This research was conducted in the Ruaha-Rungwa ecosystem located in central Tanzania, ranging from 5.6˚S to 9.0˚S, and from 33.3˚E to 36.0˚E (Figure 2). The research was carried out in villages adjacent to Rungwa Game Reserve (RGR) which is part of the Rungwa-Kisigo-Mhesi game reserves complex comprising a total of 17,320 km² [26] . The Rungwa Game Reserve is composed of a total of 12 hunting blocks linked together to form Rungwa Mpera, Rungwa Ikili, Rungwa Mwamagembe, Rungwa Inyonga, Rungwa West, and Rungwa East. Some blocks extend into the village land and some are located inside the game reserve [26] . The Rungwa Game Reserve is bordered by seven villages in the western part.

The study area falls in the semi-arid and arid zones of central Tanzania, both of these zones are characterized by dry seasons and unreliable rainfall [27] . The

mean annual rainfall ranges from 500 mm to 700 mm and the temperature ranges from 15 to 35 degrees Celsius [27] . People living adjacent to Rungwa Game Reserve are mainly agro-pastoralists engaging in crop and livestock farming, and beekeeping as their main economic activities [28] . Species hunted as part of a quota system in Rungwa Game Reserve include lions (Panthera leo), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), leopard (Panthera pardus), sable (Hippotragus niger), roan (Hippotragus equinus), eland (Taurotragus oryx) and greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) [26] . Trophy hunting operations run from June to November each year.

The study randomly selected three villages as a sampling unit which were Mwamagembe, Rungwa, and Kambikatoto. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered to 120 randomly selected households, and 30 selected key informants from the village natural resource committee, game trackers, game officers, village leaders, and hunting companies’ employees.

This study adopted methods from Angula [18] to study the awareness and attitudes of local communities toward trophy hunting. Our survey tool included an introduction that explained the intent of our study topic, how the data provided by the respondent would be used, and how the respondent’s identity would be protected. Respondents were requested to participate in the survey, and the choice of participating was solely their decision. If respondents agreed, an in-person interview comprising both closed and open-ended questions was conducted.

Data collection was conducted in November 2021 and February 2022. During this period the hunting season was closed and most of the household members working in hunting companies were at home, thus it simplified our data collection process for some of the key informants. Heads of households were targeted for an interview and in situations where the head of the household was absent, we interviewed any household member who was 18 years and above. The household respondents were from different socio-economic backgrounds such as pastoralists, farmers, employees, and small business vendors. 77% of the respondents had primary education, and only 23% of the respondents had completed secondary education. The majority of the respondents (90%) had monthly incomes ranging from 30 USD to 150 USD. The questions for key informants were designed to provide qualitative data that would allow us to better comprehend the household survey data.

All analyses were performed using R software [29] . We used the psych package in R to determine the correlating variable of community awareness, attitude, and demographic factors (r < 0.7). The variable scaled was normally distributed. Assessment of local community knowledge of trophy hunting was performed by using Chi-square tests for categorical variables, while the Structural Equation Model (SEM) was used to determine factors that influenced local community knowledge. Assessment of local community attitude was performed by using descriptive analysis, while to determine factors influencing local community attitude, the Structural Equation Model was employed.

Most of the local communities (92%, n = 110) living adjacent to the Rungwa Game Reserve were aware of the operations of trophy hunting in their surroundings (χ² = 70.56, df = 1, p < 0.001). The structural Equation Model (SEM) revealed that household annual income had a direct strong influence on the local community’s awareness, the awareness increased with an increase in annual income (SEM, z = 3.271, p = 0.001, Table 1, Figure 3). The study revealed that awareness of local communities in trophy hunting was indirectly influenced by gender through position head of household (SEM, z = 7.571, p = 0.000, Table 1), in which most of them were males (76%, n = 91, N = 120). Further, the study revealed that the education level of respondents strongly differed with years of residence, in which residents appeared to have a lower level of education than immigrants (SEM, z = −3.305, p = 0.001, Table 1), which eventually influenced their awareness of trophy hunting operations in their surroundings.

The attitude responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Table 2). Generally, the attitude of local communities living adjacent to Rungwa Game Reserve towards trophy hunting had a positive mean score of 0.41 ± 0.4 SD, indicating that local communities were at a nearly neutral point of neither accepting nor denying trophy hunting operations in their surroundings. Here we present the results of each of the key questions

that assessed attitudes towards trophy hunting.

Statement 1: Local communities disagree with the fact that areas where hunting operations occur, should be transformed into other land use forms.

Statement 2: Local communities agreed that setting aside land for trophy hunting is good, only if it generates benefits for the people.

Statement 3: The communities agreed with the trophy hunting operations in their surroundings, commonly mentioning the benefits they receive from the game reserve and hunting companies. Most of them benefited indirectly and directly through mechanisms such as employment, building health services and centres, and building classrooms in villages.

Statement 4: Local communities disagreed slightly with the statement that it is bad to conduct trophy hunting in their surroundings. This is supported by the key informants who were quoted mentioning various reasons such as “Trophy hunting should be conducted as it supports the improvement of social services in our surroundings”, and “Trophy hunting helps to generate income to village communities as some of them get employed”.

Statement 5: Local communities disagreed that trophy hunting should be banned. Several key informants from Tanzanian government game officers, village natural resource committee members, village community leaders, and employees of hunting companies in particular were not happy with this statement. These key informants believed that a trophy hunting ban would contribute to the escalation of wildlife crimes in the game reserves and village lands since trophy hunting companies support anti-poaching activities in their hunting blocks. For example, the key informant from the village natural resource committee mentioned that the village-owned hunting block known as Mwauki was encroached upon by migrants after hunting ceased in the block.

The structural Equation Model showed that household size and respondent occupation had a direct strong influence on the local community’s attitude toward trophy hunting (Figure 4). The attitudinal score increased with an increase in household size (SEM, z = 3.982, p = 0.000, Figure 4, Table 3), while the attitudinal score (neutral = 0) was significantly lower to crop cultivators and pastoralists compared to beekeepers and business respondents (Agree = 1, SEM, z = −2.149, p = 0.032, Table 3). The study revealed that attitude of local communities indirectly influenced by gender through position head of household (SEM, z = 7.840, p = 0.000, Table 3), in which most of them were males (76%, n = 91, N = 120). Further, the study revealed that the education level of respondents strongly differed with years of residence, in which residents appeared to have a lower level of education than immigrants (SEM, z = −0.471, p = 0.000, Table 3), while age has a marginal effect on education (SEM, z = −1.677, p = 0.094, Table 3) which eventually both influenced their attitude toward trophy hunting operations in their surroundings.

More than 92% of interviewed people are aware of trophy hunting operations in their village lands. Local communities’ knowledge appeared to be significantly influenced by income and years of residence. However, the household position had a marginal effect. In addition, local communities appeared to have a positive attitude toward trophy hunting, only if they gain benefits from hunting operations. Factors that appeared to influence the attitude of local communities were household size, occupation, and education.

Our study found income significantly influenced local communities’ knowledge of trophy hunting. This finding is in line with other studies from Kilombero in Tanzania [3] and Kyrgyzstan [30] . It appeared household with less than 50 USD annual income had low awareness of trophy hunting compared to households with more than 50 USD annual income, which suggest that the involvement of poor families in trophy hunting operations is low and needs further improvement on the involvement of all communities, which might have an implication on the conservation sustainability of wildlife in their surroundings.

Our study revealed a significant influence on local communities’ knowledge of trophy hunting in relation to years of residence. Immigrants appeared to have a great awareness of trophy hunting operations compared to residents. For comparison with findings from other studies, we found a scarcity of literature that linked knowledge of local communities with years of residence and trophy hunting. However, given the significant findings from this study, we suggest that this is a research topic that deserves greater attention.

This study found that communities’ attitudes towards trophy hunting were largely influenced by the benefit shared by the trophy hunting operation. Inequitable distribution of benefits was highlighted as a key component that influenced people’s attitudes as suggested by key informant interviews. Our findings were in line with other studies conducted in Kenya [31] and Namibia [18] which revealed that a community’s attitude towards wildlife and trophy hunting is influenced by the impacts and benefits it brings to them. Communities disagreed when it came to changing land used for trophy hunting, and they disagreed on the trophy hunting ban for a variety of reasons, including the benefits generated by trophy hunting, and the likelihood of increasing problems like encroachment from migrants. This result is similar to that obtained by other scholars from Namibia [18] and Zimbabwe [19] .

Key informants from TAWA, hunting companies, and village leaders considered trophy hunting to be a benefit to communities as it provided employment opportunities, supporting community developments like building schools and improving people’s livelihood. Similar findings were reported from other countries such as Namibia [18] and Zimbabwe [19] . Our results suggest that communities could have a negative attitude towards trophy hunting and wildlife conservation if wildlife does not generate tangible benefits. Therefore, for local communities living adjacent to hunting areas to support trophy hunting, the government and trophy hunting companies must continue to provide benefits to local communities.

When we assessed the influence of demographic variables on local community attitudes, we found that there was a significant variation among communities. The demographic factors that influenced the attitude of local people toward trophy hunting were household size, occupation, and education. Studies that assessed the impacts of socio-demographic factors on the local people’s views towards conservation and other types of land use also support our results [32] [33] [34] . However, in studies conducted in Kilombero, Tanzania [3] and in China [35] household size and education variables were not significant.

Although trophy hunting may have its negative impacts like inequality, a sense of colonialism, and evidence of malpractices [36] , we found that local people living adjacent Rungwa game reserve had a significant positive attitude toward trophy hunting and this could be due to the relationship that exists between the resident, the game reserve authorities, and operating hunting companies as it was noted during the key informant’s interviews.

In our results, we found that respondents with primary education had less positive attitudes compared to those having secondary education as was noted from other studies that presented similar findings such as [3] [37] [38] . This could be because people with primary education have little involvement in socio-economic activities including being employed by the hunting companies, and if they get employed the jobs may not be as satisfactory as it is needed. A more positive attitude was observed in respondents with secondary education which could be due to direct or indirect benefits generated from trophy hunting to them. Furthermore, the key informant’s interviews suggest that trophy hunting operations had direct benefits for people who went to secondary education and college level. Direct benefits noted during key informant’s interviews include employment of those with relevant education backgrounds such as game trackers, chefs and guides. Based on the reported findings, we suggest that the benefit generated from trophy hunting should continue to support the education systems and infrastructures which could benefit the local people both directly and indirectly benefits and in return could play a significant role in attitude changes to all groups of people towards trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in general.

We observed increases in positive attitudes toward trophy hunting as the number of people in the household increased. This could be due to the benefit provided by the trophy hunting operation benefit the large group of communities. As it was noted during the key informant’s interviews, trophy hunting operation in village communities contributes to employment, building health centres, police stations, and schools. Furthermore, the key informants who were village leaders mentioned that the village authorities have a tendency to put clear revenue generated from trophy hunting during the village meetings. Such transparency influences communities to have a positive attitude toward trophy hunting. Nevertheless, other studies from other areas found transparency and accountability to local communities from hunting companies and state authorities affected by corruption [39] .

The occupation had a strong influence on the attitude of the local people toward trophy hunting. Beekeepers and businessmen had strong positive attitudes toward trophy hunting. Similar patterns were observed in other studies conducted in Namibia [18] and Kyrgyzstan [40] . This could be due to the significant multiplier effect played by the trophy-hunting companies that are the source of a market for the goods and services. The crop cultivators and pastoralists had less positive attitudes toward trophy hunting which could be due to little benefits the trophy hunting operation plays to crop cultivators and pastoralists. From our findings, we suggest the consideration of occupancy during conservation benefit sharing to communities.