Elephants or onions? Paying for nature in Amboseli, Kenya

Bulte, Erwin; Boone, Randall B.; Stringer, Randy; Thornton, Philip K.

doi:10.1017/s1355770x08004312

Cited by 39 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We excluded articles developing a conceptual framework, argument or model related to PES theory, practice or the targeting of payments [4,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]; focusing on analytical issues unrelated to effectiveness and equity, such as motivations to participate in PES [31][32][33]; and those that did not include a purposive analysis of case studies, such as summary articles in special issues, the above mentioned PES reviews, and articles with anecdotal evidence on PES implementation to illustrate a related argument [34][35][36][37].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity

Calvet-Mir

Corbera

Martin

et al. 2015

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We undertake a review of academic literature that examines the effectiveness and equity-related performance of PES initiatives targeting biodiversity conservation in tropical and sub-tropical countries. We investigate the key features of such analyses as regards their analytical and methodological approach and we identify emerging lessons from PES practice, leading to a new suggested research agenda. Our results indicate that analyses of PES effectiveness have to date focused on either ecosystem service provision or habitat proxies, with only half of them making explicit assessment of additionality and most describing that payments have been beneficial for land cover and biodiversity. Studies evaluating the impact of PES on livelihoods suggest more negative outcomes, with an uneven treatment of the procedural and distributive considerations of scheme design and payment distribution, and a large heterogeneity of evaluative frameworks. We propose an agenda for future PES research based on the emerging interest in assessing environmental outcomes more rigorously and documenting social impacts in a more comparative and contextually situated form.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity

Calvet-Mir

Corbera

Martin

et al. 2015

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Livestock activities by pastoralists are well adapted to the variable habitat and shifting patch dynamics of arid and semi-arid areas (Bulte et al, 2008). Pastoralists' land use decisions are based on prevailing environmental and socioeconomic factors and have differential impacts on the ecology and wildlife structure of dry areas.…”

Section: Modeling Recent Socio-ecological Changes In Amboselimentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollen, People and Place: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Ecosystem Change at Amboseli, Kenya

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a multidisciplinary perspective for understanding environmental change and emerging socio-ecological interactions across the Amboseli region of southwestern Kenya. We focus on late Holocene (<5,000 cal yr. BP) changes and continuities reconstructed from sedimentary, archeological, historical records and socio-ecological models. We utilize multi-disciplinary approaches to understand environmental-ecosystem-social interactions over the longue durée and use this to simulate different land use scenarios supporting conservation and sustainable livelihoods using a socio-ecological model. Today the semi-arid Amboseli landscape supports a large livestock and wildlife population, sustained by a wide variety of plants and extensive rangelands regulated by seasonal rainfall and human activity. Our data provide insight into how large-scale and long-term interactions of climate, people, livestock, wildlife and external connections have shaped the ecosystems across the Amboseli landscape. Environmental conditions were dry between ∼5,000 and 2,000 cal yr. BP, followed by two wet periods at ∼2,100-1,500 and 1,400-800 cal yr. BP with short dry periods; the most recent centuries were characterized by variable climate with alternative dry and wet phases with high spatial heterogeneity. Most evident in paleo and historical records is the changing woody to grass cover ratio, driven by changes in climate and fire regimes entwined with fluctuating elephant, cattle and wild ungulate populations moderated by human activity, including elephant ivory trade intensification. Archeological perspectives on the occupation of different groups (hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and farmers) in Amboseli region and the relationships between them are discussed. An overview of the known history of humans and elephants, expanding networks of trade, and the arrival and integration of metallurgy, livestock and domesticated crops in the wider region is provided. In recent decades, increased runoff and flooding have resulted in the expansion of wetlands and a reduction of woody vegetation, compounding problems created by increased enclosure and privatization of these landscapes. However, most Githumbi et al.Long-Term Multidisciplinary Perspectives at Amboseli, Kenya of the wetlands outside of the protected area are drying up because of the intensified water extraction by the communities surrounding the National Park and on the adjacent mountains areas, who have increased in numbers, become sedentary and diversified land use around the wetlands.

show abstract

“…The newly enacted Wildlife (2013) Act should be quickly implemented so as to address the great costs that local people shoulder to conserve elephants by providing adequate and timely compensation to reported and verified cases to forestall the negative perceptions against elephants, and increase intolerance of locals to elephants and wildlife in general [46] so as to win more space for elephant dispersal outside the protected areas [47] [48]. Costs such as injury and death to people and livestock, crop raiding, destruction of property and general insecurity affect the economy and freedom of people and therefore entrench poverty and undermine their social rights.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and Severity of Current Human-Elephant Conflicts in Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya: Insights from the Field and Key Informants

Okello¹,

Njumbi²,

Kiringe³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few animals elicit such drastically different human emotions, so do elephants. Elephants capture the affection of people but also inspire animosity and fear at the same time. This is because there are conflicts with people over space, critical resources, costs of damages and general insecurity to people. This paper examined field evidence and interviewed expert key informants on current intensity and frequency of human-elephants in Amboseli Ecosystem. According to them, generally, the most prevalent (score of 1 lowest to 10 highest) threats to elephants were competition for critical resources (6.32 ± 0.44) followed by blocking of migration (6.24 ± 0.46), harassment of elephants (4.83 ± 0.75), poaching (4.57 ± 0.37), and retaliatory killings (3.78 ± 0.31). For threats that elephants pose to people, the most prevalent one was crop raiding (6.95 ± 0.26) followed by environmental degradation (6.71 ± 0.46), general insecurity to people (5.76 ± 0.65), property destruction (5.16 ± 0.41), injury and death to livestock (3.78 ± 0.37), and injury and death to people (2.71 ± 0.27). For the severity of the threats, the highest score was given to crop raiding whose average score was 7.90 ± 0.24 followed by environmental destruction and degradation (6.89 ± 0.43), injury and death to people (6.72 ± 0.44), injury and death to livestock (6.36 ± 0.50), property destruction (5.78 ± 0.49), general insecurity to people (5.62 ± 0.64). Severity levels followed the same trend or varied slightly. These drivers of human-elephant conflicts need to be addressed decisively to protect both people and elephants. There is a need to ensure local people's benefit from elephants through ecotourism investments such as wildlife sanctuaries, leasing critical space for elephants' dispersal on acceptable terms, through appropriate compensation schemes for elephant costs, and supporting local community wildlife rangers to prevent conflicts. * Corresponding author. M. M. Okello et al.463

show abstract

Elephants or onions? Paying for nature in Amboseli, Kenya

Cited by 39 publications

References 38 publications

Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity

Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity

Pollen, People and Place: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Ecosystem Change at Amboseli, Kenya

Prevalence and Severity of Current Human-Elephant Conflicts in Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya: Insights from the Field and Key Informants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About