The Future for Wildlife on Kenya's Rangelands: An Economic Perspective

Norton‐Griffiths, M.; Said, Mohammed Yahya

doi:10.1002/9781444317091.ch14

Cited by 20 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the exception of Mara, wildlife brings little or nothing to the vast majority of Maasai. If wildlife does not become locally valuable, it may continue to decline (Norton-Griffiths 2007;Norton-Griffiths and Said 2010;Ogutu et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These communities have historically captured little of total tourism earnings, with approximately 95% accruing to tour operators, service industry workers, and the state (Norton-Griffiths 2007;Norton-Griffiths et al 2008;Norton-Griffiths and Said 2010). The small amounts captured are then poorly distributed (Homewood and Thompson 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Economic analyses suggest that the relatively poor contribution of wildlife to landowner-entrepreneurs and the considerably greater returns per unit area from commercial crops influence choices to convert land to large-scale cultivation (Norton-Griffiths et al 2008;Norton-Griffiths and Said 2010). Around Mara, households making the most from conservation revenues were also those investing most in commercial cultivation in ways not compatible with sustainable conservation .…”

Section: Wildlife Tourism Conservation and Development In East Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence?

Homewood

Trench

Brockington

2012

Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

East African arid and semi-arid lands are home to many of the world's pastoralists and most spectacular savanna wildlife populations, attracting substantial conservation and tourism revenues. Yet these peoples are among the poorest (and most affected by extreme climatic events), and the wildlife is in unsustainable decline. National governments, international donors and conservation agencies favour win-win solutions through conservation with development. Maasailand is a hotspot of conservation, poverty and new initiatives to redistribute tourist income. We outline pastoralist livelihoods and how these are changing, then summarise status and trends of wildlife populations, tourism revenues, and conservation and development initiatives in East Africa and Maasailand. We ask to what extent wildlife revenues contribute to pastoralist livelihoods and whether this translates into a robust basis for coexistence. To put in context the role and importance of wildlife-and tourism-based activities, we outline findings from a multi-site study of Maasai livelihoods. Livestock contribute half or more of the mean annual income in all sites, with off-farm work and farming ranking second and third, respectively, except in Mara, where wildlife-based income contributes around 20% income across all wealth categories. In most sites, significant areas have been set aside for conservation and tourism, but wildlife contributes <5% income to a small proportion of households at most. Few wildlife-derived benefits flow to pastoralists, while conservation restrictions constrain production and coping strategies, undermining potential for coexistence. In exceptional circumstances, significant wildlife revenue may reach households, but full social and ecological implications of associated conservancy agreements remain unclear.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Wildlife Tourism Conservation and Development In East Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence?

Homewood

Trench

Brockington

2012

Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is argued that the benefits of wildlife tourism to pastoral communities are limited because of the low and uncompetitive wildlife returns that result from the combination of policy, institutional and market failures (Norton‐Griffiths and Said, ). In particular, the market failures concerning the provision of wildlife goods and services are a result of the diversion of a major portion of revenues generated from wildlife away from the producers of wildlife (pastoral landowners) to the service side of the industry (Norton‐Griffiths and Said, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism‐based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya

Osano

Said

Leeuw

et al. 2013

Natural Resources Forum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the effects of wildlife tourism-based payments for ecosystem services (PES) on poverty, wealth inequality and the livelihoods of herders in the Maasai Mara Ecosystem in south-western Kenya. It uses the case of Olare Orok Conservancy PES programme in which pastoral landowners have agreed to voluntary resettlement and exclusion of livestock grazing from their sub-divided lands. These lands are set aside for wildlife tourism, in return for direct monetary payments by a coalition of five commercial tourism operators. Results show that, on the positive side, PES is the most equitable income source that promotes income diversification and buffers households from the livestock income declines during periods of severe drought, such as in 2008-2009. Without accounting for the opportunity costs, the magnitude of the PES cash transfer to households is, on average, sufficient to close the poverty gap. The co-benefits of PES implementation include the creation of employment opportunities in the conservancy and provision of social services. There is however a need to mitigate the negative effects of PES, including the widening inequality in income between PES and non-PES households and the leakages resulting from the displacement of settlements and livestock to currently un-subdivided pastoral commons.

show abstract

“…Land use change, particularly expansion of agriculture, settlements and fences and commercial charcoal production linked to human population growth degrade and reduce wildlife habitats [5,26]. In the Athi-Kaputiei ecosystem, expansion of the neighbouring Nairobi Metropolis, urbanization in the ecosystem plus relatively lower land prices compared with Nairobi, strongly drive land use change [114]. Development of new industries, businesses and infrastructure attract more people from Nairobi and elsewhere to the Athi-Kaputiei [4,83].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildebeest migration in East Africa: Status, threats and conservation measures

Ogutu

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

53 Migration of ungulates is under pressure worldwide from range contraction, habitat 54 loss and degradation, anthropogenic barriers and poaching. Here, we synthesize and 55 compare the extent of historical migrations of the white-bearded wildebeest 56 (Connochaetes taurinus) to their contemporary status, in five premier East African 57 ecosystems, namely the Serengeti-Mara, Masai Mara, Athi-Kaputiei, Amboseli and 58 Tarangire-Manyara. The current status, threats to migration, migratory ranges and 59 routes for wildebeest were characterized using colonial-era maps, literature reviews, 60 GIS and aerial survey databases, GPS collared animals and interviews with long-term 61 researchers. Interference with wildebeest migratory routes and dispersal ranges has 62 stopped or severely threatens continuation of the historical migration patterns in all 63 but the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem where the threat level is relatively lower. 64 Wildebeest migration has collapsed in Athi-Kaputiei ecosystem and is facing 65 enormous pressures from land subdivision, settlements and fences in Amboseli and 66 Mara ecosystems and from cultivation in Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem. Land use 67 change, primarily expansion in agriculture, roads, settlements and fencing, 68 increasingly restrict migratory wildebeest from accessing traditional grazing resources 69 in unprotected lands. Privatization of land tenure in group ranches in Kenya and 70 settlement policy (villagization) in Tanzania have accelerated land subdivision, 71 fencing and growth in permanent settlements, leading to loss of key wildebeest 72 habitats including their migratory routes and wet season calving and feeding grounds. 4 73 These processes, coupled with increasing human population pressures and climatic 74 variability, are exerting tremendous pressures on wildebeest migrations. Urgent 75 conservation interventions are necessary to conserve and protect the critical 76 wildebeest habitats and migration routes in East Africa. 77 78 Introduction 85 Large mammal migrations are among the most-awe inspiring of all migrations [1]. 86 These migrations, the seasonal and round-trip movement of large herbivores between 87 discrete areas, are under increasing pressures worldwide. Globally, migrations of 6 88 out of 24 species of ungulates are either already extinct or their status is unknown [2]. 89 Of the remaining ungulate mass migrations, most occur in six locations in Africa, 90 including the white-bearded wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus Burchell, 1823) 91 migration in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem of Kenya and Tanzania [2]. Range 92 restriction and alteration, degradation and loss of habitat due to agriculture, poaching 93 and barriers that block migration, such as fences, roads, railroads, pipelines and 94 settlements have progressively disrupted historical migratory routes and decimated or 95 driven rapid population declines of many of the once spectacular migratory herds over 96 the 20 th century [1,3-5] . 5 97 98 Because migration enables populations to grow to large abunda...

show abstract

The Future for Wildlife on Kenya's Rangelands: An Economic Perspective

Cited by 20 publications

References 16 publications

Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence?

Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence?

Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism‐based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya

Wildebeest migration in East Africa: Status, threats and conservation measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About