Predator‐proof boma disrepair 197
PLATE 1 A predator-proof boma under construction by the Born Free Foundation’s Pride of Amboseli programme in 2018 (Acacia thorn bushes have not yet been added to the outside perimeter).
predator-proof boma rated as 91% effective at night and reducing the need to guard livestock at night to 1 day per week (Manoa & Mwaura, 2016). However, it is important to understand how predator-
proof bomas persist in the long term and what motivates owners to maintain them. Lack of maintenance compro- mises the long-term sustainability of the bomas and reduces the overall impact of the intervention (Okello et al., 2014). If predator-proof bomas fall into disrepair (defined here as reflecting a high level of damage and/or a low level or ab- sence of maintenance by boma owners), their effectiveness is lowered (Broekhuis et al., 2017). Bomas are subject to wear and tear over time and because of fighting between bulls or physical crowding of livestock up against the boma fence. The motivation to conduct repairs could depend on need: for example, owners might maintain their bomas better if a clustering of nearby traditional bomas attracts predators or if the bomas are situated near wildlife-rich protected areas (demonstrated in Kenya by Okello et al., 2014; Broekhuis et al., 2017, and in Ethiopia by Megaze et al., 2017) or in conflict hotspots (e.g. Chetri et al., 2019). Proximity to other predator-proof bomas could reduce the occurrence of predators. The motivation to conduct repairs could also depend on investment: for example, having a greater financial stake in the boma could encourage boma maintenance. Our objective was to examine which variables influence the disrepair of predator-proof bomas. We hypo- thesized that disrepair would: increase with the age of the boma and with proximity to protected areas and other predator-proof bomas; be greater in bomas with greater live- stock densities and recycled plastic posts; and decrease with a greater per cent of the cost being contributed by the boma owner, when in areas of high conflict risk, and when in close proximity to a clustering of traditional bomas.
Study area
This study was conducted in the Amboseli Ecosystem, Loitokitok sub-county (County Government of Kajiado,
2018), on the border of Kenya and Tanzania (Fig. 1). The ecosystem comprises Amboseli National Park, group ranches Mbirikani, Olgulului, Mailwa, Rombo, Eselenkei, Kaptei, Kuku and Kimana, and the Enduimet Wildlife ManagementArea. The group ranch concept was introduced by the Kenyan government in the 1960s, to allow a group of pastoralists to own and manage their land communally with the purpose of commercializing production, and improv- ing pastoralists’ well-being and environmental manage- ment. Pastoralism is the main economic activity, with .75% of the population deriving their livelihood from live- stock and accounting for 60%of the total labour force (Okello &Kioko, 2010; County Government of Kajiado, 2018). There are two rainy seasons: the long rains inMarch–May and the short rains in October–December.Wildlife includes the ele- phant Loxodonta africana,buffalo Syncerus caffer,zebra Equus quagga,hyaenas Crocuta crocuta and Hyaena hyaena, lion Panthera leo,wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus, giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis and eland Tragelaphus
oryx.It
is
estimated that the Amboseli Ecosystem has 1,800 elephants, c. 700 hyaenas and 880 jackals (Kissui & Kenana, 2013), and in 2019 the human population in the sub-county was 191,846 people, with a population density of 51 persons/km2 (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2019).
Methods
During April 2010–July 2018 Born Free Foundation’s Pride of Amboseli programme constructed 294 predator-proof bomas across the region. We interviewed the head of each homestead on the day of construction (or later if they were absent). We collected information on the size of the homestead (men, women and children from all constituent households combined), on the total number of livestock (cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys combined) and on conflict and perceptions, and we noted post type (wooden or plastic) and the per cent of the cost paid (25 or 50%). We measured the boma circumference using a 100 m tape and recorded the location using a GPS. In August 2018 we randomly selected a sample of 88
predator-proof bomas using random numbers and a rank- ing procedure. The sample fell within the following group ranches: Eselenkei (10), Enduiment Wildlife Management Authority (4), Kaptei (8), Kimana (9), Kuku/Rombo (6), Mailwa (1), Mbirikani (29) and Olgulului (21). We inter- viewed the heads of each of the 88 homesteads using the same methodology as at the time of construction. In add- ition, we recorded the number of intact and damaged gates, chain-link fences and posts, and boma owners’ re- ports of the causes of damage. We calculated the age of the predator-proof boma in months, the distance to the nearest predator-proof boma and nearest protected area (Amboseli or Tsavo National Parks) and the number of
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
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
