Local communities and wildlife: A spatial analysis of human-wildlife interactions in Laikipia District, Kenya

In Kenya today, increasing human population and subsequent demand for land, has led to substantial encroachment into formerly uninhabited lands mostly marginal wildlife areas, which are being developed for crop agriculture. With wild animals causing damage to crops and property, injuring, killing, competing for food and exchanging diseases with domestic stock, while only marginally benefiting landowners, the issue of biodiversity conservation needs to be approached more realistically. In the long run, conservation of biodiversity can be successful only if the local public generally appreciate the benefits of living with wildlife.; This study represents a first attempt to provide lacking information by studying human-wildlife interactions in Laikipia District, an important region for biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Published and newly gathered data were used to answer several questions. How do wildlife and livestock interact with respect to food and space? How do they affect human agricultural systems? What are the attitudes of landowners toward biodiversity conservation? What are the best landuse options for landowners that will also conserve biodiversity? Interviews with landowners and landuse surveys were used to obtain answers to these questions. Existing models relating annual precipitation to primary productivity, and those relating herbivore body weights to daily dry matter off-take, were used. Wildlife abundance was assessed twice by aerial censuses in 1996. Livestock numbers were obtained from interviews, questionnaires and existing data. To assess landuse potential for wildlife utilization, models used in southern Africa were adopted. Lastly, a Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to illustrate spatial patterns.; Results indicate the following: (1)~Assuming the primary production model used is accurate, over half of Laikipia may be underutilized by herbivores, therefore competition for space and food resources between wildlife and livestock may be important in only certain areas, especially where water resources constrain herbivore distribution during the dry season. (2)~Small-scale landowners, in particular, suffered extensively from threat of human injury, livestock predation, crop depredation, property damages, and other opportunity costs. (3)~Small-scale crop productivities support domestic needs and provide a surplus. However, based on experience in other parts of the world, the long-term sustainability of this landuse without access to a predictable source of irrigated water is questionable. (4)~The three most favored solutions by landowners to counter wildlife problems were derivation of wildlife benefits, compensation for wildlife damage, and wildlife control. (5)~Currently, benefits from wildlife utilization reach about 25% of small-scale, 48% of pastoralist and 75% of large-scale landowners, but are very low compared to damage costs. (6)~The most economic landuse alternatives compatible with biodiversity conservation are systems that combine livestock keeping and wildlife utilization with little or no crop agriculture. Specifically, elephants and agriculture do not appear to be compatible landuses. (7)~Spatial analysis demonstrated some landowner-specific patterns that will help focus future management actions. Additional site-specific information is needed on primary production and wildlife distribution to clarify these spatial patterns. Finally, (8)~due to differences in landowner interests, socio-economic status, education, and landuse, a combination of approaches will ensure landowners benefit from wildlife, thereby encouraging biodiversity conservation. Possible actions to encourage biodiversity conservation include negotiations and agreements with landowners, biodiversity education, development and expansion of local institutions, combinations of monetary and non-monetary incentives, derivation of tangible wildlife benefits, and the incorporation of adaptive management strategies.