Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions for allowing elephants in group ranches around amboseli national park, Kenya

Abstract

Wildlife authorities and conservationists are working to improve attitudes toward elephants (Loxodonta africana) among residents of the Greater Amboseli Ecosystem in southern Kenya; yet information on existing attitudes and their antecedents is lacking. In 2005, we conducted a survey of 569 randomly selected residents of group ranches—communally held lands around Amboseli National Park—to 1) identify intentions to allow elephants in group ranches, 2) examine attitudes toward this behavior, 3) explore underlying beliefs that influence attitudes, and 4) identify socio‐demographic predictors of residents for and against elephants in group ranches. A slight majority (53%) supported elephants in the group ranches and 47% were opposed. Residents who favored elephants in group ranches were more likely to believe that allowing elephants would increase opportunities to see elephants and attract more tourists to visit group ranches. Those opposed believed that it would cause conflict between people, increase dangerous human–elephant interactions, and increase costs to local people. Both groups believed allowing elephants in the group ranches would cause elephants to increase in number, but those in favor gave this outcome a positive evaluation, whereas those opposed felt this was a negative outcome. Women were less positive than men toward allowing elephants outside the park. Information on beliefs and evaluations of outcomes associated with allowing elephants in group ranches can assist stakeholder groups in addressing concerns of local people and developing interventions to facilitate the continued coexistence of people and elephants. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

Using pastoral ideology to understand human–wildlife coexistence in arid agricultural landscapes

“…In the Namibian context, however, mutualism may also be an extension of how livestock are treated, given that they are not only sold to cover living expenses and used as sources of transportation, milk, and meat, but are also considered part of a pastoralist's family. Indeed, we found evidence of this complexity in similar conceptions of both wildlife and livestock in our interviews, consistent with findings of wildlife value orientation assessments in certain other non‐western cultural contexts including Mongolia and Kenya (Browne‐Nuñez et al, ; Kaczensky, ).…”

“…Wildlife value orientations were also reflected in pastoralists' tolerance of wildlife and their perceptions of human–wildlife interactions. Our respondents indicated a strong affinity for herbivores among pastoralists as found in other studies (e.g., Browne‐Nuñez et al, ; Gadd, ), notwithstanding inferred competition with livestock for access to water and pasture. These prey species (e.g., Hartmann's mountain zebra, springbok) often resemble livestock (e.g., donkeys, goats) in appearance and behavior (Kaczensky, ), and interviews, particularly those in which mutualism and attraction value orientations surfaced, revealed how pastoralists enjoyed seeing and living among them.…”

Evaluating support for rangeland‐restoration practices by rural Somalis: an unlikely win‐win for local livelihoods and hirola antelope?

“…Our findings are aligned with those of a recent study in southern Kenya in which the majority of pastoralists supported the conservation of elephants in community rangelands (Browne-Nuñez, Jacobson & Vaske, 2013). While we acknowledge that the high level of enforcement associated with elephant conservation outside of formally protected areas would be immense, we believe that any future attempts to restore rangeland would be well-served to also protect newly recolonizing elephant herds in situ within Ijara and Fafi subcounties.…”

Using step‐selection functions to model landscape connectivity for African elephants: accounting for variability across individuals and seasons

“…). The region encloses 36 nationally protected lands and large segments of non‐PAs belong to group ranches that play an important role in local wildlife conservation initiatives (Ntiati, ; Browne‐Nuñez, Jacobson & Vaske, ). Intensive agricultural development, including fencing, in non‐protected lands together with rapid human population growth increases the potential for fragmentation, connectivity loss, and human–wildlife conflict (Western, , ; Okello & D'amour, ).…”