2. This is the first SES conducted
in Manyara Ranch covering two
neighbouring villages
It was designed to social &
economic estimates at the
village level in each of the 2
villages: Esilalei & Oltukai
The Socio-Economic
Survey
3. The Manyara Ranch SES was
conducted from 2nd to 16th March
2021
It was internally driven with
AWF staff with support from RAs
The exercise was also internally
funded
What happened?
4. Sample Design
HH based survey in Esilalei &
Oltukai
First Stage sampling targeting
315but agreed on 320 HHs
across the two villages
Second Stage sampling
distributing 40 HHs per sub-
village
Selected HHs were visited and
interviewed;
5. Develop a clearer understanding of the
L&SE status of communities living
around the ranch
Examine and document practices
regarding use of wildlife and other
natural resources in the communities.
Explore local perceptions regarding the
ranch so as to guide and strengthen its
initiatives including implementation of
activities.
Generate baseline information for
future monitoring of the impacts of the
ranch on the livelihoods of the local
communities
Objective
8. SES Findings
Education Level of HH head
0.0% 0.0%
58.7%
50.0%
45.4%
100.0% 100.0%
41.3%
50.0%
54.6%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Complete tertiary Complete university Completed primary Completed secondary No formal education
Proportion
Education Level
Education level of household head
Esilalei Oltukai
9. SES Findings
Marital Status of HH Heads
52.3%
100.0%
15.4%
27.8%
49.5%
47.7%
0.0%
84.6%
72.2%
50.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Married Separated Single Widowed Total
Proportion
Marital Status
Marital Status
Esilalei Oltukai
10. SES Findings
Years Lived by HH Head in the village
Village < 10 years 10-39 40-69 70-99 Total
Esilalei 30.3% 58.5% 65.6% 66.7% 49.5%
Oltukai 69.7% 41.5% 34.4% 33.3% 50.5%
Combined 34.6% 54.3% 10.2% 1.0% 100.0%
11. SES Findings
Main occupation of HH Head in the village by gender
Gender
Main Occupation of Household Head by Gender
Employed Crop Farming Pastoralist Total
Female 0.0% 33.3% 25.6% 25.7%
Male 100.0% 66.7% 74.4% 74.3%
Combined 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12. SES Findings
HH Setup and Sizes
HH sizes were as below
83% Manyatta as main housing
structure
7.4 persons/HH
Both Villages
7.5 persons/ HH
(Esilalei)
7.3 persons/ HH
(Oltukai)
13. SES Findings
Type of Roof of HHs
83.3%
16.0%
0.6%
81.8%
18.2%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Grass thatched Iron sheets Mud/ Dung
Proportion
(%)
Type of Roof
Roofing Type of the Household Structure
Esilalei Oltukai
15. SES Findings
Source of Energy in the HHs
0.0% 0.6% 0.3%
64.1%
9.4%
36.5%
14.7%
6.9%
10.8%
21.2%
83.0%
52.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
Proportion
(%)
Villages
Source of energy for lighting
Candle Firewood Others Solar lighting
16. SES Findings
Source of drinking water in the HHs
76.3%
5.1%
0.6%
17.9%
81.1%
8.8%
5.7% 4.4%
78.7%
7.0%
3.2%
11.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Pond Rain water River/Spring Well or Borehole
Proportion
(%)
Village
Source of drinking water
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
17. SES Findings
Distance from nearest water point from the HHs
10.3%
78.8%
10.9%
21.4%
74.2%
4.4%
15.9%
76.5%
7.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Less than one km Two-five kms Six-ten kms
Proportion
(%)
Distance (KMs)
Distance from the nearest water point
Esilalei Oltukai Total
18. SES Findings
HH Economic Status: Main source of income
Main Source of Income Esilalei Oltukai
Bodaboda (Toyo) Rider 0.6% 1.3%
Business 0.6% 8.8%
Casual labour 0.0% 2.5%
Employment 1.3% 0.6%
Livestock 96.2% 86.8%
Other 1.3% 0.0%
19. SES Findings
HH Economic Status: Livestock contribution to HH needs
8.3%
76.3%
13.5%
1.9%
30.8%
41.5%
18.9%
8.8%
19.7%
58.7%
16.2%
5.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Less than 25% Between 25% to 50% Between 51% to 75% More than 75%
Proportion
(%)
Rates per village
Livestock contribution to household needs
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
28. SES Findings
Natural Resource Management Practices: General Management
Practices
36.3
66.9
34.9
61.8
35.6
64.4
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Yes
No
Proportion (%)
Are
Resources
managed
well?
Natural Resource Management in the two villages
Combined Oltukai Esilalei
29. SES Findings
NR Management Practices: Reasons for good management
Reasons for good/bad management of resources
Proportion (%)
Esilalei (n=156) Oltukai (n=159)
Combined
(n=315)
Reasons for good management Frequency Percent
All people benefit 23.8 25.9 24.9
Improving/increasing resources 43.1 47.3 45.2
Good leadership 20.5 22.5 21.5
Laws/regulations 13.6 16.9 15.3
People are informed 0.7 1.5 1.1
Reasons for bad management Frequency Percent
No conservation 52.9 51.0 52.0
Human-wildlife conflicts 12.9 13.7 13.3
Little knowledge 2.8 3.4 3.1
No benefits 12.3 10.1 11.2
30. SES Findings
Natural Resource Management Practices
77.8%
17.1%
48.6%
2.9%
78.7%
8.6%
Available Natural Resources
Forest (Natural/ Community) Water Body (Lake, Rivers, Streams,...) Pasture for livestock Minerals Wildlife/ Wildland Other Resources
31. SES Findings
Natural Resource Management Practices: Available NRs per village
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Forest (Natural/
Community)
Water Body (Lake,
Rivers, Streams,...)
Pasture for livestock Minerals Wildlife/ Wildland Other Resources
76.9%
29.5%
33.3%
4.5%
68.6%
16.7%
78.6%
5.0%
63.5%
1.3%
88.7%
0.6%
Proportion
(%)
Natural Resources
Natural Resources available in the two villages
Esilalei Oltukai
32. SES Findings
Natural Resource Management Practices: Uses of NRs
Uses of Natural Resources Proportions (%)
Land
Livestock Keeping 56.2
Settlement 44.7
Pasture 37.1
Forest
Firewood 53.4
Religious purposes 31.7
Building materials 49.9
Medicinal Products 84.8
Water catchment 22.1
Water Body
Watering animals 69.5
Agricultural practices 13.8
Cooking 70.0
Drinking 52.7
Washing 44.3
Pasture
Wildlife 87.2
Domestic animals 96.6
Minerals
Selling 93.4
Aesthetic 13.7
Wildlife/ Wildlands
Tourism 73.9
Hunting 13.1
33. SES Findings
Natural Resource Management Practices: Decision making on use
Land Forest Water Pasture Minerals Wildlife
Households 9.6 8.4 13.1 6.5 8.3 0.9
Community 46.1 32.2 44.8 62.6 35.0 34.4
Local authority 38.3 44.8 40.0 26.0 29.2 58.2
Clan elder 6.0 14.7 2.1 4.9 27.5 6.5
34. SES Findings
Natural Resource Management Practices: HH involvement in Decision
making
32.2
67.8
Household involvement in decision making on Natural Resourse Utilization
Yes No
35. SES Findings
NR Management: HH involvement in Decision making: age, Gender &
Occupation
Age Group Gender Main Occupation
20
-
29
30
-
39
40
-
49
50
-
59
60
-
69
70
-
79
80
-
89
Male Female Pastoralist
Crop
Farmer
Employed
Yes 11.1 26.0 37.7 42.9 34.5 31.3 16.7 39.4 21.3 33.3 27.9 0.0
No 88.9 74.0 62.3 57.1 65.5 68.8 83.3 60.6 78.7 66.7 72.7 100.0
36. SES Findings
NR Management: Reason for HH involvement in Decision making
Proportion (%)
Reasons for involvement Esilalei Oltukai
Member of committee/authority 34.9 33.3
Attend meetings/discussions 11.8 14.6
Involved in elections 1.5 2.1
Everybody makes decisions 3.6 4.9
Reason for non-involvement
Lack education 12.8 9.7
Women not involved 3.1 4.1
Only for officials 27.7 23.8
Not village member 0.5 1.7
Not involved in meetings 4.1 5.8
37. SES Findings
NR Management: NR Related Conflicts
42.3%
57.7%
40.9%
59.1%
41.6%
58.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
No Yes
Proportion
(%)
Experienced Tension
Conflicts/ Tension related to Natural Resources
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
38. SES Findings
NR Management: Sources of NR related conflicts
16.1
12.2
6.7
42.2
0.9
12.1
26.4
7.3 6.4
46.3
0.7
12.5
21.3
9.8
6.6
44.3
0.8
12.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Land Water Pasture HWC Age differences Resource Use
Proportion
Source
Sources of conflict
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
39. SES Findings
NR Management: Sources of NR related conflicts by age & Gender
Nature of
conflict
Age Group Gender
20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 + Male Female
Land 35.7 22.1 21.3 11.3 7.9 1.7 0 0 67.3 32.7
Water 6.7 9.3 11.1 12.9 13.4 19.5 27.1 0 59.5 40.5
Pasture 0 9.7 21.7 13.8 1.2 0 31.7 21.9 67.9 32.1
HWC 9.3 17.8 10.4 21.3 1.4 21.9 17.9 0 57.3 42.7
Age differences 17.2 19.7 13.8 6.7 11.8 12.7 10.7 7.4 51.9 48.1
Resource Use 7.9 9.1 38.6 21.1 0 4.1 11.8 7.4 61.4 38.6
40. SES Findings
Perceptions Regarding MR & Conservation: Awareness of AWF work
63.5%
36.5%
66.7%
33.3%
65.1%
34.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
No Yes
Proportion
(%)
Awareness
Awareness about AWF Work in Manyara Area
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
41. SES Findings
Perceptions Regarding MR & Conservation: HH Awareness &
Involvement
Awareness and Involvement in
Manyara Ranch Activities
Villages
Esilalei Oltukai Total
Awareness
No 60.3% 86.2% 73.3%
Yes 39.7% 13.8% 26.7%
Involvement
No 99.4% 99.4% 99.4%
Yes 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
43. SES Findings
Perceptions Regarding MR: Anticipated Benefits from the Ranch
78.8
21.2
80.0
20.0
79.4
20.6
74.1
25.9
74.9
25.1
74.5
25.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
Proportion
(%)
Villages
Anticipation of benefit from Manyara ranch
To the community To the household
45. SES Findings
Perceptions Regarding MR: Conservation of Wildlife
33.1
34.9
6.1
16.4
8.9
37.1
32.8
6.5
14.9
9.3
35.1 33.9
6.3
15.7
9.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Dissagree Strongly disagree
Proportion
(%)
Perception in the villages
Perception about conservation of wildlife
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
46. SES Findings
Perceptions Regarding MR: Conflict due to Wildlife
76.9
26.1
74.9
22.1
75.9
24.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Yes No
Proportion
(%)
Experience
Experiencing problems due to wildlife conflict
Esilalei Oltukai Combined
47. Recommendations: General
Develop bi-laws/
Regulations in a
participatory manner
Improve access to NR
services through infra-
structure Dvt.
Extensive awareness
creation campaign
Focus on improving
security to avert HWC
Create partnership with
strategic partners for
water provision
Facilitate community
support for the ranch
Support election and
capacity building of the
ranch leadership
48. Recommendations: To AWF
Human Wildlife Conflicts
employ and train more
community game scouts
Women Involvement
improve awareness among
women and to promote women
involvement
Youth Involvement
being a long-term initiative
requires that young people are
actively involved - success
depends on how they are
involved
Editor's Notes
In general: Male respondents were 74.3% & Female respondents were 25.7%
53.5% do not have formal education and an additional 51.4% have completed primary education.
Manyattas are the most (83.0 percent) common in the two villages of Esilalei and Oltukai with 90.4 percent from Esilalei and 75.5
Nearly all (98.7%) of the HHs interviewed use Firewood as the energy for cooking: Esilalei (98.1%) & Oltukai (99.4%). In terms of lighting,
Ponds provide water to more than three quarters (78.7%) of the households
76.5 percent: Esilalei (78.8 percent) and Oltukai (74.2 percent) travelled between two to five kilometers to the nearest water point.
Only 15.9 percent of the households travel for less than a kilometer to get water, of which majority came from Oltukai (21.4 percent).
About 7.6 percent travelled between six to 10 kilometers to get water.
The two villages are deprived of this essential commodity for human and livestock survival
Young people have household possessions, especially electronics such as mobile phones (114/ ) and radio (96/ ). Majority of household possessions are owned by those between ages 30-49 years.
The study did not look into the details of for example HH Diet Diversity etc.
However, 64.1% have two meals a day: Esilalei (62.8%) and Oltukai (65.4%).
Among those who perceive that natural resources are poorly managed in the area, 52.0 per cent felt that there was no conservation of natural resources and 13.3 percent attributed the human-wildlife conflicts to poor management of the resources. A further 11.2 percent did not see any benefit from the existing natural resources as they suppose that they are poorly managed. Conversely, among those who are positive about management, 45.2 percent attributed the increasing resources to good management and 24.9 percent mentioned all people are benefiting from the resources because they are well managed. Another 21.5 percent attributed it to good leadership especially those charged with the responsibility of managing the resources.
Community is the biggest (46.1%) decision maker on how land is used in the area
followed by local authority at (38.3%)
Only 32.2% of the households have been involved in one way or another in decision making on NR utilization
The remaining 67.8% have not been involved
Only 32.2% of the households have been involved in one way or another in decision making on NR utilization
The remaining 67.8% have not been involved
More than half (58.4 percent) of the respondents from both villages said they have experienced natural resource related conflicts.
Of these, the majority (59.1 percent) of conflicts were experienced in Oltukai
Majority (44.3%) of conflicts are between human & wildlife
Land also contributes to conflict at (21.3%)
Resource use (12.3%).
10% of HHs mentioned conflicts over water while 6.6% over pasture
Land was a key source of tensions among the younger and older generations with (35.7%) of those aged 20-29 raising this as a source of conflict.
As a confirmation, older persons felt that the human wildlife conflict was a source of conflict between the two generations.
Awareness of activities in Manyara ranch is high among those aged between 30-59 years and low among those below 25 years and those aged 70-79 years.
Although the young people (20-29 years) are not much aware of the activities in the ranch, their involvement is very high suggesting their enthusiasm
