370 F. Broekhuis et al.
development, but some respondents also mentioned eco- logical benefits (i.e. predators kill herbivores) and aesthetics (Table 1). The majority of respondents derived their primary source of income from pastoralism (n = 553, 74%) followed by tourism(n = 112, 15%), business (n = 46, 6%) and agricul- ture (n = 22, 3%). Of the 747 respondents, 392 (52%) did not lease land to a conservancy and over half of the respondents (n = 429, 57.43%) felt that the predators in the area belonged to them rather than to the government or the conservancies.
Attitudes
More than half of the respondents (n = 432, 57.52%) thought that people and livestock should live alongside predators. Their response to this question was not associated with the number of livestock that were lost (β = 0.008,
CI =−0.004–0.020) but the belief that predators were asso- ciated with benefits did have a positive influence (β = 1.709, CI = 1.294–2.124). In other words, the majority of respon- dents who said that predators bring benefits also thought that people and their livestock should coexist with them (Fig. 2). Similarly, the majority of the respondents who said that predators belonged to the community thought that people, livestock and predators should coexist (β = 1.286, CI = 0.888–1.683; Fig. 2). In addition, a higher proportion of respondents who were members of a conservancy re- sponded ‘yes’ to the question about whether people and live- stock should coexist with predators than did respondents who were not members of a conservancy, but this effect dif- fered by conservancy (χ2 = 135.08,df = 4,P,0.001; Fig. 2). Of the four conservancies, the majority of the respondents who were members of Olare-Motorogi, Naboisho and Mara North thought that people and livestock should live along- side predators but this was not the case for members of Ol Kinyei. Respondents who were members of Ol Kinyei dif- fered significantly from the three other conservancies (P,0.001) in that they thought that people and livestock should not live alongside predators, which was similar to re- spondents who were not members of a conservancy (P = 1.000). Occupation also had an effect (χ2 = 30.59,df = 4, P,0.001; Fig. 2) and a higher proportion of respondents working in the tourism industry thought that people and livestock should live alongside predators compared to agri- culturists (P = 0.001), pastoralists (P = 0.001), business peo- ple (P = 0.001) and other groups (P = 0.034).
Behavioural intention
Only a small number (n = 79, 10.30%) said they would kill a predator if it killed their livestock. The majority of respondents (72.52%) said that they would call the author- ities (Table 2). The behavioural intention of killing a preda- tor if it killed a respondent’s livestock was not influenced by
TABLE 1 Summary of the benefits that respondents (n = 747) asso- ciated with the presence of predators in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Respondents could select one or more answers so for each answer the per cent represents how many of the 747 respondents gave this answer.
Benefit None
Employment Income Tourism
Development Indirect benefits (i.e. building of clinics)
Kill herbivores&thereby reduce competition for grass
Kill wildebeest so reduce the presence of diseases that kill livestock
Aesthetic value
%of respondents
39.74 26.84 32.39 25.16 7.61 2.58 1.68
0.39 0.65
the number of livestock that were killed (β = 0.008,
CI =−0.006–0.021), the benefits associated with pre- dators (β =−0.309,CI =−0.914–0.196), whether the respondent thought that predators belonged to the commu-
nity (β = 0.143,CI =−0.390–0.677) or the respondent’s occupation (χ2 = 5.712,df = 4,P,0.223). However, respon-
dents’ behavioural intentions were influenced by their atti-
tude towards predators (W=−0.571,CI =−1.048–−0.101) as the majority of respondents that did not think that people and livestock should coexist with predators said that they would kill a predator if it killed their livestock.
Discussion
The majority of respondents agreed that people and live- stock should live alongside predators and this attitude influ- enced a respondent’s behavioural intention towards predators if it killed their livestock. It is possible that, be- cause it is illegal to kill predators, some respondents did not respond truthfully to the hypothetical question about whether they would kill a predator if it killed their livestock. Despite this, the results were significant and are likely to be conservative. In addition, the results are corroborated by other studies, especially those conducted in Maasailand (e.g. Romañach et al., 2007; Marchini & Macdonald, 2012; Hazzah et al., 2014; Hazzah et al., 2017). Respondents’ attitudes towards predators were in-
fluenced by multiple variables but not by the cost of losing livestock. This is similar to findings in other areas (Zimmermann et al., 2005) but it is possible that attitudes could be influenced by loss relative to overall wealth rather than by absolute losses (Romañach et al., 2007; Inskip & Zimmermann, 2009). In addition, costs were measured over a 3-month time-frame and it is possible that attitudes
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
