regulation
beef, goat, and sheep meat. 13(1) in URT, 2020a) is
QN- The operationalization of game appropriate.
B1-3 meat butcheries in the country QN- The implementation of the
has continued well since when B2-7 system of monitoring and
authorized in early 2020. evaluation of game meat selling
QN- The hunting of wild animals for facilities (Regulation 14 in URT,
B1-4 game meat in areas designated 2020a) is appropriate.
for hunting has continued as QN- Regulation 15 of the Wildlife
expected. B2-8 Conservation (Game Meat
QN- Since the inauguration of game Selling) Regulations (URT,
B1-5 meat butcheries in early 2020 the 2020a), requires “any person
number of customers of raw and who contravenes any provision of
grilled game meat has increased these Regulations … shall, upon
day by day. conviction, be liable to a fine of
QN- Licensed and registered places or not less than two million shillings
B1-6 amenities for slaughtering wild but not exceeding five million
animals and selling game meat shillings or to imprisonment for a
were regularly inspected by the term.” This punishment is
Ministry Committee of Experts appropriate and proportionate to
(MCE) which includes wildlife the offense mentioned in this
doctors, wildlife managers, food regulation.
and drug regulators as well as
Agreement scales: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree;
health control and meat
and 5 = strongly agree.
inspection supervisors.
QN- Operators of game meat
B1-7 butcheries who do not have (l) Regulation 15 of the Wildlife Conservation (Game Meat Selling)
certificates of possession of ivory Regulations (URT, 2020a), which requires that any person who
were surrendering the ivory
products (e.g. animal skulls and
contravenes any provision of these Regulations commits an
skins) to the government. offense and shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine of not less
QN- Operators of game meat than two million shillings but not exceeding five million shillings
B1-8 butcheries were slaughtering or to imprisonment for a term. This punishment is appropriate
wild animals in approved
and proportionate to the offense mentioned in this regulation
slaughterhouses or slabs
PARGMF QN- The procedures for the (MOGMSOP statement/indicator).
B2-1 application and registration of
game meat selling facilities In all three groups of stakeholders, there were fewer respondents
stipulated in Part III, Regulations who agreed than those who disagreed that:
5–––10 of the Wildlife
Conservation (Game Meat
Selling) Regulations (URT, (a) The government’s decision to allow individuals to own wildlife
2020a) are appropriate. farms, zoos, and animal ranches where they can harvest wildlife
QN- The qualifications required for will not decrease the demand for beef, goat, and sheep meat
B2-2 registration of facilities for selling
(PERFORM statement/indicator);
game meat (Regulation 6 in URT,
2020a) are appropriate. (b) The operationalization of game meat butcheries in the country
QN- The duration for consideration of has continued well since when authorized in early 2020
B2-3 decisions on the application for (PERFORM statement/indicator);
establishing or operating (c) The hunting of wild animals for game meat in areas designated
facilities for selling game meat
(Regulation 9 in URT, 2020a) is
for hunting has continued well (PERFORM statement/indicator);
appropriate. and
QN- The conditions for operating (d) Operators of game meat butcheries were slaughtering wild ani­
B2-4 game meat facilities are mals in approved slaughterhouses or slabs (PERFORM statement/
appropriate (Regulation 11 in
indicator).
URT, 2020a).
MOGMSOP QN- The condition that requires the
B2-5 legal owner of game meat Many were also undecided about some of the statements or claims
butchery (facility) who intends to (Table 3).
trade in (sell) trophies to apply Four key observations can be made from the results presented in
for a trophy dealer’s license
(Regulation 12 in URT, 2020a) is
Table 3. Firstly, it is interesting to note that both the government offi­
appropriate. cials and non-state stakeholders were almost equally undecided about
whether operators of game meat butcheries were slaughtering wild

6
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Fig. 3. Sum of individual responses of dependent and independent variables for the pooled sample (n = 145).

Fig. 4. Sum of individual responses of dependent and independent variables for government officials (n = 51).

animals in approved slaughterhouses or slabs (with proportions of 35.3 (a) licensed and registered places or amenities for slaughtering wild
% and 34.0 % respectively). Secondly, more than half of both the gov­ animals and selling game meat were regularly inspected by the
ernment official (51 %) and non-state stakeholder (54.3 %) groups were Ministry Committee of experts (43.1 % versus 35.1 % respec­
undecided about whether the operators of game meat butcheries who tively); and
did not have certificates of possession of ivory were surrendering the (b) the regulation which stipulates that the Director General (the
ivory products to the government as required by the regulations or not. Chief Executive of TAWA) may revoke, cancel, or suspend any
Thirdly, there were relatively many government officials compared to certificate of legislation issued where the person to whom the
their counterpart non-state stakeholders who were uncertain whether: certificate was issued is convicted of an offense under the Act or
contravenes any of the terms or conditions under which the

7
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Fig. 5. Sum of individual responses of dependent and independent variables for non-state stakeholders (n = 94).

certificate was issued was appropriate or not (29.4 % versus 18.1 contains “–2 log-likelihood” for the constrained model. The second row
% respectively). is labelled “General” and is meant for the model with separate lines or
planes. The entry labelled “Chi-Square” is the difference between the
Fourthly, there were comparably fewer government officials than two –2 log-likelihood values.
the non-state stakeholders who were undecided regarding the claims As shown in Table 4, our parallel models were adequate and hence
that: the null hypothesis that the explanatory variables had the same effect on
the odds regardless of the thresholds was accepted. This implies that the
(a) the implementation of the system of monitoring and evaluation of lines were parallel and the odds for each estimate variable were
game meat selling facilities was appropriate (9.8 % versus 36.2 % consistent (the same) across different thresholds of the outcome vari­
respectively); able. For the pooled sample, government officials, and non-state key
(b) the procedures for application and registration of game meat stakeholders’ models, the p-values for the test of parallel lines were
selling facilities were appropriate (25.5 % versus 37.2 % greater than 0.05 (p = 0.85, 0.84, and 0.184 respectively).
respectively); The results of Pearson statistics also suggest that the models were a
(c) the duration for consideration of decisions on application for good fit for the data because the p-values were greater than 0.05 (p =
establishing or operating facilities for selling game meat was 0.240, 0.657, and 0.819 respectively). The pseudo (R2 ) values [i.e. the
appropriate (25.5 % versus 39.2 % respectively); Cox and Snell (R2CS ); and the Nagelkerke (R2N )] for the pooled sample
(d) the qualifications required for registration of facilities for selling model indicate percentage changes of 8.4 % and 8.5 % in the dependent
game meat were appropriate (27.5 % versus 41.2 % respectively); variable (PERFORM) respectively as a result of independent variables
and (PARGMF & MOGMSOP). The pseudo values for the government official
(e) the condition that requires the legal owner of game meat butch­ model indicate a relatively lower percentage change (1.5 % for both Cox
ery (facility) who intends to trade in (sell) trophies to apply for a & Snell and Nagelkerke). The pseudo values were the highest for the
trophy dealer’s license was appropriate (27.5 % versus 40.4 % non-state stakeholders’ model (14.1 % for both Cox & Snell and
respectively). Nagelkerke).
The parameter estimates for the models are presented in Tables 5
4.2. Results of ordinal regression analysis through 7. The ordinal regression coefficients in these tables refer to the
estimated or predicted changes in log odds for being in a higher category
In the ordinal regression analysis, we assumed the effects of inde­ on the dependent variable per unit increase on the independent variable
pendent variables to be consistent or proportional across the different (Ari & Yildiz, 2014). The odds of being higher than, or equal to, a
thresholds (Average, 2020; CSCU, 2020; Agresti, 2002; Brant, 1990). particular category are also dubbed the log odds or logit (ibid). For the
This refers to the assumption of proportional odds, or parallel lines government officials’ model, the coefficients of both independent vari­
(Williams & Quiroz, 2019). According to this assumption, the explana­ ables (i.e. PARGMF and MOGMSOP) were positive but insignificant (p =
tory variables, also called the independent, or predictor variable, have 0.648 and 0.591 respectively). For the pooled sample and non-state key
the same effect on the odds regardless of the threshold (ibid). This stakeholders’ models, the coefficients of the PARGMF variable were
postulation was checked by allowing the coefficients to vary, estimating positive and statistically significant (with p-values of 0.010, and 0.005
them, and then testing whether they were all equal. The results are respectively) suggesting that a unit increase in the PARGMF indepen­
presented in Table 4 for our three models (pooled sample, government dent variable would lead to the odds of being more likely to improve
officials, and non-state stakeholders respectively). In the first set of re­ performance of the regulatory framework by 42 % and 57.9 % respec­
sults (parallel lines test), the first row is labelled “Null Hypothesis” and it tively, holding all other variables constant. The changes in the odds for

8
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Table 3 Table 4
Proportion of respondents who were undecided or undecided about some Results of ordinal regression analysis by respondent group.
statements. Group/Test − 2 Log Chi- df Sig.
Code Statements Group Undecided Likelihood Square

QN- Licensed and registered places or Pooled sample (n 37.9 % I: All (pooled sample: n = 145)
B1- amenities for slaughtering wild = 145) a) Test of parallel lines
6 animals and selling game meat were Government 43.1 % Null Hypothesis 675.561
regularly inspected by the Ministry officials (n = 51) General 641.169 34.392 44 0.85
Committee of Experts which includes Non-state 35.1 % b) Goodness-of-fit (Pearson) 1973.566 1930 0.24
wildlife doctors, wildlife managers, stakeholders (n = c) Pseudo R-Square
food and drug regulators as well as 94) Cox and Snell 0.084
health control and meat inspection Nagelkerke 0.085
supervisors. (PERFORM statement/ II: Government officials (n =
indicator) 51)
QN- Operators of game meat butcheries Pooled sample (n 53.1 % a) Test of parallel lines
B1- who do not have certificates of = 145) Null Hypothesis 226.507
7 possession of ivory were surrendering Government 51.0 % General 204.14 22.367 30 0.84
the ivory products (e.g. animal skulls officials (n = 51) b) Goodness-of-fit (Pearson) 528.104 542 0.657
and skins) to the government Non-state 54.3 % c) Pseudo R-Square
(PERFORM statement/indicator) stakeholders (n = Cox and Snell 0.015
94) Nagelkerke 0.015
QN- Operators of game meat butcheries Pooled sample (n 34.5 % III: Non-state stakeholders (n
B1- were slaughtering wild animals in = 145) = 94)
8 approved slaughterhouses or slabs Government 35.3 % a) Test of parallel lines
(PERFORM statement/indicator) officials (n = 51) Null Hypothesis 463.602
Non-state 34.0 % General 415.738 47.864 40 0.184
stakeholders (n = b) Goodness-of-fit (Pearson) 1294.666 1342 0.819
94) c) Pseudo R-Square
QN- The procedures for the application Pooled sample (n 20.7 % Cox and Snell 0.141
B2- and registration of game meat selling = 145) Nagelkerke 0.141
1 facilities stipulated in Part III, Government 25.5 %
Regulations 5–––10 of the Wildlife officials (n = 51)
Conservation (Game Meat Selling) Non-state 37.2 % the second independent variable (MOGMSOP) were predicted to be
Regulations (URT, 2020a) are stakeholders (n = positive but non-significant with p-values of 0.189 and 0.222 for the
appropriate (PARGMF statement/ 94)
pooled sample and non-state stakeholders’ models respectively.
indicator)
QN- The qualifications required for Pooled sample (n 21.4 %
B2- registration of facilities for selling = 145) 5. Discussion
2 game meat (Regulation 6 in URT, Government 27.5 %
2020a) are appropriate (PARGMF officials (n = 51) Overall, the results of the opinion rating exercise suggest that legal
statement/indicator) Non-state 41.2 %
stakeholders (n =
hunting and sale of game meat could be one of the strongest conserva­
94) tion tools to mitigate poaching and bushmeat trade. Many of the re­
QN- The duration for consideration of Pooled sample (n 32.4 % spondents felt that the authorisation of the game meat trade has helped
B2- decisions on the application for = 145) reduce poaching and encroachment in protected areas and that, the
3 establishing or operating facilities for Government 25.5 %
customers of raw and grilled game meat were increasing day by day.
selling game meat (Regulation 9 in officials (n = 51)
URT, 2020a) is appropriate (PARGMF Non-state 39.2 % These opinions are in line with the views of many scholars, including
statement/indicator) stakeholders (n = that of the 2021 report by the African Leadership University, State of the
94) Wildlife Economy in Africa (Wildlife Economy Hub for Africa, 2022)
QN- The condition that requires the legal Pooled sample (n 35.9 % which argues that better-regulated hunting activities can lead to positive
B2- owner of game meat butchery = 145)
5 (facility) who intends to trade in (sell) Government 27.5 %
conservation impacts. This proposition is also in line with the perspec­
trophies to apply for a trophy dealer’s officials (n = 51) tives of Koh et al. (2021) and Veríssimo and Wan (2019) that regulations
license (Regulation 12 in URT, Non-state 40.4 % and bans are insufficient because, when hunting is banned poaching
2020a) is appropriate (MOGMSOP stakeholders (n = drastically increases.
statement/indicator) 94)
However, it should be noted that the authorisation of the game meat
QN- The legislation mandating the Pooled sample (n 37.2 %
B2- Director General (the Chief Executive = 145) trade has also not completely solved the problem of poaching in
6 of TAWA) to revoke, cancel, or Government 29.4 % Tanzania. The problem still persists, not only in this country but also in
suspend any certificate of legislation officials (n = 51) many other countries in Africa and Asia. This is attributed to a number of
issued where the person to whom the Non-state 18.1 % factors, including the change in the demand for bushmeat, as well as, the
certificate was issued is convicted of stakeholders (n =
an offense under the Act or 94)
changes in technology and cultural lifestyles just to mention a few (Zhou
contravenes any of the terms or et al., 2022; van Vliet, 2018). The key findings of our study support the
conditions under which the certificate assertion that “controlling poaching and game meat trade is immensely
was issued (Regulation 13(1) in URT, challenging …” (Twining-Ward and Chapman, 2020). As argued else­
2020a) is appropriate (MOGMSOP
where in the literature, the extent to which a legally controlled game
statement/indicator)
QN- The implementation of the system of Pooled sample (n 15.9 % meat trade can contribute to reducing poaching will depend on the
B2- monitoring and evaluation of game = 145) complexity of the limiting factors, including the capacity to supply
7 meat selling facilities (Regulation 14 Government 9.8 % sustainably harvested wild animals and domesticated wild animals
in URT, 2020a) is appropriate officials (n = 51) (UNEP, 2017). It will also depend on the level of law enforcement efforts
(MOGMSOP statement/indicator) Non-state 36.2 %
stakeholders (n =
and the ability to create awareness among value chain actors (Andimile
94) and Floros, 2021; Subramanian, 2012).
In Tanzania, the Government Notes (GN) 84 of the Wildlife Conser­
vation Act (CAP. 283), published on 7th February 2020, recognises four

9
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Table 5
Parameter estimates for the pooled sample model (n = 145).
Estimate Std. Error Wald Df Sig. 95 % CI

Lower bound Upper bound

Threshold [PERFORM = 1] − 2.757 1.234 4.990 1 0.025 − 5.176 − 0.338

[PERFORM = 2] − 2.055 1.012 4.123 1 0.042 − 4.038 − 0.071
[PERFORM = 2] − 1.344 0.881 2.325 1 0.127 − 3.070 0.383
[PERFORM = 2] − 0.613 0.810 0.573 1 0.449 − 2.201 0.974
[PERFORM = 2] − 0.371 0.796 0.217 1 0.641 − 1.931 1.189
[PERFORM = 2] − 0.266 0.791 0.113 1 0.736 − 1.816 1.284
[PERFORM = 2] 0.002 0.781 0.000 1 0.998 − 1.528 1.533
[PERFORM = 2] 0.473 0.771 0.376 1 0.540 − 1.038 1.983
[PERFORM = 2] 0.736 0.768 0.918 1 0.338 − 0.770 2.241
[PERFORM = 3] 1.500 0.770 3.789 1 0.052 − 0.010 3.010
[PERFORM = 3] 1.942 0.776 6.256 1 0.012 0.420 3.463
[PERFORM = 3] 2.350 0.783 8.993 1 0.003 0.814 3.885
[PERFORM = 3] 2.758 0.792 12.129 1 0.000 1.206 4.311
[PERFORM = 3] 3.198 0.802 15.890 1 0.000 1.626 4.771
[PERFORM = 3] 3.566 0.812 19.303 1 0.000 1.975 5.157
[PERFORM = 3] 3.976 0.823 23.311 1 0.000 2.362 5.590
[PERFORM = 3] 4.256 0.833 26.128 1 0.000 2.624 5.888
[PERFORM = 4] 4.847 0.857 31.982 1 0.000 3.167 6.527
[PERFORM = 4] 5.162 0.875 34.822 1 0.000 3.448 6.877
[PERFORM = 4] 5.290 0.883 35.864 1 0.000 3.558 7.021
[PERFORM = 4] 5.790 0.926 39.059 1 0.000 3.974 7.606
[PERFORM = 4] 6.023 0.954 39.899 1 0.000 4.154 7.892
[PERFORM = 4] 6.320 0.997 40.217 1 0.000 4.367 8.273
Location PARGMF 0.420 0.162 6.711 1 0.010 0.102 0.738
MOGMSOP 0.282 0.214 1.727 1 0.189 − 0.138 0.701

Variables:
a) Performance of regulatory framework governing game meat trade in the country (PERFORM);
b) Appropriateness of procedures for application and registration of game meat selling facilities (PARGMF); and.
c) Appropriateness of the management and operation of game meat selling facilities, as well as, the proportionate of offenses and penalties to violators (MOGMSOP).

Table 6
Parameter estimates for the government officials’ model (n = 51).
Estimate Std. Error Wald df Sig. 95 % CI

Lower bound Upper bound

Threshold [PERFORM = 2] − 2.824 1.64 2.964 1 0.085 − 6.039 0.391

[PERFORM = 2] − 2.111 1.482 2.029 1 0.154 − 5.016 0.794
[PERFORM = 2] − 1.687 1.427 1.399 1 0.237 − 4.483 1.109
[PERFORM = 2] − 0.753 1.364 0.305 1 0.581 − 3.427 1.921
[PERFORM = 2] − 0.454 1.356 0.112 1 0.738 − 3.111 2.204
[PERFORM = 3] 0.737 1.353 0.297 1 0.586 − 1.914 3.388
[PERFORM = 3] 1.129 1.358 0.692 1 0.406 − 1.532 3.791
[PERFORM = 3] 1.445 1.364 1.124 1 0.289 − 1.227 4.118
[PERFORM = 3] 1.698 1.369 1.538 1 0.215 − 0.985 4.381
[PERFORM = 3] 2.068 1.378 2.251 1 0.134 − 0.633 4.77
[PERFORM = 3] 2.392 1.388 2.97 1 0.085 − 0.328 5.113
[PERFORM = 3] 2.65 1.398 3.595 1 0.058 − 0.089 5.389
[PERFORM = 3] 2.958 1.411 4.395 1 0.036 0.193 5.724
[PERFORM = 4] 3.594 1.452 6.126 1 0.013 0.748 6.44
[PERFORM = 4] 3.904 1.482 6.942 1 0.008 1 6.807
[PERFORM = 4] 5.043 1.694 8.866 1 0.003 1.724 8.362
Location PARGMF 0.122 0.266 0.209 1 0.648 − 0.4 0.644
MOGMSOP 0.196 0.365 0.288 1 0.591 − 0.519 0.912

Variables:
a) Performance of regulatory framework governing game meat trade in the country (PERFORM);
b) Appropriateness of procedures for application and registration of game meat selling facilities (PARGMF); and.
c) Appropriateness of the management and operation of game meat selling facilities, as well as, the proportionate of offenses and penalties to violators (MOGMSOP).

sources of game meat: resident hunting, tourist hunting, wildlife farms/ system (TAWA, 2018). This was partly due to the general perspective
ranches/zoos, as well as, culling/cropping, and control of problem an­ about e-auctions that they are not only enhancing good governance but
imals (Regulation 4, 2020). However, one of the key issues that have also optimising the socio-economic potential of the country’s hunting
emerged from the various group discussions during the TRADE Hub industry, and responding to market forces in a more transparent manner
project stakeholders’ engagement workshops is the inadequate supply of (TAWA, 2018). As such, e-auctions are becoming very popular across the
wild animals for butchering. Many stakeholders perceived that the world and are considered more transparent than the conventional ap­
hunting blocks allocated for commercial game meat supply were having proaches because of the advantages they offer, especially that of
fewer animals than the ones allocated to tourist hunting. It should be allowing global participation or attracting a large audience from around
noted here that the government diversified the modalities of allocating the globe (Medius, 2019).
hunting blocks since October 2017 by adopting an electronic (e)-auction However, e-auctions have their own drawbacks too (Barnier &

10
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Table 7
Parameter estimates for the non-state stakeholders’ model (n = 94).
Estimate Std. Error Wald df Sig. 95 % CI
Lower bound Upper bound

Threshold [PERFORM = 1] − 1.778 1.331 1.784 1 0.182 − 4.388 0.831

[PERFORM = 2] − 1.07 1.131 0.896 1 0.344 − 3.287 1.146
[PERFORM = 2] − 0.349 1.019 0.117 1 0.732 − 2.347 1.649
[PERFORM = 2] 0.403 0.965 0.175 1 0.676 − 1.488 2.294
[PERFORM = 2] 0.537 0.96 0.313 1 0.576 − 1.344 2.417
[PERFORM = 2] 0.772 0.953 0.656 1 0.418 − 1.095 2.639
[PERFORM = 2] 1.065 0.948 1.264 1 0.261 − 0.792 2.923
[PERFORM = 2] 1.315 0.946 1.932 1 0.165 − 0.539 3.169
[PERFORM = 3] 1.812 0.949 3.648 1 0.056 − 0.047 3.672
[PERFORM = 3] 2.33 0.957 5.926 1 0.015 0.454 4.206
[PERFORM = 3] 2.826 0.969 8.504 1 0.004 0.927 4.725
[PERFORM = 3] 3.337 0.984 11.497 1 0.001 1.408 5.266
[PERFORM = 3] 3.82 1.001 14.576 1 0.000 1.859 5.782
[PERFORM = 3] 4.213 1.015 17.218 1 0.000 2.223 6.203
[PERFORM = 3] 4.699 1.035 20.596 1 0.000 2.67 6.728
[PERFORM = 3] 4.958 1.047 22.407 1 0.000 2.905 7.01
[PERFORM = 4] 5.522 1.078 26.212 1 0.000 3.408 7.635
[PERFORM = 4] 5.84 1.101 28.138 1 0.000 3.682 7.997
[PERFORM = 4] 6.039 1.118 29.2 1 0.000 3.849 8.23
[PERFORM = 4] 6.282 1.142 30.281 1 0.000 4.044 8.519
[PERFORM = 4] 6.588 1.179 31.223 1 0.000 4.277 8.899
Location PARGMF 0.579 0.206 7.889 1 0.005 0.175 0.983
MOGMSOP 0.328 0.268 1.494 1 0.222 − 0.198 0.853

Variables:
d) Performance of regulatory framework governing game meat trade in the country (PERFORM);
e) Appropriateness of procedures for application and registration of game meat selling facilities (PARGMF); and.
f) Appropriateness of the management and operation of game meat selling facilities, as well as, the proportionate of offenses and penalties to violators (MOGMSOP).

Velasquez, 2022). Under imperfect market conditions, competitive (2015), and Challender & MacMillan (2014) is that law enforcement
advantage may tend to shift to those who have a relative advantage, in itself cannot address the problem of poaching. Policymakers have to
terms of their capacity to bid (Barnier & Velasquez, 2022). Thus, think out of the box and effectively engage the different stakeholders to
monopolistic or oligopolistic behaviour is likely to occur, and barriers to win their support (Chausson et al., 2019; Challender & MacMillan,
entry can be high as weaker players are driven out of the bid (Barnier & 2014). It is argued elsewhere in the literature that, the formalization of
Velasquez, 2022). In the Tanzanian context, our informal discussions the game meat trade, without ensuring effective control mechanisms
with resident hunters in the study districts indicated that there were and law enforcement, will simply legitimise the present poaching ac­
already concerns amongst the stakeholders regarding equity issues due tivities, and unsustainable game meat trade (Andimile and Floros,
to the inability of local outfitters and hunting companies to compete 2021). In essence, authorising the game meat trade is generally multi­
with foreign bidders. farious and must be understood in light of its complexity (ibid).
The award of e-auction is based solely on the ranking of bids, such For example, it was interesting to observe a polarised standpoint
that the hunting block is allocated to the highest bidder (TAWA, 2018). between government officials and non-state stakeholders about the role
The highest bidder is then billed and required to pay 25 % of his/her bid of the procedures for the application and registration of game meat
price within twelve working hours following the conclusion of the selling facilities (PARGMF) on the performance of the new regulatory
auction (TAWA, 2018). The remaining money (75 %) had to be paid framework (PERFORM). From the viewpoint of the government offi­
within fourteen days from the date of auction closure and failure would cials, PARGMF was a non-significant driver of performance (PERFORM)
lead to the cancellation of the offer and a penalty of 25 % of the fee paid while the non-state stakeholders perceived it to be significantly influ­
(TAWA, 2018). encing PERFORM. This is worth noting because cumbersome business
As much as the establishment of wild animal farms, ranches, and pre-approval procedures, which create rent-seeking opportunities, are
zoos is legalised and advocated in the country’s new wildlife regula­ not only unique to the game meat industry. It is common in many other
tions, it should be underlined that huge resources will be needed, in industries of the economy in Tanzania, including the health, mining,
terms of capital and time, to make this a reality. Thus, it is less likely that construction, transportation, and logistics sectors (URT, 2017). The
the demand for game meat will be met both in the short-term, and most important lesson from these contradicting perspectives is perhaps
medium-term. In this paper, we argue that although poaching will likely that, the development of an effective regulatory framework would
continue to exist, the benefits of identifying what is not working, and require active engagement of a broad range of stakeholders and ideas.
what is not working in the current legal framework, are numerous. We Without listening to different stakes, the process can be too disap­
consider this step as an important point of departure toward sustainable pointing. Governments should be able to listen and answer questions
management and utilisation of wild animals. from those who are regulated, especially regarding the scope and
Just as important, many respondents were undecided about the effectiveness of their regulatory policy, and how they measure its suc­
question of whether operators of game meat butcheries who did not cess (OECD, 2010).
have certificates of possession of ivory were surrendering the ivory In fact, many scholars have already noted that most of the intricacy
products to the government. Many were also uncertain whether opera­ of formalising game meat trade comes from the demand side and that
tors of game meat butcheries were slaughtering wild animals in adequate efforts to combat poaching must focus on this side (Feddema
approved slaughterhouses or slabs. This sends an alarm about the extent et al., 2021; Fukushima et al., 2021; Macdonald et al., 2021; Dang Vu
to which this piece of legislation requires attention on the side of law and Nielsen, 2018; Challender et al., 2015a; Challender et al., 2015b;
enforcers. One of the key lessons that are learned from the Tanzanian Challender and MacMillan, 2014; Rosen and Smith, 2010; Veríssimo
case and from many other previous studies, such as the studies by Ariffi et al., 2012). As Cooney et al. (2021) argued a thorough understanding

11
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

of the drivers of poaching and bushmeat trade is important for making provided. First is the leveraging of active engagement of key stake­
decisions about where, when, and how to permit and support legal as holders in the governance of the game meat trade. In line with this, we
well as sustainable hunting and game meat trade. underscore the need to develop a participatory model for enforcing
Another important area of focus is compliance with regulations that game meat sanitary and safety requirements to avoid potential health
aim to avoid potential health risks to consumers. Many respondents felt risks to consumers. Awareness campaigns about the potential health
that licensed and registered places or amenities for slaughtering wild risks of consuming uninspected game meat are important. Equally
animals and selling game meat were not regularly inspected as required important, effective engagement with categories of organised actors
by the law. The fact that: many respondents also felt that the operators of (such as TAWIFAGAMSA for Tanzania) is crucial, especially whenever
game meat butcheries were not slaughtering their animals in approved efficient mitigation measures need to be implemented. Thus, it is
slaughterhouses or slabs, needs attention. One would also argue that important to strengthen cooperation between these actors and the law-
there is limited knowledge and awareness about the potential health enforcement authorities.
risks of selling and consuming uninspected game meat. A recent study by Secondly, it is recommended to explore the need for, the added value
Foya et al. (2023) found that more than half (57 %) of the people of, and the feasibility of new legislative and policy initiatives to ensure
residing adjacent to Western Nyerere National Park in Tanzania were that government actions against poaching remain sufficiently strong and
not aware of the potential health risks of consuming illegal bushmeat. In proportionate. This should go hand in hand with the improvement of
Sierra Leone, the study by Subramanian (2012), who investigated policies, regulations, an enabling environment for game meat trade, and
hunting practices and awareness of zoonotic disease risk associated with awareness campaigns. Thirdly, it is essential to build institutional ca­
bushmeat trade, found that only 24 % had knowledge of disease trans­ pacities of both public and private stakeholders with a view to making
mission from animals to humans. proportionate game meat trade and discouraging poaching. One of the
areas for building capacities is the staffing level of KDU (Kikosi Dhidi ya
6. Conclusion and policy implications Ujangili in Swahili, or Anti-poaching Units in English translation). The
staffing level should be increased and the units be adequately funded. In
This paper is based on a stakeholder’s perception study we con­ addition, the organisation structures for TAWA and District Councils
ducted in Tanzania to investigate their opinions about the performance (DCs) need to be harmonised such that the KDU staff, that are currently
of the country’s recently instituted regulatory framework which governs under DCs should be part and parcel of the TAWA staff to enhance their
the game meat trade in the country. The paper benefited vastly from the effectiveness when undertaking tasks related to wild animal hunting and
opinions gathered from these stakeholders. The study findings are control of poaching.
relevant not only to conservationists but also to researchers seeking to Fourthly, an equitable e-auction model is needed which will ensure
promote sustainable commercial game meat production. They would that both local (resident) hunters and professional hunters have equal
help inform policies, identify sustainable interventions in the game meat access to all three categories of hunting blocks (I, II, and III). These have
value chain, and tackle the drivers for poaching. Of course, the idea is been classified based on key attributes, such as size, location, and the
not to propose a “one-fits-all” verdict regarding the governance of the status of wildlife in the blocks. Fifthly, we acknowledge that imple­
game meat trade as the paper recognises that this is complex and con­ menting the four foregoing recommendations has financial implications.
texts differ across countries and continents. Albeit its focus on one However, we strongly support the argument that “no real progress can
country, the study provides some important insights that other countries be made in the fight against poaching if no sufficient funding is dedi­
with similar challenges could learn from. As such, the paper underscores cated to supporting the accompanying actions, both in monitoring it and
the need to acknowledge the complexity and heterogeneity of game in ensuring compliance with the governing legal framework.’’.
meat value chains and trade before recommending a governance system
that is geographically and politically relevant to the national specific­ Declaration of Competing Interest
ities and agenda of the country in question.
Overall, the findings of the study support the assertion that author­ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
isation of the game meat trade can be one of the boldest conservation interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
tools to mitigate poaching if well-planned and governed. In fact, the work reported in this paper.
authorisation of the game meat trade may contribute to food security by
providing a sustainable source of protein to citizens and incentivising Data availability
them to conserve wildlife (Lindsey et al., 2015; Nasi & Fa, 2015). It can
also have severe impacts on potential earnings from wildlife, the crea­ Data will be made available on request.
tion of jobs, and the production of game meat (Lindsey et al., 2015).
Thus, it deserves attention from both the conservation community and Acknowledgements
the wider development community. However, there exist some issues
that need to be addressed before the benefits of authorising the game This paper has benefited enormously from the data collected as part
meat trade are realised. In the case of Tanzania, these include the in­ of research activities under the Trade, Development and the Environ­
adequacy of wild animals from the sources designated to supply the ment Hub Project (Project number ES/S008160/1) financed by the
game meat shops and the limited efforts of law enforcement. This paper United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) - represented by the
concluded that the authorisation of the game meat trade is complex Research Councils UK (RCUK) Economic and Social Research Council
requiring a multidisciplinary and participatory approach in which the (ESRC) with funds from the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), A
opinions of different stakeholders are heard and scrutinised together as UKRI Collective Fund. We are grateful to the funder and to the UN
part of long-term engagement for sustainable governance of the game Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
meat industry. (UNEP-WCMC) for leading the consortium members and to all project
Eventually, the following five key policy recommendations are partners who reviewed the initial draft of our paper.

12
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Appendix 1:. Counts and percentages of opinion rating by response categories and agreement scales for pooled sample (n ¼ 145)

Variables Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree Total disagree Total agree

A) PERFORM
QN-B1-1 23 27 11 63 21 50 84
15.90 % 18.60 % 7.60 % 43.40 % 14.50 % 35 % 58 %
QN-B1-2 40 59 6 26 14 99 40
27.60 % 40.70 % 4.10 % 17.90 % 9.70 % 68 % 28 %
QN-B1-3 60 50 13 16 6 110 22
41.40 % 34.50 % 9.00 % 11.00 % 4.10 % 76 % 15 %
QN-B1-4 50 54 26 10 5 104 15
34.50 % 37.20 % 17.90 % 6.90 % 3.40 % 72 % 10 %
QN-B1-5 11 16 25 53 40 27 93
7.60 % 11.00 % 17.20 % 36.60 % 27.60 % 19 % 64 %
QN-B1-6 13 14 55 42 21 27 63
9.00 % 9.70 % 37.90 % 29.00 % 14.50 % 19 % 44 %
QN-B1-7 10 4 77 45 9 14 54
6.90 % 2.80 % 53.10 % 31.00 % 6.20 % 10 % 37 %
QN-B1-8 19 44 50 28 4 63 32
13.10 % 30.30 % 34.50 % 19.30 % 2.80 % 43 % 22 %
B) PARGMF
QN-B2-1 17 19 30 56 23 36 79
11.70 % 13.10 % 20.70 % 38.60 % 15.90 % 25 % 55 %
QN-B2-2 18 15 31 61 20 33 81
12.40 % 10.30 % 21.40 % 42.10 % 13.80 % 23 % 56 %
QN-B2-3 18 26 47 41 13 44 54
12.40 % 17.90 % 32.40 % 28.30 % 9.00 % 30 % 37 %
QN-B2-4 12 28 32 52 21 40 73
8.30 % 19.30 % 22.10 % 35.90 % 14.50 % 28 % 50 %
C) MOGMSOP
QN-B2-5 3 13 52 51 26 16 77
2.10 % 9.00 % 35.90 % 35.20 % 17.90 % 11 % 53 %
QN-B2-6 7 26 54 45 13 33 58
4.80 % 17.90 % 37.20 % 31.00 % 9.00 % 23 % 40 %
QN-B2-7 9 19 23 67 27 28 94
6.20 % 13.10 % 15.90 % 46.20 % 18.60 % 19 % 65 %
QN-B2-8 8 20 22 70 25 28 95
5.50 % 13.80 % 15.20 % 48.30 % 17.20 % 19 % 66 %

Appendix 2:. Counts and percentages of opinion rating by response categories and agreement scales for government officials (n = 51)

Variables Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree Total disagree Total agree

A) PERFORM
QN-B1-1 10 10 4 23 4 20 27
19.6 % 19.6 % 7.8 % 45.1 % 7.8 % 39 % 53 %
QN-B1-2 16 17 3 8 7 33 15
31.4 % 33.3 % 5.9 % 15.7 % 13.7 % 65 % 29 %
QN-B1-3 21 17 5 6 2 38 8
41.2 % 33.3 % 9.8 % 11.8 % 3.9 % 75 % 16 %
QN-B1-4 18 19 8 4 2 37 6
35.3 % 37.3 % 15.7 % 7.8 % 3.9 % 73 % 12 %
QN-B1-5 0 10 11 15 15 10 30
0.0 % 19.6 % 21.6 % 29.4 % 29.4 % 20 % 59 %
QN-B1-6 3 11 22 10 5 14 15
5.9 % 21.6 % 43.1 % 19.6 % 9.8 % 28 % 29 %
QN-B1-7 3 3 26 16 3 6 19
5.9 % 5.9 % 51.0 % 31.4 % 5.9 % 12 % 37 %
QN-B1-8 7 12 18 10 4 19 14
13.7 % 23.5 % 35.3 % 19.6 % 7.8 % 37 % 27 %
B) PARGMF
QN-B2-1 4 7 13 21 6 11 27
7.8 % 13.7 % 25.5 % 41.2 % 11.8 % 22 % 53 %
QN-B2-2 5 5 14 21 6 10 27
9.8 % 9.8 % 27.5 % 41.2 % 11.8 % 20 % 53 %
QN-B2-3 5 9 13 20 4 14 24
9.8 % 17.6 % 25.5 % 39.2 % 7.8 % 27 % 47 %
QN-B2-4 4 9 11 21 6 13 27
7.8 % 17.6 % 21.6 % 41.2 % 11.8 % 25 % 53 %
C) MOGMSOP
QN-B2-5 1 6 14 23 7 7 30
2.0 % 11.8 % 27.5 % 45.1 % 13.7 % 14 % 59 %
QN-B2-6 3 10 15 18 5 13 23
(continued on next page)

13
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

(continued )
Variables Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree Total disagree Total agree

5.9 % 19.6 % 29.4 % 35.3 % 9.8 % 26 % 45 %

QN-B2-7 2 6 5 25 13 8 38
3.9 % 11.8 % 9.8 % 49.0 % 25.5 % 16 % 75 %
QN-B2-8 2 6 4 27 12 8 39
3.9 % 11.8 % 7.8 % 52.9 % 23.5 % 16 % 76 %

Appendix 3:. Counts and percentages of opinion rating by response categories and agreement scales for non-state stakeholders (n = 94)
Variables Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree Total disagree Total agree

A) PERFORM
QN-B1-1 13 17 7 40 17 30 57
13.8 % 18.1 % 7.4 % 42.6 % 18.1 % 32 % 61 %
QN-B1-2 24 42 3 18 7 66 25
25.5 % 44.7 % 3.2 % 19.1 % 7.4 % 70 % 27 %
QN-B1-3 39 33 8 10 4 72 14
41.5 % 35.1 % 8.5 % 10.6 % 4.3 % 77 % 15 %
QN-B1-4 32 35 18 6 3 67 9
34.0 % 37.2 % 19.1 % 6.4 % 3.2 % 71 % 10 %
QN-B1-5 11 6 14 38 25 17 63
11.7 % 6.4 % 14.9 % 40.4 % 26.6 % 18 % 67 %
QN-B1-6 10 3 33 32 16 13 48
10.6 % 3.2 % 35.1 % 34.0 % 17.0 % 14 % 51 %
QN-B1-7 7 1 51 29 6 8 35
7.4 % 1.1 % 54.3 % 30.9 % 6.4 % 9% 37 %
QN-B1-8 12 32 32 18 0 44 18
12.8 % 34.0 % 34.0 % 19.1 % 0.0 % 47 % 19 %
B) PARGMF
QN-B2-1 13 12 17 35 17 25 52
13.8 % 12.8 % 18.1 % 37.2 % 18.1 % 27 % 55 %
QN-B2-2 5 5 14 21 6 10 27
9.8 % 9.8 % 27.5 % 41.2 % 11.8 % 20 % 53 %
QN-B2-3 5 9 13 20 4 14 24
9.8 % 17.6 % 25.5 % 39.2 % 7.8 % 27 % 47 %
QN-B2-4 4 9 11 21 6 13 27
7.8 % 17.6 % 21.6 % 41.2 % 11.8 % 25 % 53 %
C) MOGMSOP
QN-B2-5 2 7 38 28 19 9 47
2% 7% 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 50 %
QN-B2-6 13 10 17 40 14 23 54
13.8 % 10.6 % 18.1 % 42.6 % 14.9 % 24 % 58 %
QN-B2-7 13 17 34 21 9 30 30
13.8 % 18.1 % 36.2 % 22.3 % 9.6 % 32 % 32 %
QN-B2-8 8 19 21 31 15 27 46
8.5 % 20.2 % 22.3 % 33.0 % 16.0 % 29 % 49 %

Appendix 4:. Bar charts summarising the results of opinion ranking for individual perception questions (pooled sample: n ¼ 145)

a) PERFORM (dependent variable) PARGMF (independent variable) MOGMSOP (independent variable)

14
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Appendix 5:. Bar charts summarising the results of opinion ranking for individual perception questions (government officials N ¼ 51)

a) PERFORM (dependent variable) PARGMF (independent variable) MOGMSOP (independent variable)

Appendix 6:. Bar charts summarising the results of opinion ranking for individual perception questions (non-state stakeholders: N ¼ 94)

a) PERFORM (dependent variable) PARGMF (independent variable) MOGMSOP (independent variable)

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126502.

References text=Published%20on%20August%202%2C%202021,variables%20are%20across%
20a%20dataset. Accessed January 24, 2023.
Biernacki, P. & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Wiley Series in Probability and
chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2). Retrieved from
Statistics, America, 653 pp.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205. Accessed May 18. 2023.
Albrechtsen, L., Johnson P. & Ditton, A. (2022). Bushmeat consumption in tropical
Biggs, D., Courchamp, F., Martin, R., & Possingham, H.P. (2013). Conservation. Legal
forests. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WILDCRU). Retrieved from https://
trade of Africa’s rhino horns. Science, 1, 339, 6123, 1038-1039. DOI: 10.1126/
www.wildcru.org/research/reas-5/. Accessed January 13, 2023.
science.1229998. MMID: 23449582.
Andimile, M., Floros, C., & TRAFFIC (2021). Rapid assessment of the bushmeat trade in
Bonwitt, J., Dawson, M., Kandeh, M., Ansumana, R., Sahr, F., Brown, H., & Kelly, A. H.
urban centres in Tanzania: an analysis from Dar es Salaam, Morogoro, Mbeya,
(2018). Unintended consequences of the ‘bushmeat ban’ in West Africa during the
Arusha, and Manyara. Retrieved from https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/
2013–2016 Ebola virus disease epidemic. Social Science and Medicine, 200, 166–173.
14550/int386-retta-bushmeat_market_survey_eaf_report-20210225-vfinal.pdf.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.028
Accessed February 10, 2023.
Booth, H., Clark, M., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Amponsah-Mensah, K., Antunes, A.P., Brittain,
Ari, E., & Yildiz, Z. (2014). Parallel lines assumption in ordinal logistic regression and
S., Castilho, L.C., Camos-Silva, J., de Araujo-Lima-Constantino, Li, Y., Mandoloma,
analysis approaches. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 1, 3,
L., Mneji, L.M., Iponga, M., Moyo, B., McNamara, J., Rakotonarivo, S.O, Shi, J.,
8: 23. Retrieved from https://silo.tips/download/parallel-lines-assumption-in-
Tagne, C.T.K., van Velden, J., & Williams, D.R. (2021). Investigating the risks of
ordinal-logistic-regression-and-analysis-approaches. Accessed January 18, 2022.
removing wild meat from global food systems. Current Biology, 31, 8, 1788–1797.
Atkinson, R. & Flit, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.079.
research strategies. Social Research Update. Issue 33, Department of Sociology,
Borzée, A., McNeely, J., Magellan, K., Miller, J. R. B., Porter, L., Dutta, T., … Zhang, L.
University of Surrey, UK. Retrieved from https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU33.html.
(2020). COVID-19 highlights the need for more effective wildlife trade legislation.
Accessed October 14, 2022.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 35, 12, 1052–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Barnier, B., & Velasquez V. (2022). Free market definition and impact on the economy.
tree.2020.10.001. Epub. 7. PMID: 33097287; PMCID: PMC7539804.
Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp. Accessed
Brant, R. (1990). Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal
November 19, 2022.
logistic regression. Biometrics, 46(4), 1171–1178. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Batumike, R., Imani, G., Urom, C., & Cuni-Sanchez, A. (2021). Bushmeat hunting around
/2085632/.
Lomami National Park. Democratic Republic of the Congo. Oryx, 55(3), 421–431.
Brashares, J.S., Arces, P., Sam, M.K., Coppolilo, P.B., Sinclair, A.R.E., & Balmford, A.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001017
(2004). Bushmeat hunting, wildlife declines, and fish supply in West Africa. Science,
Benítez-López, A., Santini, L., Schipper, A. M., Busana, M., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2019).
306, 5699, 1180-1183: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1102425.
Intact but empty forests? Patterns of hunting-induced mammal defaunation in the
Brashares, J. S., Goldena, C. D., Weinbauma, K. Z., Barrettc, C. B., & Okello, G. V. (2011).
tropics. PLoS One1, 17, e3000247.
Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. PNAS, 108,
Bhandari, T. (2022). Correlation coefficient: Types, formulas and examples. Cribbr.
34, 13931–13936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011526108
Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/correlation-coefficient/#:~:

15
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Bürkner, P., & Vuorre, M. (2019). Ordinal regression models in psychology: A tutorial. Fukushima, C.S. , Tricorache, P., Toomes, A., Stringham O.C. Rivera-Tellez, E., Ripple,
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 77–101. https://doi. W.J., Peters, G., Orenstein, R.I, Morcatty, T.Q., Longhorn, S.J., Lee, C., Kumschick,
org/10.1177/2515245918823199 S., de Freitas, M.A., Duffy, R.V., Davies, A., Cheung, H., Cheyne, S.M., Bouhuys, J.,
Chaber, A. L., Allebone-Webb, S., Lignereux, Y., Cunningham, A. A., & Rowcliffe, J. M. Barreiros, J.P., Amponsah-Mensah, K., & Cardoso, P. (2021). Challenges and
(2010). The scale of illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris. perspectives on tackling illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Biological
Conservation Letters, 3, 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00121. Conservation, 263, 109342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109342.
x Glen, S. (2015). Probability sampling: definition, types, advantages and disadvantages.
Challender, D. W. S., & MacMillan, D. C. (2014). Poaching is more than an enforcement From StatisticsHowTo.com: Elementary Statistics for the rest of us! https://www.
problem. Conservation Letters, 7(5), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12082 statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/sampling-in-statistics/probability-
Challender, D. W. S., Harrop, S. R., & MacMillan, D. C. (2015a). Towards informed and sampling/. Accessed September 25, 2023.
multifaceted wildlife trade interventions. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, Greger, M. (2007). The human/animal interface: Emergence and resurgence of zoonotic
129–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.11.010 infectious diseases. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 33(4), 243–299. https://doi.org/
Challender, D. W. S., Harrop, S. R., & MacMillan, D. C. (2015b). Understanding markets 10.1080/10408410701647594
to conserve trade-threatened species in CITES. Biological Conservation, 187, 249–259. He, L., & Li, H. (2021). Failed it or nailed it: A historical-comparative analysis of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.015 legislating bushmeat ban in China. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 9(2),
Chausson, A. M., Rowcliffe, J. M., Escouflaire, L., Wieland, M., & Wright, J. H. (2019). 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxab012
Understanding the Sociocultural Drivers of Urban Bushmeat Consumption for Hema, E. M., Ouattara, V., Parfait, G., Di Vittorio, M., Sirima, D., Dendi, D., … Luiselli, L.
Behaviour Change Interventions in Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo. Human Ecology, (2017). Bushmeat consumption in the West African Sahel of Burkina Faso, and the
47, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0061-z decline of some species. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001721
Chaves, W. A., Valle, D. R., Monroe, M. C., Wilkie, D. S., Sieving, K. E., & Sadowsky, B. Hofer, H., Campbell, K. L. I., East, M. L., & Huish, S. A. (2000). Modeling the spatial
(2018). Changing wild meat consumption: An experiment in the Central Amazon. distribution of the economic costs and benefits of illegal game meat hunting in the
Brazil. Conservation Letters, 11(2), e12391. Serengeti. Natural Resource Modeling, 13, 151–177. https://www.academia.
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert- edu/18822570/MODELING_THE_SPATIAL_DISTRIBUTION_OF_THE_ECONOMIC_
type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35. COSTS_AND_BENEFITS_OF_ILLEGAL_GAME_MEAT_HUNTING_IN_THE_SERENGETI.
Coad L., Willis, J., Maisels, F., Funk, S., Doughty, H., Fa, J.E., Gomez, J., Ingram, D.J., Li, Howell, C.R., Su, W., Nassel, A.F., Agne, A.A. &. Cherrington , A.L. (2020). Area based
Y., Nihotte, L., Paemelaere, E., Sartoretto, E. van Vliet N., & Nasi, R. (2021).Impacts stratified random sampling using geospatial technology in a community-based
of taking, trade and consumption of terrestrial migratory species for wild meat. survey. BMC Public Health, 20, 1678. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09793-0.
Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Retrieved from https:// Inglesby, T. V., Henderson, D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher, M. S., Eitzen, E.,
www.cms.int/sites/default/files/publication/CMS_Report_impacts_wild_meat_ Friedlander, A. M., … Tonat, K. (1999). Anthrax as a biological weapon: Medical and
terrestrial_migratory_species.pdf. Accessed February 06, 2023. public health management. American Medical Association, 281(18), 1735–1745. htt
Cochran, W. G. (1946). Relative accuracy of systematic and stratified random samples for ps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10328075/.
a certain class of populations. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 17(2), 164–177. Ingram, D. J., Coad, L., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Parry, L., Wilkie, D., Bakarr, M. I., …
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236036. Abernethy, K. (2021). Wild meat is still on the menu: Progress in wild meat research,
Cooney, R., Challender, D. W. S., Broad, S., Roe, D., & Natusch, D. J. D. (2021). Think policy, and practices from 2002 to 2020. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
before you act: Improving the conservation outcomes of CITES listing decisions. 46, 221–254. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-041020-063132?
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, Article 631556. https://doi.org/10.3389/ download=true
fevo.2021.631556 Koh, L. P., Li, Y., & Lee, J. S. H. (2021). The value of China’s ban on wildlife trade and
Cooper, J., Blackman, S.F., & Keller, K.T. (2016). The science attitudes. New York, consumption. Nature Sustainability, 4, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-
Routledge. 358pp. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717319. 00677-0
CSCU. (2020). Ordinal logistic regression models and statistical software: what you need Krosnick, J.A., Judd, C.M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2005). The measurement of attitudes. In D.
to know. Cornell Statistical Consulting Unit. Retrieved from https://cscu.cornell. Albarracín, B.T. Johnson, M.P. Zanna (eds.). The handbook of attitudes (pp. 21–76).
edu/wp-content/uploads/91_ordlogistic.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2023. Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, New York. Retrieved from
Dawson, S. (2018). Bushmeat. In R. Costa, P. Pittia (eds.), Food ethics education. https://web.stanford.edu/dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/The%
Integrating food science and engineering knowledge into the food chain (pp. 209 - 20Measurement%20of%20Attitudes.pdf. Accessed June 04, 2022.
220). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64738-8_12. Accessed Kubania, J. (2021). Conservation friendly livelihoods limit illegal bushmeat trade. Field
February 12, 2023. Journal, African Wildlife Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.awf.org/news/
Doherty, M. (1994) Probability versus non-probability sampling in sample surveys. The conservation-friendly-livelihoods-limit-illegal-bushmeat-trade Accessed February
New Zealand Statistics Review March 1994 issue, pp 21-28. 02, 2022.
Doyle, M. (2015). The hunters breaking an Ebola ban on bushmeat. Retrieved from Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-31985826. Accessed September 06, 2022. 22, (1932 – 33), 5 – 55. Retrieved from https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_
Edgar, T.W. & Manz, D.O. (2017). Exploratory Study. In: Research Methods for Cyber 1932.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2022.
Security. pp. 131-151. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805349- Lindsey, P., Taylor, W.A., Nyirenda, V., & Barnes, L. (2015). Bushmeat, wildlife-based
2.00004-2. economies, food security and conservation: Insights into the ecological and social
Elfil, M., Negida, A. (2017), Sampling methods in clinical research; an educational impacts of the bushmeat trade in African savannahs. FAO/Panthera/Zoological
review. Emergence (Tehran), 5(1):e52. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. Society of London/SULi Report, Harare. 58 pp. Retrieved from https://www.fao.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325924/. Accessed January 24, 2023. org/3/bc610e/bc610e.pdf. Accessed July 07, 2022.
Enago Academy (2020). What is snow ball sampling? Retrieved from https://www. Lindsey, P. A., Balme, G., Becker, M., Begg, V., Bento, C., Bocchino, C., … Zisadza-
enago.com/academy/q/20772/what-is-snow-ball-sampling-please-differentiate- Gandiwa, P. (2013). The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and
different-methods-and-techniques-of-sampling/. Accessed September 29, 2023. possible solutions. Biological Conservation, 160, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Fa, J. E., & Brown, D. (2009). Impacts of hunting in African tropical moist forests: A biocon.2012.12.020
review and synthesis. Mammal Review, 39(4), 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Lucas, A., Kumakamba, C., Saylors, K., Obel, E., Kamenga, R., Makuwa, M., … Muyembe-
j.1365-2907.2009.00149.x Tamfum, J. J. (2022). Risk perceptions and behaviors of actors in the wild animal
Falk, H., Dürr, S., Hauser, R., Wood, K., Tenger, B., Lörtscher, M., & Schüpbach- value chain in Kinshasa. Democratic Republic of Congo. PLoS ONE, 17(2), e0261601.
Regula, G. (2013). Illegal import of bushmeat and other meat products into Luiselli, L., Hema, E. M., Segniagbeto, G. H., Ouattara, V., Eniang, E. A., Parfait, G., …
Switzerland on commercial passenger flights. Revue Scientifique et Technique, 32(3), Fa, J. E. (2020). Bushmeat consumption in large urban centres in West Africa. Oryx,
727–739. https://doc.woah.org/dyn/portal/index.xhtml?page=alo&aloId=31686. 54(5), 731–734. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318000898
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). (2015). Anthrax. Retrieved from http://www.fda. Luiselli, L., Petrozzi, F. Akani, G.C., Di Vittorio, M., Amadi, N., Ebere, N. Dendi, D.,
gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ucm061751.htm. Accessed December 18, Amori, G., & Eniang, E.A. (2017). Rehashing bushmeat – interview campaigns reveal
2022. some controversial issues about the bushmeat trade dynamics in Nigeria. Revue
FDHA (Federal Department of Home Affairs). (2014). Bushmeat: information and d’Ecologie, Terre et Viel, 72, 3-18. hal-03532812. https://hal.science/hal-03532812/
identification guide. A collaboration of the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office document.
and Tengwood Organisation, Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA. Retrieved Macdonald, D. W., Harrington, L. A., Moorhouse, T. P., & D’Cruze, N. (2021). Trading
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7122066/. Accessed animal lives: Ten tricky issues on the road to protecting commodified wild animals.
December 18, 2022. Bioscience, 71(8), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab035
Feddema, K., Nekaris, K. A. I., Nijman, V., & Harrigan, P. (2021). Re-evaluating the Makoye, K. (2021). Bushmeat on sale legally in Tanzania despite disease threat. Anadolu
notion of value in wildlife trade research from a service marketing perspective. Agency. Retrieved from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/bush-meat-on-sale-
Biological Conservation, 256, Article 109060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. legally-in-tanzania-despite-disease-threat/2438962. Accessed January 6, 2023.
biocon.2021.109060 Malone, A. (2014). Secret trade in monkey meat that could unleash Ebola in UK: How an
Forthofer, R.N., Hernandez, M., Lee, E.S. (2007). Biostatistics (Second Edition). Elsevier appetite for African delicacies at British market stalls may spread killer virus.
Academic Press, Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberge • London • New York • Oxford • Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713707/Secret-trade-
Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo. 502 pp. Retrieved monkey-meat-unleash-Ebola-UK-How-appetite-African-delicacies-Britishmarkets-
from https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-03861-6. Accessed December 18, 2022. stalls-spread-killer-virus.html. Accessed January 6, 2023.
Foya, Y. R., Mgeni, C. P., Kadigi, R. M. J., Kimaro, M. H., & Hassan, S. N. (2023). The Mduma, S., Hilborn, R., & Sinclair, A.R.E. (1998). Limits to exploitation of Serengeti
knowledge about the potential health risks of illegal bushmeat activities among local wildebeest and implications for its management. In D. M. Newberry, H. H. T. Prins &
communities adjacent to Western Nyerere National Park, Tanzania. Open Journal of N. D. Brown (eds.). Dynamics of tropical communities (pp. 243 – 265). Blackwell
Ecology, 13, 22–36. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2023.131003 Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.

16
R.M.J. Kadigi et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 76 (2023) 126502

Medius. (2019). What is an e-auction? The benefits of electronic auctions. Retrieved from TRAFFIC/WWF/IUCN. (1997). Food for thought: The utilization of wild meat in Eastern
https://www.medius.com/glossary/what-are-e-auctions/. Accessed January 8, and Southern Africa. Barnnet R. (Ed) Trade Review. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa,
2023. Nairobi, Kenya. 264 pp. Retrieved from https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
Moreno-Zarate, L., Arroyo, B., & Peach, W. (2021). Effectiveness of hunting regulations library/files/documents/Traf-066.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2022.
for the conservation of a globally-threatened species: The case of the European Travis, D. A., Watson, R. P., & Tauer, A. (2011). The spread of pathogens through trade in
turtle-dove in Spain. Biological Conservation, 256, Article 109067. https://doi.org/ wildlife. Sci. Tech. Rev. Off. Inter. des Epiz., 30, 11, 219–239.
10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109067 ’t Sas-Rolfes, M. (2000). Assessing CITES: four case studies. In Endangered Species
Naidoo, R., Weaver, L. C., Diggle, R. W., Matongo, G., Stuart-Hill, G., & Thouless, C. Threatened Convention: The past, present and future of CITES (69 - 87). Earthscan,
(2016). Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies London, 69–87.
in Namibia. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Twining-Ward, C., & Chapman, C.A. (2020). It’s time to implement solutions that make
cobi.12643 the bushmeat trade unnecessary (commentary). Retrieved from https://news.
Nasi, R. & Fa, J.E. (2015). The role of bushmeat in food security and nutrition, XIV mongabay.com/2020/05/its-time-to-implement-solutions-that-make-the-bushmeat-
WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS. Retrieved from https://foris.fao.org/wfc2015/api/ trade-unnecessary-commentary/. Accessed June 20, 2022.
file/55560e24f842363144d618c6/contents/c3d97795-0298-4e6e-8e0f- UNEP. (2017). Sustainable wildlife management: Guidance for a sustainable wild meat
a3ab183be83b.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2023. sector. Note by the Executive Secretary. CBD/SBSTTA/21/3. Retrieved from https://
Nasi, R., Taber, A., & van Vliet, N. (2011). Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and www.cbd.int/doc/c/a612/74fe/5b889ce0cf5e22eb61f69c5d/sbstta-21-03-en.doc.
livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forest Review, 13, Accessed July 20, 2022.
355–368. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293872 URT. (2017). Blueprint for regulatory reforms to improve the business environment. Ministry
National Science Foundation. (2013). Human disease leptospirosis identified in new of Industry, Trade and Investment, Dodoma. Retrieved from https://www.velmalaw.
species, the Banded Mongoose, in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/ co.tz/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/Blueprint-for-Regulatory-Reforms-to-Improve-
mobile/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127914. Accessed July 22, 2022. the-Business-Environment-dated-December-2017.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2023.
OCTA. (2011). EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment. European Police Office, The Hague, URT. (2020a). The wildlife conservation (game meat selling) regulations, 2020. Ministry of
The Netherlands. Retrieved from https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/ Natural Resources and Tourism, Dodoma, Tanzania. Ministry of Natural Resources
files/documents/socta2013.pdf Accessed May 22, 2023. and Tourism, Dodoma, Tanzania.
OECD. (2010). Regulatory policy and the road to sustainable growth. Retrieved from URT. (2020b). The wildlife conservation (resident hunting) regulations, 2020. Ministry of
https://www.oecd.org/regreform/policyconference/46270065.pdf. Accessed May Natural Resources and Tourism, Dodoma, Tanzania.
22, 2022. URT. (2022a). The wildlife conservation (resident hunting) regulations, 2022. Ministry of
OECD. (2022). Measuring regulatory performance. Organisation for Economic Co- Natural Resources and Tourism, Dodoma, Tanzania.
operation and Development (OECD): Better Policies for Better Lives. Retrieved from URT. (2022b). The wildlife conservation Act (principal legislation), Revised edition.
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/measuring-regulatory-performance. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dodoma, Tanzania.
htm Accessed February 10, 2023. van Vliet, N., Nasi, R., & Taber, A. (2011). From the forest to the stomach: Bushmeat
Pike, B. L., Saylors, K. E., Fair, J. N., Lebreton, M., Tamoufe, U., Djoko, C. F., … consumption: from rural to urban settings in Central Africa. In S. Shackleton, C.
Wolfe, N. D. (2010). The origin and prevention of pandemics. Clinical Infectious Shackleton, P. Shanley (eds). Non-timber forest products in the global context (129 –
Diseases, 50, 1636–1640. https://doi.org/10.1086/652860 148). Retrieved from https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/3407/.
Pollard, B., Johnston, M., & Dixon, D. (2007). Theoretical framework and Accessed November 10, 2022.
methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in van Vliet, N., Antunes, A.P., de Araujo Lima Constantino, P., Gómez J., Santos-Fita D., &
osteoarthritis: A critical review. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(14), 1–9. Sartoretto, E. (2019). Frameworks regulating hunting for meat in tropical countries
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-14 leave the sector in the Limbo. Frontier in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 280. https://www.
Raifman, S., DeVost, M.A., Digitale, J.C., Chen, Y and Morris, M.D. (2022). Respondent- frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00280/full.
driven sampling: a sampling method for hard-to-reach populations and beyond. van Vliet, N. (2018). ‘Bushmeat crisis’ and ‘cultural imperialism’ in wildlife
Current Epidemiology Reports, 9(2):1–10. DOI: 10.1007/s40471-022-00287-8. management? Taking value orientations into account for a more sustainable and
Accessed March 20, 2023. culturally acceptable wildmeat sector. Frontier in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 112.
Rosen, G. E., & Smith, K. F. (2010). Summarizing the evidence on the international trade https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00112/full
in illegal wildlife. EcoHealth, 7, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-010-0317-y Veríssimo, D., & Wan, A. K. Y. (2019). Characterizing efforts to reduce consumer demand
SCI. (2021). Hunting Vs. poaching. Retrieved from https://safariclub.org/hunting-vs- for wildlife products. Conservation Biology, 33, 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/
poaching/#:~:text=Hunting%20revenues%20are%20used%20to,is%20banned%2C cobi.13227
%20poaching%20drastically%20increases. Accessed February 12, 2023. Veríssimo, D., Challender, D. W. S., & Nijman, V. (2012). Wildlife trade in Asia: Start
Showkat, N. (2017). Non-probability and probability sampling. Chapter: goo.gl/sVnjrL, with the consumer. Asian J. Conserv. Biol., 2, 49–50. https://www.ajcb.in/archive_
e-PG Pathshala. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ dec_12.ph.
319066480_Non-Probability_and_Probability_Sampling. Accessed September 25, Weber, D.S., Mandler, T., Dyck, M., Van Coeverden De Groot, P.J., Lee, D.S., & Clark, D.
2023. A. (2015). Unexpected and undesired conservation outcomes of wildlife trade
Singh, A. S., & Masuku, M. B. (2014). Sampling techniques and determination of sample bans—an emerging problem for stakeholders? Global Ecology and Conservation, 3,
size in applied statistics research: An overview. International Journal of Economics, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.01.006.
Commerce and Management, II(11). https://ijecm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/ WHO. (2014). Yellow fever. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/
11/21131.pdf. factsheets/fs100/en/. Accessed June 22, 2022.
Smith, K. M., Anthony, S. J., Switzer, W. M., Epstein, J. H., Seimon, T., Jai, H., … WHO. (2015). Ebola virus disease. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/
Marano, N. (2012). Zoonotic viruses associated with illegally imported wildlife factsheets/fs103/en/. Accessed November 20, 2022.
products. PLoS One1, 7(1), 1–9. Wildlife Economy Hub for Africa. (2022). Africa Wildlife Economy Research Project.
Subramanian, M. (2012). Zoonotic disease risk and the bushmeat trade: Assessing Bumbogo, Kigali, Rwanda. Retrieved from https://sowc.alueducation.com/
awareness among hunters and traders in Sierra Leone. EcoHealth, 9(4), 471–482. programs/research/. Accessed February 15, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0807-1 Williams, R. A., & Quiroz, C. (2019). Ordinal regression models. In P. Atkinson, S.
Sung, Y. H., & Fong, J. J. (2018). Assessing consumer trends and illegal activity by Delamont, A. Cernat, J.W. Sakshaug, & R.A. Williams (eds.), SAGE Research Methods
monitoring the online wildlife trade. Biological Conservation, 227, 219–225. https:// Foundations. DOI: 10.4135/9781526421036885901. https://methods.sagepub.com/
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.025 Foundations/ordinal-regression-models.
Rogan, M. S., Lindsey, P. A., Tambling, C. J., Golabek, K. A., Chose, M. J., Collins, K., & Worobey, M. (2021). Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan. Science, 374(2021),
McNutt, J. W. (2017). Illegal bushmeat hunters compete with predators and threaten 1202–1204. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm4454
wild herbivore populations in a global tourism hotspot. Biological Conservation, 210, Yin, R. Y., Ye, Y. C., Newman, C., Buesching, C. D., Macdonald, D. W., Luo, Y., &
233–242. Zhou, Z. M. (2020). China’s online parrot trade: Generation length and body mass
TAWA. (2018). Guidelines for the allocation of hunting blocks through auctioning (made determine sales volume via price. Global Ecology and Conservation, 23. https://doi.
under section 38 (11) of the wildlife conservation Act, Cap. 283). Tanzania Wildlife org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01047
Management Authority (TAWA), Morogoro, Tanzania. Zhou, W., Ornick, K., Lim, A., & Dove, M. (2022). Reframing conservation and
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal development perspectives on bushmeat. Environmental Research Letters, 17, Article
of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 011001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3db1
1558689806292430 Zumla, A., Raviglione, M., Hafner, R., & von Reyn, F. (2013). Current concepts:
Teutloff, N., Meller, P., Finckh, M., Cabalo, A. S., Ramiro, G. J., Neinhuis, C., & Tuberculosis. Review article. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368, 8, 745–755.
Lautenschläger, T. (2021). Hunting techniques and their harvest as indicators of https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1200894
mammal diversity and threat in Northern Angola. European Journal of Wildlife
Research, 67, 101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01541-y

17