Balancing conservation with national development: a socio-economic case study of the alternatives to the Serengeti Road

Developing countries often have rich natural resources but poor infrastructure to capitalize on them, which leads to significant challenges in terms of balancing poverty alleviation with conservation. The underlying premise in development strategies is to increase the socio-economic welfare of the people while simultaneously ensuring environmental sustainability, however these objectives are often in direct conflict. National progress is dependent on developing infrastructure such as effective transportation networks, however roads can be ecologically catastrophic in terms of disrupting habitat connectivity and facilitating illegal activity. How can national development and conservation be balanced? The proposed Serengeti road epitomizes the conflict between poverty alleviation on one hand, and the conservation of a critical ecosystem on the other. We use the Serengeti as an exemplar case-study in which the relative economic and social benefits of a road can be assessed against the ecological impacts. Specifically, we compare three possible transportation routes and ask which route maximizes the socio-economic returns for the people while minimizing the ecological costs. The findings suggest that one route in particular that circumnavigates the Serengeti links the greatest number of small and medium sized entrepreneurial businesses to the largest labour force in the region. Furthermore, this route connects the most children to schools, provisions the greatest access to hospitals, and opens the most fertile crop and livestock production areas, and does not compromise the ecology and tourism revenue of the Serengeti. This route would improve Tanzania’s food security and self-reliance and would facilitate future infrastructure development which would not be possible if the road were to pass through the Serengeti. This case study provides a compelling example of how a detailed spatial analysis can balance the national objectives of poverty alleviation while maintaining ecological integrity

Conservation and economic benefits of a road around the Serengeti

No abstract available

A comparison of the total distance of each proposed route, the current surface conditions, the amount of new paving, the number of major junctions, and the total human population the road would access.

<p>Note: The Serengeti Route requires the most amount of new pavement, would be the most costly to build, would contribute least to a national transportation network, and connects the fewest people.</p><p>A comparison of the total distance of each proposed route, the current surface conditions, the amount of new paving, the number of major junctions, and the total human population the road would access.</p

A comparison of travel times for the three routes based on the maximum allowable speed inside and outside protected areas indicates there is very little difference between the Serengeti Route and the Eyasi Route.

<p>A comparison of travel times for the three routes based on the maximum allowable speed inside and outside protected areas indicates there is very little difference between the Serengeti Route and the Eyasi Route.</p

A comparison of the education and health care opportunities for the people living along each route.

<p>(a) The total number of school aged children within 10km of each route partitioned by density and (b) the mean distance (km) to the closest clinic for people living along each route. The results show the Serengeti route connects the fewest children to schools and is the poorest at connecting rural people to medical facilities.</p

A comparison of the agricultural productivity of each route.

<p>(a) The spatial distribution of current crops (herbaceous crops are generally maize and beans for subsistence, shrub crops are generally cotton for cash), (b) the total amount of agriculture per kilometre of road; (c) the density of livestock and (d) the total livestock within 20km of each route. The potential for future agriculture depends on soil fertility and rainfall: (e) the distribution of soil fertility (estimated from the soil’s cation exchange capacity) and (f) the average soil fertility of each route; (g) the distribution of the mean annual rainfall and (h) the total annual rainfall along each route.</p

A comparison of the socio-economic demographics of the three possible routes.

<p>(a) The spatial distribution of economically active people and (b) the total number of economically active people within 10km of each route (Mbulu = 1,059,436; Eyasi = 919,297; Serengeti = 580,864); (c) the spatial distribution of unemployment and (d) the total number of unemployed people within 10km of each route (Mbulu = 904,930; Eyasi = 768,062; Serengeti = 458,037). The data suggest the Mbulu Route would connect the most unemployed people the largest centres of economic activity.</p