Cited by 112Wildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementWildlife Ecology and Conservation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Poaching Pays: A Summary of Risks and Benefits Illegal Hunters Face in Western Serengeti, Tanzania

Open access
Knapp, Eli J.·2012·Tropical Conservation Science

Abstract

Illegal hunting poses a considerable threat to the wildlife of Serengeti National Park and its affiliated protected areas. Techniques for successful mitigation of this threat are heavily debated. Bottom-up community-based initiatives aim to curb poaching by linking local communities with wildlife conservation. Top-down anti-poaching enforcement of protected areas seeks to maintain wildlife populations through fines and prison sentences given to arrested poachers. Poverty stands as the major driver of illegal hunting as households vie for income and sustenance. Livelihoods of illegal hunters have been augmented considerably through revenue generated from bushmeat sales. Illegal hunters use bushmeat both for supplementing household protein and for economic gain. Obtaining bushmeat carries risks in the form of personal injury, fines, and/or prison sentences, if arrested. This paper compares these costs and benefits through a summary of the monetary benefits, bodily injuries, fines, and prison sentences that individuals endured over their poaching careers. Data were collected from 104 individuals, all of whom voluntarily admitted active or recent involvement in illegal hunting activities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/194008291200500403

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Campbell K. L. I., 2001, Sustainable use of wildland resources, ecological, economic, and social interactions: an analysis of illegal hunting in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania
  2. Arcese P., 1995, Serengeti II, 506

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 112

Metadata

Authors
Knapp, E. J.
Affiliations
Houghton University (US)
Corresponding author
Knapp, Eli J.
Venue
Tropical Conservation Science
Published
2012-12
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
434-445
ISSN
1940-0829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2308692502
Cited by
111
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6
FWCI
5.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Tropical Conservation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
poaching, bushmeat trade, wildlife conservation, community-based conservation, Serengeti National Park, imprisonment and fines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review