Human–wildlife coexistence 369
later date if he was not present. Interviews where data were missing were excluded from the analysis (N = 17). To min- imize incentives for exaggerating answers, prior to each interview the interviewee was informed that the survey was independent of the government or any management companies and that no compensation would be provided for livestock losses. Before the interview the purpose was fully explained by the interviewer and the respondents were therefore not misled in any way. Respondents were also informed that they could withdraw from the interview at any time without penalty and that they did not have to answer any questions if they did not want to. The interview commenced only once informed consent was given verbally. All data were treated with strict anonymity, by removing any personal identifiers, and confidentiality. All respon- dents agreed to be interviewed.
Assessing attitudes and behavioural intentions
As predators are not restricted to the wildlife areas and edge effects can have significant negative impacts on protected predator populations (Loveridge et al., 2010), our question- naire was designed to examine the attitudes and behavioural intentions of people living within or on the periphery of wildlife areas (Fig. 1). Predators are present throughout this area (Madsen & Broekhuis, in press) and we therefore decided to measure attitudes towards predators by asking the question ‘should people and livestock live alongside pre- dators?’.We defined a ‘no’ or ‘yes’ answer as being a negative or positive attitude respectively. Individuals that were ‘un- sure’ (N = 33) were excluded from further analyses. To de- termine behavioural intentions, respondents were asked ‘What do you do when your livestock has been killed by a predator?’ to which respondents could select one or more of the following answers: nothing, chase predator away, call authorities, call predator projects, kill predator, or other. For the analysis, the answers were condensed into those that answered they would kill a predator and those that did not select this answer. Killing predators is illegal in Kenya and doing so can incur a fine of KES 20 million (USD 222,000; exchange rate USD 1 = KES 90 in 2015), life imprisonment or both (Kenyan Wildlife and Conservation Act, 2013 (No. 47 of 2013)). Therefore, this question was asked and interpreted as a hypothetical behavioural inten- tion rather than a self-reported behaviour. People’s behaviour towards predators can be influenced
by several factors, including the costs and benefits associated with predators, inclusion in conservation decisions and hav- ing a sense of ownership of predators. To quantify the costs of living with predators, respondents were asked how many livestock they had lost to predators in the 3 months prior to the interview. Respondents were also asked whether they thought there were any benefits associated with predators
and, if so, what these benefits were. This was an open ques- tion and responses were grouped based on their similarities. When asked about their primary source of income respon- dents could choose from the following categories: tourism sector, agriculture, pastoralism, business or other. The re- spondents were then asked whether they leased land to a conservancy and, if so, which conservancy. Respondents who were members of Lemek, Ol Chorro Oiroua, Olarro, Oloisukut and Enonkishu conservancies (N = 23) were ex- cluded from analysis because of the small sample size, leav- ing 747 non-conservancy members and members of Naboisho, Ol Kinyei, Olare-Motorogi and Mara North. Lastly, respondents were asked whether they thought that the predators belonged to the community or the authorities.
Analyses
Attitudes and behavioural intentions towards predators were analysed separately using a Generalized Linear Model with a binomial error structure and logit link function. For attitudes the response was either yes (people should live alongside predators = 1) or no (people should not live alongside predators = 0). Similarly, for be- havioural intentions, the response was either yes (would kill a predator = 1) or no (would not kill a predator = 0)in response to livestock depredation. The predictor variables used to determine attitudes and behavioural intentions were self-reported livestock loss, primary source of income, conservancy membership, and perceptions of whether there were benefits associated with predators and whether the predators belonged to the community. Additionally, we in- cluded respondents’ attitudes in the behavioural intentions model. The candidatemodels were ranked using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and when one model was su- perior this was used, otherwise parameter estimates were averaged across models with AIC differences,2 correcting for modelweights (Burnham&Anderson, 2002). Parameter estimates (β) are presented with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and are considered to be statistically sig- nificant if the 95% CI does not overlap zero. All statistical analyses were performed in R 3.3.0 (R Development Core Team, 2016).
Results
In total, data from 747 interviews were used to determine people’s attitudes and behavioural intentions towards pre- dators in the Maasai Mara. Of these, 587 respondents (75.78%) had lost at least one head of livestock to predators in the 3 months prior to the interview and 443 respondents (59.30%) thought there were benefits associated with having predators. The benefits that the respondents named were largely related to tourism, employment, income and
Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 366–374 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000091
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
