Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Using the centre-periphery framework to explore human-carnivore relations Miquel Torrents-Ticó a, b, *, Femke Broekhuis c, Daniel Burgas d, e, Mar Cabeza a, b, Emmanuel Miliko f, Thomas Titiay Komoi g, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares a, b, h a Global Change and Conservation (GCC), Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland b Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 4, FI-00014, University of Helsinki, Finland c Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands d Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland e School of Resource Wisdom, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland f Member of the Maasai community, Il motiok, Laikipia County, Kenya g Member of the Daasanach community, Ileret Ward, Marsabit County, Kenya h Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Living alongside carnivores can incur both costs and benefits on people's lifeways. While positive outcomes of Benefits carnivore presence can foster coexistence, negative relations with carnivores can trigger carnivores' killing and Carnivores undermine their conservation. In response to this, conservation efforts increasingly focus on promoting positive Centre-periphery framework human-carnivore relations, most often through improvements in the flow of economic benefits from carnivores to Conservation Human-carnivore relations local communities. However, there is a question mark over the effectiveness and potential consequences of market-based instruments for carnivore conservation. To understand the opportunities and pitfalls of market- based instruments for carnivore conservation, we use a centre-periphery framework to compare human- carnivore relations in two pastoral systems with uneven market-based conservation efforts across Kenya. We conducted 230 semi-structured interviews on costs and benefits, mitigation strategies and self-reported pro­ pensity to kill carnivores. Our study shows how different human-carnivore relations are enacted in areas with uneven market-based conservation efforts. We found that the extent to which benefits are attributed to alive carnivores is largely shaped by the existence of market-based conservation efforts in the area. Our results also document an openly self-reported propensity to kill carnivores in places where market-based conservation efforts are meagre at best. A more robust understanding of the effectiveness of market-based instruments for carnivore conservation is essential to sustain positive human-carnivore relations into the future. 1. Introduction 2012) and undermine their conservation (Ripple et al., 2014). Further­ more, there is potential for an increase in negative human-carnivore Fostering coexistence between people and carnivores is one of the relations that cause costs for people and/or carnivores (Buijs and Ja­ most complex and central concerns for carnivore conservation in the cobs, 2021), as human populations expand further into previously un­ 21st century (Ripple et al., 2014). Carnivores can impact people's live­ inhabited areas, and as some species recolonise areas of their historical lihoods and personal safety (Broekhuis et al., 2020), which can trigger range (Chapron et al., 2014). the killing of carnivores (Hazzah et al., 2009; Marchini and Macdonald, Carnivore conservation efforts have increasingly focused on * Corresponding author at: Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, Viikinkari 1, FI-00014, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. E-mail address: miquel.torrents-tico@helsinki.fi (M. Torrents-Ticó). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110125 Received 6 October 2022; Received in revised form 4 May 2023; Accepted 6 May 2023 Available online 17 May 2023 0006-3207/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 minimising the costs associated with living alongside carnivores by scholarly fields to examine inequalities and asymmetries of a specific providing benefits that encourage tolerance and coexistence1 (Broekhuis factor between a ‘centre’ and a ‘periphery’ (Friedman, 1966; Lind, 2018; et al., 2020). Additionally, conservation efforts could foster positive Klimczuk and Klimczuk-Kochańska, 2019). While centrality in a human-carnivore relations that do not present substantial problems to network is often associated with increasing influence, power and either people or carnivores and bring benefits to both of them (Buijs and dominance, a position in the periphery usually relates to fewer oppor­ Jacobs, 2021). Conservation efforts are largely associated with market- tunities for development, and/or marginalisation (Díaz-Reviriego et al., based instruments that support such tolerance and coexistence (Dick­ 2017; Rozylowicz et al., 2017). The centre-periphery framework can man et al., 2011). For instance, compensation schemes and insurance shed light on how market-based instruments for carnivore conservation programmes that could offset the negative economic impacts of live­ are inherently woven into the production of new geographies of human- stock losses to carnivores (Chen et al., 2013; Karanth et al., 2018) or wildlife relations and offers a complementary angle to explore spatial economic activities such as wildlife tourism and recreational hunting distributions of peoples' willingness to coexist with wildlife (Vogel et al., that could eventually benefit local communities through conservation- 2023). related income (Homewood et al., 2012; Di Minin et al., 2021). The Here we use a categorical centre-periphery framework to explore general idea behind these market-based conservation efforts is to how the positioning of two distinct pastoral systems with uneven levels minimise the economic shocks of losing livestock to carnivores by of conservation attention influences the human-carnivore relations; one “making carnivores pay” (Dickman et al., 2011). of them being at the centre of conservation efforts where market-based However, despite market-based conservation efforts possibly instruments are abound, and the other at the periphery of conservation fostering positive human-carnivore relations, the scholarly literature on efforts where market-based instruments are largely absent. To do so, we carnivore conservation has predominantly been biased towards negative explore three distinct indicators of local human-carnivore relations for human-carnivore relations (e.g., Bombieri et al., 2023), which is likely each study site: (1) costs and benefits of living alongside carnivores in to overlook positive human-carnivore relations (Buijs and Jacobs, current and past times; (2) mitigation strategies suggested by re­ 2021). Moreover, many conservation scholars and practitioners have spondents (hereafter, suggested mitigation strategies); and (3) self- raised concerns about the overall effectiveness of market-based in­ reported propensity to kill carnivores. We then contrast the local struments for carnivore conservation (Lindsey et al., 2007; Ravenelle human-carnivore relations of both sites and assess temporal changes in and Nyhus, 2017). First, conservation market-based instruments are reported benefits. As the underlying factors associated with human- often associated with the commodification of carnivores by mainly carnivore relations are complex and multi-faceted (Hazzah et al., attributing (if not only) economic benefits to it (Vannelli et al., 2019), 2009), we also evaluate different socio-economic factors that contribute and overriding other ways in which carnivores contribute to human and to shaping human-carnivore relations in both sites. non-human well-being (O’Bryan et al., 2018). Second, several studies have shown that economic incentives can impinge on intrinsic motiva­ 2. Methods tions towards conservation (Kerr et al., 2012; Rode et al., 2015), changing over time a moral or social motivation to conserve into an 2.1. Study sites economic trade-off (Anyango-Van Zwieten et al., 2015; Fernández-Lla­ mazares et al., 2020), and overlooking the complex historical, cultural, We conducted the study in Laikipia and Ileret, Kenya. We selected and political contexts in which human-carnivore relations are forged these two study sites for three main reasons: (1) the presence of pasto­ and negotiated (Goldman, 2011; Homewood et al., 2012). Third, critics ralist communities living at the edge of wildlife conservation areas; (2) also question the long-term market-based sustainability of these pro­ the historical presence of the same carnivore assemblage (Kruuk, 1980; grammes (Dickman et al., 2011), and the possibility of local commu­ Frank et al., 2005); and (3) these sites have contrasting conservation nities threatening to kill carnivores if economic funds dry up (Anyango- efforts where we classified Laikipia as the “centre” and Ileret as the Van Zwieten et al., 2015). Finally, such economic benefits are often “periphery” in the centre-periphery framework of conservation efforts inequitably shared across communities (Dickman et al., 2011), unavai­ (see Supplementary Material 1 for more details on the study sites). lable to those who bear most of the costs (Lindsey et al., 2007) and unevenly distributed (Waldron et al., 2017), thereby contributing to 2.1.1. Centre: Laikipia exacerbate structural inequities in benefits distribution (Sène-Harper In Laikipia County in central Kenya (Fig. 1A), we collected data in and Séye, 2019). two communal group ranches, Koija and Il Motiok (hereafter, Koija-Il Despite growing interest in understanding the effectiveness of motiok). Both group ranches are communally owned by Maasai pasto­ market-based instruments for carnivore conservation (or lack thereof), ralist communities, and share similar sociocultural, economic, and little is known about how varying levels of conservation attention shape ecological characteristics. The communities are bounded on the west by distinct human-carnivore relations. While most studies focus on the two conservancies (Loisaba Conservancy and Mpala Research Centre), specific place-based settings in which human-carnivore relations are private wildlife conservation areas set up on private land by a private enacted on a daily basis, few have attempted to situate such relations individual or institution for the purpose of wildlife conservation, which within a broader social-ecological context (Massé, 2016; Fletcher and for Koija-Il motiok residents inevitably entails living adjacent to carni­ Toncheva, 2021). In this study, we explore the social-ecological factors vores (King et al., 2018). that drive distinct human-carnivore relations in two different settings of According to the Laikipia Wildlife Forum survey in 2003, 60,605 Kenya with different levels of conservation attention. We explore this tourists visited Laikipia in 2002, providing direct employment to 1054 imbalance through the use of the centre-periphery framework. This people. In total, around 5100 people are directly or indirectly dependent theoretical framework has been extensively applied in different on tourism jobs in the region (Ramser and Wiesmann, 2007). Laikipia also has an outstanding international conservation reputation as a result of several decades of conservation efforts (e.g., conservation projects on 1 endangered species such as African wild dogs, leopards and lions; It is important to note that both terms coexistence and tolerance frequently Samburu-Laikipia Wild Dog Project, Uhifadhi Wa Chui, Lion Land­ appear in the literature describing human-wildlife relations, but their conno­ tation can differ among conservationists. We follow earlier definitions of scapes), with numerous public and private conservation organisations tolerance as ‘the acceptance of the perceived costs and benefits of living (e.g., Laikipia Wildlife Forum, Mpala Research Centre, Loisaba Conser­ alongside local populations of wildlife’ and coexistence as ‘a dynamic but vancy) operating in the area. Most conservation efforts share a syn­ sustainable state in which humans and large carnivores co-adapt to living in chronic focus on promoting positive human-carnivore relations by shared landscapes’ (Carter and Linnell, 2016; Boronyak et al., 2020). helping adjacent local communities to improve livestock protection, 2 M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 Fig. 1. Map of the two study sites: (A) Centre: Koija-Il motiok adjacent to Loisaba Conservancy and Mpala Research Centre in Laikipia County (central Kenya); (B) Periphery: Ileret Ward bordering Sibiloi National Park in Marsabit County (north Kenya). providing food and water, infrastructure and machinery, supporting conservation attention has led to Sibiloi being inscribed in the UNESCO formal education and healthcare, creating employment, and offering List of World Heritage in Danger (UNESCO, 2018). Since the park's permission for grazing on private lands for community livestock (Lamers creation in 1973, Sibiloi's adjacent communities have borne many of the et al., 2014). For instance, Mpala Research Centre is seen to be the social costs associated with the area's wildlife. In addition, the scant economic services lifeline for several critical needs of these communities (DePuy, benefits resulting from the park (e.g., through tourism revenue), have 2011), such as providing free canine rabies vaccination (Mpala Research mainly benefited KWS and NMK or non-local tourism businesses (NMK Centre, 2021). In 2020, Loisaba Conservancy helped construct a girls' (National Museums of Kenya) and KWS (Kenya Wildlife Service), 2019). dormitory and currently supports four girls at the college. In addition, Thus, local people in the vicinity of Sibiloi report being alienated from Loisaba Conservancy' health outreach clinics offered consultations and the park and seeing little benefit from it, lacking access to significant treatment to 2030 patients. In 2021, 500 households benefited from the revenue linked to conservation and perceiving only peripheral partici­ drought relief grazing programme of Loisaba Conservancy (Loisaba pation in a few research projects (IUCN, 2020). Overall, the situation is Conservancy, 2021). Finally, 40 out of an estimated 170 employees of so critical, and data are so deficient that information on the scarce Loisaba Conservancy are from Koija (Nthiga et al., 2015). conservation efforts on the site is almost impossible to obtain. The Sibiloi Management Plan 2018–2028 is the main conservation initiative 2.1.2. Periphery: Ileret in the area, but its implementation is proving challenging due to limited Ileret Ward in northern Kenya encompasses Sibiloi National Park resources (UNESCO, 2020). (hereafter, Sibiloi, Fig. 1B). Sibiloi is co-managed by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) and is situ­ 2.2. Data collection ated within the traditional territory of the Daasanach pastoralist com­ munity that lives around the park neighbouring carnivores (Torrents- We pilot-tested the semi-structured interviews for two months at Ticó et al., 2021). both study sites (centre: n = 19, periphery: n = 18) and made some Ileret has been considered the epitome of an extreme periphery with adjustments to ensure consistency in the terminology and sampling low access to the power grid, lack of public infrastructures, low literacy strategy across sites. During the pilot-testing phase, we carried out levels and limited telecommunication networks (IUCN, 2020). Sibiloi simple random household sampling at the village level throughout the has been reported as one of Kenya's most deficit parks, significantly day. However, as we worked with semi-nomadic pastoralist commu­ under-resourced, understaffed and where conservation initiatives are nities, we realised that our sampling strategy was affected by a strong meagre at best (IUCN, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). Sibiloi had a mean selectivity bias, given that during the day, herders searching for pastures number of 663 tourists for about six consecutive years (since 2006; KWS (i.e., those individuals with the closest interactions with carnivores) (Kenya Wildlife Service), 2011). Thus, the limited funding for manage­ were often absent. Moreover, we became aware of the difficulties in ment is obtained from tourism revenues from other sites in Kenya (IUCN, carrying out interviews during the busy morning activities, and evening 2020). Although local wildlife declines have long been reported in the milking responsibilities, when most people reported being unavailable area, the scale of its defaunation is still unknown. This lack of for interviews. Based on the pilot testing, we shifted towards 3 M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 opportunistic sampling within and beyond the villages. This allowed us interacting with Maasai and Daasanach communities for twelve months to ensure the participation of local people herding their livestock in the across both sites, participating in community life and attending com­ pasture areas (i.e., a time when they are usually available for interviews) munity events. EM and TTK participated in data collection and, to the and those staying in their households (Newing et al., 2011). Although best of their ability, tried to ensure that the interpretation is correct, and our sampling strategy corresponds to non-probability sampling, it allows reflects the perspectives shared by study participants as accurately as us to represent local communities' daily realities more. possible. Yet, we acknowledge that most of the authors are non- A non-Indigenous researcher (MT-T) conducted face-to-face semi- Indigenous scholars trained in conservation research, and thus, we are structured interviews with a Maasai co-researcher (EM) between Octo­ aware that the way data were gathered, interpreted and portrayed is ber–November 2019 in Koija-Il motiok, and with a Daasanach co- primarily through a conservation lens. researcher (TTK) between March–April 2021 in Ileret. We acknowl­ edge that interviews in Ileret were carried out during the ongoing 2.4. Human-carnivore relations indicators COVID-19 pandemic. However, Ileret has extremely challenging communication networks and limited contact with other segments of 2.4.1. Costs and benefits Kenyan society, and Sibiloi has historically been one of Kenya's least For the purpose of this paper, we measured economic costs by re­ popular tourist destinations (KWS, 2011; IUCN, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). ported livestock losses to carnivores because livestock are not only a Therefore, we are confident the pandemic's effects did not significantly major source of income, but also include cultural relevance, which influence the daily lives of the Daasanach community, neither their re­ makes livestock depredation very difficult to accept (Torrents-Ticó et al., lations with carnivores nor their answers. 2021). Yet, we acknowledge that our approach does not cover all the We interviewed only Maasai and Daasanach pastoralists living costs of living alongside carnivores, such as the indirect costs incurred within the study sites. EM and TTK asked the questions in Maa and by guarding livestock from predation (Dickman et al., 2011), among Daasanach languages respectively, translated them to English and MT-T many others (see Braczkowski et al., 2023). First, we asked for the main wrote the answers onto a hardcopy of the interview. EM and TTK had cause of livestock losses (e.g., carnivores, diseases, droughts). Then, we received formal training in interviewing techniques and had previous asked respondents how much livestock they had lost to carnivores in the experience conducting surveys (e.g., as part of the Kenyan national three months prior to the interview (i.e., livestock depredation). population census). Interviews focused on the historical carnivore To assess benefits, we asked respondents whether they thought there assemblage (African wild dog Lycaon pictus, black-backed jackal Canis were any benefits, good or positive values associated with living mesomelas, caracal Caracal caracal, cheetah Acinonyx jubatus, leopard alongside carnivores and, if so, what these were. To assess temporal Panthera pardus, lion Panthera leo, spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta and changes in reported benefits, we asked respondents about these benefits striped hyena Hyaena hyaena), included both closed-ended and open- in the current and past times (i.e., during the times of the grandparents' ended questions (see Supplementary Material 2 for a sample), taking respondents). Although respondents could associate specific benefits around 30 min to complete. We explained the purpose of the study and with particular species of the carnivore assemblage, for this study, we informed every respondent that we were independent of the government grouped the answers into three categories: no (i.e., no benefits associ­ and that no compensation would be provided for livestock depredation ated with any carnivore), unknown (i.e., did not know benefits for any to avoid misconceptions and minimise incentives for exaggerating an­ carnivore), and yes (i.e., benefits associated with at least one carnivore swers. Respondents were free to indicate that they “did not know”, “did species). From the affirmative answers, we categorised those benefits not remember” or “did not want to answer” to any question, and that into four categories: aesthetic benefits (e.g., beautiful, nice to see), they could withdraw from the interview at any time. We took detailed cultural benefits (e.g., used of wildlife-based products for cultural field notes during the interviews, recording verbatim perspectives and practices), ecological benefits (e.g., scavenger behaviour), and economic observations made by respondents. We relied on community members' benefits (e.g., income, employment, paying education fees, development quotes to add ethnographic depth to the study, and to discuss how the inputs such as roads, schools or clinics). We also classified affirmative Maasai and Daasanach communities think and feel about carnivores, answers into those benefits that were attributed to alive carnivores (i.e., gaining deeper insight into the affective dimensions of their relations non-consumptive benefits that are only accrued when the carnivore is with carnivores. alive), and to dead carnivores (i.e., consumptive benefits that are only accrued when the carnivore is dead). 2.3. Ethics 2.4.2. Suggested mitigation strategies This study was authorised by Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS/BRM/ As a proxy for mitigation strategies, we asked, ‘How would you 5001) and the National Commission for Science, Technology and Inno­ mitigate livestock depredation?’ We coded the answers into five cate­ vation (NACOSTI/P/19/194 and NACOSTI/P/20/6994); and by the gories: capture and relocate, fence wildlife conservation areas, improve Chief and Chairman of Koija-Il motiok, the Administrator of the Ileret guarding of livestock (e.g., use of wire fences), kill carnivores and none Ward and the Chief of Ileret. The research design of this study is in full (i.e., no strategies were suggested). accordance with the guidelines of the Ethical Review Board in the Hu­ manities and Social and Behavioural Sciences of the University of Hel­ 2.4.3. Self-reported propensity to kill carnivores sinki and adheres to the Code of Ethics of the Society for Conservation We specifically paid attention to avoiding bias by not asking direc­ Biology. We obtained verbal Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) tional questions about killing behaviours (Nuno and St. John, 2015). from each community member involved in the study (see Supplemen­ Thus, we asked two questions to identify possible self-reported pre­ tary Materials 3). We guaranteed anonymity, confidentiality and data ventive and retaliatory killing. (a) ‘How do you protect your livestock protection through all the phases of this project. All Maasai and Daa­ from carnivores?’ We used this question as an indicator of preventive sanach engaged in the project agreed to be part of the study under these killing. We grouped the answers to this question into seven categories: conditions. deterrents (e.g., torches, scarecrows, lighting fires), guardian dogs, This study was conducted as part of a long-term participatory human daytime shepherding, kill carnivores, night guarding, traditional research project, over which we developed strong bonds of trust and fencing and wire fencing. (b) ‘What do you do after you find that your reciprocity with both communities, exemplified by cooperating to livestock has been killed by a carnivore?’ We used this question as an document traditional wildlife stories producing a book of traditional indicator of retaliatory killing. We grouped the answers into five cate­ folktales that is being used as a school material (Daasanach Community, gories: chase away (i.e., scare carnivores without killing), kill carni­ 2019). Moreover, since 2016 and 2017, MT-T has been living and closely vores, nothing (i.e., doing nothing), report kills, and others (e.g., eat 4 M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 livestock remaining carcass). We acknowledge that self-reports on pre­ centre respondents reported carnivores as the main cause of livestock ventive and retaliatory killing are only proxy measures and may not losses. In contrast, the majority of periphery respondents (57 %) re­ necessarily always reflect actual killing behaviours to the extent they ported diseases as the main cause (Table 1). Overall, 64 % of centre and occur. Yet, we still believe this proxy offers relevant information about 96 % of periphery respondents reported at least one head of livestock human-carnivore relations on both sites. being killed by a carnivore in the three months prior to the interview. 2.5. Data analysis 3.1.2. Benefits The large majority of centre respondents reported economic benefits To carry out our analysis, we calculated descriptive statistics as in the current times (53 %, Table 2). The current benefits attributed to appropriate for each question. We used quotes to support the main dead carnivores reported by centre respondents have significantly findings (see Supplementary Materials 4 for some representative quotes decreased from the past (Table 2; χ2 = 72.32, df = 1, p < 0.001, Cohen w provided by centre and periphery community members). = 0.6). Furthermore, we found that the majority of centre respondents (54 %) that reported cultural benefits attributed to dead carnivores in 2.5.1. Cross centre-periphery and temporal analysis the past, reported economic benefits attributed to alive carnivores in We used a Pearson's chi-squared test to determine if killing carni­ current times. vores' reports varied between centre and periphery respondents. We also The majority of periphery respondents (99 %) currently associated analysed if current benefits attributed to dead carnivores varied between carnivores with cultural benefits, which are attributed to dead carni­ centre and periphery respondents and from past to current times. vores. In contrast, only 14 % of periphery respondents attributed ben­ efits to alive carnivores in current times (Table 2). We did not find 2.5.2. Factors associated with human-carnivore relations significant differences between benefits attributed to dead carnivores by We used logistic Generalised Linear Models to test how socio- periphery respondents in the current and past times (χ2 = 0.82, df = 1, p economic factors are associated with: i) benefits that respondents = 0.37, w = 0.09). attributed to alive carnivores, ii) suggested killing carnivores as a Overall, current benefits attributed to dead carnivores differ signif­ mitigation strategy, iii) self-reported preventive killing, and iv) self- icantly between centre and periphery respondents (χ2 = 218.05, df = 1, reported retaliatory killing. The predictor variables were age (≤ 30, p < 0.001, w = 0.98). >30), gender (man, woman), formal education (some level of schooling or not), costs (i.e., number of livestock depredation in the three months 3.2. Suggested mitigation strategies prior to the interview), and having close family members with conser­ vation- or tourism-related jobs (yes, no). Additionally, each predictor We found a sharp contrast in reports of killing carnivores as a sug­ variable interacted with the position in the centre-periphery framework gested mitigation strategy between centre and periphery respondents (centre, periphery). (Table 3; χ2 = 118.49, df = 1, p < 0.001, w = 0.72). For model selection, we used a backward manual removal procedure and recorded the AIC for each resulting model (Crawley, 2012). We 3.3. Self-reported propensity to kill carnivores ended up with 11 candidate models from which we selected the subset of models with AIC differences <2 from the lowest AIC among all candi­ Self-reports of killing carnivores as a preventive practice between date models considered. From this subset, we obtained a consensus centre and periphery respondents differ radically (Table 4a; χ2 = 44.67, model that contains the average regression estimates for each predictor df = 1, p < 0.001, w = 0.45). Self-reports of killing carnivores after variable. Finally, we calculated the 95 % confidence intervals of each livestock depredation differ significantly between centre and periphery factor and considered them statistically significant when those intervals respondents (Table 4b; χ2 = 137.09, df = 1, p < 0.001, w = 0.78). did not overlap zero (see Supplementary Materials 5 for more details). We fitted the models using the glm function from stats package (R Core 3.4. Factors associated with human-carnivore relations Team, 2020) and models were averages using function model.avg from MuMIn package (Barton, 2022). We assessed all models for dispersion For the benefits attributed to alive carnivores, we found that re­ and lack of extreme influence of outliers using DHARMa package spondents with close family members with conservation- or tourism- (Hartig, 2022). All statistical analyses were performed in R 4.0.2 (R Core related jobs were more likely to associate benefits with alive carni­ Team, 2020). vores (β =1.575, SE = 0.379, p < 0.001). While periphery respondents with formal education were more likely to report benefits attributed to 3. Results alive carnivores, formal education was not a significant predictor for centre respondents (β = 1.944, SE = 0.721, p < 0.05). For the suggested In total, we interviewed 104 respondents (gender: 73 % men, 27 % mitigation strategies, we found that respondents with some formal ed­ women) from the centre community and 126 respondents (gender: 67 % ucation were less likely to report killing carnivores than those who did men, 33 % women) from the periphery community. We identified re­ spondents as women or men according to their socio-cultural expression Table 1 of their gender. Thus, we acknowledge that our binary gender variables Summary of the main cause of livestock losses, and total and mean number of may not necessarily reflect our respondents' gender identities (Cameron livestock depredation events in the three months prior to the interview. and Stinson, 2019). All respondents were pastoralists and owned live­ Costs Centre Periphery stock. We found that the centre respondents have a higher percentage of formal education (centre = 40 %, periphery = 19 %) and close family Main cause of livestock losses Carnivores 46 % 29 % members with tourism- or wildlife-related jobs (centre = 48 %, pe­ Diseases 40 % 57 % riphery = 7 %) compared to periphery respondents. Droughts 14 % 14 % 3.1. Costs and benefits Livestock depredation Total Shoats 316 1800 3.1.1. Costs Cattle 10 376 We found that despite centre respondents having fewer total losses Mean Shoats 3 (range 0–20) 14 (range 0–70) Cattle 0 (range 0–3) 3 (range 0–20) and lower mean losses to carnivores than periphery respondents, 46 % of 5 M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 Table 2 Table 4 Summary of the benefits associated with carnivores in the current and past times (a) Summary of the preventive practices used to protect livestock by centre and (i.e., during the times of the grandparents' respondent) by centre and periphery periphery respondents. (b) Summary of the behavioural responses to livestock respondents. Respondents could answer more than one answer, so the percent­ depredation by centre and periphery respondents. Respondents could answer age indicates how many centre (n = 104) and periphery respondents (n = 126) more than one answer, so the percentage indicates how many centre (n = 104) gave this answer. and periphery (n = 126) respondents gave this answer. Benefits Centre Periphery Self-reported propensity to kill carnivores Centre Periphery Past Current Past Current % of respondents % of respondents % of % of % of % of (a) Preventive killing: ‘How do you protect your livestock from carnivores?’ respondents respondents respondents respondents Deterrents 84.62 16.67 Guardian dogs 86.54 2.38 ‘Do you think there are any benefits, good or positive values associated with living alongside Human daytime shepherding 17.31 81.75 carnivores? If so, what are these?’ Kill carnivores 0.96 38.10 No 26.92 45.19 1.59 0.79 Night Guarding 12.50 61.90 Unknown 17.31 0 1.59 0 Traditional fencing 96.15 92.06 Yes 55.77 54.81 96.83 99.21 Wire fencing 15.38 0 Categories of (b) Retaliatory killing: ‘What do you do after you find that your livestock has been killed by benefits a carnivore?’ Aesthetic 0.96 5.77 0.79 3.17 Chase away 16.35 0.79 Cultural 54.81 1 96.83 99.21 Kill carnivores 11.54 89.68 Ecological 0.00 5.77 0.00 0.00 Nothing 66.35 82.54 Economic 0.00 52.88 0.00 11.11 Report 17.31 1.59 Carnivore status Others 21.15 2.38 (alive/dead) Attributed to 0.96 54.81 0.79 13.49 alive carnivores contrast, a lack of these impinges on carnivore populations due to a Attributed to 54.81 0.96 96.83 99.21 widely self-reported propensity to kill carnivores. Although these results dead rely on community members' openness to discuss carnivore killing and carnivores conclusions drawn from them should be considered as tentative, they still highlight the value of comparative approaches across different conservation contexts (see Marino et al., 2022). Our results also show Table 3 that at the centre of conservation efforts there is a narrow report of Summary of the suggested strategies to mitigate livestock depredation by centre economic benefits that can potentially undermine the importance of the and periphery respondents. Respondents could answer more than one answer, so myriad non-economic benefits that carnivores bring to humans. the percentage indicates how many centre (n = 104) and periphery (n = 126) Furthermore, this study reveals the reality of periphery areas where respondents gave this answer. negative human-carnivore relations remain largely unchallenged by Suggested mitigation strategies Centre Periphery carnivore conservation. % of respondents % of respondents Findings derived from a social-ecological system at the centre of ‘How would you mitigate livestock depredation?’ conservation efforts are encouraging from the standpoint of carnivore Capture and relocate 0.96 0.79 conservation, with low self-reports of killing carnivores. However, our Fence wildlife conservation areas 3.85 0.79 study also provides four reflection points. First, only a proportion of the Improve guarding of livestock 50.96 5.56 community members report benefits attributed to alive carnivores. Kill carnivores 1.92 73.81 Thus, some community members may not perceive benefits to alive None 43.27 16.67 carnivores or may perceive them, but these do not offset the costs, which could have isolated but negative impacts (Hazzah et al., 2009), on not have it (β = − 1.633, SE = 0.470, p < 0.001). Respondents living at already diminished and globally threatened carnivore populations the periphery of conservation efforts were more likely to report killing (Ripple et al., 2014). Therefore, transformative conservation actions carnivores than those at the centre (β = 4.958, SE = 0.751, p < 0.001). aiming to promote positive human-carnivore relations should be first In relation to the preventive killing, we found that women and re­ and foremost built on social justice and equity (Fletcher and Büscher, spondents with some formal education were less likely to self-report 2020). Frameworks for promoting socially-just conservation (e.g., Just killing carnivores (gender: β = − 1.870, SE = 0.470, p < 0.001; formal Conservation, Convivial Conservation) offer important guidance in this education: β = − 2.812, SE = 0.781, p < 0.001). Respondents living at regard (see Vucetich et al., 2018; Büscher and Fletcher, 2019). Second, the periphery of conservation efforts were significantly more likely to economic benefits are the largest benefits attributed to alive carnivores self-report killing carnivores than respondents living at the centre (β = in current times. However, economic activities, such as wildlife tourism, 4.321, SE = 1.037, p < 0.001). For the retaliatory killing, we found that are largely contingent on fluctuations in the global economy (Lindsey while periphery respondents with close family members with conser­ et al., 2020). Third, cultural benefits are less reported in current times vation- or tourism-related jobs were less likely to self-report killing and seem to be replaced by economic benefits. The replacement of carnivores, it was not a significant predictor for retaliatory killing for cultural benefits attributed to dead carnivores for economic benefits centre respondents (β = − 2.144, SE = 0.998, p < 0.05). attributed to alive carnivores is illustrated in the following quotes by the same centre community member: “now tourists come to see the carnivores 4. Discussion and conservancies build schools and health centres, pay school fees for our children and create jobs for us”, and “in the past, during marriage cere­ Our study shows that human-carnivore relations differ significantly monies, the bridegrooms tied a piece of lion skin on the ankles, but nowadays, in two pastoral systems with uneven market-based conservation efforts none wear it”. Although in our study, many cultural benefits are attrib­ across Kenya. The centre-periphery framework offers an original uted to dead carnivores, some studies show there are still some non- comparative approach to show that the presence of market-based con­ economic benefits associated with living wildlife that hold a substan­ servation efforts generally fosters positive human-carnivore relations. In tive conservation potential (e.g., Lyver et al., 2019; Fernández- 6 M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 Llamazares et al., 2021). Moreover, as cultural benefits are less reported sense of wildlife stewardship beyond market-based terms (Hazzah et al., in current times, conservation behaviour often becomes contingent upon 2014). For instance, the Lion Guardians program in the Amboseli economic reasoning, shifting how local communities relate to their local Ecosystem in Kenya provides training in literacy and assistance in better ecologies (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020). Fourth, centre commu­ preventive practices. The program also employs Maasai warriors as nity members are not engaged in reporting livestock depredation events citizen scientists using their Maasai traditional tracking systems based and rarely suggest ways to reduce them. One reason may be that local on their knowledge and previous experience as herders and lion hunters people view someone else (e.g., government, wildlife conservation to monitor lions. This approach respects Maasai knowledge and helps areas) as responsible for carnivores and livestock depredation, thus, maintain the essence of the warriors' traditional role in society (Hazzah reducing the feeling of local people's responsibility and stewardship et al., 2014; Dolrenry et al., 2016). Ultimately, a pluralistic approach (Hemson et al., 2009). Yet, it may also be a combination of not being would make human-carnivore relations more resilient if economic aware of the administrative channels available, lack of incentives, not benefits dwindle due to global, national, or local economic crises, as it believing that an improvement is possible and being time-consuming has been exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic (Lindsey et al., 2020). (Blair, 2009). The social-ecological reality at the periphery of conservation efforts 4.1. Study limitations is critical for the persistence of healthy local carnivore populations. Most community members attribute benefits to dead carnivores, mostly We acknowledge some potential limitations in our study. First, we cheetahs and leopards, whose skins are used in a traditional coming-of- recognise the exploratory nature of this study in using the centre- age ceremony (see Torrents-Ticó et al., 2022 for further details). For periphery framework only in two scenarios, potentially obscuring the instance, a periphery community member manifested, “we benefit from complex gradient between what is hereby understood as “centre” and cheetahs and leopards because we use their skins as capes in the Dimi cere­ “periphery” (Engel, 2008). Future research should use the centre- mony”. In addition, livestock is part of the local pastoral identity and the periphery framework in a greater number of study sites in order to primary symbol of wealth and respect, and thus, livestock losses to embrace complexity in human-carnivore relations across different con­ carnivores are very difficult to accept, particularly when considering the servation contexts. Second, we acknowledge that the presence of a non- significant social capital invested in protecting them (i.e., human day­ Indigenous person (MT-T) in the interviews may have influenced com­ time shepherding and night guarding). In this case, killing carnivores is munity members' answers. However, being associated with an interna­ the most suggested mitigation strategy and the propensity to kill car­ tional university may have helped legitimise the perception of our nivores is openly self-reported and most often with an explicit sense of research as independent, which enabled the author to be viewed more pride (Torrents-Ticó et al., 2021; Torrents-Ticó et al., 2022). Here, it is neutrally by communities. Third, we acknowledge that self-reported important to note that the establishment of Sibiloi led to the disen­ measures of livestock depredation could be exaggerated and attribute franchisement and exclusion of local Daasanach communities (IUCN, losses to carnivores even if they may have been caused by diseases 2020), which could explain the high levels of reactance towards con­ (Holmern et al., 2007). Yet, we believe self-reported livestock losses servation initiatives in the area (e.g., people killing wildlife as a protest cannot be ignored because they are essential to understanding human- against conservation regulations; see Goldman, 2011). Moreover, in the carnivore relations and still provide a relatively reliable index of live­ periphery, addressing livestock losses to diseases and droughts may be stock depredation events (Woodroffe et al., 2005), which is particularly perceived to be beyond people's control (Hazzah et al., 2009), and thus, relevant in the nearly total absence of official data on the ground. We local people may focus on livestock losses to carnivores, despite not also recognise that asking about sensitive topics (e.g., killing carnivores) being the main cause of livestock losses. We found that several socio- may lead to biased answers (Nuno and St. John, 2015). Therefore, the economic factors (formal education, gender and having close family low percentage of self-reports of killing carnivores at the centre could members with conservation- or tourism-related jobs) are also signifi­ have different interpretations. It could suggest that the long-term con­ cantly associated with human-carnivore relations. These results sit well servation efforts in the area have been successful (Sundaresan and within the growing number of studies in political ecology showing that Riginos, 2010). However, it could also be due to under-reporting driven human-carnivore relations are complex, multi-layered and situated by fear of law enforcement (St. John et al., 2012) or a desire to please within a wider set of contextual factors and political-economic shifts (e. conservationists (Sheil and Wunder, 2002), which would mislead g., Margulies and Karanth, 2018; Marino et al., 2022). Therefore, future carnivore conservation. conservation efforts in the periphery must consider these factors and go hand-in-hand with effective and multi-faceted strategies tailored to the 5. Conclusions specific social-ecological system (Western et al., 2019). Future collab­ orative approaches in the area require mitigating livestock losses to Assessing how uneven market-based conservation efforts in an area diseases so that local people are more able to withstand livestock influence human-carnivore relations is crucial to understanding the depredation (Ching et al., 2021), raising education and awareness about opportunities and pitfalls of current market-based instruments for carnivores (Marker et al., 2003) and promoting plural benefits attrib­ carnivore conservation. This study uses the centre-periphery framework uted to alive carnivores (Hazzah et al., 2014). as a novel and distinctive approach to compare human-carnivore re­ Establishing landscapes of human-carnivore coexistence requires a lations from areas with uneven conservation efforts across Kenya. Our deep understanding of the opportunities and barriers of our current study shows how human-carnivore relations are embroiled within market-based approaches to carnivore conservation. Although social- broader social-ecological contexts to conserve specific landscapes. Here, ecological systems with robust conservation efforts are more likely to we show that benefits, suggested mitigation strategies and self-reported sustain positive human-carnivore relations, conservation actions are propensity to kill carnivores are highly site- and context-dependent. In also crucially needed in periphery areas, in order to increase suitable the centre of conservation efforts, human-carnivore relations include a habitats for carnivores. In addition, the extent to which market-based low self-reported propensity to kill carnivores. In contrast, the pro­ instruments alone can protect alive carnivores long into the future re­ pensity to kill carnivores is openly self-reported in a periphery area mains an open question. Taking seriously the literature problematising where conservation efforts are meagre at best. Yet, current conservation the emergence of conservation as a mere site of speculative capital efforts prioritise economic benefits over non-economic ones that may accumulation (Büscher and Fletcher, 2015), future conservation actions have a strong conservation potential. Carnivore conservation is likely to should therefore strive to complement economic benefits among local be best served by broadening its focus to recognise the plurality of communities with other synchronic approaches, including safeguarding benefits associated with carnivores, and increasing conservation atten­ traditional cultural benefits of coexistence and promoting a stronger tion to periphery areas where negative human-carnivore relations 7 M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 remain unchallenged. Braczkowski, A.R., O’Bryan, C.J., Lessmann, C., Rondinini, C., Crysell, A.P., Gilbert, S., Stringer, M., Gibson, L., Biggs, D., 2023. The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict. Commun. Biol. 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04493-y. CRediT authorship contribution statement Broekhuis, F., Kaelo, M., Sakat, D.K., Elliot, N.B., 2020. Human–wildlife coexistence: attitudes and behavioural intentions towards predators in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Oryx 54, 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318000091. Miquel Torrents-Ticó: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Buijs, A., Jacobs, M., 2021. Avoiding negativity bias: towards a positive psychology of analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing human–wildlife relationships. Ambio 50, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s132 – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Project 80-020-01394-w. Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., 2015. Accumulation by conservation. New Political Econ. 20, administration. Femke Broekhuis: Validation, Formal analysis, Writing 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2014.923824. – review & editing. Daniel Burgas: Data curation, Formal analysis, Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., 2019. Towards convivial conservation. Conserv. Soc. 17, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision. Mar Cabeza: 283–296. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26677964. Cameron, J.J., Stinson, D.A., 2019. Gender (mis) measurement: guidelines for respecting Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Emmanuel gender diversity in psychological research. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 13, Miliko: Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Data curation, e12506. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12506. Project administration. Thomas Titiay Komoi: Conceptualization, Carter, N.H., Linnell, J.D., 2016. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006. Investigation, Validation, Data curation, Project administration. Álvaro Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., Boitani, L., Fernández-Llamazares: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Re­ landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/ sources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. science.1257553. Chen, S., Yi, Z.F., Campos-Arceiz, A., Chen, M.Y., Webb, E.L., 2013. Developing a spatially-explicit, sustainable and risk-based insurance scheme to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. Biol. Conserv. 168, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Declaration of competing interest biocon.2013.09.017. Ching, A., Choi, J., Hart, R., McNeil, L., Urso, A., 2021. Human-Leopard Conflict and Coexistence in Northern Kenya. https://doi.org/10.7302/977. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Crawley, M.J., 2012. The R book. John Wiley & Sons. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Daasanach Community, 2019. Folktales and Songs of the Daasanach. In: Cabeza, M., the work reported in this paper. Fernández-Llamazares, Á. (Eds.), Documenting and Celebrating Oral Storytelling Traditions. University of Helsinki, Finland. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/hand le/10138/329040/Daasanach_book_for_preview.pdf?sequence=1. Data availability DePuy, W., 2011. Topographies of power and international conservation in Laikipia, Kenya. (Doctoral dissertation University of Michigan). https://deepblue.lib.umich. edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/86073/Walker%20DePuy%27s%20Thesis.pdf?seq Data will be made available on request. uence=1&isAllowed=y. Di Minin, E., Clements, H.S., Correia, R.A., Cortés-Capano, G., Fink, C., Haukka, A., Hausmann, A., Kulkarni, R., Bradshaw, C.J., 2021. Consequences of recreational Acknowledgements hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth 4, 238–253. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.014. We thank the Maasai community from Koija-Il motiok and the Díaz-Reviriego, I., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Howard, P.L., Molina, J.L., Reyes- García, V., 2017. Fishing in the Amazonian forest: a gendered social network puzzle. Daasanach community from Ileret for hosting us and sharing their time Soc. Nat. Resour. 30, 690–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1257079. and knowledge with us; the Chief and Chairman of Koija-Il motiok, the Dickman, A.J., Macdonald, E.A., Macdonald, D.W., 2011. A review of market-based Daasanach Council of Elders, the Administrator of the Ileret Ward and instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore the Chief of Ileret Ward for allowing us to carry out this research. We coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 13937–13944. https://doi.org/10.1 073/pnas.1012972108. further thank the Kenya Wildlife Service and the National Commission Dolrenry, S., Hazzah, L., Frank, L.G., 2016. Conservation and monitoring of a persecuted for Science, Technology and Innovation for granting research permits to African lion population by Maasai warriors. Conserv. Biol. 30, 467–475. https://doi. us. We thank Mpala Research Centre and Turkana Basin Institute for org/10.1111/cobi.12703. Engel, L.C., 2008. Breaking the centre–periphery mould: exploring globalisation and their endless logistic support on this study. We thank Aina Brias-Guinart educational governance in Catalonia. Glob. Soc. Educ. 6, 265–279. https://doi. and Nicholas Pilfold for their feedback and fruitful discussions, and two org/10.1080/14767720802343332. anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on an earlier Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Western, D., Galvin, K.A., McElwee, P., Cabeza, M., 2020. Historical shifts in local attitudes towards wildlife by Maasai pastoralists in the version of this manuscript. MT-T acknowledges financial support from Amboseli Ecosystem (Kenya): insights from three conservation psychology theories. the Doctoral Programme in Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences J. Nat. Conserv. 53, 125763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125763. (DENVI) of the University of Helsinki, The Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth Fernández-Llamazares, Á., et al., 2021. Scientists’ warning to humanity on threats to indigenous and local knowledge systems. J. Ethnobiol. 41, 144–169. https://doi. Foundation and the Nordenskiöld-samfundet. org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.144. Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., 2020. Conservation basic income: A non-market mechanism to support convivial conservation. Biol. Conserv. 244, 108520. https://doi.org/10.10 Appendix A. Supplementary data 16/j.biocon.2020.108520. Fletcher, R., Toncheva, S., 2021. The political economy of human-wildlife conflict and Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. coexistence. Biol. Conserv. 260, 109216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.10 org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110125. 9216. Frank, L.G., Woodroffe, R., Ogada, M.O., 2005. People and predators in Laikipia district, Kenya. Conservation Biology Series - Cambridge 9, 286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. References jnc.2019.125763. Friedman, J., 1966. Regional Development Policy (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.). Goldman, M.J., 2011. Strangers in their own land: Maasai and wildlife conservation in Anyango-Van Zwieten, N., Van Der Duim, R., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., 2015. Northern Tanzania. Conserv. Soc. 9, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4 Compensating for livestock killed by lions: payment for environmental services as a 923.79194. policy arrangement. Environ. Conserv. 42, 363–372. https://doi.org/10.101 Hartig, F., 2022. DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level / mixed) 7/S0376892915000090. regression models. R package version 0.4.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/packa Barton, K., 2022. MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.46.0. https:// ge=DHARMa. CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn. Hazzah, L., Mulder, M.B., Frank, L., 2009. Lions and warriors: social factors underlying Blair, A., 2009. Human-wildlife conflict in Laikipia north, Kenya: comparing official declining African lion populations and the effect of incentive-based management in reports with the experiences of Maasai pastoralists. https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/ Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2428–2437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.0 concern/theses/gt54kp94j. 6.006. Bombieri, G., Penteriani, V., Almasieh, K., Ambarlı, H., Ashrafzadeh, M.R., Das, C.S., Hazzah, L., Dolrenry, S., Naughton, L., Edwards, C.T., Mwebi, O., Kearney, F., Frank, L., Delgado, M.D.M., 2023. A worldwide perspective on large carnivore attacks on 2014. Efficacy of two lion conservation programs in Maasailand. Kenya. Conserv. humans. PLoS Biol. 21, e3001946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001946. Biol. 28, 851–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12244. Boronyak, L., Jacobs, B., Wallach, A., 2020. Transitioning towards human–large Hemson, G., Maclennan, S., Mills, G., Johnson, P., Macdonald, D., 2009. Community, carnivore coexistence in extensive grazing systems. Ambio 49, 1982–1991. htt lions, livestock and money: a spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and ps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01340-w. 8 M. Torrents-Ticó et al. Biological Conservation 283 (2023) 110125 the conservation value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol. Nuno, A., St. John, F.A.V., 2015. How to ask sensitive questions in conservation: a review Conserv. 1, 2718–2725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024. of specialized questioning techniques. Biol. Conserv. 189, 5–15. https://doi.org/10 Holmern, T., Nyahongo, J., Røskaft, E., 2007. Livestock loss caused by predators outside .1016/j.biocon.2014.09.047. the Serengeti National Park. Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 135, 518–526. https://doi.org O’Bryan, C.J., Braczkowski, A.R., Beyer, H.L., Carter, N.H., Watson, J.E., McDonald- /10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.049. Madden, E., 2018. The contribution of predators and scavengers to human well- Homewood, K.M., Trench, P.C., Brockington, D., 2012. Pastoralist livelihoods and being. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0421-2. wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence? Pastoralism: Research, Policy R Core Team, 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R and Practice 2, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-19. Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. IUCN, 2020. IUCN World Heritage Outlook 2. Lake Turkana National Parks. https://wor Ramser, T., Wiesmann, U., 2007. Evaluating Ecotourism in Laikipia. Accessing the Socio- ldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/explore-sites/wdpaid/145586. economic Impact and Conservation Attitudes in Multiple Case Study. University of Karanth, K.K., Gupta, S., Vanamamalai, A., 2018. Compensation payments, procedures Bern, Kenya. http://docrepo.wlrc-ken.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/ and policies towards human-wildlife conflict management: insights from India. Biol. 9/Tobias_Ramser_Ecotourism_2007_PartA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Conserv. 227, 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.006. Ravenelle, J., Nyhus, P.J., 2017. Global patterns and trends in human-wildlife conflict Kerr, J., Vardhan, M., Jindal, R., 2012. Prosocial behavior and incentives: Evidence from compensation. Conserv. Biol. 31, 1247–1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12948. field experiments in rural Mexico and Tanzania. Ecol. Econ. 73, 220–227. https:// Ripple, W.J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C., Ritchie, E.G., Hebblewhite, M., doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.031. Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M.P., Schmitz, D.W., Wallach, A.D., King, E.G., Unks, R.R., German, L., 2018. Constraints and capacities for novel livelihood Wirsing, A.J., 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. adaptation: lessons from agricultural adoption in an African dryland pastoralist Science 343, 1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484. system. Reg. Environ. Chang. 18, 1403–1410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-0 Rode, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Krause, T., 2015. Motivation crowding by economic 17-1270-x. incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Klimczuk, A., Klimczuk-Kochańska, M., 2019. Core-periphery model. core-periphery Econ.117, 270-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.019. model,[in:] SN Romaniuk, M. Thapa, P. Marton (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Rozylowicz, L., Nita, A., Manolache, S., Ciocanea, C.M., Poperscu, V.D., 2017. Recipe for Global Security Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/ success: a network perspective of partnership in nature conservation. J. Nat. 978-3-319-74336-3_320-1. Conserv. 38, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.05.005. Kruuk, H., 1980. The effects of large carnivores on livestock and animal husbandry in Sène-Harper, A., Séye, M., 2019. Community-based tourism around national parks in Marsabit District. Kenya-IPAL Technical Report Number E-4. https://wedocs.unep. Senegal: the implications of colonial legacies in current management policies. Tour. org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/29264/IPAL4.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Plan. Dev. 16, 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2018.1563804. KWS (Kenya Wildlife Service), 2011. Annual Report and Market-based Statements. KWS, Sheil, S., Wunder, S., 2002. The value of tropical forests to local communities: Nairobi. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/29660901/kws-annual-rep complications, caveats, and caution. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 9. https://www.jstor.org/ ort-2011-kenya-wildlife-service. stable/26271895. Lamers, M., Nthiga, R., van der Duim, R., van Wijk, J., 2014. Tourism–conservation St. John, F.A., Keane, A.M., Edwards-Jones, G., Jones, L., Yarnell, R.W., Jones, J.P., enterprises as a land-use strategy in Kenya. Tour. Geogr. 16, 474–489. https://doi. 2012. Identifying indicators of illegal behaviour: carnivore killing in human- org/10.1080/14616688.2013.806583. managed landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 27, 804–812. https://doi.org/10. Lind, J., 2018. Devolution, shifting centre-periphery relationships and conflict in 1098/rspb.2011.1228. northern Kenya. Polit. Geogr. 63, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.20 Sundaresan, S.R., Riginos, C., 2010. Lessons learned from biodiversity conservation in 17.06.004. the private lands of Laikipia, Kenya. Gt. Plains Res., 17-27. https://digitalcommons. Lindsey, P., Allan, J., Brehony, P., Dickman, A., Robson, A., Begg, C., Bhammar, H., unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2080&context=greatplainsresearch. Blanken, L., Breuer, T., Fitzgerald, K., Flyman, M., 2020. Conserving Africa’s wildlife Torrents-Ticó, M., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Burgas, D., Cabeza, M., 2021. and wildlands through the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, Convergences and divergences between scientific and Indigenous and Local 1300–1310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1275-6. Knowledge contribute to inform carnivore conservation. Ambio 50, 990–1002. htt Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P.A., Romanach, S.S., 2007. Economic and conservation ps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01443-4. significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biol. Conserv. 134, Torrents-Ticó, M., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Burgas, D., Nasak, J.G., Cabeza, M., 2022. 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.005. Biocultural conflicts: understanding complex inter-connections between a traditional Loisaba Conservancy, 2021. 2021 Impact Report. https://loisaba.com/loisaba/annual ceremony and threatened carnivores in North Kenya. Oryx, 1-10. https://doi.org/1 -impact-reports/. 0.1017/S0030605322000035. Lyver, P.B., Timoti, P., Davis, T., Tylianakis, J.M., 2019. Biocultural hysteresis inhibits UNESCO, 2018. Decisions Adopted during the 42nd Session of the World Heritage adaptation to environmental change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 771–780. https://doi. Committee. Manama, Bahrain. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2018/whc18-42co org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.04.002. m-18-en.pdf. Marchini, S., Macdonald, D.W., 2012. Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: case UNESCO, 2020. Mission report. Reactive Monitoring mission to Lake Turkana National studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biol. Conserv. 147, 213–221. https://doi.org/10 Parks, Kenya. https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/186241. .1016/j.biocon.2012.01.002. Vannelli, K., Hampton, M.P., Namgail, T., Black, S.A., 2019. Community participation in Margulies, J., Karanth, K.K., 2018. The production of human-wildlife conflict: a political ecotourism and its effect on local perceptions of snow leopard (Panthera uncia) animal geography of encounter. Geoforum 95, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 24, 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1087120 geoforum.2018.06.011. 9.2019.1563929. Marino, A., Blanco, J., Cortes-Vazquez, J., López-Bao, J., Bosch, A., Durant, S., 2022. Vogel, S.M., Vasudev, D., Ogutu, J.O., Taek, P., Berti, E., Goswami, V.R., Kaelo, M., Environmentalities of coexistence with wolves in the Cantabrian mountains of Spain. Buitenwerf, R., Munk, M., Li, W., Wall, J., Chala, D., Amoke, I., Odingo, A., Conserv. Soc. 20, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_66_21. Svenning, J.C., 2023. Identifying sustainable coexistence potential by integrating Marker, L.L., Mills, M.G.L., Macdonald, D.W., 2003. Factors influencing perceptions of willingness-to-coexist with habitat suitability assessments. Biol. Conserv. 279 conflict and tolerance toward cheetahs on Namibian farmlands. Conserv. Biol. 17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109935. 1290–1298. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02077.x. Vucetich, J.A., Burnham, D., Macdonald, E.A., Bruskotter, J.T., Marchini, S., Massé, F., 2016. The political ecology of human-wildlife conflict: Producing wilderness, Zimmermann, A., Macdonald, D.W., 2018. Just conservation: what is it and should insecurity, and displacement in the Limpopo National Park. Conserv. Soc. 14, 100. we pursue it? Biol. Conserv. 221, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.0 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393233. 2.022. Mpala Research Centre, 2021. Science & Outreach 2021. https://mpala.org/science-repo Waldron, A., Miller, D.C., Redding, D., Mooers, A., Kuhn, T.S., Nibbelink, N., Roberts, T., rts/. Tobias, J.A., Gittleman, J.L., 2017. Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted Newing, H., Eagle, C., Puri, R.K., Watson, C.W., 2011. Conducting research in from conservation spending. Nature 551, 364–367. https://doi.org/10.1038/na conservation, 775. Routledge, Oxfordshire. ture24295. NMK (National Museums of Kenya) and KWS (Kenya Wildlife Service), 2019. Lake Western, G., Macdonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J., Dickman, A.J., 2019. Creating landscapes Turkana National Parks (Sibiloi, Central Island and South Island) Management Plan of coexistence. Conserv. Soc. 17, 204–217. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_29. 2018-2028. National Museums of Kenya, Kenya Wildlife Service. Nairobi, Kenya. Woodroffe, R., Lindsey, P., Romanach, S., Stein, A., ole Ranah, S.M., 2005. Livestock Nthiga, R.W., Van der Duim, R., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Lamers, M., 2015. Tourism- predation by endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in northern Kenya. Biol. conservation enterprises for community livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in Conserv. 124, 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.028. Kenya. Dev. South. Afr. 32, 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2015.101 6217. 9