The Influence of Park Visits on Community Attitudes and Perceptions of Ruaha National Park and Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania

Abstract

Background and Research Aims: Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of communities living adjacent to protected areas is essential for effective wildlife conservation, as local support—shaped by experiences and perceived costs and benefits—underpins coexistence and long-term conservation outcomes. This study examined how community engagement through park visits, alongside perceived benefits, costs, and demographic factors, influences attitudes toward Tanzania’s Ruaha National Park (RNP), wildlife conservation, and lions. Methods: We employed a mixed-methods, pre- and post-visit design using semi-structured, face-to-face questionnaires to assess community perceptions of RNP and wildlife. Surveys were conducted between January 2012 and February 2018 with 933 participants from villages surrounding the park, prioritizing individuals with little or no prior park experience. Complete pre- and post-visit data were obtained from 879 participants. Results: Most participants (64.4%) had never visited RNP prior to the study. Park visitation varied by ethnicity, age, and gender, with younger Maasai and Hehe males visiting more frequently. Before visits, attitudes toward the park were overwhelmingly positive (97.8%), though perceptions varied among villages and ethnic groups. Attitudes toward lions were less favorable, particularly among pastoralists, with 60.1% expressing concern about livestock depredation. Following park visits, 91.5% of participants reported high enjoyment, with pastoralists expressing greater enjoyment than farmers. Positive perceptions of the park remained high (97.5%), and 77% reported improved views of its benefits. Attitudes toward lions within the park improved substantially, although concerns about lions on village land persisted. Conclusion: Park visits significantly enhanced community perceptions of RNP, particularly regarding wildlife protection, recreation, and the intrinsic value of conservation. Even among first-time visitors, experiential exposure fostered positive conservation attitudes. Implications for Conservation: Expanding accessible and culturally appropriate park visitation—particularly for pastoralist communities—alongside sustained conflict mitigation and equitable benefit-sharing, can foster pro-wildlife attitudes, reduce human-lion conflict, and support sustainable conservation outcomes.

Keywords

community attitudes perceptions park visits Ruaha National Park wildlife conservation Tanzania

Introduction

Understanding park-people relationships is critical for effective national parks management (Zube & Busch, 1990). Living in proximity to protected areas (PAs) such as national parks, offers both benefits and costs to local communities, which can influence their attitudes toward conservation efforts, whether positively or negatively (Kideghesho et al., 2007; Røskaft et al., 2007). Benefits include employment opportunities from tourism, support for community-development projects, wildlife conservation and access to resources from PAs such as grazing land and water sources (Mkonyi, 2021). Additionally, PAs provide non-economic values such as ecosystem services, further impacting local perceptions of conservation (Allendorf, 2007; Allendorf et al., 2007; Abukari & Mwalyosi, 2018; Synman, 2014).

The costs and benefits associated with PAs vary considerably and influence local communities in multiple ways. In Tanzania, the nature and extent of these impacts largely depend on the governance structure, protection status, and historical use of each PA (Coad et al., 2008). Costs often include community displacement, wildlife-induced crop damage, human safety threats, restricted access to natural resources, land tenure conflicts, and disputes with park authorities (Allendorf et al., 2006; Kideghesho et al., 2007). Benefits, however, can be realized through both direct and indirect pathways. Direct benefits include employment opportunities, revenue-sharing schemes, and community development initiatives, while indirect benefits are often derived from ecosystem services (Bluwstein et al., 2016; Kideghesho et al., 2007). Beyond these tangible gains, communities may also derive intrinsic, cultural, or spiritual benefits from wildlife and PAs. Such non-material values can play a powerful role in shaping positive conservation attitudes and behaviors, even where direct economic incentives are limited or absent (Kansky & Knight, 2014). Human–wildlife conflicts—such as livestock depredation, crop damage, restricted access to natural resources, and even loss of human life—represent critical challenges often associated with the existence of PAs in Tanzania (Bajuta et al., 2025; Mkonyi, 2021). Understanding the perceptions and attitudes of local communities regarding these costs and benefits is essential for balancing conservation efforts with community needs.

Visitation to national parks plays a crucial role in fostering ecological education (Tomicevic et al., 2010) and promoting ecotourism (Waylen et al., 2009), which can significantly influence local community attitudes towards wildlife, particularly carnivores (Espinosa & Jacobson, 2012; Mkonyi et al., 2017). Studies indicate that visitors often develop more positive attitudes toward carnivores (Hausmann et al., 2016; Tomicevic et al., 2010). Furthermore, studies suggest that individuals with positive attitudes towards PAs are more inclined to support conservation efforts, while those with negative attitudes are likely to be less-supportive (Allendorf, 2020; Allendorf et al., 2006; Holmes, 2013; Kideghesho et al., 2007). Community attitudes towards PAs also influence behaviors and responses to conservation initiatives (Tesfaye et al., 2012). However, these attitudes are context-specific and shaped by a variety of complex factors, including cultural, demographic, ecological, social, and economic influences (Dickman et al., 2014). Various factors influence attitudes toward PAs, including household income, ethnicity, occupation (Bragagnolo et al., 2016; Dickman, 2008), education level (Røskaft et al., 2007), livestock ownership and predator-related losses (Kideghesho et al., 2007), age, gender (Bragagnolo et al., 2016), proximity to PAs, experiences with carnivores, perceived conservation benefits (Lindsey et al., 2005; Schumann et al., 2008), and both religious and cultural beliefs (Hazzah, 2006). A comprehensive understanding of individual attitudes, perceptions and these multiple factors is vital to the PA-people relationship and can guide effective PA management strategies (Mehta & Heinen, 2001). While studies on local attitudes and perceptions toward PAs have been conducted in various regions of Tanzania (e.g. Abukari & Mwalyosi, 2018; Mkonyi, 2021; Mkonyi et al., 2017), there is limited empirical research specifically focused on Ruaha National Park (hereafter referred to as ‘the park’ or RNP) (Dickman, 2005, 2008; Dickman et al., 2014). Furthermore, despite community outreach programs that include park visitation programs around the park, such as those by Wildlife Connection, Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) and Lion Landscapes, formerly known as Ruaha Carnivore Project, there is insufficient information on how these visits impact community perceptions of the park’s benefits, its wildlife and overall attitudes.

This study employed a mixed-methods, pre- and post-visit design to assess how community visits to RNP influenced local perceptions and attitudes toward the park and its wildlife. We focused on community visitors’ views of wildlife, particularly lions, comparing their attitudes and perceptions before and after the visits. The research tested three hypotheses: (i) Individuals’ attitudes toward wildlife are shaped by their direct experiences, whether positive or negative. Positive interactions, such as observing wildlife in the landscape, can foster supportive attitudes toward conservation, while negative interactions, such as physical or economic damage caused by wildlife, often fuel conflict and resentment (Arbieu et al., 2021; Lehnen et al., 2022). Increased exposure and experience with specific species can also influence individual attitudes toward those species (Kansky & Knight, 2014). For instance, wildlife-related risks have been linked to more negative attitudes among local communities (Arjunan et al., 2006), (ii) local community attitudes toward the park are influenced by perceived costs (e.g., human-wildlife conflict, restricted access to resources) and benefits (e.g., tourism, employment, ecosystem services), which significantly affect support for conservation efforts and wildlife protection (Mkonyi, 2021), and (iii) demographic factors such as gender, age, profession, and income affect how people view and interact with wildlife, playing a significant role in shaping attitudes and perceptions toward lions and other wildlife species (Kansky & Knight, 2014).

Within this overarching framework, the study employs the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 2012; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) to explore community visitors’ attitudes toward RNP and its wildlife across three dimensions: (1) emotional responses (positive, negative or neutral feelings toward the park and its wildlife species); (2) cognitive beliefs regarding behavior (beliefs about the park and its conservation initiatives); and (3) behavioral intentions (community involvement, enjoyment of visits, and views on wildlife conservation). The application of the TPB is based on the premise that fostering positive attitudes towards the park can significantly influence visitor perceptions and behaviors.

This study also incorporates the Social Exchange Theory (SET) framework (Sharpley, 2014), which posits that people’s attitudes toward RNP are influenced by their perceptions of the costs and benefits associated with the park. SET suggests that when local communities perceive tangible benefits from the park, they are more likely to support its conservation efforts, while perceived costs can diminish that support. The extended SET (Emerson, 1976) further asserts that attitudes toward any object—whether a person, thing, or place—are shaped by individual assessments of the costs and benefits. Objects or entities providing net benefits tend to be viewed positively, while those associated with net losses are viewed negatively (Napier & Napier, 1991). For local community participation in conservation initiatives to be successful, the perceived benefits of the park must outweigh the costs (Kideghesho et al., 2007). Research indicates that people’s perceptions and attitudes toward PAs are significantly influenced by their evaluations of these associated costs and benefits (Allendorf et al., 2007; Tessema et al., 2010). When communities perceive costs without tangible benefits from conservation, their relationship with the park tends to be negative. Conversely, positive perceptions and support are more likely when communities perceive real benefits, such as economic gain from tourism or improved wildlife conservation (Allendorf et al., 2007; Kideghesho & Mtoni, 2008; Mutanga et al., 2017).

While previous research has applied the TPB, TRA, and SET to the context of PAs in Tanzania (e.g., Mkonyi, 2021), there remains a limited understanding of how these theories explain community park visitors’ attitudes, perceptions, and behavioral intentions regarding wildlife and the park, particularly in relation to perceived costs and benefits. This study aims to address this gap by integrating SET, TRA, and TPB within a mixed-methods framework to examine community visitors’ attitudes and perceptions toward RNP and its wildlife, alongside their views on the tangible and intangible benefits and costs associated with the park. Gaining such insights is vital for park managers, conservation NGOs, and policymakers to design more targeted and socially responsive management strategies that strengthen local support for wildlife and conservation initiatives.

Methods

Study Area

Ruaha National Park (RNP) in south-central Tanzania spans approximately 20,000 km² located between latitudes 6.9˚S to 8.7˚S and longitudes 33.6˚E to 35.6˚E (Figure 1). It is one of the world’s most biodiverse ecoregions, hosting a variety of plant and animal species, including large populations of carnivores like lion Panthera leo, leopards Panthera pardus, spotted hyenas Crocuta crocuta, African wild dogs Lycaon pictus, and cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus (Abade et al., 2014). RNP is also home to significant herds of elephants, buffaloes, and various antelope species. The park’s climate is semi-arid to arid, with a dry season from May to November and wet season from December to April (Walsh, 2000). Annual rainfall averages between 500 mm to 800 mm and temperatures between 15°C and 35°C (Abade et al., 2014; Strampelli et al., 2022). The park lies at the ecological boundary between the Miombo woodlands and the Acacia vegetation of the Sudanian region, bordered by Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na Pawaga (MBOMIPA) community-owned Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and the Rungwa Game Reserve. The surrounding area is home to several ethnic groups, including the Hehe, Bena, Maasai, Barbaig, Sukuma, and Gogo. The Maasai, Barbaig and Sukuma are pastoralists, while others are primarily agriculturalists or agro-pastoralists. There are 13 villages bordering the park within the study area. Photographic tourism, drawing around 21,000 visitors annually, is a key economic activity in the park (Kabuga, 2018), while surrounding communities primarily depend on subsistence agriculture (60%) and pastoralism (33%) (Hariohay et al., 2019).

Organization of Park Visits

The Ruaha Carnivore Project (RCP), now operating as Lion Landscapes, is a conservation NGO dedicated to understanding and reducing human-wildlife conflict. Since 2012, the organization has been organizing guided visits to RNP as part of its outreach efforts, helping local community members experience the park firsthand, learn about wildlife, and build more positive and informed attitudes toward conservation. The program particularly targeted pastoralist groups with a history of conflict with large carnivores, providing participants with direct exposure to the park and its wildlife. Initially, participants were nominated by influential community members such as village leaders, elders, or local representatives to ensure trust and local legitimacy. However, this approach was later revised to minimize potential bias and broaden participation. To ensure transparency and fairness, the project introduced a public lottery-based selection process conducted during community “movie nights,” where all attendees were considered for random selection. Priority was given to individuals who had never visited the park or had not done so in many years. In addition, visits were organized on a rotational basis across villages, with participant records maintained to ensure broad and equitable inclusion over time. All costs—including transportation, park entry fees, and meals—were covered by the project, and interpretive sessions with park staff were arranged whenever possible. Visits were typically conducted monthly, following a standardized one-day schedule to provide consistent exposure and minimize variation in wildlife encounters that might influence survey responses. Each group included 8–11 adult participants (over the age of 18), and visits occurred throughout the year, though wildlife sightings were generally fewer during the rainy season. The program operated successfully until it was temporarily suspended in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research Design and Data Collection

This study employed a mixed-methods, pre- and post-visit design to assess how community visits to RNP influenced local perceptions and attitudes toward the park and its wildlife. Data were collected between 28 January 2012 and 21 February 2018, with participants completing semi-structured, face-to-face questionnaires both before and immediately after their visit. This design captured fresh experiences and minimized recall bias. The questionnaire was adapted from established frameworks in community-based conservation and human–wildlife interaction research (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Browne-Nuñez & Jonker, 2008; Hariohay et al., 2019; Mkonyi et al., 2017) and was pre-tested with community members to ensure clarity, cultural relevance, and contextual appropriateness. Feedback from the pilot informed refinements, enhancing internal consistency across related attitude and perception measures.

The mixed-methods approach integrated quantitative and qualitative components to capture both measurable changes and the underlying meanings shaping those changes. Quantitative data from structured survey items enabled systematic comparison of pre- and post-visit responses, while qualitative data from open-ended questions provided contextual insights into participants’ lived experiences, perceptions, and reflections. The integration of these two strands facilitated triangulation, enhanced the validity and interpretive depth of findings, and generated a more holistic understanding of how community exposure to conservation initiatives influences support for wildlife conservation.

Pre-Visit Questionnaire

The pre-visit questionnaire collected demographic information (gender, age, ethnic group, village or place of residence, group type, and prior park visit frequency), as well as participants’ attitudes toward the park, perceptions of benefits and costs to both Tanzania and local communities, and the animals they hoped to see. The questionnaire explicitly focused on benefits derived from the park itself, and participants’ responses were largely consistent with this focus. To account for prior familiarity, participants were asked about previous visits to RNP and the time since their last visit, allowing for comparison between first-time and repeat visitors. In this study, the term benefits refers not only to commonly perceived advantages of living near PAs—such as employment opportunities or tourism revenue—but specifically to conservation-linked programs implemented by RCP that provided direct, tangible benefits at the household or community level. Survey questions explored participants’ awareness of, access to, and perceptions of specific benefit mechanisms, including the Community Camera Trapping (CCT) Program, which provided villages with financial rewards based on number and type of wildlife species captured on camera traps placed on village land (see Dickman et al., 2025). Additional benefit mechanisms included a scholarship program supporting secondary education for local students and a school porridge program, designed to improve attendance and nutrition in selected primary schools.

Post-Visit Questionnaire

The post-visit questionnaire focused on participants’ enjoyment of the park and their perceptions of the park, lions, and RCP. Participants were asked to rate their overall experience, reasons for enjoyment, and the animals they found most appealing. Although transformative experiences and place identity were not explicitly measured, open-ended items encouraged reflection on learning, memorable aspects of the visit, and any perceived changes in attitudes toward wildlife or conservation, offering qualitative insight into potential transformative effects. Enjoyment was assessed using two questions: (1) “How much did you enjoy your visit to this park?” and (2) “Would you recommend the park to others?”. Enjoyment was measured using a nominal scale (1 = “very much,” 2 = “quite a lot,” 3 = “medium” and 4 = “a little”). Attitudinal responses were initially recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “very good” to 5 = “very bad”) and later condensed into a 3-point scale for analysis: positive (“very good” or “good”), neutral (“not good” or “not bad”), and negative (“bad” or “very bad”). This simplification facilitated interpretation and reduced category sparsity, though it may limit sensitivity to subtle attitudinal changes. Perceived benefits were categorized as very high, high, medium, low, or none. Each question included an open-ended section for participants to elaborate on their responses. The complete survey comprised 21 main questions; and included both closed- and open-ended formats to capture diverse and nuanced responses (Online Appendix 1).

Research Assistants and Data Recording

All interviews were conducted by trained Lion Landscapes’ research assistants. The assistants were fluent in both Swahili and English, and interviews were conducted in Swahili, the primary language of participants, to ensure comprehension and cultural appropriateness. Responses were subsequently translated into English for coding and analysis. Assistants had no prior relationship with participants and approached the study from a neutral academic perspective. As part of their training with Lion Landscapes, they received training in semi-structured interviewing techniques and research ethics. While using local bilingual assistants minimized language and cultural barriers, potential limitations include subtle bias introduced through interviewer–participant interactions and translation.

Ethical Considerations

Verbal informed consent was obtained from participants, after explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, voluntary nature, and confidentiality. Only individuals aged 18 and above participated. Research design was reviewed and approved by the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) and permits were issued by Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH; approval numbers: 2012-60-ER-97-20, 2013-60-ER-97-20, 2014-280-ER-97-20, 2016-23-ER-97-20, 2017-69-ER-97-20, 2018-126-NA-97-20, and 2019-96-ER-97-20). The researchers followed established guidelines for research with human subjects (e.g., Brittain et al., 2020).

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). We first checked data for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, then summarized responses with descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and percentages). Chi-square tests were used to compare pre- and post-visit responses and to examine changes in community attitudes toward RNP and its wildlife. Qualitative data from open-ended survey responses were analyzed using thematic content analysis (Patton, 1990). The lead author, trained and experienced in qualitative and mixed-methods research, conducted all coding. To ensure independence and reduce potential bias, the coder—who was not involved in the study design, data collection, or prior research in the area—kept reflexive memos to track assumptions, positionality, and coding decisions, revisiting them throughout the analysis to ensure that themes came from the data rather than personal preconceptions. The analysis identified themes reflecting participants’ experiences, perceived benefits and costs of the park, and attitudes toward wildlife. Complementing the quantitative analysis, these qualitative findings helped explain the patterns observed in community attitudes.

Multivariate generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) with binomial error distribution and log link function were used to analyze the influence of seven explanatory variables on attitudes toward lions on village land. These variables included age group, group type, ethnic group, gender, visit frequency, and perceived community and national benefits from the park. Neutral responses were excluded to fit the analysis. Eleven candidate models were tested, with the best model selected based on the lowest AICc and highest Akaike weights (ωi), considering models with ΔAICc values < 2 as strongly supported (Burnham et al., 2011). Due to a skew toward positive responses (over 90%), associations with other response variables such as attitudes toward the park, lions, and RCP could not be assessed. Village name was included as a random effect to account for clustering. Multicollinearity among independent variables was checked using Spearman’s correlation coefficients, with a cutoff of rs ≤ 0.6 (Zuur et al., 2010), and no issues were identified (Table S1). Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05 for all tests.

Results

Participants’ Demographic and Park Visitation Characteristics

A total of 933 park visitors participated in this study, of whom 879 completed the full survey, yielding a 94% response rate. Participants were recruited from 16 villages surrounding the park. Among them, 58.1% (n = 511) were pastoralists, while 41.9% (n = 368) were farmers. The majority of participants were male (66.1%, n = 581), significantly outnumbering females (33.9%, n = 298; χ2 = 91.11, df = 1, P < 0.001). Participant ages ranged from 18 to 88 years, with a mean age of 32.87 ± 12.16 years. Age distribution varied significantly (χ2 = 823.29, df = 7, P < 0.001): 4.8% were aged 18–20 (younger-aged group), 37.2% were 21–30, 38.3% were 31–50 (middle-aged group), and 9.6% were over 51 (older-aged group). Ethnically, participants were predominantly Hehe (31.3%, n = 275) and Maasai (29.6%, n = 260), followed by Barabaig (15.1%, n = 133) and Bena (10.1%, n = 89), with significant variation across ethnic groups (χ2 = 1271.16, df = 10, P < 0.001; Table 1).

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographic and Park Visitation Characteristics (N = 879)

Variables	Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
I. Demographic variables
Gender	Male	581	66.10
Gender	Female	298	33.90
Age (years)	18–20	130	14.80
	21–30	327	37.20
	31–40	197	22.40
	41–50	140	15.90
	51–60	68	7.70
	61–70	13	1.50
	71–80	2	0.20
	81+	2	0.20
Group types	Pastoralists	511	58.10
Group types	Farmers	368	41.90
Ethnicity	Barabaig	133	15.10
	Sukuma	16	1.80
	Bena	89	10.10
	Gogo	38	4.30
	Maasai	260	29.60
	Iraqw	12	1.40
	Sangu	17	1.90
	Hehe	275	31.30
	Kinga	7	0.80
	Other (with < 5 participants)	32	3.60
Villages from which participants originated	Idodi	75	8.50
	Isele	39	4.40
	Kinyika	23	2.60
	Kisanga	22	2.50
	Kisilwa	20	2.30
	Kitisi	141	16.00
	Mafuluto	43	4.90
	Magombwe	19	2.20
	Magozi	21	2.40
	Mahuninga	46	5.20
	Makifu	79	9.00
	Malinzanga	86	9.80
	Mapogoro	175	19.90
	Mbuyuni	8	0.90
	Nyamahana	32	3.60
	Tungamalenga	50	5.70
II. Park visitation
Frequency of park visit	1–4 times	295	33.60
	5–10 times	15	1.70
	> 10 times	3	0.30
	Never	566	64.40
III. Perceptions benefits
Tanzania	Yes	791	89.90
Tanzania	No	88	10.00
Communities	Yes	776	88.20
Communities	No	103	11.70
IV. Attitudes toward the park (pre-park visitation)	Positive	860	97.80
	Negative	3	0.30
	Neutral	16	1.80
V. Attitudes toward the park (post-park visitation)	Positive	857	97.50
	Negative	1	0.10
	Neutral	21	2.40
VI. Attitudes toward wildlife (lions) (pre-park visitation)	Positive	800	91
	Negative	52	5.9
	Neutral	27	3.1
VII. Attitudes toward wildlife (lions) (post-park visitation)	Positive	811	92.3
	Negative	5	0.6
	Neutral	63	7.2
VIII. Attitudes toward the presence of lions on village land	Yes	348	39.6
	No	528	60.1
	Neutral	3	0.3
IX. Attitudes toward RCP	Positive	874	99.4
	Negative	1	0.1
	Neutral	4	0.5

Regarding park visitation, the majority of participants (64.4%, n = 566) had never visited the park, while 33.6% (n = 295) had visited one to four times. Only 1.7% (n = 15) had visited five to ten times, and 0.3% (n = 3) had visited more than ten times (Table 1). Significant differences in visitation frequency were observed by gender (χ2 = 17.82, df = 3, P < 0.001), with males visiting more frequently than females. Ethnic differences were also evident (χ2 = 55.07, df = 27, P < 0.05), with Maasai and Hehe participants visiting more often, though these groups were also more likely to have never visited. Age influenced visitation patterns (χ2 = 37.25, df = 21, P < 0.05), with participants aged 61 and older visiting less frequently. No significant differences in visitation were found by village (χ2 = 59.56, df = 45, P > 0.05). Pastoralists were more likely to visit than farmers, though this difference was not statistically significant (χ2= 5.48, df = 3, P > 0.05).

Participants’ Attitudes Toward RNP Before Park Visits

Prior visitation to RNP did not significantly affect participants’ attitudes (χ2 = 5.54, df = 6, P > 0.05), with both visitors and non-visitors reporting similarly positive perceptions. Thus, prior visitation does not bias the results, and the overwhelmingly favorable pre-visit attitudes reflect the general perception of RNP. More than half of respondents (50.5%, n = 444) rated the park as “very good,” 47.3% (n = 416) as “good,” while only a small minority were neutral (1.8%, n = 16) or negative (0.3%, n = 3). The distribution of these ratings was significantly skewed toward positive evaluations (χ2 = 1228.24, df = 4, P < 0.001). Attitudes varied significantly across villages (χ2 = 98.67, df = 60, P < 0.05), with residents of Kitisi and Mapogoro expressing particularly favorable views. Respondents who perceived that the park contributes positively to Tanzania’s national development (χ2 = 33.04, df = 4, P < 0.001) and to local community welfare (χ2 = 39.05, df = 4, P < 0.001) were significantly more likely to hold positive views. The main reasons cited for positive attitudes included the park’s role in providing recreational opportunities (40.95%, n = 360), conserving wildlife (26.6%, n = 234), and attracting tourism (13.88%, n = 122) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary of Reasons Given by Survey Participants Before Their Park Visits in Response to the Question: Is It Good (i.e. Positive Views) or Bad (i.e. Negative Views) to Have RNP in Place? (N = 879). Note That Participants Could Provide Multiple Reasons, Resulting in a Total That Exceeds 100 Percent

Positive views	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Recreation opportunities	360	40.95
Wildlife conservation	234	26.62
Tourist attraction	122	13.88
Provision of social services	75	8.53
Education	55	6.26
Revenue from tourism	97	11.03
Employment opportunities	12	1.37
Research opportunities	2	0.23
Don’t know	24	2.73
Negative views
Harassment by park rangers	1	0.11
Livestock depredation	2	0.23

Participants’ Attitudes Toward Wildlife Before Park Visits

Before visiting, 91% of participants held positive attitudes toward wildlife (47.8% “very good,” 43.1% “good”), with only 3.1% neutral and 5.9% negative. Attitudes varied significantly by individual type (χ2 = 961.79, df = 4, P < 0.001) and group category (χ2 = 25.17, df = 4, P < 0.001), with pastoralists reporting more positive views than farmers. Ethnic differences were also significant (χ2 = 80.55, df = 40, P < 0.001), with Hehe and Maasai participants expressing particularly favorable opinions. Gender differences were observed, with males showing more positive attitudes than females (χ2 = 12.33, df = 4, P < 0.05). Prior park visitation influenced attitudes: participants who had visited the park one to four times were more likely to hold positive views (χ2 = 27.99, df = 12, P < 0.05). Attitudes also varied by village (χ2 = 98.59, df = 60, P < 0.05), with residents of Kitisi and Mapogoro expressing the most favorable opinions. The main reasons underlying these attitudes are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of the Reasons Given by Survey Participants Before Their Park Visits in Response to the Question: Is It Good (i.e. Positive Views) or Bad (i.e. Negative Views) to protect Wildlife (including Lions) in RNP? (N = 879). Note That Participants Could Provide Multiple Reasons, Resulting in a Total That Exceeds 100 Percent

Positive views	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Tourist attraction	350	39.82
Recreation opportunities	224	25.48
Wildlife conservation	223	25.37
Revenue from tourism	64	7.28
Don’t know	30	3.41
Education	22	2.50
Employment opportunities	4	0.46
Provision of social services	2	0.23
Negative views
Livestock depredation	68	7.74
Attacks on humans	4	0.46

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Living Near RNP Before Park Visits

Participants generally perceived the benefits of the park to Tanzania as high (44.4% rated them as high and 36.1% as very high). For community benefits, 42.7% rated them as high and 30.8% as very high. Fewer participants rated the benefits as medium, low, or none. Overall, national-level benefits received significantly more positive ratings than community-level benefits (χ² = 657.29, df = 16, P < 0.001). Pastoralists reported greater benefits than farmers for both national (χ2 = 44.58, df = 4, P < 0.001) and community benefits (χ2 = 27.45, df = 4, P < 0.001). Younger (18–30) and middle-aged (31–50) participants perceived more national benefits than older respondents (51+) (χ2 = 49.35, df = 28, P < 0.05), though there were no significant age differences in community-level benefits (χ2 = 23.71, df = 28, P > 0.05). Ethnic differences were also significant, with Maasai and Hehe participants reporting higher benefits (national benefits: χ2 = 98.90, df = 40, P < 0.001; community benefits: χ2 = 81.45, df = 40, P < 0.001). While males rated the benefits higher than females, these differences were not statistically significant (national: χ2 = 2.48, df = 4, P > 0.05; community: χ2 = 1.48, df = 4, P > 0.05). The majority of participants (61.8%, n = 543) identified tourism revenue as the main national benefit, followed by social services (10.6%, n = 93) (Table S2).

When asked about community-level benefits, 43.7% (n = 384) highlighted social services (Table S2). Regarding wildlife viewing preferences, 57.8% (n = 508) selected lions as their first choice, followed by 18.1% preferring elephants. Second choices included elephants (26.4%) and lions (20.7%), while third priorities were buffaloes (15.7%), elephants (14.9%), giraffes (12.5%), and leopards (12.2%). The overall wildlife preference score was 1.72 (±0.079), with lions and wildebeests ranking highest (scores 2.56 and 2.57, respectively), followed by elephants, sable antelope, and ostriches (Figure 2).

Participants’ Overall Enjoyment Levels and Factors Influencing Enjoyment

The majority of participants (91.5%, n = 804)) reported enjoying their visit to the park very much, while 6.5% (n = 57) enjoyed it quite a lot. Only a small minority expressed moderate (1.7%) or minimal (0.3%) enjoyment. Enjoyment levels differed significantly by group type, with pastoralists reporting greater enjoyment than farmers (χ2 = 9.37, df = 3, P < 0.05), but no significant differences were found by gender, age, or ethnicity. Likewise, there were no significant differences in reported enjoyment between participants who had previously visited the park and first-time visitors (χ2 = 6.40, df = 9, P > 0.05), suggesting that the structured visit provided a positive and engaging experience for all participants regardless of prior exposure. When asked about their favorite aspects of the visit, 60.9% (n = 535) mentioned seeing wild animals they had never encountered before, and 22.9% (n = 202) particularly enjoyed observing lions up close (Figure 3). Lions were the most frequently mentioned species (46.7%, n = 436), followed by elephants (32.5%) and giraffes (20%).

Nearly all participants (99%, n = 870) stated they would recommend visiting the park, and over half (55.4%, n = 487) said they would encourage friends and family to visit. Others planned to share their experiences by talking about the animals they saw (18.2%) or promoting wildlife conservation (17.9%), among other responses (Figure 4).

Participants’ Attitudes Toward the Park after Their Visit

The vast majority of participants (97.5%, n = 857) reported more positive attitudes toward the park following their visit, with very few indicating negative (0.1%, n = 1) or unchanged (2.4%, n = 21) attitudes. The positive impact of park visits on participants’ attitudes was consistent across both first-time and repeat visitors, as no significant differences were observed (χ2 = 1.72, df = 6, P > 0.05). Similarly, no significant differences were observed across demographic and social variables, including gender, group type, age, village, or ethnic group (P > 0.05), indicating that positive changes in attitudes were consistent across participant subgroups. The main reasons for more positive attitudes included recognition of the park’s role in protecting wildlife and natural resources (29.1%), enjoyment of observing wild animals (19.8%), and appreciation of the park’s scenic beauty (13.9%). Additional reasons for positive attitudes are presented in Figure 5.

Participants’ Attitudes Toward Lions After Their Visit to the Park

A vast majority of participants (92.3%, n = 811) reported feeling more positively about lions after their visit, while 0.6% (n = 5) felt more negatively, and 7.2% (n = 63) reported no change. Attitudes varied significantly across villages (χ2 = 51.42, df = 30, P < 0.05), with Kitisi and Mapogoro residents expressing the most positive views, and by group type (χ2 = 8.24, df = 2, P < 0.05), with pastoralists showing greater positivity than farmers. Participants who had visited the park 1–4 times also reported more positive attitudes (χ2 = 12.99, df = 6, P < 0.05). Attitudes did not significantly differ by ethnicity, age, or gender (P > 0.05).

Positive attitudes toward lions were primarily driven by their perceived attractiveness and friendliness (35.3%), their role in attracting tourists (17.2%), and the enjoyment of observing them (11.5%) (Figure 6). Negative perceptions were linked to not seeing lions (3%) and livestock depredation (1%).

Participants’ Attitudes Toward Ruaha Carnivore Project After Their Visit

Nearly all participants (99.4%, n = 874) reported more positive attitudes toward RCP after their visit, with only 0.1% expressing more negative feelings. Overall attitudes varied significantly among individuals (χ2 = 1728.14, df = 2, P < 0.001), but showed no significant differences by group type, village, ethnicity, gender, or age. While free park access and wildlife viewing opportunities were the primary reasons for positive attitudes (71%, n = 628), participants’ prior recognition of the ecological, recreational, and economic value of the park also likely influenced these responses (Figure 7).

Participants’ Attitudes Toward the Presence of Lions on Village Land After Their Visit to the Park

When asked about the presence of lions on village land, 60.1% (n = 528) opposed it, 39.6% (n = 348) supported it, and 0.3% (n = 3) were neutral. Significant differences were observed among individual responses (χ2 = 482.21, df = 2, P < 0.001) and by group type (χ2 = 8.11, df = 2, P < 0.05), with pastoralists expressing stronger opposition than farmers. Among opponents, 42.3% (n = 372) cited livestock attacks, and 21.6% (n = 190) cited risks to people. Supporters mainly cited lions’ attractiveness (8.1%, n = 71) or personal liking (6.8%, n = 60) (Figure 8). Participants who did not see lions during their park visit were more likely to oppose their presence on village land (χ² = 6.05, df = 2, P < 0.05).

The best predictive model for attitudes toward lions on village land included gender and group type. Pastoralists and males were more negative than farmers and females, respectively (β = -0.143, P = 0.013; β = -0.156, P = 0.012) (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4.

A Priori Candidate Models of Variables Associated With Community Park Visitors’ Attitudes Toward the Presence of Lions on Village Land, Ranked by AICc and AICc Weights in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. The Models Were Analyzed Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) With a Binomial Error Distribution and Log Link Function

	K	−2 (log pseudo lik)	AICc	△AICc	ωi
Group type + gender	3	2125.35	2127.35	0.00	0.395
Gender	2	2126.57	2128.58	1.23	0.213
Gender + Age_group	3	2127.36	2129.37	2.02	0.144
Perc_ben.Comm. + Perc.ben.Tanzania	3	2127.74	2129.75	2.40	0.119
Freq.visit + Gender	3	2130.26	2132.26	4.91	0.034
Freq.visit	2	2130.27	2132.27	4.92	0.034
Age group	2	2130.71	2132.72	5.37	0.027
Freq.visit + Group type + Gender	4	2130.96	2132.96	5.61	0.024
Freq.visit + Perc.ben.Comm + Perc. ben.Tanzania	4	2133.06	2135.06	7.71	0.008
Group type + Age_group + Freq.visit + Gender	5	2136.21	2138.21	10.86	0.002
Ethnic group + Gender	3	2140.41	2142.42	15.07	0.000

K is the number of parameters used in the model plus 1 for intercept and error term; −2 (log pseudo Lik) is −2 (log pseudo likelihood of the model; AICc: Akaike’s Information Criterion corrected for small sample, △AICc is the difference in AICc values between individual model and the best model; ωi= Akaike weights for model. △AICc< 2 suggests substantial evidence for the model; △AICc> 10 indicates that the model is very unlikely. Perc.ben.Comm. = perceived benefits to communities, Perc.ben.Tanzania = perceived benefits to Tanzania, Freq.visit = Frequency of park visitation. All models included the effect of the village as a random factor.

Table 5.

Summary Statistics of Model-Averaged Estimates of Coefficients (β) From the Top Model, Including Standard Error (SE), t-statistic and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) Derived From Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) That Best Explained Attitudes Toward the Presence of Lions on Village Land (N = 876)

Parameter	Estimate (β)	SE	t	P-value	95% confidence interval
Parameter	Estimate (β)	SE	t	P-value	Lower	Upper
(Intercept)	−0.389	0.093	−4.186	<0.001	−0.572	−0.207
Group = Pastoralist	−0.143	0.057	−2.483	0.013	−0.030	−0.255
Gender = Male	−0.156	0.062	−2.522	0.012	−0.277	−0.035

The significance level is set at P ≤0.05.

Discussion

Perceived Benefits of RNP and Their Impact on Community Support for Conservation

This study is the first to investigate whether visits to national parks influence local communities’ perceptions of benefits and attitudes toward wildlife and conservation in Tanzania. Our findings underscore the importance of both economic and non-economic benefits—such as tourism revenue, foreign currency, social services, recreation and wildlife protection—in shaping positive attitudes toward RNP and conservation more broadly. This aligns with previous research showing that when communities perceive tangible and intangible benefits from conservation, their awareness and support for PAs increase (Dewu & Røskaft, 2018; Htay et al., 2022; Kideghesho et al., 2007).

Although economic benefits play an important role, our findings suggest that intangible, non-economic values—such as recreational opportunities (e.g., wildlife viewing and nature appreciation) and the perceived importance of wildlife protection—may exert an even stronger influence on community attitudes. These findings align with growing evidence that recreation, education, and symbolic values often outweigh direct financial incentives in shaping conservation attitudes (Abukari & Mwalyosi, 2018; Allendorf, 2007; Snyman, 2014). Overall, these findings suggest that effective conservation strategies should extend beyond financial incentives, fostering connections between communities and wildlife through emotional, cultural, educational, and experiential avenues as well as material benefits.

Perceived Benefits, Community Engagement, and Demographic Influences on Conservation Attitudes

Our results also suggest that the perceived benefits of the park outweigh the costs, fostering generally positive attitudes toward conservation. These benefits primarily reflect the park’s intrinsic ecological, recreational, and economic value—particularly its roles in wildlife conservation, tourism, and ecosystem services—rather than solely the outcomes of NGO initiatives. This aligns with Social Exchange Theory (SET), which posits that communities are more likely to support conservation when benefits are perceived as meaningful and equitable (Kideghesho et al., 2007; Oldekop et al., 2016). While positive attitudes do not always translate into pro-conservation behavior (Waylen et al., 2009), numerous studies confirm that they are often strong predictors (Infield & Namara, 2001; St John et al., 2010; Wyss et al., 2022).

Pastoralist participants reported perceiving more benefits than farmers, likely reflecting the RCP’s targeted outreach efforts in pastoralist communities. These initiatives—including predator-proof boma training, community movie nights, park visits and wildlife education—were frequently cited by participants when describing the park’s impact. The structured park visit, in particular, provided direct wildlife experiences and conservation education that reinforced positive perceptions, illustrating how hands-on engagement within the broader framework of NGO programming can shape attitudes toward wildlife and conservation.

Historical experiences of forcible eviction and relocation may also shape community perceptions of the park and wildlife (Brockington, 1999; Brockington & Igoe, 2006; Mustafa, 1997). In the study area, many pastoralist households moved only after park boundaries were established, while some Hehe households still have relatives who once lived in what is now protected land (Lion Landscapes, unpublished data). These lived experiences may partly explain differences in attitudes between farmers and pastoralists.

Demographic factors—including group type, village, ethnicity and gender also significantly influenced attitudes toward wildlife. Pastoralists expressed more positive views than farmers, potentially due to their frequent interactions with wildlife near PAs and cultural traditions that emphasize close connections with animals (Kioko et al., 2015). Similarly, Maasai and Hehe participants, who have strong cultural ties to wildlife, displayed more favorable attitudes (Dickman, 2008). These patterns may be further reinforced by RCP community-based outreach, particularly in villages such as Kitisi and Mapogoro. Participants’ positive attitudes likely reflect both prior exposure to community programs and the structured park visit, which together strengthened perceptions. Thus, the park visit could be acting as a key reinforcing factor within a broader suite of NGO-facilitated benefits rather than the sole driver of positive perceptions. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of culturally grounded, community-specific conservation approaches. They suggest that scaling such interventions across villages—particularly those most affected by or engaged with wildlife—could strengthen support for conservation while addressing historical grievances that might otherwise undermine trust and participation.

Visitor Experiences and Satisfaction: Wildlife Encounters and Engagement in Conservation

Most participants reported enjoying their visit to RNP, with seeing wild animals—particularly iconic species like lions—being the most memorable part of their experience, regardless of prior exposure. This underscores a strong link between park visitation and overall satisfaction, which can enhance pro-environmental intentions (Halpenny, 2010). Visitor satisfaction in PAs extends beyond wildlife observation, encompassing emotional connections, learning opportunities, spiritual engagement, safety, comfort, and the authenticity of both natural and cultural environments (Bigne et al., 2005). In our study, observing diverse species and experiencing the park’s natural landscape emerged as key contributors, highlighting the interconnected elements that shape visitor experiences. Overall, the structured park visit provided broadly positive and meaningful experiences for participants, demonstrating its effectiveness in fostering engagement with wildlife and conservation.

Livelihood and Gender Differences in Community Attitudes Toward Lions

Consistent with previous studies (Lichtenfeld, 2005; Nyahongo & Røskaft, 2011), pastoralists held more negative views of lions on village land, reflecting their heightened vulnerability to livestock depredation. Conversely, participants who encountered lions within the park expressed more positive views, underscoring the potential of wildlife encounters to shift perceptions. However, attitudes are generally more malleable and context-dependent than values (Fulton et al., 1996; Manfredo et al., 2009), and can shift rapidly in response to lived experiences such as livestock depredation (Dickman, 2010; Kansky & Knight, 2014). Thus, while park-based educational encounters may foster short-term increases in support for carnivores, these gains may diminish if households subsequently experience high conflict. This represents a limitation of attitude research based on short-term measurements and underscores the importance of pairing educational outreach with sustained conflict-mitigation interventions (Zimmermann et al., 2005; Marchini & Macdonald, 2012). Besides, in this particular setting, attitudes towards lions in village land might have been influenced by the long-term conservation outreach programs implemented by RCP and this was not easily discernible from the data collected.

Gender differences in attitudes toward lions were also observed. Men expressed more negative views than women, contrary to some previous findings (Mutanga et al., 2015; Røskaft et al., 2003), possibly due to men’s greater responsibilities for livestock herding and defending animals from predators (Goldman et al., 2013; Koziarski et al., 2016). At the same time, our research also indicates that women generally express less favorable views of wildlife in the Ruaha landscape, likely because of higher exposure to wildlife-related risks while collecting water or firewood (Mutanga et al., 2015; Ogra, 2008). However, not all studies report significant gender-based variation (e.g., Kideghesho et al., 2007), highlighting that these patterns are complex and context-dependent. These findings suggest that pastoralist communities—who frequently interact with wildlife and demonstrate responsiveness to interventions such as the RCP visit—should be prioritized in future outreach and conservation programs. Gender-sensitive strategies, including targeted training in predator-proof boma construction and tools to reduce women’s vulnerability to human-wildlife conflict, may help promote more equitable and effective conservation outcomes.

Context-Dependent Perceptions of Lions and the Role of Protected Area Experiences in Shaping Conservation Support

Our results show that participants’ positive attitudes toward lions were strongest when lions were encountered within the protected area. This reflects a broader “fences approach,” in which wildlife is appreciated when safely contained inside the park but viewed negatively on village land, where risks such as livestock predation and human safety concerns are more immediate (Dickman, 2010; Mkonyi et al., 2017; Nyahongo & Røskaft, 2011). Pre- and post-visit responses consistently indicated favorable perceptions of lions within the park, suggesting that safe, managed encounters—combined with ecological and educational explanations during the visit—helped reduce fear and foster admiration. Conversely, lions outside the park remained associated with conflict and were regarded far more negatively by participants. These results echo previous studies indicating that support for large carnivore conservation is often context-dependent, favoring protected area settings (Dickman, 2010; Nyahongo & Røskaft, 2011). Over one-third of participants cited tourism as a key factor in shaping their positive perceptions of wildlife and the park, aligning with research showing that ecotourism and access to wildlife-related benefits can foster conservation support (Merz et al., 2023; Vannelli et al., 2019).

While most tourism in RNP is operated by private or external actors, community-driven models—such as cultural bomas, craft cooperatives, and the MBOMIPA WMA—offer promising avenues for greater local participation. However, barriers such as limited access to capital, inadequate training, and restricted entry to tourism zones currently limit broader community engagement. A major underlying constraint is the difficulty of securing and sustaining the funding needed to establish and maintain community tourism initiatives—a challenge intensified by recent USAID cuts, which have increased competition for alternative donor support and reduced the financial stability of community-based conservation programs. To address these constraints it is important for NGOs to consider the diversification of funding streams—through blended financing and public–private partnerships—to ensure long-term program viability. For example, in Tanzania, TANAPA has the mandate to bring people from local communities to the park and this could be leveraged through collaboration. Such efforts could enhance local livelihoods while reinforcing conservation values and support for lions in and around PAs.

Nearly all participants indicated they would recommend the park to others, suggesting that visitation may act as a powerful word-of-mouth conservation tool. This finding aligns with previous studies linking positive visitor experiences to pro-environmental attitudes and behavior (Halpenny, 2010; Lee & Moscardo, 2005). However, local visitation remains constrained by several practical barriers, mainly transport and entry costs. Addressing these constraints could help broaden access to visitation opportunities and amplify the positive impacts associated with direct protected area experiences. Future research should explore how protected area visits shape perceptions of wildlife in adjacent community lands and assess interventions—such as community-based mitigation programs, improved livestock protection strategies, or locally tailored benefit-sharing schemes—that foster coexistence beyond protected boundaries.

Context-Dependent Attitudes Toward Lions: Safety, Risk, and Emotional Responses

Attitudes toward lions in the Ruaha landscape were highly context-dependent, reflecting a broader pattern observed across Africa where perceptions of large carnivores vary dramatically based on location (Dickman et al., 2013; Kissui, 2008). Participants expressed strongly positive views when encountering lions within the protected and regulated environment of the national park, where lions inspired feelings of awe, pride, and admiration—emotions known to encourage conservation support (Silva dos Santos et al., 2020). Our findings align with Felix et al. (2022), in showing that lions inside the park were generally seen as “good” valued for their tourism and aesthetic appeal. In contrast, when lions occurred on village lands, attitudes shifted markedly. Here, lions were associated with fear, livestock losses, and past traumatic encounters, highlighting the real or perceived threats they pose to human safety and livelihoods near settlements (Kleiven et al., 2004; Kushnir & Packer, 2019; Lichtenfeld, 2005; Soka & Lyimo, 2021). These negative perceptions are often reinforced through social transmission of fear and resentment, creating enduring community-level attitudes even long after specific incidents have occurred (Dickman et al., 2014; Lagendijk & Gusset, 2008; Røskaft et al., 2007). This spatial variation—lions perceived as admirable within the park but dangerous outside it—underscores how context fundamentally shapes human-wildlife relationships. Importantly, NGO benefit programs in community areas play an important moderating role by providing livestock protection, community development support, and compensation-linked incentives that help offset the costs of coexistence. These programs may reduce negative perceptions outside the park and help bridge the divide between lions as valued tourism assets within the protected area and as threats near settlements, thereby strengthening broader community support for conservation.

Fostering Pro-Conservation Attitudes Through Park Visitation and Emotional Connections

Our findings suggest that even a single visit to the park can foster supportive attitudes toward wildlife, including species such as lions, as evidenced by the overwhelmingly positive responses among both first-time and repeat visitors. This aligns with previous research showing that experiences in natural environments can cultivate emotional connections, enhance a sense of place, and strengthen place identity (Gosling & Williams, 2010; Hausmann et al., 2016; Raymond et al., 2010), which in turn may promote psychological well-being and encourage environmental stewardship and conservation-oriented behaviors (Korpela et al., 2009). These findings have important implications for conservation practice, highlighting the value of structured park visit in nurturing pro-conservation attitudes within local communities. Although most participants had never previously visited RNP, nearly all reported high satisfaction and expressed more positive perceptions of both wildlife and the park following their visit. These results underscore the potential of increasing access to PAs as a powerful tool for shaping attitudes and strengthening community–park relationships. To support this, park authorities and conservation organizations—such as Lion Landscapes— could actively promote and subsidize visits for local communities, particularly targeting individuals with no prior visitation experience. Potential initiatives might include school trips, village-wide outreach events, and partnerships with local leaders to encourage broader participation. Beyond fostering enjoyment and appreciation, such efforts can cultivate emotional connections to wildlife and reinforce the non-economic and intrinsic values of conservation.

Enhancing Community Engagement Through Accessible Park Visits

Visits to RNP improved community attitudes not only toward the park but also toward the RCP, with many participants linking their positive views to the free visits and educational opportunities provided. While these experiences do not directly measure trust in the NGO, they help build familiarity and positive relationships—important foundations for fostering long-term support for conservation. Each visit cost approximately $20 per participant, covering transport, meals, and park entry fees, and the program’s sustainability depends on consistent external support. This low-cost, flexible approach represents a strategic investment for conservation organizations, strengthening community engagement and fostering enduring conservation support. Although standard entry fees for Tanzanian citizens are relatively low (approximately $2.35–$4.37), logistical expenses such as transport, fuel, and meals remain the primary barrier to participation. Addressing these costs is essential for maintaining and expanding community engagement over time.

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, the study focused on a single national park and included a sample skewed toward pastoralist communities, which may limit the generalizability of results to other regions or demographic groups. Women were under-represented, despite gender being an important factor in shaping attitudes toward wildlife, and future research should aim for more balanced socio-demographic representation. Second, the benefit mechanisms and fully subsidized park visits examined were implemented by a well-resourced NGO within a specific local context, which may constrain replicability in areas with fewer resources. In Tanzania the national parks have the mandate to facilitate visits of adjacent communities to the park, and cooperation between TANAPA and local NGOs could help with sustainability. Third, prior exposure to NGO-managed community programs was not systematically recorded; such engagement could have influenced baseline attitudes, and future studies should examine how pre-visit programs and park experiences jointly shape perceptions. Fourth, while open-ended questions provided valuable qualitative insights, integrating standardized measures of transformative experiences, place attachment, or behavioral outcomes could strengthen understanding of long-term attitude change. Finally, focusing primarily on communities adjacent to PAs, although critical for mitigating human–wildlife conflict, raises broader equity concerns, as residents elsewhere may not have comparable opportunities. However, it is communities adjacent to national parks that bear the costs of conserving wildlife and it is thus fair that they are given priority. Addressing financial, cultural, and logistical barriers to park access and integrating inclusive benefit-sharing models into national conservation and tourism policies will be important for enhancing sustainability, fairness, and scalability of conservation programs. Despite these limitations, the study highlights the potential of community engagement initiatives to strengthen people–park relationships and inform locally grounded conservation strategies in Tanzania and beyond.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Influence of Park Visits on Community Attitudes and Perceptions of Ruaha National Park and Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania

Supplemental Material for The Influence of Park Visits on Community Attitudes and Perceptions of Ruaha National Park and Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania by Felix Joseph Mkonyi, BenJee Cascio, Ana Grau, Alayne Cotterill, Amy Dickman in Tropical Conservation Science

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Influence of Park Visits on Community Attitudes and Perceptions of Ruaha National Park and Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Influence of Park Visits on Community Attitudes and Perceptions of Ruaha National Park and Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the staff of Ruaha National Park and the field team of Lion Landscapes for their invaluable support during data collection, and to the local community members who generously participated in the Park visitation surveys.

ORCID iD

Felix Joseph Mkonyi

Funding

This work was made possible through the generous support of the African Wildlife Foundation, TUSK (Evolution Grant), the Disney Conservation Fund, USAID PROTECT, Woodland Park Zoo, BAND, and the Lion Recovery Fund.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abade

Macdonald

D.W.

Dickman

A.J.

(2014). Assessing the Relative Importance of Landscape and Husbandry Factors in Determining Large Carnivore Depredation Risk in Tanzania’s Ruaha Landscape. Biological Conservation, 180, 241–248.

Abukari

Mwalyosi

R. B.

(2018). Comparing conservation attitudes of park-adjacent communities: The case of Mole National Park in Ghana and Tarangire National Park in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 11, 1–14.

Ajzen

(2012). Martin Fishbein’s legacy: The reasoned action approach. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640(1), 11–27.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allendorf

Smith

J. L. D.

Anderson

D. H.

(2007). Residents’ perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(1-2), 33–4.

Allendorf

Swe

K. K.

Htut

Aung

Leimgruber

Wemmer

(2006). Community attitudes toward three protected areas in Upper Myanmar. Environmental Conservation, 33(4), 344–352.

Allendorf

T. D.

(2007). Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nepal. Biodiversity Conservation, 16(7), 2087–2102.

Allendorf

T. D.

(2020). A global summary of local residents’ attitudes toward protected areas. Human Ecology, 48 (1), 111–8.

Arbieu

Helsper

Dadvar

Mueller

Niamir

(2021). Natural language processing as a tool to evaluate emotions in conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation, 256, 109030.

10.

Arjunan

Holmes

Puyravaud

J. P

Davidar

(2006). Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes towards conservation? A case study from the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management, 79, 188–197.

11.

Bajuta

E. S.

Hariohay

K. M.

Kideghesho

J. R.

Arukwe

Røskaft

Ranke

P. S.

(2025). A comprehensive analysis of human and livestock attacks in the Ngorongoro conservation area in Northern, Tanzania: Patterns, Determinants and Management Strategies. Global Ecology and Conservation, e03816.

12.

Ballantyne

Packer

Falk

(2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 32, 1243–1252.

13.

Bigne

J. E.

Andreu

Gnoth

(2005). “The theme park experience: an analysis, of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction”. Tourism Management, 26 (6), 833–844.

14.

Bluwstein

Moyo

Kicheleri

(2016). Austere conservation: Understanding conflicts over resource governance in Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas. Conservation and Society, 14(3), 218–231.

15.

Bragagnolo

Malhado

A. C.

Jepson

Ladle

R. J.

(2016). Modelling local attitudes to protected areas in developing countries. Conservation and Society, 14(3), 163–182.

16.

Brittain

James

O’Neill

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

(2020). Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 956–964.

17.

Brockington

(1999). Conservation, displacement and livelihoods: The consequences of the eviction for pastoralists moved from the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Nomadic Peoples, 3(2), 74–96.

18.

Brockington

Igoe

(2006). Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conservation and Society, 4(3), 424-470.

19.

Browne-Nuñez

Jonker

S. A.

(2008). Attitudes toward wildlife and conservation across Africa: A review of survey research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13(1), 47–70.

20.

Burnham

K. P.

Anderson

D. R.

Huyvaert

K. P.

(2011). AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: Some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65 (1), 23–35.

21.

Coad

Campbell

Lera

Kathryn

(2008). The Costs and Benefits of Protected Areas for Local Livelihoods: A Review of the Current Literature. Working Paper. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K.

22.

Dewu

Røskaft

(2018). Community attitudes towards protected areas: insights from Ghana. Oryx, 52(3), 489–496.

23.

Dickman

Cotterill

Asecheka

Mlaponi

Mbugi

Grau

Cascio

(2025). Community Camera Trapping: A Novel Method for Encouraging Human–Big Cat Coexistence on Human‐Dominated Land. Wildlife Letters, 3(1), 22–29.

24.

Dickman

Marchini

Manfredo

(2013). The human dimension in addressing conflict with large carnivores. In Macdonald

D. W.

Willis

K. J.

(Eds.), Key topics in conservation biology 2 (pp. 110–126). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

25.

Dickman

A. J.

(2005). An assessment of pastoralist attitudes and wildlife conflict in the Rungwa-Ruaha region, Tanzania, with particular reference to large carnivores . MSc. Dissertation. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

26.

Dickman

A. J.

(2008). Key determinants of conflict between people and wildlife, particularly large carnivores, around Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. PhD. Thesis. University College London, London, UK.

27.

Dickman

A. J.

(2010). Complexities of conflict: Social factors in carnivore–human conflict. Animal Conservation, 13, 458–466.

28.

Dickman

A. J.

Hazzah

Carbone

Durant

S. M.

(2014). Carnivores, culture and “contagious conflict”: Multiple factors influence perceived problems with carnivores in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape. Biological Conservation, 178, 19–27.

29.

Emerson

R. M.

(1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.

30.

Espinosa

Jacobson

S. K.

(2012). Human-wildlife conflict and environmental education: Evaluating a community program to protect the Andean bear in Ecuador. Journal of Environment Education, 43, 55–65.

31.

Felix

Kissui

B. M.

Munishi

Treydte

A. C.

(2022). Retaliatory killing negatively affects African lion (Panthera leo) male coalitions in the Tarangire-Manyara Ecosystem, Tanzania. PLoS one, 17(8), e0272272.

32.

Fulton

D. C.

Manfredo

M. J.

Lipscomb

(1996). Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 24–47.

33.

Goldman

M. J

Roque de Pinho

Perry

(2013). Beyond ritual and economics: Maasai lion hunting and conservation politics. Oryx, 47, 490–500.

34.

Gosling

Williams

(2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behavior: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environment Psychology, 30(3), 298–304.

35.

Halpenny

E. A.

(2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environment Psychology, 30(4): 409–421.

36.

Hariohay

K. M.

Ranke

P. S.

Fyumagwa

R. D.

Kideghesho

J. R.

Røskaft

(2019). Drivers of conservation crimes in the Rungwa-Kizigo-Muhesi Game Reserves, Central Tanzania. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, e00522.

37.

Hausmann

Slotow

Burns

J. K.

Di Minin

(2016). The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environmental Conservation, 43, 117–127.

38.

Hazzah

(2006). Living among Lions (Panthera Leo): Coexistence or Killing? Community Attitudes towards Conservation Initiatives and the Motivations behind Lion Killing in Kenyan Maasailand. MSc Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

39.

Holmes

(2013). Exploring the relationship between local support and the success of protected areas. Conservation and Society, 11(1), 72–82.

40.

Htay

Htoo

K. K.

Mbise

F. P.

Røskaft

(2022). Factors influencing communities’ attitudes and participation in protected area conservation: a case study from Northern Myanmar. Society and Natural Resources, 35(3), 301–319.

41.

Infield

Namara

(2001). Community attitudes and behaviour toward conservation: An assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx, 35(1), 48–60.

42.

Kabuga

S. B.

(2018). Tourism and Poverty Reduction in “Southern Circuits” of Tanzania: Experiences of Communities at the Gateway of Ruaha National Park. Innsbrucker Bericht, 19, 153–173.

43.

Kansky

Knight

A. T.

(2014). Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in conflict with humans. Biological Conservation, 179, 93–105.

44.

Kideghesho

J. R.

Mtoni

P. E.

(2008). Who compensates for wildlife conservation in Serengeti? International Journal of Biodiversity, Science and Management, 4(2), 112–125.

45.

Kideghesho

J. R.

Røskaft

Kaltenborn

B. P.

(2007). Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(7), 2213–2230.

46.

Kioko

Kiffner

Ndibalema

Hartnett

Seefeld

(2015). Maasai people and elephants: values and perceptions. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 1(1), 13–19.

47.

Kissui

B. M.

(2008). Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas, and their vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the Maasai steppe, Tanzania. Animal Conservation, 11, 1–11.

48.

Kleiven

Bjerke

Kaltenborn

B. P.

(2004). Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13, 1647–1658.

49.

Korpela

Ylen

Tyrvainen

Silvennoinen

(2009). Stability of self-reported favourite places and place attachment over a 10-month period. Journal of Environment Psychology, 29, 95–1000.

50.

Koziarski

Kissui

Kiffner

(2016). Patterns and correlates of perceived conflict between humans and large carnivores in Northern Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 199, 41–50.

51.

Kushnir

Packer

(2019). Perceptions of risk from man-eating lions in Southeastern Tanzania. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 47.

52.

Lagendijk

D. D. G.

Gusset

(2008). Human–Carnivore Coexistence on Communal Land Bordering the Greater Kruger Area, South Africa. Environmental Management, 42, 971–976.

53.

Lee

W. H.

Moscardo

(2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13, 546–565.

54.

Lehnen

Arbieu

Böhning‐Gaese

Díaz

Glikman

J. A.

Mueller

(2022). Rethinking individual relationships with entities of nature. People and Nature, 4(3), 596–611.

55.

Lichtenfeld

L. L.

(2005). Our Shared Kingdom At Risk: Human – Lion Relationships in the 21st Century. PhD Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

56.

Lindsey

P. A.

du Toit

J. T.

Mills

M. G. L.

(2005). Attitudes of ranchers towards African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: Conservation implications on private land. Biological Conservation, 125, 113–121.

57.

Manfredo

M. J.

Teel

Bright

(2009). Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(4), 287–306.

58.

Marchini

Macdonald

D. W

(2012). Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: Case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biological Conservation, 147(1), 213–221.

59.

Mehta

J. N.

Heinen

J. T.

(2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management, 28(2), 165–177.

60.

Merz

Pienaar

E. F.

Fik

Muyengwa

Child

(2023). Wildlife institutions highly salient to human attitudes toward wildlife. Conservation Science and Practice, 5(2), e12879.

61.

Mkonyi

F. J.

(2021). Local People’s Perceptions of Benefits and Costs of Protected Areas: The Case of Tarangire National Park and the Surrounding Ecosystem, Northern Tanzania. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 23 (1), 5–31.

62.

Mkonyi

F. J.

Estes

A. B.

Msuha

M. J.

Lichtenfeld

L. L.

Durant

S. M.

(2017). Local attitudes and perceptions toward large carnivores in a human dominated landscape of northern Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22, 314–330.

63.

Mustafa

(1997). Eviction of Pastoralists from the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania: An Historical Review. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

64.

Mutanga

C. N.

Muboko

Gandiwa

(2017). Protected area staff and local community viewpoints: A qualitative assessment of conservation relationships in Zimbabwe. PLoS one, 12(9), e018477.

65.

Mutanga

C. N.

Vengesayi

Gandiwa

Muboko

(2015). Community perceptions of wildlife conservation and tourism: A case study of communities adjacent to four protected areas in Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation Science, 8(2), 564–582.

66.

Napier

T. L.

Napier

A. S.

(1991). Perceptions of conservation compliance among farmers in a highly erodible area of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(3), 220–224.

67.

Nyahongo

Røskaft

(2011). Perception of people towards lions and other wildlife killing humans, around Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity Conservation, 3(4), 110–115.

68.

Ogra

M. V.

(2008). Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum, 39(3), 1408–1422.

69.

Oldekop

J. A.

Holmes

Harris

W. E

Evans

K. L.

(2016). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 133–141.

70.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

71.

Raymond

C. M.

Brown

Weber

(2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environment Psychology, 30(4), 422–434.

72.

Røskaft

Bjerke

Kaltenborn

Linnell

J. D

Andersen

(2003). Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwegian public. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 184–198.

73.

Røskaft

Händel

Bjerke

Kaltenborn

B. P.

(2007). Human attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biology, 13(2), 172–185.

74.

Schumann

Watson

L. H

Schumann

B. D

(2008). Attitudes of Namibian commercial farmers towards large carnivores: The influence of conservancy membership. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 38, 123–132.

75.

Sharpley

(2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37–49.

76.

Silva dos Santos

Kelsey

K. D.

Fuhrman

N. E

Irwin

(2020). Animals in Environmental Education: Assessing Individuals' Emotional Reactions to Interactions with Wildlife. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 61–77.

77.

Snyman

(2014). Assessment of the main factors impacting community members’ attitudes towards tourism and protected areas in six southern African countries. Koedoe, 56(2), 21–32.

78.

Soka

Lyimo

(2021). Human and landscape factors influencing lion mortalities in the Maasai Steppe ecosystem, northern Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature Conservation, 90(2), 134–146.

79.

St John

F. A.

Edwards-Jones

Jones

J. P.

(2010). Conservation and human behaviour: Lessons from social psychology. Wildlife Research, 37(8), 658–667.

80.

Strampelli

Henschel

Searle

C. E.

Lobora

A. L.

Kiwango

Macdonald

D. W

Dickman

A. J.

(2022). Index-based large carnivore population density and abundance estimates for the Ruaha-Rungwa conservation complex in Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, 61, 221–225.

81.

Tesfaye

Roos

Bohlin

(2012). Attitudes of local people towards collective action for forest management: the case of participatory forest management in Dodola area in the Bale Mountains, Southern Ethiopia. Biodiversity Conservation, 21(1), 245–265.

82.

Tessema

M. E

Lilieholm

R. J

Ashenafi

Z. T

Leader-Williams

(2010). Community attitudes toward wildlife and protected areas in Ethiopia. Society & Natural Resources, 23(6), 489–506.

83.

Tomicevic

Shannon

M. A.

Milovanovic

(2010). Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 157–162.

84.

Vannelli

Hampton

M. P.

Namgail

Black

S. A.

(2019). Community participation in ecotourism and its effect on local perceptions of snow leopard (Panthera uncia) conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(2), 180–193.

85.

Walsh

(2000). The Development of Community Wildlife Management in Tanzania. Conference African Wildlife Management in the New Millennium, Mweka, 13-15 December 2000, p.13–15.

86.

Waylen

K. A.

McGowan

P. J. K.

Pawi

Study Group.

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

(2009). Ecotourism positively affects awareness and attitudes but not conservation behaviours: A case study at Grande Riviere, Trinidad. Oryx, 43, 343–351.

87.

Wyss

A. M.

Knoch

Berger

(2022). When and how pro-environmental attitudes turn into behavior: The role of costs, benefits, and self-control. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101748.

88.

Zimmermann

Walpole

M. J

Leader-Williams

(2005). Cattle ranchers’ attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx, 39(4), 406–412.

89.

Zube

E. H.

Busch

M. L.

(1990). Park-people relationships: An international review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 117–131.

90.

Zuur

A. F.

Leno

E. N.

Elphick

C. S.

(2010). A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1(1), 3–1.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB

0.28 MB

0.36 MB