Changing Land Use Patterns and Their Impacts on Wild Ungulates in Kimana Wetland Ecosystem, Kenya

Abstract

In Kenya, wildlife numbers have drastically declined due to land use changes (LUCs) over the past three decades. This has affected wildlife habitats by converting them into farmlands and human settlements. This study used remote sensing data from landsat satellite to analyze the changing land use patterns between 1980 and 2013 and their impacts on wild ungulates in KWE. The objective of the study was to map out LUCs, determine the possible causes of LUCs, and examine the effects of LUCs on wild ungulates. The results showed a noticeable increase in the size of farmland, settlement, and other lands and a decline in forestland, grassland, wetland, and woodland. The main possible causes of LUC were found to be agricultural expansions, human population dynamics, economic factors, changing land tenure policy, politics, and sociocultural factors. The main effects of LUCs on wild ungulates in KWE include a decline in wild ungulate numbers, habitat destruction, increased human-wildlife conflicts, land degradation, and displacement of wild ungulates by livestock. The study recommends land use zoning of KWE and establishment of an effective and efficient wildlife benefit-sharing scheme(s).

Full text

Research Article
Changing Land Use Patterns and Their Impacts on Wild
Ungulates in Kimana Wetland Ecosystem, Kenya
Stephen Kitina Nyamasyo1and Bonface Odiara Kihima2
1Wildlife Management, Kenya Wildlife S er vice Training Institute, P.O. Box 84 2, Naivasha 20117, Kenya
2Hospitality and Tourism, Kenyatta University, P.O. Box 16778, Mombasa 80100, Kenya
Correspondence should be addressed to Bonface Odiara Kihima; odiarab@yahoo.fr
Received  May ; Revised  October ; Accepted  October ; Published  December 
Academic Editor: Arianna Azzellino
Copyright ©  S. Kitina Nyamasyo and B. Odiara Kihima. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
In Kenya, wildlife numbers have drastically declined due to land use changes (LUCs) over the past three decades. is has aected
wildlife habitats by converting them into farmlands and human settlements. is study used remote sensing data from landsat
satellite to analyze the changing land use patterns between  and  and their impacts on wild ungulates in KWE. e objective
of the study was to map out LUCs, determine the possible causes of LUCs, and examine the eects of LUCs on wild ungulates. e
results showed a noticeable increase in the size of farmland, settlement, and other lands and a decline in forestland, grassland,
wetland, and woodland. e main possible causes of LUC were found to be agricultural expansions, human population dynamics,
economic factors, changing land tenure policy, politics, and sociocultural factors. e main eects of LUCs on wild ungulates in
KWE include a decline in wild ungulate numbers, habitat destruction, increased human-wildlife conicts, land degradation, and
displacement of wild ungulates by livestock. e study recommends land use zoning of KWE and establishment of an eective and
ecient wildlife benet-sharing scheme(s).
1. Introduction
Wild ungulates are hoofed wild mammals comprising large
grazers and browsers. ey account for the vast majority of
large herbivores currently on earth and are found in nearly
every biome especially in arid and semiarid grasslands [].
eir abundance and spatial distribution is highly related to
availability of quality forage and water resources [].
Wild ungulates have high economic values as a source
of revenue through consumptive and nonconsumptive uti-
lization [,]. eir resources provide environmental goods
andservicesforthelivelihoodofthepeople,sociocultural,
aesthetic, and ecological values. In Kenya, wildlife resources
accounted for % of the gross tourism earnings, % of the
grossdomesticproduct(GDP),andmorethan%oftotal
formal sector employment in  [].
Although Africa has been exceptional in retaining a con-
siderable diversity and concentration of its wildlife compared
to America and Australia, the populations of many of its
wild ungulate species have declined substantially inside and
outside protected areas over the past three decades [,].
East Africa was incomparable in sustaining relatively intact
wildlifebutinthelastthreedecadesthewildungulate
population has declined sharply [].
Kenya is ranked second highest among African countries,
in bird and mammal species richness with an estimate of 
mammals,  birds,  reptiles ( lizards,  snakes,
and  crocodile),  amphibians, and  ( freshwater
andmarine)shspecies.However,overthelastyears,
her wildlife numbers have shrunk by between % and %
[] and, by , the number of threatened species in Kenya
included  species of mammals []. is decline in wildlife
numbers globally, regionally, and locally has more been
attributed to land use changes, human encroachment into
wildlife habitats, recurrent droughts, poaching, and other
anthropogenicactivities[,].
Land use changes aect key aspects of the earth’s func-
tioning, including a direct impact on global biodiversity [,
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
International Journal of Biodiversity
Volume 2014, Article ID 486727, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/486727

International Journal of Biodiversity
]. In East Africa, land use changes have transformed land
cover to farmlands, livestock grazing lands, mining grounds,
human settlements, and urban centers at the expense of
wildlife habitat []. ese changes are associated with
wildlife losses, habitat destruction, land degradation, and
blockage of wildlife corridors [,].
In Kenya, increase in human population is rapidly leading
to encroachment into wildlife habitats []leadingtothe
reduction of wildlife space and blockage of wildlife corridors.
If protected areas have no wildlife corridors, genetic dri and
inbreeding may occur, thus leading to population instability,
loss of ecological integrity, and possibly local extinction and
increase in human-wildlife conict [,]. Such conicts
create frustration and animosity towards wildlife and may
result in retaliatory killings [,]. e threat to wild
ungulate populations is, therefore, an eminent one for Kenya,
particularly when one considers the fact that many of her
protected areas are increasingly becoming insularized as a
result of the expanding human dominated areas [,].
Despite the massive conservation eorts backed by signif-
icant international support, changes in land use patterns and
associated impacts of human activities continue to accelerate
therateofwildlifehabitatconversioninKWE.eimpactsof
land use changes on wild ungulates in KWE have not yet been
fully appreciated. Information on their manifestation and
intensity is inadequate despite its importance in formulating
mitigation measures. is has made it dicult to mitigate
wetlands,wildlifehabitats,andwildungulatelossesaswellas
their conservation in KWE. e study sought to determine
thechanginglandusepatternsinKWEfromto
and thereaer determine the possible causes of land use
changes and eects of land use on wild ungulate population.
e study hypothesized that changes in land use pattern
have led to a signicant decline on the population of wild
ungulates in KWE and that the increase in human population
and associated activities are the possible causes of land use
changes in KWE formulated as follows.
(a) HO: there has been no signicant increase on land use
changes in KWE from  to .
(b) HO:changesinlandusepatternsinKWEhavenot
had signicant eects on the wild ungulate popula-
tions.
(c) HO:increaseinlivestockpopulationandtourism
activities in KWE have not resulted into a noticeable
declineinwildungulatenumbersinKWE.
2. Study Area
Kimana wetland ecosystem (KWE) measures , Km2and
is located in Kajiado County. It lies between longitudes
∘󸀠and ∘󸀠east and latitudes ∘󸀠and ∘󸀠south.
KWE comprises Kimana division (. km2), Entonet divi-
sion (,. km2), Central division (,. km2), Imbirikani
Location (. km2), and Amboseli National Park (ANP)
( km2). It is a wildlife rich area consisting of ANP and
nine group ranches each with a conservancy or a wildlife
sanctuary. It borders Chyulu and Tsavo West National Parks
totheeastandisacriticalwildlifedispersalareaforthelarger
Tsavo-Amboseli ecosystem.
e area has a number of permanent swamps such
as Amboseli, Kimana, and NOLTRUSH swamps which
provide suitable ground for agriculture while the entire
range is suitable for wildlife and pastoralism []. Domi-
nant vegetation includes grasses, shrubs, and Acacia plant
speciesthatareadaptedtolongdroughtperiods.emega
ungulates found in the ecosystem include African elephant
(Loxodonta africana), African bualo (Syncerus caer caf-
fer), common eland (Tra gela phus o r y x), and Maasai girae
(Giraa camelopardalis tippelskirchi). e mini ungulates
found in the area include plains zebra (Equus burchelli),
common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), impala (Aepyceros
melampus), omson’s gazelle (Gazella thomsonii), Grant’s
gazelle (Gazella granti), common waterbuck (Kobus ellip-
siprymnus), and Kirk’s dik-dik (Madoqua kirkii). e big cats
include lion (Panthera leo), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta),
leopard (Panthera pardus), and cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus).
e ecosystem also supports a large population of small
mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. e wetland has a rich
birdlife, with over  species recorded, of which  are birds
of prey []. It has globally threatened bird species such as
Lesser kestrel, restricted-range birds found only in a small area
such as the Taveta golden weaver, bird species that live only
in a particular vegetation type such as the grosbeak weaver,
and regionally threatened bird species such as martial eagles.
KWE is primarily habited by Maasai who are semino-
madic pastoralists with land being communally owned. eir
lifestyle has, however, undergone changes due to ongoing
land adjudication and subdivision of group ranches leading to
privatelandtenuresystem.ishasincreasedtherateofland
sales and created openings to emigrations especially in the
relatively high agricultural potential areas such as Kimana,
Entonet, and Kuku divisions. Emigrating communities are
farmers from other parts of the country.
3. Methodology
Primary data collected included TM Landsat satellite
(acquired from path/row / and /) images of
, , , , and . Current land use types,
notable land use changes over time, land tenure system, and
socioeconomic data from  households and  institutions
were collected using semistructured questionnaires and
interview schedules, respectively.
To arrive at the sample, the population was divided into
clusters including Amboseli, Olchoro, Imbirikani, Kimana,
Inkariak Ronkena, Kuku, Loolopon, and Entonet aer which
individuals were randomly selected depending on the size of
the area and human population density as follows: Kimana
and Kuku division,  households each; Olchoro, Loolopon,
Entonet, and Inkariak Ronkena,  households each; and
Amboseli and Imbirikani,  households each. Interviews
were conducted randomly using semistructured questions.
Only an adult family head (man or woman) was interviewed
per household but he or she was free to seek help from any
other family member in case of diculties in responding to

International Journal of Biodiversity 
questions. For institutions, only the longest serving ocer
whowasperceivedtobemoreknowledgeableonthestudy
area was interviewed and he/she was free to seek help from
anyotherocerincaseofdiculties.
Secondary data collected included KWE topographical
map, land use types, causes of land use changes and its eects
on wild ungulates, human population census gures, wild
ungulate population census data, and livestock population
trend. Land use change data was gathered through acqui-
sition, interpretation, and analyses of satellite images using
ARCGIS and EDRAS soware. Human, livestock, and wild
ungulates numbers were obtained from Loitokitok district
development plan, KNBS, ILRI, DRSRS, and KWS.
Direct observation was also employed on identication
of wild ungulate species, current land use types, land degra-
dation, and wetland encroachment. is encompassed a line
transect walk running diagonally from Kimana sublocation
to Isenet through Kimana community wildlife sanctuary
covering a distance of  km. It was carried out with the
help of community game scouts patrolling at the edges of the
wildlife corridors where irrigated farms are concentrated. All
the wild ungulates species found at a distance of  Km on both
sides of the line transect walk were identied and individual
species counted. is took place during the month of April
(onset of the long rains)  and lasted three days. During
the month of April wild ungulates are mostly concentrated in
swampy places because of availability of water and pasture.
Photographswereemployedtocapturedatausingadigital
camera.Ithelpedintheclassicationoflandusesintheareas
as an evidence of actual practices taking place.
To enhance the change detection, eld visits were con-
ducted to make ground truthing. is involved selecting of
sitesatrandomfromthelatestlandusebasemapandvisiting
of each site to check and verify whether the land use type on
theactualgroundwaswhatwasshownonthemap.Fivesets
of images representing a temporal period of  years from
 to  were acquired.
e TM Landsat satellite image of  was georeferenced
against a topographic map at a scale of /, using
a number of ground control points, which were obtained
aer visiting the study area. e projection was Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) with Arc  as datum. Image
to image registration was then performed by georeferencing
satelliteimagesof,,,andfromTMLand-
sat against the georeferenced TM Landsat satellite images of
.isensuredthatthepixelgridsof,,,
and  images conform to georeferenced image of , to
enable pixel-by-pixel comparison of the images. e images
were then analyzed to determine various land use types.
Changesinlanduseclassesweremappedandquantiedand
accuracy assessment was done for all.
4. Data Analysis
e satellite images were analyzed and interpreted using GIS
Arc Map and ERDAS Images soware. Data on socioeco-
nomic, wild ungulate, and livestock statistics was analyzed
using SPSS soware version  and Microso excel. Land use
changes data was analyzed using descriptive statistics to show
the variation from  to . is involved calculation of
size of areas under each land use for the years , ,
, , and  and their sizes computed. is capability
is provided in area command under the database query
module in Arc Map. e areas were then entered in Microso
excel for the computation of land use changes over time. To
determine the land use change for a particular land use, the
area of land for year  was subtracted from the area of land
for the year . Pearson correlation coecient statistics
analysis was performed to determine association between
changesindierentlandusesinKimanawetlandecosystem.
Frequencies of interviewed household heads and institutions
giving a particular response were summarized. e equalities
of frequencies were tested using chi-square goodness of t. To
establish possible causes of land use changes the frequencies
of the responses of those interviewed were summarized and
a chi-square cross tabulations analysis was performed to
determine the relationship with specic attributes. Statistical
tests were considered signicant if 𝑃values were equal to
or less than . and insignicant if 𝑃values were greater
than . []. For chi-square cross tabulations, if 𝑃value was
equal to or less than ., then a response was dependent on
an attribute and independent of the attribute if 𝑃value was
greater than ..
5. Findings
5.1. Major Land Use Changes in Kimana Wetland Ecosystem
(KWE). is research produced seven important land use
types including farm/cropland, settlement and urban areas,
forestland, grassland, woodland, wetland/swamps, and other
lands (bare and rocky grounds, built areas, quarries, roads,
dried up wetland/swamps, and abandoned human settle-
ment) (Figure ). In , Kimana wetland ecosystem had a
total area of ,. km2(Table )outofwhichfarm/crop-
land had occupied .km2; settlement and urban areas,
. km2;forestland,.km
2; grassland, ,. km2;
woodland, . km2; wetland/swamps, . km2;and
other lands, . km2. By  farm/cropland occupied an
area of . km2; settlement and urban areas, . km2;
other lands, . km2;forestland,.km
2;grassland,
,. km2;wetland,.km
2; and woodland, . km2
(Figure ).
A signicant positive correlation occurred between crop-
land and settlement areas (𝑟 = 0.989,DF =2,𝑃 = 0.001)
and farm/cropland and other lands (𝑟 = 0.952,DF =2,𝑃=
0.013). On the other hand, a signicant negative correlation
occurred between cropland and forestland (𝑟 = −0.989,DF=
2,𝑃 = 0.001), cropland and grassland (𝑟 = −0.989,DF =2,
𝑃 = 0.001), cropland and wetland (𝑟 = −0.997,DF=,
𝑃 = 0.004), and cropland and woodland (𝑟 = −0.922,DF =
2,𝑃 = 0.026). Another negative correlation also occurred
between settlement and forestland (𝑟 = −0.986,DF =2,
𝑃 = 0.002), settlement and grassland (𝑟 = −0.980,DF =2,
𝑃 = 0.004), and other lands and wetland (𝑟 = −0.985,DF =2,
𝑃 = 0.015)(Table ).

International Journal of Biodiversity
T  :  e a r e a ( k m) and the percent land cover for land use changes in KWE.
Land use
types

(km)
RLC
(%)

(km)
RLC
(%)

(km)
RLC
(%)

(km)
RLC
(%)

(km)
RLC
(%)
%increase
(+) or
decrease (−)
Settlement . . . .% . .% . .% . . .%
Woodland . .% . .% . .% . .% . . −.%
Cropland . .% . .% . .% . .% . . .%
Forestland . .% . .% . .% . .% . . −.%
Other lands . .% . .% . .% . .% . . .%
Wetland . .% . .% . .% . .% . . −.%
Grassland . .% . .% . .% . .% . . −.%
Total . .% . .% . .% . .% . .
Amboseli
Olorika
Kuku
Imbirikani
Kimana
Loolopon
Inkariak Rongena
Olchoro
Entonet
Cropland
Forestland
Grassland
Other lands
Settlements
Wetl a n d s
Woodlands
Land use 1980
Admin boundary
Land use 1980
020 40 80
(km)
N
Coordinate system: arc 1960 UTM zone 37S
Projection: transverse mercator
Datum: arc19 60
False easting: 500,000.0000
False northing: 10,000,000.0000
Central meridian: 39.0000
Scale factor: 0.9996
Latitude of origin: 0.0000
Units: meter
F : Land use map of  for Kimana wetland ecosystem.
Source: author, .
Farm/cropland, settlement and urban areas, and other
lands in KWE are becoming important with time as they
replace the areas previously occupied by wetland/swamps,
grassland (wildlife dispersal, corridors, and breeding areas),
forestland, and woodlands. It was also established from the
studythatnoneoftheareasthathadinitiallybeenwetlands
and then converted to cropland ever reverted to wetland.
Fieldobservationsrevealedthatwetlandsplayakeyrolein
irrigated farming whereby all the water used for irrigation is
pumped directly from the wetlands.
5.2. Causes of Land Use Change in Kimana Wetland Ecosystem
(KWE). e main causes of land use change in KWE as
indicated by the respondents include agricultural expansions
Amboseli
Olorika
Kuku
Imbirikani
Kimana
Loolopon
Inkariak Rongena
Olchoro
Entonet
Land use 2013
Cropland
Forestland
Grassland
Other lands
Settlements
Wetl a n d s
Woodlands
Admin boundary
Land use 2013
020 40 80
(km)
Coordinate system: arc 1960 UTM zone 37S
Projection: transverse mercator
Datum: arc19 60
False easting: 500,000.0000
False northing: 10,000,000.0000
Central meridian: 39.0000
Scale factor: 0.9996
Latitude of origin: 0.0000
Units: meter
N
F : Land use map of  for KWE. Source: author, .
(.%), human population dynamics (.%), economic
factors (high nancial gains from cultivation compared to
pastoralism and wildlife-based tourism) (%), changing
land tenure policy (.%), politics (.%), drought, and
sociocultural factors such as poverty, level of education,
urbanization, and culture change (Ta b l e  ). Only opinions
from those respondents who had lived in the area for more
than ve years were considered. Such was dependent on the
current land uses and length of stay (𝜒2= 47.64,DF =28,
𝑃 = 0.012;𝜒2= 46.52,DF=28,𝑃 = 0.024) but independent
on age, level of education, land tenure system, and sources of
livelihood (Table ). Farmers and business people attributed
thecausesoflandusechangeintheareatoagricultural
expansions and economic gains while pastoralist attributed
it to drought and sociocultural factors.

International Journal of Biodiversity 
T : Correlations between land use changes in KWE.
Land use type Correlation Cropland Wetland Settlement Other lands Forestland Grassland Woodland
Crop Pearson correlation  −.∗∗ .∗∗ .∗−.∗∗ −.∗∗ −.∗
sig. (-tailed) . . . . . .
Wetland Pearson correlation −.∗∗ −.∗−.∗∗ .∗∗ .∗.∗
sig. (-tailed) . . . . . .
Settlement Pearson correlation .∗∗ −.∗ .∗−.∗∗ −.∗∗ −.∗
sig. (-tailed) . . . . . .
Other lands Pearson correlation .∗−.∗∗ .∗−.∗−.∗−.∗
sig. (-tailed) . . . . . .
Forestland Pearson correlation −.∗∗ .∗∗ −.∗∗ −.∗ .∗∗ .∗∗
sig. (-tailed) . . . . . .
Grassland Pearson correlation −.∗∗ .∗−.∗∗ −.∗.∗∗  .
sig. (-tailed) . . . . . .
Woodland Pearson correlation −.∗.∗−.∗−.∗.∗∗ . 
sig. (-tailed) . . . . . .
∗∗Correlation is signicant at the . level (-tailed).
∗Correlation is signicant at the . level (-tailed).
T : Respondent’s opinions on the causes for land use change in
KWE.
Possible causes of land use change Number of
respondents Percentage
Agricultural expansion  .
Human population increase  .
Economic forces  .
Politics  .
Changing land tenure policy  .
Drought  .
Poverty  .
Education level  .
Total  .
Source: author, .
5.3. Agricultural Expansion. Irrigated agricultural eld in
KWE increased from . km2in  to over . km2in
 (Tab l e  ) suggesting that irrigated agricultural expansion
is one of the major causes of land use change (Tab l e  ). is
expansion has seen irrigated agriculture become the main
source of livelihood for the households in KWE as indicated
by % of the respondents. e main crops grown currently in
the area are horticultura l crops such as tomatoes, chilli, onion,
and kales among others while maize and beans were the main
food crops.
5.4. Demographic Dynamics. Over the past three decades,
KWE has experienced an estimated annual human pop-
ulation growth rate of . as per the  census. is
translated into , persons and a population density of
. persons/km2in  with Kimana division having the
highestatpersons/km
2. It is projected that by the year
, the total human population in the area will be ,
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
1999 2009 2012 2020 2030
Number of people
Ye a r
Number
F : Projected human population for KWE up to the year  .
Source: GoK [].
(Figure ). e rapid population growth in the area has
resulted in increased demand for more land for farming,
settlement, and infrastructure development which has led to
clearing of large areas of the wetland, forestland, woodland,
and grassland that serves as habitats for wild ungulates.
5.5. Economic Factors. Of the total number of respondents
interviewed, % pointed out that they receive virtually no
direct cash benets from the wildlife-based tourism industry.
ey only receive indirect benets in the form of school
bursaries, piped water, construction of classrooms and dis-
pensaries, livestock sales yards, and other related community
goods and services, which oen fail to benet those in most
need. In contrast, they indicated that they receive direct
benets from irrigated farming and selling or renting out
their land.
Increased demand for agricultural produce to satisfy the
local markets and border towns such as Moshi, Arusha, and
Tarakea in Tanzania has accelerated the rate of irrigated

International Journal of Biodiversity
T : Size of land owned by individuals in KWE.
Size of land Frequency Percent
<. Acres  
.– Acres  .
.–. Acres  
.– Acres  
Above . Acres  .
Total  
Source: author, .
farming in the area as denoted by % of the respondents.
e study found that approximately , tons of farm
produce is harvested and transported to Tanzania, Nairobi,
and Mombasa markets weekly.
Moreover, the introduction of irrigated small-scale farm-
ing in the area in the early s aer the collapse of group
ranch model gave rise to increased demand for more land
for irrigated farming as revealed by % of the respondents.
e government welcomed subdivision and in  enacted a
policy to promote it. is increased demand for more land
for irrigated farming resulted in further land subdivision.
e study found that % of those interviewed and owned
landhadsubdividedtheirlandandsoldorleaseditout.
Moreover, .% of those interviewed own less than  acres
and only .% own more than . acres (Ta b l e  ). e
study established that when Kimana group ranch members
subdivided their land aer the failure of the group ranch
model, the mean size of the individual plots was . km2(.–
. km2).
esellingoflandisveriablebythefactthat%
of those interviewed were non-Maasai who had emigrated
from other areas. Moreover, % of the total respondents
who owned land in the areas indicated that they acquired it
through buying and .% through inheritance and .% (all
migrants) had rented the land they were using.
5.6. Eects of Land Use Change on Wild Ungulates in Kimana
Wetlan d E c o s y s t e m . In the views of % of those interviewed,
changesinlandusepatternsinthestudyhadsignicant
eectsonthewildungulatepopulations(𝜒2= 121.68,DF =
1,𝑃 = 0.000). e main eects include noticeable decline
in wild ungulate numbers, encroachment into wetlands and
other wildlife habitats, signicant increase in incidences of
human-wildlife conicts (𝜒2= 162.00,DF =1,𝑃=
0.000), habitat destruction, displacement of wild ungulates by
livestock, land degradation, and emergence of invasive plant
species.
5.7. Trends in Abundance of Wild Ungulates in Kimana
Wetlan d E c o s y s t e m . Wild animal counts conducted in the
study area from  to  by various institutions on four
species of wild ungulates have showed a decline in their
numbers. As per the  animal count, wildebeest which had
a population estimate of approximately , individuals was
the most numerous wild ungulate, followed by common zebra
(,), Grant’s gazelle (,), and impala (). In ,
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1979
1981
1982
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2000
2002
2003
2005
2007
2010
Number of individual species
Ye a r
Common zebra
Impala Wildebee st
Grant’s gazelle
F : Population estimates for zebra, impala, G. gazelle, and
wildebeest in KWE ( to ). Source: DRSRS and KWS.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2007 2010
Number of individual species
Species
Common zebra
Wildebe est
Maasai girae
Cape eland
Impala
Harteb eest
African bualo
Gerenuk
Hippopotamus
omson’s gazelle
Grant’s gazelle
F : Wild ungulate population estimates for  and  in
KWE. Source: DRSRS and KWS.
common zebra was the most numerous with a population
estimate of , followed by wildebeest (,), Grant’s
gazelle (), and impala () (Figure ).
Acomparisonofandcountforthesamespecies
in the same area indicated a decline in numbers for common
zebra, Grant’s gazelle, and wildebeest species and an increase
for impala. For example, the population of common zebra
from  to  dropped by .%, Grant’s gazelle by .%,
and wildebeest by .%, while impala increased by %
(Figure ).
e results from aerial counts carried out in Kimana
wetland ecosystem from  to  indicated a decline in
the number of African bualoes from  in  to  in

International Journal of Biodiversity 
T : Characteristics of interviewee opinions in regard to land use changes and their eects on wild ungulates.
Information sought Responses from respondents Number of respondents
(𝑛=)
Chi square goodness of t;
df; 𝑃value
Gender Male  𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
Female 
Age
–  𝑟=.,df=,𝑃= .
– 
Above  
Level of education
None 
𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
Primary 
Secondary 
Te rt i a r y  
Source of livelihood
Crop farming 
𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
Livestock 
Rural self-employed 
Urban self-employed  
Wage emp l o y m e nt 
Crop farming and livestock 
Livestock and wildlife 
Length of stay
<yrs 
𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
.– yrs 
.– yrs 
.– yrs 
Above . yrs 
Individual size of land
<. Acres 
𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
.– Acres 
.–. Acres 
.– Acres 
Above . Acres 
Current land use
Crop farming 
𝑟=.,df=,𝑃= .
Livestock 
Wildlife 
Commercial 
Crop farming and livestock 
Has the land use been changing over
the years?
Ye s    𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
No 
HasLUCaectedwildungulates? Ye s    𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
No 
Distance of the individual homestead
from protected areas
- km 
𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
.– km 
.– km 
.– km 
Over . 
Causes of land use change
Agricultural expansion 
𝑟=.,df=,𝑃= .
Economic forces 
Politics 
Changing land tenure policy 
Human population increase 
Drought 
Poverty 
Education level 

International Journal of Biodiversity
T  : C ontinue d .
Information sought Responses from respondents Number of respondents
(𝑛=)
Chi square goodness of t;
df; 𝑃value
Is there HWC? Ye s    𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
No 
Forms of HWC
Crop destruction 
𝑟= ., df = , 𝑃= .
Livestock predation 
Human injuries 
Death of human being 
Road kills 
Competition for food 
Period of the year when the conicts
are severe
Januar y–March 
𝑟=.,df=,𝑃= .
April–June 
July–September 
October–December 
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2000 2002 2007 2010
Number of individual species
Ye a r
Maasai girae
Cape eland
African bualo
F : Population estimates for girae, eland, and bualo in
KWE ( to ). Source: DRSRS and KWS.
 (.% decrease) and that of the Maasai girae remained
relatively stable with a slight increase, while that of the Cape
elandrosefromlessthanindividualsintomore
than  individuals in  (Figure ). In , most of
the bualoes were in ANP (.%) and Kimana Sanctuary
(.%) and the rest (.%) were in Kuku group ranch. All
the bualoes counted in  were within the protected area.
5.8. Livestock Population Trend in Kimana Wetland Ecosystem.
Indigenouscattle(Zebu),goats,sheep,anddonkeysarethe
main livestock types kept in the study area. In the recent past,
farmers have started keeping dairy cattle (mainly Friesian)
under intensive zero grazing system. Livestock population
gures over the past three decades show that the numbers
ofcattle,goats,andsheepareontheincreaseinKWE[].
Aerial counts for livestock in KWE from  to  indicate
an upward trend. Goats and sheep appeared to have increased
in the last ten years with a total population of , in 
compared to , in .
5.9. Tourism Activities. KWE is among the most popular
tourist destinations with Amboseli National Park being one
ofthepremiumparksinKenya.Developmentoftourism
facilities within KWE has been rapid in response to the
increasing number of tourists. In , for example, the study
found that there were only ve hotels and lodges but at
present, there are over  hotels, lodges, and campsites with a
capacity of over , beds. In an attempt to have tourists view
wildlife at a close range, roads and nature trails have been
constructed in ecologically fragile areas that serve as breeding
and calving grounds for most wild ungulate species. ese
infrastructures have also disrupted wild ungulate migration
patterns and increased habitat fragmentation.
5.10. Human-Wildlife Conict (HWC). HWC incidences,
which were rare in the s, have been frequent as testied
by % of the respondents. Of these, .% have been victims
of the conicts. e most severe forms of HWC, in their
views, were crop and property damage by wild ungulates
(%), livestock predation by carnivores (%), death and
injury of human being (% and %, resp.), road kills (%),
and competition for resources between human, livestock, and
wild ungulates (Figure ).
6. Discussion and Conclusions
KWE is critical wildlife dispersal, breeding, and dry season
grazing area for Amboseli and Tsavo ecosystems []. Poor
land use zoning and land use controls have led to emergence
of uncoordinated and conicting land use types in KWE
[]. e decline in land under wetland, forestland, grassland,
and woodland that are wildlife habitats signies that wildlife
conservation is not an important source of livelihood for
the locals of KWE. It is, therefore, not possible to convince
the local people to conserve the wildlife habitat because of
its advantage in the long-term. Of notable concern is lack
of direct benets from the wildlife based-tourism industry.
In contrast, the local people do receive direct benets from
horticultural farming and selling or renting out their land.

International Journal of Biodiversity 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Crop
destruction
Livestock
predation
Human
injuries
Death of
human being
Road kills
Competition
for
resources
(%)
Problem caused by wild animals
F : Problems caused by wild animals in KWE. Source: author,
.
erefore, it is no surprise that they have increasingly cleared
their land for irrigated farming, human settlement, and
infrastructure development in recent past at the expense of
wildlife conservation.
Traditionally, land in KWE was communally owned.
is system made it possible to practice nomadic pastoral-
ism, which ensured sustainable livestock production and
conservation of wildlife. However, because of changes in
government policy such as repealing of the “Land Group
Representatives and Land Adjudication Act” of , commu-
nally owned land has been subdivided into individual plots.
is has resulted into expansion of farmland by .%,
settlement and urban areas by .%, and other lands
by .% between  and . In addition, the area
under wetland has decreased by .%, forestland by .%,
grassland by .%, and woodland by .% during the same
period.
e shi from wildlife conservation and pastoralism to
irrigated agriculture is not entirely new among pastoral com-
munity. However, in KWE, it has taken a more commercial
nature rather than subsistence farming leading to expansion
of farmlands through clearing of wetlands, forests, grassland,
and woodland. is has led to loss of key wetlands and other
wildlife habitats, which used to serve as grazing area for
livestock and wild ungulates. Land that is adjacent to wetland
that used to serve as a wildlife dispersal area has now become
individual property. Wild ungulates are no longer able to
access the areas that have been converted into farmland and
human settlements. Hence, large number of wild ungulates
concentrate in areas without (or with little) farms and human
settlement. Wild ungulates have completely avoided urban
areas and build areas such as schools, dispensaries, and
market places.
e subdivision of group ranches into individual plots has
also resulted in establishment of community sanctuaries. e
community sanctuaries are usually too small in area to be
viable conser vation units for they are not linked to each other.
ey are fragmented wildlife habitats. A preposition is also
supportedbyYoungandMcClanahan[], who argued that
community wildlife sanctuaries represent a fragment of the
entire ecosystem and violate good design approaches based
on principles of island biogeography. When these community
wildlife sanctuaries are established in isolation from other
protected areas, without linking them by wildlife corridors,
they result in isolation of protected areas. e isolation
of protected areas is likely to result in inbreeding of wild
animals, thus lowering their survival ability.
Overstocking of livestock by pastoralist has led to over-
grazing in the study area particularly in areas outside pro-
tected areas. e impacts of overgrazing as observed during
theeldvisitincludelanddegradation,soilerosion,and
emergence of invasive plant species such as Lantana camara
and Solanum incanum. e latter is a drought resistant
nonpalatable herbaceous plant that does not have any natural
enemy and thrives well in disturbed ecosystem. e study
found that it was thriving well in areas that had been
overgrazed, on edges of human settlement and along built
areas. It dominates the herbaceous layer thus hindering
the growth of grass species and hinders free movement of
livestock and wild ungulates.
e fate of Kenya’s wildlife, therefore, depends on the
future of the protected areas and the surrounding wildlife dis-
persal areas. Changing land use patterns in KWE have led to
loss of key dry season grazing ground for wild ungulates and
decline in wild ungulate numbers in the last three decades.
Toalleviatethechanginglandusepatternsandcounter
their impacts on wild ungulates, the study recommends the
following: zoning of KWE into three categories (wildlife
areas, settlement area, and farming area); establishment of
an eective, transparent, fair, and equitable wildlife benet-
sharing scheme; establishment of an eective and transparent
management system for managing community conservan-
cies; rehabilitation of Kimana community wildlife sanctuary;
and farmers to embrace technology in their irrigated farming.
e future of wild ungulates in KWE is doomed unless
appropriate measures are put in place to reverse the observed
detrimental trends. It is extremely urgent, therefore, that
all the proposed measures by this study be taken into
consideration in order to strike a balance between wildlife
conservation and economic development if the observed
detrimental trends are to be reversed.
Areas for Further Research. (i) Kimana Community Wildlife
Sanctuary was the rst community sanctuary to be estab-
lishedinKenyainbut,duetopoormanagementsystems,
it has collapsed. erefore, more studies need to be carried
out to determine the eectiveness of community involvement
in the management of wildlife. (ii) ere have been many
wildlife conservation and management policies which have
been put in place to conserve and manage wildlife. It is,
therefore, necessary to analyze wildlife conservation and
management policies in Kenya with a view of determining
their eectiveness.
Conflict of Interests
e authors declare that there is no conict of interests
regarding the publication of this paper.

 International Journal of Biodiversity
Acknowledgments
e authors acknowledge the Kenya Wildlife Service which
made it possible for this study to be carried out and also Mr.
Dennis Macharia from RCMRD, for availing the ARCGIS
and EDRAS soware used to perform image and data
analysis.
References
[] T. Flannery, e Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North
America and Its Peoples, Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, NY,
USA, .
[] H. H. T. Prins, “e pastoral road to extinction: competition
between wildlife and traditional pastoralism in East Africa,”
Environmental Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] C. Van Der Waal and B. Dekker, “Game ranching in the
Northern Province of South Africa,” South African Journal of
Wildlife Research,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] Z.A.Ogutu,“eimpactofecotourismonlivelihoodandnat-
ural resource management in Eselenkei, Amboseli Ecosystem,
Kenya,” Land Degradation and Development,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] Government of Kenya, e National Wildlife Conservation and
Management Policy, 2012, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife,
Government Printer, .
[]D.T.Bolger,W.D.Newmark,T.A.Morrison,andD.F.
Doak, “e need for integrative approaches to understand and
conserve migratory ungulates,” Ecology Letters, vol. , no. , pp.
–, .
[]D.Western,S.Russell,andI.Cuthil,“estatusofwildlife
in protected areas compared to non-protected areas of Kenya,”
PLoS ONE,vol.,no.,ArticleIDe,.
[] D.WesternandD.L.Manzolillo-Nightingale,“Environmental
change and the vulnerability of pastoralists to drought: a case
study of the Maasai in Amboseli, Kenya,” in Africa Environment
Outlook Case Studies: Human Vulnerability to Environmental
Change,pp.–,UNEP,Nairobi,Kenya,.
[] J.M.Grunblatt,M.Said,andP.Wargute,National Rangelands
Report. Summary of Population Estimates of Wildlife and Live-
stock (1977–199 4), Department of ResourceSur veys andR emote
Sensing, Ministry of Planning and National Development,
Nairobi, Kenya, .
[] IUCN, IUCN Red List of reatened Species,IUCN,Gland,
Switzerland, , http://www.iucnredlist.org/.
[] M. Loibooki, H. Hofer, K. L. I. Campbell, and M. L. East,
“Bushmeat hunting by communities adjacent to the Serengeti
National Park, Tanzania: the importance of livestock ownership
and alternative sources of protein and income,” Environmental
Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] M. Norton-Griths, M. Y. Said, S. Serneels et al., “Land use
economics in the mara area of the serengeti ecosystem,” in
Serengeti III: Human Wildlife Interactions, C. Packer and A.
R. E. Sinclair, Eds., pp. –, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ill, USA, .
[] O. E. Sala, F. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto et al., “Global biodiversity
scenarios for the year ,” Science,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] E. F. Lambin, B. L. Turner, H. J. Geist et al., “e causes of land-
use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths,” Global
Environmental Change,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J.M.Maitima,M.M.Simon,R.S.Robinetal.,“elinkages
between land use change, land degradation and biodiversity
across East Africa,” African Journal of Environmental Science
and Technology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] I. J. Gordon, “What is the future for wild, large herbivores in
human-modied agricultural landscapes,” Wildlife Biolo gy,vol.
, no. , pp. –, .
[] M. M. Okello, E. Buthmann, B. Mapinu, and H. C. Kahi,
“Community opinions on wildlife, resource use and livelihood
competition in Kimana group ranch near Amboseli, Kenya,”
Open Conservation Biology Journal,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] W. D. Newmark, “e role and design of wildlife corridors with
examples from Tanzania,” Ambio,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] D.J.Campbell,H.Gichohi,A.Mwangi,andL.Chege,“Landuse
conict in Kajiado District, Kenya,” Land Use Policy,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] I. Sindiga, “Wildlife based tourism in Kenya: land use conicts
and government compensation polices over protected areas,”
Journal Tourism Study,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] M. M. Okello, “Land use changes and human-wildlife conict
in the Amboseli Area,” Human Dimension Wildlife,vol.,no.
,pp.–,.
[] M. M. Okello and J. W. Kiringe, “reats to biodiversity and
their implications in protected and adjacent dispersal areas of
Kenya,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] M. M. Okello, “Contraction of wildlife dispersal area and
displacement by human activities in Kimana Group Ranch near
Amboseli National Park, Kenya,” Conservation Biology Journal,
vol. , pp. –, .
[] J. H. Zar, Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, th edition, .
[] Government of Kenya, Loitokitok District Development Plan
2008–2012, e Government Printer, Nairobi, Kenya, .
[] KWS, Amboseli Ecosystem Management Plan 2008–2018,KWS,
Nairobi, Kenya, .
[] T. P. You n g a nd T. R . McClanahan, “I s l a n d biogeograph y
and species extinction,” in East African Ecosystems and eir
Conservation,T.R.McClanahanandT.P.Young,Eds.,pp.–
, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, .