Coexisting with carnivores: insights into local attitudes toward African wild dogs ( Lycaon pictus ) in the Maasai Mara, Kenya

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhdw20
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
An International Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20
Coexisting with carnivores: insights into local
attitudes toward African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus)
in the Maasai Mara, Kenya
Lydia Cornu, Femke Broekhuis, Cyrus M. Kavwele, Niels Mogensen, Dominic
Sakat & Elodie F. Briefer
To cite this article: Lydia Cornu, Femke Broekhuis, Cyrus M. Kavwele, Niels Mogensen, Dominic
Sakat & Elodie F. Briefer (20 Dec 2023): Coexisting with carnivores: insights into local attitudes
toward African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in the Maasai Mara, Kenya, Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2023.2294070
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2294070
© 2023 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
View supplementary material
Published online: 20 Dec 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 115
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Coexisting with carnivores: insights into local attitudes toward
African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in the Maasai Mara, Kenya
Lydia Cornu
a,b
, Femke Broekhuis
b
, Cyrus M. Kavwele
c,d
, Niels Mogensen
e
, Dominic Sakat
e
,
and Elodie F. Briefer
a
a
Behavioural Ecology Group, Section for Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
b
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group, Wageningen University &
Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands;
c
Department of Natural Resources, Karatina University, Karatina,
Kenya;
d
College of Science and Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK;
e
Mara Predator Conservation
Programme, Kenya Wildlife Trust, Karen, Nairobi, Kenya
ABSTRACT
Coexistence between humans and carnivores enables the persistence
or recovery of wildlife populations. In 2018, we conducted a survey in
Kenya’s Greater Mara Ecosystem to explore community attitudes
toward the reestablishment of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) fol-
lowing their regional disappearance. Analyzing data from 60 house-
holds, we found that proximity to protected areas, land lease to
conservancies, and risk perception signicantly inuenced people’s
tolerance of African wild dogs, as revealed by Generalized Linear
Models. Notably, there were no instances of human attacks and 78%
of respondents had not experienced livestock predation, indicating
positive coexistence. Among those perceiving a risk, 37 out of 46
recognized livestock predation only occurred when livestock were
unguarded during the day. These ndings highlight the potential for
coexistence and species recovery in this mixed-use landscape, empha-
sizing the importance of eective conservation education, livestock
management, and economic incentives.
KEYWORDS
African wild dog; attitudes;
human-carnivore
coexistence; land-sharing;
livestock predation; Lycaon
pictus
Introduction
Living alongside large carnivores can have considerable negative impacts on local commu-
nities’ livelihoods, personal safety and mental wellbeing (Chapron & López-Bao, 2016;
Crespin & Simonetti, 2019; Durant et al., 2022). This can result in conflict, mostly in the
form of retaliatory killings following incidents of livestock predation, which can lead to
carnivore population decline, range contractions and extirpation (Dorresteijn et al., 2014).
Habitat conversion around protected areas (PAs), as a consequence of exponential human
population growth, intensifies pressure on wildlife by creating competition over shared
resources, such as prey or water, and causing habitat fragmentation (Connolly et al., 2021).
Preventing and mitigating conflict requires finding solutions that work for both
people and wildlife (Blackwell et al., 2016). In the land-sparing approach, wildlife is
separated from humans in wilderness areas (Packer et al., 2013). This is problematic for
CONTACT Lydia Cornu cornu.lydia@gmail.com Wildlife Ecology & Conservation Group, Wageningen University &
Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, Wageningen 6708 PB, The Netherlands
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2294070
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2294070
© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms
on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

wide-ranging species since fences limit wildlife mobility and habitat connectivity
(O’Neill et al., 2021). In addition, fencing and human relocation are costly (Jiang
et al., 2017). The alternative solution is land sharing: a coexistence landscape, which is
a “dynamic but stable state” (Carter & Linnell, 2016) where self-sustaining carnivore
populations persist in human-dominated landscapes (Crespin & Simonetti, 2019).
Fostering coexistence entails the development of legislation, adaptive management
(Chapron & López-Bao, 2016; Weldemichel & Lein, 2019), economic investment, effec-
tive livestock management, and that local communities are willing to accept a degree of
conflict or damage caused by wildlife (Carter & Linnell, 2016; Dorresteijn et al., 2014,
Frank, 2016).
Understanding the range of human attitudes toward wildlife, spanning from tolerance to
resistance, is essential for conservation efforts. This understanding can provide valuable insights
for policy-makers, enabling them to develop targeted approaches and strategies. Attitudes
toward carnivores vary based on values, culture, location (Frank, 2016) and other case-
specific factors such as whether the carnivore population has been continuously present or is
reestablished. In areas where carnivores such as bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus)
have successfully re-established in human-dominated landscapes, the tolerance of carnivores
tends to decrease with time, conflict incidents, and is influenced by factors such as age, gender,
risk perception, and socio-cultural values (Breyne et al., 2021, Chapron & López-Bao, 2016, and;
Dressel et al., 2015). Frank (2016) describes a conflict-to-coexistence continuum, which
encompasses the range of positive to negative attitudes. Using this continuum to understand
attitudes sheds light on the likelihood for tolerance and coexistence in the given location. For
this study, it is critical that we first define tolerance, in order to measure which variables impact
it. This is essential for both implementing conservation measures and ensuring that studies on
human attitudes toward wildlife can be replicated (Knox et al., 2021). In this paper, we define
tolerance of a species as people’s ability and willingness to take on costs that would not exist in
the absence of the species (Kansky et al., 2016). We did not explicitly define “tolerance” to the
respondents during the survey; it was intended to encompass their overall attitudes and
behaviors toward the presence of the species. We acknowledge that “tolerance” can have varying
interpretations, and future research could delve deeper into the nuanced understanding of this
concept in the context of human-wild dog interactions.
The African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) is a conflict species in Africa, facing threats including
habitat loss, conflicts with livestock farmers, prey loss, and infectious diseases (Creel & Creel,
2002; Woodroffe, 2011). Currently, African wild dogs occupy only 7% of their historical range,
with over half of this range falling on community and private lands (Woodroffe & Sillero-
Zubiri, 2012). Due to their wide-ranging nature, African wild dogs are more likely to come into
contact with humans (Creel & Creel, 2002), exacerbating the potential for conflict. In 1991,
African wild dogs disappeared from the Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem due, at least in part, to the
spread of the canine distemper virus (Alexander et al., 1993). They were re-established in the
area in 2001 (Marsden et al., 2012), and their numbers have been gradually increasing (Wildlife
Service, 2007). Their natural recovery provides an opportunity to investigate community
attitude toward African wild dogs and the potential for coexistence in a shared landscape.
To this end, we conducted a community survey in the north of the Greater Mara
Ecosystem (GME). We examined community attitudes, the role of gender, the likelihood
to support conservation, and benefits received on willingness to tolerate the species’
presence. Considering the Maasai history of pastoralism and cultural value attributed to
2L. CORNU ET AL.

livestock, we hypothesized that people’s willingness to tolerate African wild dogs would be
most influenced by the cost of livestock predation versus benefits from the species’ presence.
Methods
Study Area
The GME is a 6,685-km
2
landscape in southwestern Kenya (centered at 1ºS, 35ºE; c. 1,700
meters above sea level). It is home to 30% of Kenya’s wildlife, with high densities of large
carnivores (Broekhuis et al., 2022) and abundant prey. Lions (Panthera Leo), spotted hyenas
(Crocuta Crocuta), leopards (Panthera pardus), and to some extent, cheetahs (Acionyx
jubatus) are all known to predate on livestock (Broekhuis et al., 2018, Thuo et al., 2020).
Within the GME lies the Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR), the Mara conservancies,
and community land (Figure 1). The density of predators varies between the MMNR and
conservancies. For example, in 2019, there were 54 adult lions in the Mara North con-
servancy, compared to 294 in the MMNR (Mara Predator Conservation Programme, 2019).
Since the 1970s, the once semi-nomadic, pastoral Maasai have been gradually privatizing
land ownership by establishing group ranches, which are now being subdivided into smaller
land parcels (Løvschal et al., 2022). Concurrently, wildlife numbers have decreased, result-
ing in lower prey abundance (Ogutu et al., 2011), while livestock density has increased
exponentially: livestock biomass was 8.1 times greater than that of wildlife in 2011–2013,
compared to 3.5 times in 1977–1980 (Ogutu et al., 2016).
Figure 1. Map of the study area showing the location of surveyed households.
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 3

Communally owned conservancies came about to expand wildlife areas, through part-
nerships between Maasai landowners and tourism companies. Lease payments are made
provided that the land is neither lived on nor cultivated. They contribute an additional ~
1,000-km
2
of designated wildlife areas. There are no physical boundaries, enabling animals
to move freely between PAs and the conservancies.
Data Collection
African wild dogs were observed with increasing frequency around the Mara North con-
servancies, during a period for which official sighting logs were unavailable (personal
observations). The study location was determined based on reported sightings and the
findings of Madsen & Broekhuis (2018). In this area, we identified four villages, which were
characterized by low population density and scattered homesteads, and aimed to interview
all possible households within them. A survey designed as a semi-structured interview was
carried out in October-November 2018. The selection of interviewees in our study was
primarily based on property ownership, which is typically controlled by the head of the
family. Consequently, we primarily interviewed male heads of households. However, in
cases where the male head of the family was absent due to various reasons such as being
deceased or unavailable, we interviewed the female head of the family as a representative
respondent. The minimum age of respondents was 18 years. Our questionnaires encom-
passed: demography, attitudes and perceptions of the respondents following the re-emer-
gence of African wild dogs, and incidents of conflicts (Table 1). We omitted one survey,
where the respondent’s gender is not listed, from the final dataset in the statistical analyses.
To confirm accurate identification of African wild dogs and to minimize potential
misidentifications, we employed multiple methods during data collection. Firstly,
Table 1. Questions used for determining people’s attitudes, perceptions, and tolerance of African
wild dogs, along with the method for scoring answers.
Attribute Number of Levels Coding
Attitudes:
Time since last sighting 1. <3 months, 2. <6 months, 3. < 1 year,
4. 2–5 years
Categorical
Date of last sighting (year) N/A Continuous
Reason for disappearance Open question N/A
Return 1. Yes, 2. No Categorical
- Reason for answer Open question N/A
Attitudes toward sighting 1. Like, 2. Dislike Categorical
- Reason for answer Open question N/A
Benefits from presence 1. Yes, 2. No Categorical
- Reason for answer Open question N/A
Benefits sought Open question N/A
Support for conservation 1. Yes, 2. No Categorical
- Reason for answer Open question N/A
Perceptions:
Problematic species 1. Yes, 2. No Categorical
- Reason for answer Open question N/A
Diet preferences of African wild dogs Open question N/A
Risks associated with their presence 1. Yes, 2. No Categorical
- Reason for answer Open question N/A
Tolerance:
Willingness to tolerate 1. Zero tolerance, 2. Likely to tolerate,
3. Very likely to tolerate
Categorical
If “zero,” what would make people more likely to
tolerate African wild dogs
Open question N/A
4L. CORNU ET AL.

respondents were requested to describe several different large carnivores, encompassing
a range of species within the carnivore guild. This approach aimed to assess the respon-
dents’ ability to correctly identify and differentiate various carnivores. While the exact list of
carnivores described by each respondent was not noted down by the surveyors, it is
reasonable to assume that the survey encompassed species typically found within the region,
including large carnivores as well as smaller to medium-sized carnivores capable of preying
on livestock, such as sheep and goats. Then, we presented each respondent with a color
photograph of African wild dogs and asked them to identify the species. All respondents
correctly identified African wild dogs. Additionally, respondents had the opportunity to
provide further confirmation of livestock attacks carried out by African wild dogs through
various means. These included spore identification, where respondents could distinguish
specific tracks or traces left behind by African wild dogs, as well as recognizing distinctive
vocalizations associated with African wild dogs. It is important to note that despite these
precautions, there remains a possibility of error or false identification, as the accuracy of
identifying calls or linking attacks solely to African wild dogs may vary due to factors such
as environmental conditions or individual interpretation.
Statistical Analyses
We transformed binary categorical response variables (e.g., like/dislike) into factors with
levels 0 and 1. For the ordinal categorical response variables (e.g., education) we attributed
values starting from 1 with an incremental increase of 1. The surveyors noted responses to
the open questions. We then categorized them manually into thematic groups, and used this
categorization to identify patterns in responses. Our analyses were carried out using
R software version 4.1.1. (R Core Team, 2021).
First, to prevent collinearity, we assessed potential correlations between the variables
(demographic factors, attitude and tolerance) based on a correlation matrix using the
Spearman correlation (“rcorr” function, Hmisc package (Harrell, 2021)).Based on the
results of the correlation matrix, we built all possible models including non-correlated
sets of variables with p-values >0.05 (16 in total). Next, we used Generalized Linear Models
(GLM) with a binomial error structure (“glm” function, stats package (R core team, 2021))
to investigate the effect of several predictor variables on the likelihood to tolerate the
presence of African wild dogs (response variable). The response variable was quantified
using answers to the question: “can you tolerate the presence of African wild dogs in your
village?”. The predictor variables were gender (male/female), education (no formal, pri-
mary, secondary, tertiary), age, number of years since settling in the GME, whether their
land was leased to a conservancy, last sighting date, attitude toward sightings (like/dislike),
conflict incidents, whether or not people felt they received benefits (yes/no), risk perception
(like/dislike) and support for conservation (likely/unlikely). We ran the function “model.sel”
to rank the best-performing models among the 16 GLM based on the Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC) (Aho et al., 2014; Burnham et al., 2011). We retained the three models with
∆AIC (difference in AIC between the best model where AIC = 0 and each subsequent
model) < 2 (Table 3) (Wagenmakers & Farrell, 2004). We tested the variables in each of
these models for multicollinearity by calculating the variance inflation (“vif” function, car
package (Fox & Weisberg, 2019)). We then applied the function “dredge” to select the
combination of predictor variables explaining most of the variance in each of these three
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 5

best models, followed by the function “model.avg” to combine predictions across the models
(MuMIn package (Bartoń, 2020)). Finally, we calculated the coefficient of determination,
R
2
, for each of the variables remaining in the best models with the formula: 1 – (log
likelihood model/log likelihood null).
Results
In total, we conducted 60 interviews (44 males, 15 females), representing a large sample of
the households in the survey area.
Sightings and Conict Incidents: Livestock Predation
When asked whether people believed that African wild dogs had returned to
the GME, 95% of respondents (n = 57 out of 60) said yes, 3% (n = 2) said no and
2% (n = 1) were uncertain. The last reported sightings occurred within: 1) 0–3
months: 58% of respondents (n = 35), 2) 3–6 months: 12% (n = 7), 3) 6–12 months:
17% (n = 10), 4) over 12 months: 13% (n = 8). All 60 respondents owned livestock: 57
respondents owned sheep, goats and cattle, and three owned sheep and cattle.
Incidents of livestock predation by African wild dogs were reported by 22% (n =
13 out 60) of respondents, which took place in 2018 (n = 8), 2017 (n = 2), 2013 (n =
1), 2008 (n = 2), and one person did not provide the incident year. The respondents
were not asked to specify which kind of livestock was killed, nor how many. We
recognize that this data would be provide valuable insights and a possible new
dimension to our analysis, highlighting the need to include these variables in future
surveys. The average number of years since a reported attack was 2.25 years (range =
0 to 10 years, σ = 3.89). However, over half of the reported attacks occurred in 2018,
which amounts to 12% (n = 8) of all respondents having suffered losses that year
alone, and an average of 1.8 attacks per year from 2008 to 2017. The remaining 78%
(n = 47) reported no conflicts. There were no recorded incidents of human attacks.
On average, households where livestock predation was reported were located further
away from protected areas (mean = 1,320 m, σ = 1602 m) than those that did not
(mean = 866 m, σ = 1149 m).
Attitudes Towards African Wild Dogs
With regards to people’s attitude toward African wild dogs on their land, 65% (n = 39 out of
60) responded that they liked these sightings. Most respondents gave multiple justifications,
which fit three categories. First, natural dynamics: the land is a conservancy to enable them to
roam freely (n = 3 mentions, or 8%, among people who responded positively), their presence
restores ecosystem balance (n = 1, 3%) and they are impressive animals with natural beauty
(n = 6, 15%). Second, tangible benefits: their presence attracts tourists (n = 11, 28%), which
increases income (n = 3, 8%), and they provide security by chasing away other wildlife, both
herbivores – reducing grazing pressure – and predators (n = 9, 23%). Respondents also
mentioned that they benefit from their presence in the same way that they benefit from all
other wildlife (n = 6, 15%). Lastly, co-existence: African wild dogs are not regularly present
(n = 1, 3%), there have been no problem so far (n = 4, 10%) and predation by these animals is
6L. CORNU ET AL.

rare (n = 2). The 21 people (35%) who dislike seeing African wild dogs gave one main reason:
livestock predation (n = 19, or 91%, among people who responded negatively). The other
reasons were the threat of human attacks (n = 2, 10%), general human-wildlife conflict (n = 2,
10%) and the fact that they were not compensated for livestock losses (n = 1, 5%). Our results
did not show considerable differences in attitudes between those who reported having
experienced livestock predation and those who did not (Figure 2).
Respondents’ Concerns
Over half of respondents found African wild dogs problematic (53%, n = 32 out of 60,
Table 2a). The main reason was livestock predation (n = 26 out of 32). The 47% (n = 28 out
of 60) that did not find the species problematic stated that there had been no incidents so far
(n = 9) but acknowledged a risk of predation (n = 7 out of 28), and mentioned that African
wild dogs are not a threat to humans (n = 2). In total, 77% (n = 46 out of 60) stated that
African wild dogs pose a risk to their community. Here, the main reason was predation
(n = 37 mentions, four of which specified that this only occurred if livestock was unguarded)
and the possibility of conflict (n = 13) (Table 2b). Of the 23% (n = 14 out of 60) who felt
there were no risks, the main reasons given were that African wild dogs only prey on
unguarded livestock (n = 7) and that there had been no conflicts so far (n = 4).
Figure 2. Differences in respondents’ attitudes based on whether they had experience conflict (n = 13) or
not (n = 47). A higher proportion (9 out 13) of those who experienced conflict did not lease their land to
a conservancy, as compared to those who did not (10 out of 47).
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 7

Gender-Based Dierences
Being male was positively correlated with supporting conservation (Spearman correlation
test: R = 0.33, P = .01) and receiving benefits (R= 0.31, P = 0.02), but negatively correlated to
risk perception (R= −0.32, P = 0.01). Thirteen percent (n = 2 out of 15) of female respon-
dents had received a formal education, while 61% of male respondents (n = 27 out of 44)
received at least primary school education.
Support for Conservation and Benets Sought
Respondents were asked about their willingness to support the conservation of African wild
dogs with a yes/no question, and given the opportunity to elaborate on their answer
(Table 1). Overall, 87% of people (n = 52 out of 60) would support conservation measures
because the presence of African wild dogs increases tourism (n = 17 mentions out of the 52
respondents who would support conservation, or 33%), and therefore job opportunities (n =
12, 23%) and income (n = 9, 17%). People mentioned the importance of preserving wildlife as
part of their heritage (n = 13, 25%) and for future generations to enjoy (n = 3). The remaining
13% (n = 8 out of 60) did not support conservation because of the increased threat to humans
and livestock (n = 7 mentions out of 8 respondents, or 88%). When asked which benefits they
would like to receive, people requested financial compensation for predation (n = 14 out of
35 who answered the question, or 40%), more employment opportunities (n = 6, 17%),
increased land lease payments (n = 5, 14%), predator-proofing livestock enclosures (n = 2,
Table 2. Respondents’ risk perception and concerns.
A. Is the presence of African wild dogs problematic? N %
YES 32 53.3
Livestock predation 26 43.3
Possibility of human attacks 2 3.3
Possibility of attacks on property 1 1.7
Possibility of attacks and losses (unspecified) 1 1.7
NO 28 46.7
No livestock predation by African wild dogs 9 15.0
Risk of livestock predation, but rare 7 11.7
No losses so far 4 6.7
Community benefits from wildlife presence 3 5.0
No recorded human-wildlife conflict; not a threat to humans 2 3.3
The land is leased to conservancies for this purpose 1 1.7
Benefits outweigh problems 1 1.7
B. Does the presence of African wild dogs pose a risk to you and your community?
YES 46 76.7
Livestock predation 33 55.0
Threat to humans: attacks, source of fear & conflict 11 18.3
Livestock predation, but only if livestock unguarded 4 6.7
Possibility of conflict even though none so far 2 3.3
Lack of compensation 1 1.7
NO 14 23.3
Only prey on unguarded livestock 7 11.7
Possibility of conflict but none so far 4 6.7
Live in forests and hills 2 3.3
Hardly seen in the area 1 1.7
Follow migratory animals 1 1.7
No harm to humans 1 1.7
8L. CORNU ET AL.

6%), awareness campaigns for local people (n = 1), borehole drilling (n = 1, 3%), promotion
of social services (n = 1, 3%) and increased tourism (n = 2, 6%).
Model Selection Results
The full model selection based on AIC (Supplementary Material 2) revealed that the
willingness for people to coexist with African wild dogs, as determined by the
likelihood to tolerate them, was best explained by three models (Table 3). The top
performing model contained the following parameters: the household’s distance from
a PA (the greater the distance, the higher the likelihood to tolerate), whether people’s
land was leased to a conservancy – therefore that they received monthly lease
payments – and the risks associated with their presence. The latter was included in
all three of the best performing models.
Discussion
The main aim of the study was to explore local community attitudes toward the return of
African wild dogs to the area. According to the results of the GLMs, the parameters which
best explained people’s willingness to tolerate the species were distance from a PA, and
perception of risk versus benefits received.
Sightings and Conict Incidents
With regards to the distance of a conflict incident to a PA boundary, it should be noted here
that the conservancies have been established at different times, therefore the PA boundaries
Table 3. Results of Generalized Linear models (GLMs) showing the variables, coefficients
(beta), standard errors (SE), adjusted standard errors, and R-squared values for the top-
performing models explaining the likelihood to tolerate the presence of African wild dogs.
The table displays the results for the three best-performing models based on akaike
information criterion (AIC). Please note that the coefficients represent the estimated effect
size of each variable, while the R-squared values indicate the proportion of variance
explained by the models. Standard errors and adjusted standard errors provide measures
of the uncertainty associated with the coefficient estimates.
Variable ϐSE Adjusted SE R
2
MODEL 16
(Intercept) 18.1 1700 1730
Land leased 0.67 0.74 0.75 0.0330
Risks −18.1 1700 1730 0.1579
Distance to PA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0071
MODEL 6
(Intercept) 16.5 1740 1780
Benefits 2.00 0.78 0.80 0.1642
Risks −17.5 1740 1780 0.1579
Education 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.0003
Conflict −0.02 0.33 0.34 0.0004
Distance to nearest PA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0071
MODEL 5
(Intercept) 54 1600 1640
Distance to nearest fence −0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0030
Gender 0.49 0.73 0.74 0.0418
Risks −52.2 1600 1640 0.1579
Conflict incidents −0.01 0.27 0.28 0.0004
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 9

were not the same in 2008 (when the first incidents were reported) as in 2018 (when the
study was carried out). Having experienced conflict did not seem to impact willingness to
tolerate the species. Taking into account that respondents were not given a specific time-
frame prior to the survey, there were relatively few incidents reported from 2008 to 2017
(0.56 attacks per year on average), with a marked increase in 2018 (8 attacks reported,
bringing the total average number of reported attacks per year from 2008 to 2018 to 1.3).
While we did not observe any notable changes in weather events or rapid shifts in livestock
density during the study period, the marked increase in reported conflicts in 2018 could be
attributed to several factors: memory bias (respondents may have better recalled or reported
incidents that occurred closer to the time of the survey), or, an actual increase in the
frequency of African wild dog presence during that year, leading to more encounters and
conflicts with livestock. Additionally, there may be unaccounted factors (e.g. an increase in
livestock) or local dynamics influencing the higher level of conflict that were not captured in
our study. Further investigations, including long-term monitoring and in-depth qualitative
assessments, are necessary to elucidate the specific factors contributing to the observed
increase in reported conflicts.
To provide additional context, we can compare the livestock attack rates reported in our
study area with findings from other regions. In northern Kenya, the reported livestock
attack rate was approximately one attack per 1,000 km
2
per year from 2001 to 2004
(Woodroffe et al., 2005). In a 4,500 km
2
area bordering the Serengeti National Park, during
a 12-month period from 2015 to 2016, African wild dogs were responsible for 14 reported
incidents of livestock predation in 3 Maasai villages, and 10 in 3 Sonjo villages (Mbsie et al.,
2018). In northern Botswana from 2009 to 2016, African wild dogs had a reported livestock
predation rate of 11.29 attacks per year (LeFlore et al., 2019). In each of these three studies,
predation occurred during the day on free-ranging livestock. Effective livestock husbandry,
including deterrents such as domestic dogs, has been shown to decrease the likelihood of
predation (Woodroffe et al., 2007).
In addition, African wild dogs tend to avoid areas of human habitation and select against
preying on livestock when sufficient wild prey is available (Gusset et al., 2009; Woodroffe,
2011). The GME is characterized by high predator densities and irregular PA boundaries
with often abrupt transitions, factors which are conducive to higher predation rates
(Broekhuis et al., 2017). Therefore, monitoring and conservation of wild prey abundance
and diversity in the conservancies should help to reduce the likelihood of livestock preda-
tion (Hayward et al., 2006).
Main Concerns and Attitudes Towards Presence
The majority of participants held a favorable view of African wild dogs in the region, as they
were seen to have inherent ecological value, and provide tangible economic benefits, such as
increased tourism, job creation and land lease payments. In our study, responses to the
question about people’s willingness to tolerate African wild dogs were more positive with
increased distance from a PA boundary. Since there are higher densities of larger carnivores
such as lion and leopard within the PAs, it is possible that distance from the PA boundary is
associated with people’s increased sense of safety, as they are further away from the largest
carnivores. However, this does not explain why distance from a PA increased people’s
tolerance of African wild dogs, given that African wild dogs tend to avoid larger carnivores
10 L. CORNU ET AL.

such as lions (Darnell et al., 2014) and are therefore more likely to use habitats further away
from PAs. It explains the higher level of reported human-wild dog conflicts with increased
distance from PA boundaries, but not the higher level of tolerance. One possible inter-
pretation could be that people living further away from protected areas may be more likely
to encounter African wild dogs and become accustomed to their presence. Conversely,
those living closer to the boundaries of protected areas may have a stronger negative
response due to being less accustomed to the species. Indeed, people’s attitudes toward
wildlife can be influenced by the rarity of their encounters with them (Teixeira et al., 2021).
However, we would suggest further research to be more certain. Specifically, it would be
valuable to investigate the underlying mechanisms driving the observed higher levels of
tolerance among individuals residing further away from protected area boundaries, and
conducting more nuanced investigations into the role of familiarity and frequency of
encounters with African wild dogs.
Our findings suggest tolerance is linked to the respondents’ perceived potential for
creating a sustainable livelihood (Bruskotter et al., 2022): it increases when the benefits of
coexisting with African wild dogs (e.g. land lease payments, increased tourism) outweigh
the costs (e.g. livestock depredation, social safety) and ensure the ability to maintain one’s
livelihood (e.g. livestock herding, small scale agriculture). Indeed, Western et al. (2019),
showed that increasing revenue plays a significant role in willingness to tolerate lions. The
main tangible benefits received by the community members were lease payments, however
the main requested benefit was financial compensation for losses. In terms of attitude
toward leasing their land, Keane et al. (2016), found that landowners interviewed around
the GME had a positive outlook toward the land leasing system, provided that they could
still use some of their land for grazing or settlement. However, the authors also found that
a significant number of landowners would not wish to lease their land, or at least not at
current payment levels (ibid), a point which was raised by five of the respondents in our
survey.
Increasing willingness to tolerate could in theory also be achieved through compen-
sation for losses (Dickman et al., 2011). However, implementing a system for compen-
sation of livestock losses requires financial backing, and rigorous bureaucracy to
document livestock numbers for each household and safeguard against false reporting.
At present, two conservancies keep a log of predation incidents for conservancy mem-
bers and have an insurance-based compensation scheme in place. According to the
Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of Kenya (2013), compensation should be
provided by the government. From 2007 to 2016, there were 236 cases of conflicts with
African wild dogs reported for compensation in Kenya, and African wild dogs were the
tenth most problematic species over that time period (Mukeka et al., 2019). It is worth
noting that the effectiveness of compensation, in the long run, remains heavily debated,
especially since it can reduce the incentive for effective livestock husbandry (Dickman
et al., 2011, Gusset et al., 2009; Western et al., 2019). Another benefit frequently
mentioned was the increase in tourism that would be linked to the return of African
wild dogs, therefore the possibility of job creation. However, since we do not have data
on whether or not the respondents in our survey were employed within the tourism
sector as a direct consequence of the return of African wild dogs, this is classified as an
intangible benefit here. Other intangible benefits mentioned include a reduction in
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 11

competition over grazing space since African wild dogs chase away wild prey, and
protecting heritage through the conservation of the species.
Gender-Based Dierences
Women perceived African wild dogs as more threatening – based on their responses to the
questions on risk perception – than men, who saw more benefits. In addition, a significant
correlation was found between gender and education level. These differences highlight the
importance of recognizing that the perspectives of men and women in rural co-existence
landscapes may differ. Men are more likely to support conservation as lease payments go to
them, but this may not fully explain the differences in response. Previous research (Carter &
Allendorf, 2016) suggests beliefs about the species and an understanding of its ecological
role are more significant factors for explaining this difference.
Division of labor and access to education and information may also play a role. In Maasai
communities, men tend to herd larger livestock such as cattle, while women tend to herd
sheep and goats, which are more vulnerable to predation by African wild dogs than larger
livestock (Keane et al., 2016, Lyamuya et al., 2016). Survey results indicate that the like-
lihood of livestock predation increases during the day and when livestock are unguarded.
This could result in women perceiving African wild dogs as a greater threat, given that they
are more likely to see African wild dogs and experience livestock losses on their watch.
Behr et al. (2017) found similar results in their study on wolf acceptance: perceived
harmfulness of the species was correlated to direct experience and education level.
Education and understanding of wildlife are based on access to education as well as access
to sources of information, such as community meetings or interaction with conservation or
tourism managers. In Maasai communities, this access is also markedly different for men
and women (Keane et al., 2016). Given that men and women fulfill different roles within
their communities, it is crucial to take gender differences into account when addressing
human-carnivore coexistence: this includes access to education and information, as they
may influence attitudes, perceived threat level, and the benefits they bring to local
communities.
Community Willingness to Tolerate African Wild Dogs
From a sociological perspective, human tolerance is both complex and unstable, espe-
cially because it is prone to evolve. Our survey results indicate that willingness to coexist
has a strong negative relationship with risk perception. Respondents who felt there was
no risk associated with the presence of African wild dogs were unequivocally willing to
tolerate them. The remaining respondents were divided, although the majority showed
willingness. In our study system, the presence of African wild dogs is closely intertwined
with tangible benefits such as land lease payments, or intangible benefits such as job
creation, which play a pivotal role in shaping people’s responses toward tolerance. It is
important to note that in the absence of the species, some of these benefits would cease
to exist. We acknowledge that assessing tolerance in cases where such tangible benefits
(such as land lease or compensation) are absent may offer a relatively simpler context
for analysis, focussing more directly on factors such as risk perception, negative impacts
and personal experience.
12 L. CORNU ET AL.

According to Vogel et al. (2023), willingness-to-coexist with large herbivores in the GME
decreased the more people had experience with the species, especially if they had experi-
enced the species as a threat. Since there were no recorded attacks on humans or other
damages reported in our study, the level of threat felt by respondents likely relates to
livestock predation. Although some studies have found that occasional incidents of live-
stock predation may not impact people’s perceptions of carnivores (Broekhuis et al., 2018;
Chapron & López-Bao, 2016), maintaining willingness to tolerate these species requires that
community members are satisfied with the benefits they receive. Western et al. (2019)
conclude that tolerance is best explained by an interplay between perceived control over the
threat, trust in management, affect for the species, conservation education and personal
costs versus benefits.
Overall, our findings indicate that people’s willingness to coexist with African wild dogs
is intrinsically linked to the costs incurred versus benefits received from the species’
presence, as well as to whether or not they feel that their livelihoods are safeguarded.
While coexistence is indispensable for successful land sharing (Crespin & Simonetti,
2019), it is worth noting that both sparing and sharing approaches incur trade-offs between
livestock production (in this case, pastoralism), and carnivore conservation (Bruskotter
et al., 2022).
Study Limitations and Future Steps
According to the definition we used, tolerance is the ability and willingness to incur
costs which would not exist in the absence of the species (Kansky et al., 2016). Our
survey did not address whether or not people would be willing to take action against
the species, e.g. through poisoning or retaliatory killings. The results therefore only
pertain to opinion and attitude. Based on these results, community members would
be willing to take on these potential costs if they feel that they benefit from the
species’ presence. When it comes to their ability to take on these costs, we do not
know the proportion of each household’s livelihood which is reliant on pastoralism
versus other means of sustenance and income. Therefore, we cannot make an
informed assessment of this ability. In addition, due to the low sample size for
a survey and variation in the number of respondents per age category and gender,
the survey results provide limited insight into community attitudes toward African
wild dogs. This could be addressed by repeating the survey in other areas of the GME
and focusing on representing all demographics more evenly to better understand the
differences in concerns and values (Keane et al., 2016), for example by interviewing
women outside the presence of men.
Our results suggest that land sharing is achievable, provided that there are sufficient
tangible and intangible incentives for all community members, that tolerance is nurtured
through conservation education, and that effective livestock husbandry practices are imple-
mented. These findings will advise conservation action in this area: from the need to spread
out benefits and access to information, to focusing on risk reduction, effective husbandry,
and helping to advise conservancy managers and tourism partners.
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 13

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the local community for their participation in the survey. We thank the field
assistants, James Kasaine Parmuat, Joshua Saitoti Koros and Benjamin Naingeej Yiaile, who carried
out the survey. We also thank Caroline C. Ng’weno for her contribution to the study design, the entire
team at the Mara Predator Conservation Programme & Kenya Wildlife Trust, and three anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments. The study was conducted under the NACOSTI permit
NACOSTI/P/19/39342/29649.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Ethical Standards
We explained the purpose of the survey to community members as well as what sort of data we were
collecting. Each respondent signed an interviewee consent and confidentiality statement on the
questionnaire, and was given the opportunity to withdraw at any time
References
Aho, K., Derryberry, D., & Peterson, T. (2014). Model selection for ecologists: The worldviews of AIC
and BIC. Ecology, 95(3), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1452.1
Alexander, K., Conrad, P., Gardner, I., Parish, C., Appel, M., Levy, M., Lerche, N., & Kat, P. (1993).
Serologic survey for selected microbial pathogens in African wild dogs (lycaon pictus) and
sympatric domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in Maasai Mara, Kenya. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife
Medicine, 24(2), 140–144.
Bartoń, K. (2020). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. (R package version 1.43.17).
Behr, D. M., Ozgul, A., & Cozzi, G. (2017). Combining human acceptance and habitat suitability in a
unified socioecological suitability model: A case study of the wolf in Switzerland. The Journal of
Applied Ecology, 54(6), 1919–1929. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12880
Blackwell, B. F., DeVault, T. L., Fernández-Juricic, E., Gese, E. M., Gilbert-Norton, L., & Breck, S. W.
(2016). No single solution: Application of behavioural principles in mitigating human–wildlife
conflict. Animal Behaviour, 120, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.07.013
Breyne, J., Abildtrup, J., & Maréchal, K. (2021). The wolves are coming: Understanding human
controversies on the return of the wolf through the use of socio-cultural values. European Journal
of Wildlife Research, 67(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01527-w
Broekhuis, F., Cushman, S. A., & Elliot, N. B. (2017). Identification of human–carnivore conflict
hotspots to prioritize mitigation efforts. Ecology and Evolution, 7(24), 10630–10639. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ece3.3565
Broekhuis, F., Kaelo, M., Sakat, D. K., & Elliot, N. B. (2018). Human–wildlife coexistence: Attitudes
and behavioural intentions towards predators in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Oryx, 54(May), 366–374.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318000091
Broekhuis, F., Ngene, S., Gopalaswamy, A. M., Mwaura, A., Dloniak, S. M., Ngatia, D. K.,
Tyrrell, P. D., Yamane, Y., Elliot, N. B., & Dutta, T. (2022). Predicting potential distributions of
large carnivores in Kenya: An occupancy study to guide conservation. Diversity and Distributions,
28(7), 1445–1457. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13554
Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Gilbert, S. L., Carter, N. H., & George, K. A. (2022). Tragic trade-offs
accompany carnivore coexistence in the modern world. Conservation Letters, 15(2). https://doi.
org/10.1111/CONL.12841
14 L. CORNU ET AL.

Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., & Huyvaert, K. P. (2011). AIC model selection and multimodel
inference in behavioral ecology: Some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6
Carter, N. H., & Allendorf, T. D. (2016). Gendered perceptions of tigers in Chitwan National Park,
Nepal. Biological Conservation, 202, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2016.08.002
Carter, N. H., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 31(8), 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2016.05.006
Chapron, G., & López-Bao, J. V. (2016). Coexistence with large carnivores informed by commu-
nity Ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(8), 578–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.
06.003
Connolly, E., Allan, J., Brehony, P., Aduda, A., Western, G., Russell, S., Dickman, A., & Tyrrell, P.
(2021). Coexistence in an African pastoral landscape: Evidence that livestock and wildlife tempo-
rally partition water resources. African Journal of Ecology, 59(3), 696–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/
aje.12869
Creel, S., & Creel, N. M. (2002). The African wild dog: Behaviour, Ecology and conservation. Princeton
University Press.
Crespin, S. J., & Simonetti, J. A. (2019). Reconciling farming and wild nature: Integrating human–
wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework. Ambio, 48(2), 131–138.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1059-2
Darnell, A. M., Graf, J. A., Somers, M. J., Slotow, R., & Szykman Gunther, M. (2014). Space use of
African wild dogs in relation to other large carnivores. PLoS One, 9(6), e98846.
Dickman, A. J., Macdonald, E. A., & Macdonald, D. W. (2011). A review of financial instruments to
pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13937–13944.
Dorresteijn, I., Hanspach, J., Kecskés, A., Latková, H., Mezey, Z., Sugár, S., von Wehrden, H., &
Fischer, J. (2014). Human-carnivore coexistence in a traditional rural landscape. Landscape
Ecology, 29(7), 1145–1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0048-5
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., & Ericsson, G. (2015). A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears
and wolves across Europe 1976-2012. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cobi.12420
Durant, S. M., Marino, A., Linnell, J. D. C., Oriol-Cotterill, A., Dloniak, S., Dolrenry, S., Funston, P.,
Groom, R. J., Hanssen, L., Horgan, J., Ikanda, D., Ipavec, A., Kissui, B., Lichtenfeld, L., McNutt, J.
W., Mitchell, N., Naro, E., Samna, A., & Yirga, G. (2022). Fostering coexistence between people and
large carnivores in Africa: Using a theory of change to identify pathways to impact and their
underlying assumptions. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 2, 698631. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fcosc.2021.698631
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R Companion to applied regression (3rd ed). https://socialsciences.
mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/
Frank, B. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts and the Need to Include Tolerance and coexistence: An
introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources, 29(6), 738–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08941920.2015.1103388 .
Gusset, M., Swarner, M. J., Mponwane, L., Keletile, K., & McNutt, J. W. (2009). Human-wildlife
conflict in northern Botswana: Livestock predation by endangered African wild dog lycaon pictus
and other carnivores. Oryx, 43(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308990475
Harrell, F., Jr. ; with contributions from Dupont, C., and many others. (2021). Hmisc: Harrell
Miscellaneous (R package version 4.5-0).
Hayward, M. W., O’Brien, J., Hofmeyr, M., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2006). Prey preferences of the African
wild dog lycaon pictus (canidae: Carnivora): Ecological requirements for conservation. Journal of
Mammalogy, 87(6), 1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1644/05-MAMM-A-304R2.1
Jiang, G., Wang, G., Holyoak, M., Yu, Q., Jia, X., Guan, Y., & Bao, H. (2017). Land sharing and land
sparing reveal social and ecological synergy in big cat conservation. In Biological Conservation
(Vol. 211 pp. 142–149). Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.018
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 15

Kansky, R., Kidd, M., & Knight, A. T. (2016). A wildlife tolerance model and case study for under-
standing human wildlife conflicts. Biological conservation, 201, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2016.07.002
Keane, A., Gurd, H., Kaelo, D., Said, M. Y., De Leeuw, J., Rowcliffe, J. M., Homewood, K., &
Baldwin, R. F. (2016). Gender differentiated preferences for a community-based conservation
initiative. PLoS ONE, 11(3), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152432
Knox, J., Ruppert, K., & Frank, B. (2021). Usage, definition, and measurement of coexistence,
tolerance and acceptance in wildlife conservation research in Africa. Ambio, 50, 301–313.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01352-6
LeFlore, E. G., Fuller, T. K., Tomeletso, M., & Stein, A. B. (2019). Livestock depredation by large
carnivores in northern Botswana. Global Ecology and Conservation, 18, e00592. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.gecco.2019.e00592
Løvschal, M., Nørmark, M. J., Svenning, J. C., & Wall, J. (2022). New land tenure fences are still
cropping up in the greater Mara. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
022-15132-7
Lyamuya, R. D., Masenga, E. H., Fyumagwa, R. D., Mwita, M. N., Jackson, C. R., & Roskaft, E. (2016).
A historical perspective of the Maasai - African Wild Dog Conflict in the Serengeti Ecosystem.
Environment and Natural Resources Research, 6(2), 42.
Madsen, E. K., & Broekhuis, F. (2018). Determining multi-species site use outside the protected areas
of the Maasai Mara, Kenya, using false positive site-occupancy modelling. Oryx, (May), 1–10.
Mara Predator Conservation Programme. (2019). Q3 Updated Lion and Cheetah Figures. https://
www.marapredatorconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MPCP-Q3-Updated-Predator-
Numbers.pdf
Marsden, C. D., Wayne, R. K., & Mable, B. K. (2012). Inferring the ancestry of African wild dogs that
returned to the Serengeti-Mara. Conservation Genetics, 13(2), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10592-011-0304-z
Mbsie, F. P., Gine, R. S., Richard, D. L., Robert, D. F., Craig, J., Tomas, H., & Eivin, R. (2018).
Livestock depredation by wild carnivores in the Eastern Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania.
International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(3), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.5897/
ijbc2017.1165
Mukeka, J. M., Ogutu, J. O., Kanga, E., & Røskaft, E. (2019). Human-wildlife conflicts and their
correlates in Narok County, Kenya. Global Ecology and Conservation, 18, e00620.
Ogutu, J. O., Owen-Smith, N., Piepho, H., Said, M. Y., & Joseph Ogutu, C. O. (2011). Continuing
wildlife population declines and range contraction in the Mara region of Kenya during 1977-2009.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00818.x
Ogutu, J. O., Piepho, H. P., Said, M. Y., Ojwang, G. O., Njino, L. W., Kifugo, S. C., Wargute, P. W., &
Paiva, S. R. (2016). Extreme wildlife declines and concurrent increase in livestock numbers in
Kenya: What are the causes? PLoS ONE, 11(9), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163249
O’Neill, H. M. K., Durant, S. M., Strebel, S., & Woodroffe, R. (2021). Fencing affects African wild dog
movement patterns and population dynamics. Oryx, 56(1), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0030605320000320
Packer, C., Loveridge, A., Canney, S., Caro, T., Garnett, S. T., Pfeifer, M., Zander, K. K., Swanson, A.,
MacNulty, D., Balme, G., Bauer, H., Begg, C. M., Begg, K. S., Bhalla, S., Bissett, C., Bodasing, T.,
Brink, H., Burger, A., Burton, A. C. . . . Polasky, S. (2013). Conserving large carnivores: Dollars and
fence. Ecology Letters, 16(5), 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12091
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Teixeira, L., TisovecDufner, K. C., Marin, G. D. L., Marchini, S., Dorresteijn, I., & Pardini, R.
(2021). Linking human and ecological components to understand human–wildlife conflicts across
landscapes and species. Conservation Biology, 35(1), 285–296.
Thuo, D., Broekhuis, F., Furlan, E., Bertola, L. D., Kamau, J., & Gleeson, D. M. (2020). An insight into
the prey spectra and livestock predation by cheetahs in Kenya using faecal DNA metabarcoding.
Zoology, 143, 125853.
16 L. CORNU ET AL.

Vogel, S. M., Vasudev, D., Ogutu, J. O., Taek, P., Berti, E., Goswami, V. R., & Kaelo, M. (2023).
Identifying sustainable coexistence potential by integrating willingness-to-coexist with habitat
suitability assessments. Biological conservation, 279, 109935.
Wagenmakers, E. J., & Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using akaike weights. Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review, 11(1), 192–196. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206482
Weldemichel, T. G., & Lein, H. (2019). Deliverable 5.8: Land Division, Conservancies, Fencing and Its
Implications in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/
2617941?locale-attribute=en
Western, G., Macdonald, D. W., Loveridge, A. J., & Dickman, A. J. (2019). Creating landscapes of
coexistence: Do conservation interventions promote tolerance of lions in human-dominated
landscapes? Conservation & Society, 17(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_29
Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of Kenya. (2013). Government of Kenya: Kenya Gazette,
Supplement No. 18 of 27 December. http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/
WildlifeConservationandManagement%20Act2013.pdf
Wildlife Service, K. (2007). Conservation and Management Strategy for Cheetahs and Wild Dogs in
Kenya: 2009-2014.
Woodroffe, R. (2011). Demography of a recovering African wild dog (lycaon pictus) population.
Journal of Mammalogy, 92(2), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1644/10-mamm-a-157.1
Woodroffe, R., Frank, L. G., Lindsey, P. A., Ole Ranah, S. M. K., & Romañach, S. (2007). Livestock
husbandry as a tool for carnivore conservation in Africa’s community rangelands: A case-control
study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(4), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9124-8
Woodroffe, R., Lindsey, P., Romañach, S., Stein, A., & Ole Ranah, S. M. K. (2005). Livestock predation
by endangered African wild dogs (lycaon pictus) in northern Kenya. Biological Conservation, 124
(2), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.028
Woodroffe, R., & Sillero-Zubiri, C. (2012). Lycaon pictus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T12436A16711116.en.
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 17