Bridging the conservation and development trade‐off? A working landscape critique of a conservancy in the Maasai Mara

The recent call to halt biodiversity loss by protecting half the planet has been hotly contested because of the extent to which people might be excluded from these landscapes. It is clear that incorporating landscapes that implicitly work for indigenous people is vital to achieving any sustainable targets. We examine an attempt to balance the trade‐offs between conservation and development in Enonkishu Conservancy in the Maasai Mara, using a working landscape approach. Mobile livestock production strategies are theoretically consistent with wildlife‐based activities and can present a win‐win solution for both conservation and development. We explore the success and failings of Enonkishu's evolving attempts to achieve this: addressing the criticism of the conservation sector that it fails to learn from its mistakes. We found that Enonkishu has had considerable positive conservation outcomes, preventing the continued encroachment of farmland and maintaining and improving rangeland health relative to the surrounding area, while maintaining diverse and large populations of wildlife and livestock. The learning from certain ventures that failed, particularly on livestock, has created institutions and governance that, while still evolving, are more robust and relevant for conservancy members, by being fluid and inclusive. Practical implication: Diverse revenue streams (beyond tourism, including a residential estate, livestock venture and philanthropy) enabled Enonkishu to withstand the pressures of COVID‐19. Livestock is crucial for defining the vision of the conservancy, and the institutions and governance that underpin it

Gender differentiated preferences for a community-based conservation initiative

Community-based conservation (CBC) aims to benefit local people as well as to achieve conservation goals, but has been criticised for taking a simplistic view of "community" and failing to recognise differences in the preferences and motivations of community members. We explore this heterogeneity in the context of Kenya's conservancies, focussing on the livelihood preferences of men and women living adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve. Using a discrete choice experiment we quantify the preferences of local community members for key components of their livelihoods and conservancy design, differentiating between men and women and existing conservancy members and non-members. While Maasai preference for pastoralism remains strong, non-livestock-based livelihood activities are also highly valued and there was substantial differentiation in preferences between individuals. Involvement with conservancies was generally perceived to be positive, but only if households were able to retain some land for other purposes. Women placed greater value on conservancy membership, but substantially less value on wage income, while existing conservancy members valued both conservancy membership and livestock more highly than did non-members. Our findings suggest that conservancies can make a positive contribution to livelihoods, but care must be taken to ensure that they do not unintentionally disadvantage any groups. We argue that conservation should pay greater attention to individuallevel differences in preferences when designing interventions in order to achieve fairer and more sustainable outcomes for members of local communities

Technology and Awareness: Does Haptic Interaction with Technology Interfere with Attention to Surroundings?

Interactive technologies are an integral part of life in the information age, but does using these technologies decrease awareness of surroundings? Sixty-eight students from a mid-Western liberal arts college were recruited to study this phenomenon. Participants were asked to complete simple math problems either on an iPad or on paper and clipboard while walking down a hallway. They were then asked to recall the number of mirrors in the hallway. We expect to find that people using interactive technology will recall fewer mirrors than those using paper. This has implications for integration of technology into the classroom and for public safety

Linking Knowledge with Action Using Community Facilitators to Span Boundaries: Lessons from East Africa

Advances of science may take much longer to translate into helpful societal actions without deliberate linkages among policy makers, practitioners, and scientists and an integration of their knowledge systems. Successful projects in sustainable knowledge-based action are not only multi-disciplinary and holistic in their approach, they also engage consistently with the consumers of the knowledge being generated. We present a model for integrating scientific and indigenous knowledge and strongly linking that knowledge with community and policy action to balance poverty alleviation and wildlife conservation in Maasai pastoral systems of East Africa. This model uses ‘community facilitators’ who act as ‘boundary-spanning’ individuals, linking pastoralist communities, scientists, and policy makers. Our experience indicates that there can be accelerated progress if the project deliberately creates and places a boundary-spanning person or organization at the community-science-policy interfaces to facilitate and promote linking knowledge with action. We found it was critical that the facilitation process ensures that scientists focus on answering important questions from community and policy viewpoints. Key lessons include the need for frequent and strategic community engagement, careful choice of appropriate local boundary spanning persons, the central role of co-production of boundary objects, and the inclusion of incentives for the key stakeholders

Parameter estimates from Model 1.

<p>Parameter estimates from Model 1.</p

An example of one of the choice situations presented to participants.

<p>An example of one of the choice situations presented to participants.</p

Map of our study locations.

<p>The map shows the boundaries of the conservancies in our study area and the approximate location of communities whose members participated in our choice experiments.</p