Trade-offs for climate-resilient pastoral livelihoods in wildlife conservancies in the Mara ecosystem, Kenya

Bedelian, Claire; Ogutu, Joseph O.

doi:10.1186/s13570-017-0085-1

Cited by 67 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, we did not differentiate between the different wildlife areas, and thereby assumed that all the wildlife areas had the same management policies. This is, however, not the case as management policies varied greatly between the different wildlife areas (Bedelian & Ogutu, 2017). Most notable is that each wildlife area has a different policy on livestock grazing; in some areas livestock grazing within the wildlife areas is prohibited whereas in other areas livestock grazing is allowed either all year round or in designated areas or during specific times of year.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firstly, we did not differentiate between the different wildlife areas, and thereby assumed that all the wildlife areas had the same management policies. This is, however, not the case as management policies varied greatly between the different wildlife areas (Bedelian & Ogutu, 2017 2004) it is likely that the human footprint data used in this study was an underestimation of the current human pressures that cheetahs face. However, as cheetahs showed an avoidance of humans, which is corroborated by other studies (e.g., Riggio et al, 2018), we suspect that our results are on the conservative side.…”

Section: Anthropogenic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Living on the edge: Multiscale habitat selection by cheetahs in a human‐wildlife landscape

Klaassen

Broekhuis

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals select habitats that will ultimately optimize their fitness through access to favorable resources, such as food, mates, and breeding sites. However, access to these resources may be limited by bottom‐up effects, such as availability, and top‐down effects, such as risk avoidance and competition, including that with humans. Competition between wildlife and people over resources, specifically over space, has played a significant role in the worldwide decrease in large carnivores. The goal of this study was to determine the habitat selection of cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in a human‐wildlife landscape at multiple spatial scales. Cheetahs are a wide‐ranging, large carnivore, whose significant decline is largely attributed to habitat loss and fragmentation. It is believed that 77% of the global cheetah population ranges outside protected areas, yet little is known about cheetahs’ resource use in areas where they co‐occur with people. The selection, or avoidance, of three anthropogenic variables (human footprint density, distance to main roads and wildlife areas) and five environmental variables (open habitat, semiclosed habitat, edge density, patch density and slope), at multiple spatial scales, was determined by analyzing collar data from six cheetahs. Cheetahs selected variables at different scales; anthropogenic variables were selected at broader scales (720–1440 m) than environmental variables (90–180 m), suggesting that anthropogenic pressures affect habitat selection at a home‐range level, whilst environmental variables influence site‐level habitat selection. Cheetah presence was best explained by human presence, wildlife areas, semiclosed habitat, edge density and slope. Cheetahs showed avoidance for humans and steep slopes and selected for wildlife areas and areas with high proportions of semiclosed habitat and edge density. Understanding a species’ resource requirements, and how these might be affected by humans, is crucial for conservation. Using a multiscale approach, we provide new insights into the habitat selection of a large carnivore living in a human‐wildlife landscape.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firstly, we did not differentiate between the different wildlife areas, and thereby assumed that all the wildlife areas had the same management policies. This is, however, not the case as management policies varied greatly between the different wildlife areas (Bedelian & Ogutu, 2017 2004) it is likely that the human footprint data used in this study was an underestimation of the current human pressures that cheetahs face. However, as cheetahs showed an avoidance of humans, which is corroborated by other studies (e.g., Riggio et al, 2018), we suspect that our results are on the conservative side.…”

Section: Anthropogenic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Living on the edge: Multiscale habitat selection by cheetahs in a human‐wildlife landscape

Klaassen

Broekhuis

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Economic benefits to local communities from ecotourism enterprises in the two study regions, and the rest of Kenya, have encouraged communities to set community-based wildlife conservancies that have greatly expanded the space available for wildlife conservation in recent years. This has also reduced HWC by reducing contacts between people, livestock and wildlife as landowners voluntarily vacate their land parcels for wildlife conservancies in return for land rents and resettle elsewhere (Bedelian & Ogutu 2017;Ogutu et al 2017).…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendations For Wildlife Conservation Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya: Examples of Tsavo and Maasai Mara Regions

Mukeka¹,

Ogutu²,

Kanga³

2018

ENRR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a widespread and persistent challenge to conservation. However, relatively few studies have thus far examined long-term monitoring data to quantify how the type, and severity of HWC varies across species, seasons, years and ecosystems. Here, we examine human-wildlife conflicts in Tsavo and Maasai Mara, two premier wildlife conservation areas in Kenya. Using Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) data (2001-2016), we show that both the type and severity of conflicts vary among species such that the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), is the leading conflict species in both the Tsavo (64.3%, n= 30664) and Mara (47.0%, n=12487) ecosystems. The next four most notorious conflict animals, in decreasing order, are nonhuman primates (Tsavo 11.4%, n=3502; Mara 11.8%, n=1473), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer, Tsavo 5.5%, n=1676; Mara 11.3%, n=1410), lion (Panthera leo,Tsavo 3.6%, n=1107; Mara 3.3%, n=416) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta, Tsavo 2.4%, n=744; Mara 5.8%, n=729). We group the observed conflict incidences (n= 43,151) into four major conflict types, including crop raiding, the most common conflict type, followed by human and livestock attacks and property damage. The severity of conflicts also varies markedly seasonally and inter-annually. Crop raiding peaks in May-July, during and at the end of the wet season when crops are maturing but is lowest in November during the late dry season and beginning of the early rains. Attacks on humans and livestock increased more than other conflict types in both Tsavo (from 2001) and Mara (from 2013). Relatively fewer people in Mara (7.2%, n=901) than in Tsavo (38.2%, n = 11714) felt threatened by wildlife, suggesting that the Maasai people are more tolerant of wildlife. Minimizing HWC is tightly linked to successfully resolving the broader conservation challenges, including enhancing ecosystem connectivity, community engagement and conservation benefits to communities.

show abstract

“…It is thus important to conserve spatially extensive migratory systems while balancing human and wildlife needs. In Kenya, wildlife conservancies are expanding conservation areas for wildlife beyond the state-owned parks and reserves onto land owned privately by local communities or individuals who benefit by receiving land rents and job opportunities [34,113].…”

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

Trade-offs for climate-resilient pastoral livelihoods in wildlife conservancies in the Mara ecosystem, Kenya

Cited by 67 publications

References 49 publications

Living on the edge: Multiscale habitat selection by cheetahs in a human‐wildlife landscape

Living on the edge: Multiscale habitat selection by cheetahs in a human‐wildlife landscape

Characteristics of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya: Examples of Tsavo and Maasai Mara Regions

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About