Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Community Livelihoods at the Crossroad

of Mangrove Conservation in the
Rufiji Delta, Tanzania
Gideon Zakayo, 1’2,Dr. Norbert Ngowi1, Dr. Elizabeth Genda1,
1,2
Institute of Development Studies, Mzumbe University, Morogoro, P.O. Box 83 Mzumbe, Morogoro, Tanzania;
2
Environment and Cleansing Department, Kibiti District Council, P.O. Box 33 Kibiti, Pwani, Tanzania.

Abstract:- This study investigated the crossroad between Rufiji, Mkuranga, Kibiti in the coast Region, Lindi and
community livelihoods and mangroves conservation Kilwa in Lindi Region, Ilala, Kinondoni, Kigamboni in Dar
interventions in the Rufiji delta of eastern, Tanzania. es salaam Region and Mtwara Mikindani in Mtwara Region
One hundred and twenty heads of households were (Japhet et al., 2019) Of these, the Rufiji delta in particular
selected to provide information by filling closed ended has the largest mangrove coverage about 58,000 hectares
questionnaires. This was supplemented with key (Nyangoko et al., 2020).
informants interviews through Focus Group Discussions.
Quantitative data collected were analysed through Monga et al., (2018) reported that mangrove
descriptive statistics IBM SPSS version 20. Qualitative ecosystems are significant in fighting against climate change
data were analysed using content method. The main through carbon absorption, protection of the shoreline,
research findings indicate that: (1) for mangrove wildlife habitat and provision of livelihood assets to the
conservation strategies to increase vegetation cover in local community. On the other hand, Hlaing et al., (2017)
the Rufiji delta result show that in intervention villages show that the livelihoods of local communities of more than
85% of respondents agrees in increase in vegetation 1.5 billion people whose 70 percent of them live in rural
cover while in control village 65% of respondents agree areas depend on mangroves forest ecosystem for fisheries,
(2) about monthly earning per month result show that biomass fuel, construction materials and medicine. Despite,
for the intervention villages show a mean of of the importance of mangroves forest ecosystem in
184666.67Tsh and standard deviation of 59816.19Tsh. preventing coastal erosion, protecting breeding sites of
and in the control village show a mean value of marine fish species, and habitats for many biodiversity,
159166.67Tsh and standard deviation of 47162.29Tsh. mangrove forests are sharply declining thus putting the
The results implies that implementation of mangrove livelihoods of the adjacent community at risk (Monga et al.,
forest management strategies improve income of the 2018).
local community with increase in vegetation cover. The
study recommends that fish farming, ecotourism and To address the problem various interventions have
awareness about cooperation in farming activities be been introduced to safeguard mangrove ecosystem in many
emphasized to address poverty, mangrove degradation places since 1991 (Monga et al., 2018). In Rufiji area for
and conflict resolution among resource users. Finally the instance, Rufiji, Mafia, Kilwa (RUMAKI) was introduced
study recommend social science research should be from 2006 to 2012 under a seascape programme (Mshale et
conducted in terrestrial forest about contribution of al., 2017), Mangrove tree planting campaign in 2017
various interventions to the livelihoods of the local (Monga et al., 2018) and Rufiji Environmental Management
community. Project (REMP) of 1998 to 2003 (Duvail et al., 2006).
However, little is known on the implication of these
Keyword:- Biodiversity, Mangrove, Livelihood, Kibiti. interventions on the livelihood of the people who have been
involved in the implementations (Mshale et al., 2017). This
I. INTRODUCTION study therefore, aims at understanding why the livelihoods
of the people have not been improved despite of mangroves
Mangrove forest covers about 16 million hectares conservation interventions in the Rufiji delta. The result of
worldwide (Monga et al., 2018). They include Asia 40%, this study can be used as basis of changing the policies of
Africa 19%, South America 16%, North and Central mangrove conservation strategies in Rufiji delta.
America 15%, Australia 7%, Pacific Ocean 4% and the
Middle East 0.4% (Friess et al., 2019). In Africa, mangrove II. THEORETICAL ASPECTS
forests cover about 3 million hectares and these are mostly
found in West and Central Atlantic 51%, Western Africa This study is governed by sustainable livelihood
49%, East Africa 37% and Central Africa 14% (Ajonina et framework (Williams & Hussein, 2019). The framework
al., 2013). In Tanzania, mangrove covers about 158,000 recognizes natural, financial, physical, social and human
hectares that amounts to 14 percent of the mangrove forest capital assets. It provides the direction in understanding the
found in the East Africa. These are mostly found in Mafia, livelihoods of the people in the Rufiji delta while at the

IJISRT22DEC873 www.ijisrt.com 1909

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
same time conserving the mangrove forest ecosystem. sanitation and energy and communication. Social Capital;
According to Chinangwa et al., (2016) livelihoods assets Includes network and connections, relations of trust and
help to get the knowledge about people's resilience and mutual understanding, formal and informal groups, shared
provide a proper way of changing livelihoods results from values and norms, a mechanism for participation in
negative to positive. As a result, in order to acquire a good decisions making and leadership in the community. Human
livelihood outcome, there is a need of combining the five- Capital; This category includes health, nutrition, education,
capital assets which include financial, human, social, natural knowledge, skills and capacity to work for any changes in
and physical. According to Chinangwa et al., (2016) the the community.
livelihoods capital assets recognized are; Natural Capital;
This asset includes land and produce, water river flow and The current study analyzes community livelihoods at
aquatic resources, mangrove forest product, wildlife such as the crossroad of mangrove conservation in Rufiji Delta,
animals and birds, wild foods and fibres, biodiversity and Tanzania. The variables investigated in this study were;.
environmental services. Financial Capital; This asset Housing materials used in the construction of house,
includes services such as credits, savings, debt, remittances, Number of meals consumed per day, woman groups, status
pensions and wages. Physical Capital; This type of asset of vegetation cover in mangrove forest ecosystem and
comprises infrastructure such as transport, roads and means Earnings per month per person per household.
of transport, shelter and buildings, water supply and

Fig 1 Show Modified from DFID Framework (Ahmed Et Al., 2008).

III. METHODS (msikundazi), Other biodiversity of the area include

monkeys, oysters, crustaceans, fish, reptiles, migratory
A. Study Area marine mammals and birds (Monga et al., 2018).
This study conducted in the Rufiji Delta in Kibiti
District in the Coastal region of Tanzania. The study area is
located between latitudes 8o 20’ 00”, 7 35’ 00” S and
longitudes of 390 10’00”, 390 20’ 00” E (Japhet et al., 2019).
Five villages involved in this study were four villages
namely Kikale, Nyamisati, Mchungu and Mfisini selected
from intervention area and one Mbuchi as a control Village.
Rufiji delta was chosen because it has the highest
concentration of mangrove forest ecosystem in Eastern
Africa with the concentration of human activities (Monga et
al., 2018). On the other hand, Nyangoko et al., (2020)
reported that more than 49,000 of people in 3 major ethnic
groups of Wandengereko, Wamatumbi and Wamakonde are
living in Rufiji delta with growth rate of 1.9 per year. There
are 8 species of mangroves with local names in brackets
found in the study area. These are - Avicennia marina
(mchu), Sonneratia alba(mpira), Ceriops tagal (mkandaa),
Lumnitzera racemosa (mkandaa dume), Bruguiera Fig 2 Map of Rufiji Delta Shows Location of Study
gymnorrhiza (msinzi), Rhizophora mucronata (mkoko), Villages
Xylocarpus granatum (mkomafi) and Heritiera littoralis Sources: Field Survey, 2022

IJISRT22DEC873 www.ijisrt.com 1910

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
B. Participants sample population by using IBM SPSS statistics software.
These sample size for questionnaires (n=90) for the These tools were used to analyse categorical data from
intervention villages were obtained using the probability questionnaires. The data analysed through this tools were
formula n=N/1 + N(e)2 (Ngowi & Mwakaje, 2020). The socio- demographic features, mangrove forest strategies and
sample of n=90 for the household survey in the intervention it is contribution to the livelihood assets of the local
villages - Mfisini (2014), Mchungu (1645), Nyamisati community in the study area. The livelihood assets analysed
(2776) and Kikale (2025) making a total population of in this study were; In physical assets; housing material used
(N=8,460) (Namangaya & Mushi, 2019). Also, the sample in the construction of house. In human capital assets;
size (n=30) for comparison was selected from Mbuchi number of meals consumed per day. In social assets were
Village as a control group. An in-depth interview of 10 key farming group formulation. In natural capital; increase in
informants and 20 respondents through Focus Group vegetation cover. In financial assets show a mean and
Discussions were used to supplement quantitative data. Key standard deviation on monthly earning on various activities.
informants and Focus Group Discussion members were
selected according to their experience, exposure and IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
expertise in Rufiji delta. The group discussion involved
members 4-6 of mixed gender and age to allow effective A. Housing Materials Used In The Construction Of House
discussion. The researcher personal observation The findings for intervention villages in terms of the
supplements the information obtained in the field. materials used in the construction of house used by local
communities in Rufiji in Table 4.1 show that 54 respondents
C. Data Collection. (60%) selected mud walls with grass thatches, 18
In this study, both qualitative as well as quantitative respondents (20%) selected mud walls with corrugated iron
data were collected (Ricci et al., 2019). Secondary data were sheets, 9 or 10 per cent selected brick walls with the
collected through the review of the published data from the corrugated iron sheet and 2 respondents (2%) selected stone
literature- journal, books and progress reports on mangrove walls with corrugated iron sheets. Furthermore, 2
forest. Primary data were collected later using respondents (2%) selected stone walls with thatched grass
questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires were while 5 respondents selected others. Moreover, for the
distributed to respondents to collect quantitative data about control group, the results show that 28 (93.3%) live in
socio economic activities of the study area, mangrove houses with mud walls and grass thatches, and 2
management strategies and contribution to the well-being of respondents (6.7%) selected mud walls with corrugated iron
the people of the area. To supplement quantitative data sheets. Further, for the control group, the findings reveal
interviews conducted with 10 key informants and 20 that none of the respondents selected brick walls with
respondents through Focus Group Discussion (FGD). These corrugated iron sheets, stone walls with corrugated iron
respondents were selected based on their experience of the sheets and stone walls with thatched grass. The findings
Rufiji delta, exposure and expertise in mangrove imply that the majority of the respondents live in mud walls
conservation. with grass thatched houses. In comparison, the houses for
the intervention group are significantly much better
D. Data Analysis compared to the control group (i.e. Mbuchi village with no
Two main sources of data analysis were used: (1) intervention). These findings are similar to the findings in a
content analysis method to analyse narrative data. The study by Chinangwa et al., (2016) on livelihoods and
method undertook different procedures such as data welfare impacts of forest co-management. Their findings
management, reduction and coding that was preceded showed that the implemented forest management strategies
through transcription of audio data. The data analysed had no impact on the livelihoods and welfare of the local
through content analysis was mangrove forest ecosystem communities in Zomba and Ntichisi Districts in Malawi.
strategies attempted, contribution of strategies to the Also, the presence of this type of house indicates that the
livelihoods assets and proposed model about futures raw construction materials are obtained in the mangrove
strategies to conserve mangrove ecosystem in the study area. forest which contributes to deforestation (Japhet et al.,
(2) Descriptive Statistics analysing quantitative data of a 2019).

Table 1 Major Housing Materials in the Study Area

Intervention Group Control Group
The material used to construct the house Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Mud walls with grass-thatched 54 60 28 93.3
Mud walls with corrugated iron sheet 18 20 2 6.7
Brick walls with corrugated iron sheet 9 10 0 0
Stone walls with corrugated iron sheet 2 2 0 0
Stone walls with thatched grass 2 2 0 0
Others 5 6 0 0
TOTAL 90 100 30 100
Source: Field Survey, 2022

IJISRT22DEC873 www.ijisrt.com 1911

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig 3 Mud Walls with Grass-Thatched Houses

Source: Field Survey, 2022

B. Number Of Meals Consumed Per Day C. Women Farming Groups

The findings show that 75 respondents (83%) selected In social contribution, the study wanted to find out the
twice, 9 respondents (10%) selected once, 4 respondents number of farming groups formed in the community along
(5%) selected thrice and 2 respondents (2%) selected four gender lines. The findings in Table 4.3 present the status of
times a day as shown in Figure 4.2. Moreover, the findings the farming groups among two groups of villages. For
from villages without intervention show that 15 per cent intervention villages, the results indicate that 36(40%) of the
selected once; 80 per cent selected twice, 5 per cent selected respondents admitted, 45(50%) refuted and 9 10 per cent
thrice and none selected four meals per day in the control reported not knowing the number of farming groups formed
group. The findings show that the majority of respondents in in the community along gender lines. Further the results of
the study area consume two meals per day but the the control village indicate that 9(30%) admitted belonging
intervention villages have more access to meals per day to the farming group, 18(60%) refuted belonging to the
compared to the villages with no intervention. This implies farming group and 3(10%) indicated not knowing the
that community members living at Rufiji Delta are living in answer. The findings imply that the majority of intervention
poverty while there is strategies introduced in the villages belong to the farming group as opposed to the
conservation of mangroves. These findings relate to the control villages. These findings are in line with the findings
findings in a study on Poverty and institutional management in a study by Mshale et al., (2017) on the unique challenges
stand-off in Rufiji delta: A restoration and conservation of managing Tanzania's coastal forests. The study revealed
dilemma for mangrove forests of Tanzania (Mangora, 2011) that 16 farming group was established in 2011 having 250
revealing that poverty condition in Rufiji delta is a source of members registered in 4 villages and given a permit by
mangrove forest degradation. And the mangrove Tanzania Forest Service Agency for rice farming in the
conservation and the livelihoods improvement cannot move Rufiji delta, but this programme was not sustainable. The
simultaneously (Sunderlin et al., 2005). reason for the failure of this programme to deliver to the
local community is that it was too short a period to favour
agriculture activities. According to Wu et al., (2022), the
promotion of rural farming facilitates rural development. To
assist the livelihoods of the local community in the Rufiji
delta rural farming should be enhanced.

Participants in the focus group discussion especially

members of Group 3 revealed that the farming group was
established in some of the villages but failed to develop due
to a lack of knowledge about the cooperation group.

This was also observed during interviews with Village

Officials of Nyamisati Village among them was Participant
7 who said, “There are 16 farming groups established in
the village but failed to develop due to lack of awareness
among community members.”
Fig 4 Number of Meals Consumed Per Day
Source: Field Survey, 2022

IJISRT22DEC873 www.ijisrt.com 1912

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
This situation implies that farming groups are A similar observation was made during the interviews
established in intervention village and control villages but with Village Officers among them was Participant 5 and
failed to develop due to a lack of awareness about elder from Mchungu village who said, “The mangrove
cooperative groups. forest ecosystem has been increasing since conservation
strategies started in 1990 and these trees are well protected
through government and non-government organisation and
other stakeholders” “Kiazi Kitamu.”

This situation implies that strategies adopted in the

Rufiji delta succeeded to increase the vegetation cover in
both intervention and control villages.

Fig 5 Women Participating in Group Farming

Sources: Field Survey, 2022

Table 2 Formulation of Women Farming Groups

Farming Intervention Control Group
groups Group
Frequen Percenta Frequen Percenta
cy ge cy ge
Yes 36 40 9 30
Fig 6 Increased Vegetation Cover in Mangrove Forest
No 45 50 18 60
Ecosystem
I don’t know 9 10 3 10
Source: Field Survey, 2022
Total 90 100 30 100
Source: Field Survey, 2022 E. Earnings Per Month Per Person Per Household
In the case of monthly earning through various
D. Increased Vegetation Cover In Mangrove Forest activities in the Rufiji delta result for the intervention group
Ecosystem show a mean of 184666.67Tsh and standard deviation of
The study required to find out if mangrove 59816.19Tsh. Moreover, in the control group, the results
conservation strategies increase vegetation cover in the show a mean value of 159166.67Tsh and standard deviation
Rufiji delta. Finding of intervention exposed that 85% said of 47162.29Tsh (see Table 4.5). The findings indicate
“yes” while 10% said “no”. Likewise, for control group further that intervention villages earn more per month than
65% said “yes” while 20% said “no. This implies that, both control villages.
group intervention and control village indicate that the
majority of respondents agreed that mangrove conservation Findings of t-test for Equality of Means indicate that
strategies increase vegetation cover in the Rufiji delta. These group means are statistically significantly different because
findings are lie with the findings in a study by Monga et al., the value in the "Sig. (2-tailed)" row is less than 0.05
(2018) on mangrove cover change detection in the Rufiji (0.036<0.05). This study found that income for control
delta which reveal that there is an increase in vegetation group had statistically significantly lower income
cover of mangrove forests between 2010 to 2015 due to (159166.67 ± 47162.29) compared to income for
afforestation and natural regeneration. And the human intervention village (184666.67 ±
activities like paddy farming and illegal cutting of poles 59816.19), t(118)=2.123, p=0.036 as displayed in Table 4.6.
which causes destruction of mangroves in Rufiji delta had The fluctuation of income in the Rufiji delta is due to the
been reduced after conservation strategies introduced in fishing season. Fishing is the source of income in the Rufiji
1990 (Ntibona et al., 2022). delta a part of mangrove poles and rice farming (Nyangoko
et al., 2022).
Participants of the focus group discussion especially
members of Group 2 revealed that since various strategies
were adopted in the Rufiji delta vegetation cover and
wildlife have been increasing.

IJISRT22DEC873 www.ijisrt.com 1913

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Table 3 Group Statistics
Group variable N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
What amount did Control Group 30 159166.6667 47162.29012 8610.61672
you receive being Intervention
involved in these
90 184666.6667 59816.19787 6305.18088
the strategies per
month?
Source: Field Survey, 2022

Table 4 Independent Samples Test

T-Test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the
Sig. (2- Difference
T Df tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper
-
-2.123 118 .036 -25500.00000 12009.79146 -1717.34324
49282.65676
-
-2.389 62.575 .020 -25500.00000 10672.30182 -4170.27244
46829.72756
Source: Field Survey, 2022

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS [4]. Duvail, S., Hamerlynck, O., Nandi, R. X.,
Mwambeso, P., & Elibariki, R. (2006). Participatory
This paper investigated community livelihoods at the Mapping for Local Management of Natural
crossroad of mangrove conservation in Rufiji Delta, Resources in Villages of the Rufiji District
Tanzania. The main results were; majority of respondents (Tanzania). The Electronic Journal of Information
their houses constructed with mud walls with grass thatches, Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1–6.
consume two meals per day, agree on increase of vegetation https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00167.x
cover, presence of women farming group and monthly [5]. Friess, D. A., Rogers, K., Lovelock, C. E., Krauss, K.
earning through various activities show a mean of W., Hamilton, S. E., Lee, S. Y., Lucas, R.,
184666.67Tsh and standard deviation of 59816.19Tsh. in Primavera, J., Rajkaran, A., & Shi, S. (2019). The
intervention villages while control village, show a mean State of the World’s Mangrove Forests: Past, Present,
value of 159166.67Tsh and standard deviation of and Future. Annual Review of Environment and
47162.29Tsh. These findings reveal that mangrove Resources, 44(1), 89–115.
strategies conducted in Rufiji delta contribute increase in https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-
vegetation cover while community members living in the 033302
Rufiji delta are living in poverty condition. Based on this [6]. Hlaing, Z. C., Kamiyama, C., & Saito, O. (2017).
study, we recommend that fish farming, ecotourism and land Interaction between Rural People’s Basic Needs and
use planning be emphasized to address poverty, mangrove Forest Products: A Case Study of the Katha District
degradation and conflict resolution among resource user. of Myanmar. International Journal of Forestry
Research, 2017, 1–18.
REFERENCES https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2105012
[7]. Japhet, E., Mangora, M. M., Trettin, C. C., & Okello,
[1]. Ahmed, N., Allison, E. H., & Muir, J. F. (2008). J. A. (2019). Natural Recovery of Mangroves in
Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to Abandoned Rice Farming Areas of the Rufiji Delta,
Identify Constraints and Opportunities to the Tanzania. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine
Development of Freshwater Prawn Farming in Science, 18(2), 25–36.
Southwest Bangladesh. Journal of the World https://doi.org/10.4314/wiojms.v18i2.3
Aquaculture Society, 39(5), 598–611. [8]. Mangora, M. M. (2011). Poverty and Institutional
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2008.00198.x Management Stand-off: A Restoration and
[2]. Ajonina, G., Diamé, A., & Kairo, J. (2013). Current Conservation Dilemma for Mangrove Forests of
Status and Conservation of Mangroves in Africa: An Tanzania. Wetlands Ecology and Management,
overview. Journal of Chemical Information and 19(6), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-011-
Modeling, 53(9). 9234-2
[3]. Chinangwa, L., Pullin, A. S., & Hockley, N. (2016). [9]. Monga, E., Mangora, M. M., & Mayunga, J. S.
Livelihoods and Welfare Impacts of Forest (2018). Mangrove Cover Change Detection in the
Comanagement. International Journal of Forestry Rufiji Delta in Tanzania. Western Indian Ocean
Research, 2016. Journal of Marine Science, 17(2), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5847068 https://doi.org/10.4314/wiojms.v17i2.1

IJISRT22DEC873 www.ijisrt.com 1914

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[10]. Mshale, B., Senga, M., & Mwangi, E. (2017).
Governing Mangroves: Unique Challenges for
Managing Tanzania’s Coastal Forests. In Governing
Mangroves: UniqueChallenges for Managing
Tanzania’s Coastal Forests. Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR).
https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006596
[11]. Namangaya, A. H., & Mushi, D. M. (2019). Actors’
Influences on Land Use Planning Decisions in Small
Towns: The Case of Geita, Gairo and Kibiti Towns
in Tanzania. Open Journal of Social Sciences,
07(07), 172–190.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.77016
[12]. Ngowi, N. J., & Mwakaje, A. G. (2020).
Implementation Effects of Incentive Policies on
Tanzanian Wetland Ecosystems. Kasetsart Journal of
Social Sciences, 41(1), 83–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.05.016
[13]. Ntibona, L. N., Shalli, M. S., & Mangora, M. M.
(2022). Incentives and Disincentives of Mangrove
Conservation on Local Livelihoods in the Rufiji
Delta, Tanzania. Trees, Forests and People, 10,
100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100326
[14]. Nyangoko, B. P., Berg, H., Mangora, M. M.,
Gullström, M., & Shalli, M. S. (2020). Community
Perceptions of Mangrove Ecosystem Services and
Their Determinants in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su1301
[15]. Nyangoko, B. P., Berg, H., Mangora, M. M., Shalli,
M. S., & Gullström, M. (2022). Local perceptions of
changes in mangrove ecosystem services and their
implications for livelihoods and management in the
Rufiji Delta, Tanzania. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 219, 106065.
[16]. Ricci, L., Lanfranchi, J.-B., Lemetayer, F., Rotonda,
C., Guillemin, F., Coste, J., & Spitz, E. (2019).
Qualitative Methods Used to Generate Questionnaire
Items: A Systematic Review. Qualitative Health
Research, 29(1), 149–156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318783186
[17]. Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers,
P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Countries: An Overview.
World Development, 33(9), 1383–1402.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004
[18]. Williams, A. A., & Hussein, S. (2019). Impact of
IPSAS Adoption on Transparency and
Accountability in Managing Public Funds in
Developing Countries: Evidence from Liberia.
Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 11(6), 99–110.
https://doi.org/10.5897/JAT2019.0345
[19]. Wu, Z., Zeng, T., & Huang, J. (2022). Sustainable
Livelihood Security in the Poyang Lake Eco-
economic Zone: Ecologically Secure, Economically
Efficient or Socially Equitable? Journal of Resources
and Ecology, 13(3), 442–457.
https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.03.009

IJISRT22DEC873 www.ijisrt.com 1915