Variability and Change in Maasai Views of Wildlife and the Implications for Conservation

Western, David; Nightingale, Deborah L. Manzolillo; Mose, Victor N.; Sipitiek, Johnson Ole; Kimiti, Kennedy Sakimba

doi:10.1007/s10745-019-0065-8

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A possible explanation for this could be that individuals who valued bees probably had an interest in learning about bees and could make individual efforts to improve their knowledge. It is therefore expected that improving knowledge of the farmers on the ecosystem services provided by bees as well as offering incentives for sustainable practices (Silva-Andrade et al, 2016;Western et al, 2019) will motivate them to conserve the species. McKenzie et al (2013) pointed out that farmers are willing to participate in agroecosystem conservation schemes if they are aware and anticipate benefits from them.…”

Section: Factors Influencing Knowledge Of Pollinators and Pollinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Pollination and Bees in a Maize-Producing Region of Zimbabwe: Implications for Pollinator Conservation

Tarakini

Chemura

Musundire

2020

Tropical Conservation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollination ecosystem service contributes tremendously to food security; however, little is known about the farmers' awareness of the ecosystem service to ensure conservation of pollinators. This study determined farmers' perceptions, knowledge, attitudes toward bees, and pollination in a maize-producing region of Zimbabwe using semistructured questionnaires (N ¼ 828). Generalized linear model and logit regressions were used to determine factors influencing farmers' ability to identify bees, knowledge of pollination, and fear toward bees, respectively. Identification of bees was positively related to education, years in farming, and negatively related to fear toward bees (p < .001). Fear toward bees was influenced by gender, knowledge of bee attack fatalities, and perception of the importance of bees (p < .001). The majority of respondents (67%) confirmed knowledge of pollination (v 2 ¼ 96.043, p < .001), and the probability of knowing pollination was higher for those who depended on media compared with extension and school education as a source of farming information (p < .001). Our findings suggest that to improve bee conservation, farmers should be made more aware of the diverse bee fauna, specifically regarding their benefits as pollinators compared with the few dangers (resulting from stings) in order to reduce fear and increase willingness to conserve bees. Bee awareness programs need to be accessible to women, youth, and those with less formal education as they exhibited the least knowledge. Our findings also support evidence showing that extension officers should consider various media options for the effective dissemination of information to the different target audiences.

show abstract

Section: Factors Influencing Knowledge Of Pollinators and Pollinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Pollination and Bees in a Maize-Producing Region of Zimbabwe: Implications for Pollinator Conservation

Tarakini

Chemura

Musundire

2020

Tropical Conservation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changing wildlife to a consumable commodity, like livestock, could alter the care that humans provide wildlife when the economic value of wildlife is emphasized over other, non-monetary values ( Pitman et al, 2017 ). This is of particular importance in community land, where cultural values that allowed for coexistence between wildlife and livestock are rapidly being eroded (A6), and with it reduced tolerance for wildlife, including carnivores ( Western et al, 2019 ). Nevertheless, for landowners where wildlife does not have an intrinsic or cultural value, their instrumental value may be necessary for continued conservation (A3, A4, A2, A6).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…coms.). Many community landowners, however, report that they saw little benefit from the program, and are averse to the re-adoption of a system that has historical failures, and that can clash with cultural values attached to wildlife (RU4, O2; Tasha Bioservices, 2001 ; Western et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incorporating social-ecological complexities into conservation policy

Brehony

Tyrrell

Kamanga³

et al. 2020

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the process of developing new conservation policies, policymakers must have access to information which will inform their decisions. Evidence rarely considers the complexities of social-ecological systems. The Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) is an adaptable yet structured approach for understanding the processes that lead to changes in natural resources, using a systems-based approach that aims to treat ecological and social components equally. Few conservation planning and policy initiatives have implemented the SESF to assess the interlinked social and ecological consequences of conservation policies. We apply the SESF to explore the barriers to the potential implementation of a policy of consumptive utilisation of wildlife in Kenya, a policy regarded as successful in several southern African countries. Using secondary data and expert review we developed a conceptual model of the social-ecological system associated with consumptive utilisation of wildlife in Kenya. We then analysed how different combinations of first and second-tier variables interacted to create focal action situations, and subsequently identified seven barriers to this policy. Our analysis revealed that game ranching would require large-scale investment in effective monitoring systems, new regulations, training, market development and research, considerations about equity, and devolved ownership of wildlife. The least barriers existed for game farming. The SESF appears to be a useful framework for this purpose. In particular, it can help to reveal potential social and ecological barriers which conservation policies might face in attempting to meet intended goals. The information required to implement the SESF are necessarily cross-disciplinary, which can make it challenging to synthesise.

show abstract

“…Since people are an integral part of HEC, understanding the social fabric of communities that live with elephants is fundamental to developing effective solutions (Shaffer et al, 2019). People's attitudes and tolerance towards wildlife are influenced by cultural, religious and economic values and socio‐economic factors, including gender, age, education, and source of livelihood (Jhala et al, 2019; Western, Nightingale, Mose, Sipitiek, & Kimiti, 2019). Importantly, negative interactions with elephants have been shown to be related to feelings of resentment (Van de Water & Matteson, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beehive fences as a sustainable local solution to human‐elephant conflict in Thailand

Water

King

Arkajak

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As human-elephant conflict (HEC) increases, a better understanding of the human dimensions of these conflicts and non-violent mitigation methods are needed to foster long-term coexistence. In this study, we conducted household questionnaires (n = 296) to assess the prevalence of HEC and attitudes towards elephants in four rural villages in Thailand. In addition, we evaluated a pilot beehive fence as a sustainable solution for HEC. The majority of the households reported seeing or hearing elephants near their property at least once a week (84.9%) and experienced negative impacts from elephants in the last 5 years, (81.0%). The beehive fence deterred 88.4% of individual elephants (n = 155) and 64.3% of elephant groups (n = 28) that approached the fence. Most elephants (70.7%) exhibited behaviors suggesting heightened attentiveness or alarm. The farm owner reported economic and social benefits of the beehive fence. By contributing to farmer income and reducing crop damage caused by wild elephants, beehive fencing may provide an important locallymanaged complement to regional HEC mitigation methods.

show abstract

Variability and Change in Maasai Views of Wildlife and the Implications for Conservation

Cited by 16 publications

References 39 publications

Farmers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Pollination and Bees in a Maize-Producing Region of Zimbabwe: Implications for Pollinator Conservation

Farmers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Pollination and Bees in a Maize-Producing Region of Zimbabwe: Implications for Pollinator Conservation

Incorporating social-ecological complexities into conservation policy

Beehive fences as a sustainable local solution to human‐elephant conflict in Thailand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About