In the last few decades, the impacts of human activities on ecosystem have rapidly increased resulting to detrimental ecosystem changes. Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is one of the greatest consequences of human impacts on the environment. Although HWC has been there for decades, its intensity seems to be growing with the spread of human settlements, changes in land use patterns and diminishing suitable natural habitats for wildlife. To mitigate HWC, various strategies have been devised and implemented. This study focused on predator-proof bomas (PPBs) approach that is ongoing in Amboseli ecosystem. The aim was to establish reasons behind the slow adoptions of the recycled plastics poles by owners of PPBs that were constructed using wooden posts between the years 2010 to 2013. Randomly selected 36 PPB homestead owners were interviewed and the physical structures of their PPBs assessed. Results revealed a positive relationship between PPB size and number of poles damaged; and a significant association between the damaged posts and the number of indigenous posts replaced in the three group ranches (X2 = 34.9331, df = 2, p < 0.05). Most of the respondents (89%) cited posts and doors (72%) as the main parts that needed repairs. About 80% of the respondents would recommend the plastic posts for use in constructing new PPBs by other people. Most of the PPB beneficiaries whose PPBs were constructed in 2010-2013 have opted for an “easy” alternative source of posts from the sparsely distrusted trees around their homesteads. It is recommend that an open window period should be tried to entice the wooden post PPBs owners to adopt the recycled plastic posts. This may necessitate upgrading the existing old wooden bomas to a “smart PPBs”. It is suggested that the “smart PPBs” should not only have recycled plastic posts but also “free” energy saving stoves in each household to reduce the level of deforestation.
References
[1]
MEA (2005) Ecosystems & Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Island Press, Washington DC.
[2]
FAO (2010) Managing the Conflict between People and Lion. Review and Insights from the Literature and Field Experience.
[3]
IUCN (2005) Benefits beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Ix + 306 pp.
[4]
Sillero-Zubiri, C., Sukumar, R. and Treves, A. (2007) Living with Wildlife: The Roots of Conflict and the Solutions. Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 266-272.
[5]
Thirgood, S., Woodroffe, R. and Rabinowitz, A. (2005) The Impact of Human Wildlife Conflict on Human Lives and Livelihoods. In: Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and Rabinowitz, A., Eds., People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 13-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774.003
[6]
Laurance, W.F. and Bierregaard, R.O.J., Eds. (1997) Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[7]
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and Rabinowitz, A., Eds. (2005) People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774
[8]
Gurd, H. (2012) Evaluating the Success of “Warrior Watch”: A Community-Based Conservation Initiative in Samburu, northern Kenya. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London.
[9]
KWS (2010) National Conservation and Management Strategy for Lion and Spotted Hyena in Kenya (2009-2014).
[10]
BFF (2015) Lion Conservation in Kenya. http://www.bornfree.org.uk/animals/lions/projects/lionconservation/
[11]
Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Swaminathan, V., Brown, M., Johnson, A., Placci, G., Salafsky, N. and Tilders, I. (2013) Results Chains: A Tool for Conservation Action Design, Management, and Evaluation. Ecology and Society, 18, 22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05610-180322
[12]
Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K.H. and Robinson, J.G. (2002) Improving the Practice of Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for Conservation Science. Conservation Biology, 16, 1469-1479.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01232.x
[13]
Treves, A., Wallace, R.B. and White, S. (2009) Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflicts. Conservation Biology, 23, 1577-1587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01242.x
[14]
Kusek, Z.J. and Rist, C.R. (2004) Ten Steps to a Result-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: A Hand-Book for Development Practitioners. The World Bank, Washington DC. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5823-5
[15]
Manoa, D.O. and Mwaura, F. (2016) Predator-Proof Bomas as a Tool in Mitigating Human-Predator Conflict in Loitokitok Sub-County, Amboseli Region of Kenya. Natural Resources, 7, 28-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/nr.2016.71003
[16]
Potgieter, G. (2011) The Effectiveness of Livestock Guarding Dogs for Livestock Production and Conservation in Namibia. Master’s Thesis, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa.
[17]
Ocholla, G.O., Koske, J., Asoka, G.W., Bunyasi, M.M., Pacha, O., Omondi, S.H. and Mireri, C. (2013) Assessment of Traditional Methods Used by the Samburu Pastoral Community in Human Wildlife Conflict Management. International Journal of Humanities & Social Science, 3, 292-302.
