Human–wildlife coexistence 371


FIG. 2 Index of attitude towards predators in the Maasai Mara, Kenya (Fig. 1), in relation to benefits, occupation, conservancy membership and community ownership of predators. Values .0 indicate more positive than negative responses and vice versa. The


index was calculated for each category within a variable using the formula: Attitude Index = (p−q)/(p + q) to give a standardized ratio of the number of respondents (of 747) that said ‘yes’ in a group (p) to the number of people that said ‘no’ in a group (q), with values ranging from −1 to 1.


TABLE 2 Summary of the behavioural intentions towards predators in the Maasai Mara if a respondent’s livestock were killed by a predator. Respondents could select one or more answers so for each answer the per cent represents how many of the 747 respon- dents gave this answer.


Behavioural intention Call authorities


Chase predator


Call predator projects* Kill predator Nothing


% of respondents 72.52


54.16 20.34 10.30 13.87


*This includes the Mara Cheetah Project, the Mara Lion Project and the Mara Hyena Project.


are shaped by historic or prolonged costs (Kansky&Knight, 2014). Alternatively, experiencing damage might not always be a driver of attitudes (Kansky et al., 2014) as intangible costs, such as fear or alienation, rather than tangible costs, such as direct monetary losses, might be a better predictor of attitudes (Kansky & Knight, 2014). Our results showed that benefits and employment in the


tourism industry had a positive influence on respondents’ attitudes towards predators. However, in terms of employ- ment, only a small percentage of the people interviewed (15%) obtained their main income from being employed in the tourism industry. This is supported by previous find- ings in the Maasai Mara that income from tourism-based


activities only contribute to a small proportion of house- holds (Homewood et al., 2012) and favour a small elite (Lamprey & Reid, 2004). Therefore, employment in the tourism industry is likely to influence only the attitudes of a small proportion of the population. However, the majority of the benefits mentioned by the respondents were related to tourism either directly through development, sale of craft- work or visits to cultural bomas, or indirectly through leas- ing land to conservancies for wildlife-based activities. Because of these socio-economic benefits, tourism has in- creased rapidly in the Maasai Mara (Lamprey & Reid, 2004). Although using tourism to link conservation and bet- ter livelihoods is a popular tool, it is not always successful (Kiss, 2004). Therefore, care needs to be taken in putting too much emphasis on tourism, as high volumes of tourism can have negative ecological impacts (Broekhuis, 2018b; Buckley et al., 2016) that can consequently destroy the tour- ism product and can be negatively affected by both national and international events (Homewood et al., 2012). As the tangible benefits (i.e. employment) were mentioned more often than the intangible benefits (i.e. aesthetic value) we suggest that alternative, wildlife-based incomes, such as conservation payments, should be considered. For example, in Belize, people who are part of a jaguar Panthera onca camera-trap programme receive payments for captures of jaguars and other key wildlife (Harvey et al., 2017). A higher proportion of respondents who were members of a conservancy believed that people and livestock should


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