Predator‐proof boma disrepair 201


TABLE 2 Causes of damage to the parts of 88 predator-proof bomas, as reported by boma owners at evaluation, with the per cent of cause of damage per boma component.


Boma part exhibiting damage


Causes of damage Termites


Weak & broken posts Rotten posts Loose posts


Gates, n = 26 (%) Chain-link fences, n = 31 (%) Posts, n = 47 (%) 0


0 0


Cattle or other livestock 8 (30.76) Lorry or other vehicle Rotten wooden frame Elephants Unknown


9 (34.62) 2 (7.69)


1 (3.85) 1 (3.85) 5 (19.23)


0 0 0


9 (29.0) 12 (38.7) 0 0


3 (9.7) 7 (22.6)


12 (25.53) 8 (17.02) 5 (10.64) 0


8 (17.02) 0 0


4 (8.51) 10 (21.28)


Total number of reports of damage, n = 104 (%)


12 (11.5) 8 (7.7) 5 (4.8)


18 (17.3) 28 (26.9) 2 (1.9) 1 (1.0) 8 (7.7)


22 (21.2)


TABLE 3 Summary of generalized linear mixed model showing regression coefficients and P-values for each variable. Analyses were per- formed using the full dataset (n = 86). Models were fitted using 10 predictors. Cost shared by boma owner and boma post type are categorical; all other predictors are continuous. We calculated three models, one each with all components, posts and chain-link fences as dependent variables. Detailed results are presented in Supplementary Table 1a,c,d.


All components


Model term Intercept


Livestock density


Distance to nearest predator-proof boma


Boma circumference


Cost shared by boma owner (50%) Cost shared by boma owner (25%) Boma post type (plastic) Boma post type (wooden)


Clustering of traditional bomas *P , 0.05; **P , 0.01; ***P , 0.001.


Regression coefficient


−1.376 −0.037


9.03 × 10−5


0.001 0.173 0


−2.941 0


Distance to nearest protected area −3.48 × 10−6 Months since construction


0.004 0.022


P 0.382


0.695 0.812


0.786 0.866 0.338


Posts


Regression coefficient


0.028* −0.051 0.074


−1.242 5.32 × 10−5 0.0003


−0.037 0


0.0005*** −3.232 0


−0.0001


−1.90 × 10−5 0.037


P


0.432 0.928


Chain-link fences


Regression coefficient


0.537 −1.433 0.025* −0.014


0.967 −0.427 0


0.002** −2.812 0


0.995 −0.0004 0.470


0.213 −0.004 3.98 × 10−5


0.0001 0.0004


P


0.493 0.515


0.033* 0.898


0.655


0.012* 0.986


0.149 0.887


of damaged components (Supplementary Table 3). Al- though models built using proportion of damaged gates and proportion of damaged chain-link fences as dependent variables did not fit the data well overall (Supplementary Fig. 2b,d), the individual effect of distance to nearest predator- proof boma was statistically significant (Supplementary Table 2f,h); this was also the case for the main dataset using proportion of damaged gates as the only dependent variable (Supplementary Table 2b). We detected no signifi- cant effect (except for the intercept) using the second data- set and proportion of damaged posts as the dependent variable (Supplementary Table 2g).


Discussion


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 encouraging or enabling boma owners to carry out maintenance. The effect of post type in driving the disrepair of bomas is


likely to be a direct result of the robustness of the material; wood is prone to rot and consumption by termites. Fur- thermore, weak posts reduce the strength of the structure overall, whereas robust recycled plastic posts result in stron- ger structures and less damage to other boma components. The majority (66.7%) of respondents in Amboseli preferred recycled plastic posts because of their durability and termite- resistant traits (Manoa & Oloo, 2016). Extensive, rapid dam- age because of weak wooden posts could overwhelm boma owners in terms of their financial and technical capacity


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