Drivers of predator-proof boma disrepair in the Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya


DAV I D OWINO MANOA ,STEPHEN MELUBO,S IMO N KAS A I NE,PEN NY B ANHAM JACOB WIL LI E,TIM OLO O,ELIZABETH GREEN GRAS S and NIK KI TAG G


Abstract As natural habitats continue to shrink in Kenya’s Amboseli Ecosystem, livestock depredation by lions Panthera leo threatens both the livelihoods of pastoralist communities and the lion populations affected by retaliatory killings. Finding ways for people and carnivores to coexist at the landscape scale is crucial to the long-term persistence of many threatened animal populations. The fortification of existing traditional bomas to make them predator-proof reduces night-time depredation of livestock. However, the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of such an initiative rely on boma owners taking responsibility for the upkeep and repair of their bomas. In August 2018 we surveyed 88 predator-proof bomas constructed during 2012–2018 and recorded their characteristics and levels of damage. We examined which variables influence disrepair, using a series of statistical analyses, including generalized linear mixed models. Our results reveal there was more disrepair in bomas constructed with wooden posts, confirming the benefit of using recycled plastic posts; in bomas with lower livestock density, suggesting that fewer animals could cause more damage or that such damage is not repaired; and in bomas located further away from a neighbouring predator-proof boma, suggesting a social element in encouraging or enabling boma owners to carry out maintenance. We recommend the consideration and further investigation of this social influence in guiding and improving the sustainability of con- servation programmes that use predator-proof bomas, with a view to reducing negative interactions between pastoralists and lions.


Keywords Amboseli, carnivores, conflict, disrepair, lions, livestock, depredation, predator-proof boma


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321001642


DAVID OWINO MANOA (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0002-8415-


5004, manoa@bornfree.or.ke), STEPHEN MELUBO ( orcid.org/0000-0002-4894- 5287), SIMON KASAINE ( orcid.org/0000-0002-4559-9972) and TIM OLOO Born Free Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya


PENNY BANHAM ( (


orcid.org/0000-0002-2954-682X) and NIKKI TAGG (


0002-1397-3720) Born Free Foundation, Horsham, UK JACOB WILLIE (


ocid.org/0000-0003-2727-6675), ELIZABETH GREENGRASS orcid.org/0000-


orcid.org/0000-0002-8939-1321) Centre for Research and


Conservation, Koninklijke Maatschappij voor Dierkunde Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium


Received 21 May 2021. Revision requested 30 July 2021. Accepted 29 October 2021. First published online 16 May 2022.


Introduction


forcing people and wildlife into closer proximity and the sharing of resources (Ogutu et al., 2013). These changes lead to increases in the frequency and severity of use of crops by wild animals, livestock depredation, attacks on people, dis- ease transmission and damage to infrastructure, houses and property (Attia et al., 2018; Bond & Mkutu, 2018). In the case of carnivores in Kenya, interactions with peo-


R


ple could arise because of competition for pasture and water (Mitchell et al., 2019) or because of livestock depredation (Packer et al., 2019). Globally, 0.2–2.6% of domestic livestock is lost annually to predators (Meissner et al., 2013), which can be of great financial significance, affecting people’s livelihoods (Patterson et al., 2004; Okello et al., 2014;Muriuki et al., 2017; Sutton et al., 2017; LeFlore et al., 2019;Manoa et al., 2020). People have resorted to retaliatory killing of carnivores to


prevent or avenge livestock losses, even if they have not experienced such losses first-hand (Inskip et al., 2016;Kushnir & Packer, 2019). This could be because the predatory nature of carnivores incites fear (Dickman & Hazzah, 2016; Inskip et al., 2016). Retaliatory killing is a global concern as it di- rectly reduces the carnivore population (Chetri et al., 2019; LeFlore et al., 2019). Although this is a complex matter, we hereby collectively refer to these negative interactions between people and carnivores as ‘conflict’. In the Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya, the Born Free


Foundation’s long-running conservation programme Pride of Amboseli, launched in 2010, fortifies traditional bomas to produce predator-proof bomas in which Maasai pastoralists can corral their livestock at night (Manoa & Mwaura, 2016). Predator-proof bomas are part-financed by boma owners, who contribute between 25% (the current rate) and 50% (the rate set in the early days of the programme) of the cost. These bomas are constructed using posts (originally wooden, but robust recycled plastic posts have been in use since 2013), onto which are hung rolls of chain-link fencing to enclose the boma, with one or more metal gates. Acacia thorn bushes are placed against both sides of the chain-link fencing to protect the bomas from damage by livestock and to deter digging carnivores such as hyaenas (Plate 1). Such physical barriers have proven effective at reducing livestock depredation inside the boma (Ogada et al., 2003; Lichtenfeld et al., 2015; Mkonyi et al., 2017; Sutton et al., 2017; Kissui et al., 2019; LeFlore et al., 2019), with the Pride of Amboseli


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-com- mercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the originalwork is properly cited. The written permission of CambridgeUniversity Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 196–204© Born Free Foundation and the Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001642


apid human population growth is closely associated with land-use changes and habitat fragmentation,


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