A Comparative Analysis of Opportunity, Transaction and Health Costs of Human-wildlife Conflict in Amboseli and Mt. Kenya Ecosystems, Kenya

Abstract

Conventionally, the cost of Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) has largely dwelled on visible costs (VC), ignoring the hidden costs (HC). The HC of HWC are losses that are uncompen-sated, temporarily delayed, or of psychosocial in nature, and are often excluded from economic assessments, policy formulation and scientific research. This study was conducted in the Am-boseli Ecosystem (AE) and Mt. Kenya Ecosystem (MKE) with the aim of comparing the HC economic losses of HWC and demonstrating the importance of considering HC in wildlife con-servation. The two ecosystems are HWC hot spot areas, yet the main sources of livelihoods, culture, climatic conditions and level of development are different, hence providing a chance to compare HWC across the forementioned variables. The objectives of this study were to; a) quantify the economic magnitude of the opportunity, transaction and health costs of HWC and its impacts on human wellbeing; b) compare the visible and hidden costs of HWC in AE and MKE; c) identify methods used by the communities to reduce the hidden costs of HWC; and d) explore strategies and mechanisms for appropriate and sustainable financial compensation. Data was collected from 408 households using a muti-stage sampling technique. Results indi-cates that crop and livestock guarding costs were the most common HC in AE and MKE. Other HC included loss of school time, time lost escorting children to school, money spent on guard-ing, disease contraction during guarding, sleepless nights, anxiety and fear. However, the hours spent guarding livestock (t= 3.820, d.f=110, p=0.000) and crops (t=3.571, d.f=130, p=0.00) at night in AE and MKE were significantly different. Conversely, daytime hours spent guarding livestock and crops in AE and MKE were similar (P>0.05). School children in AE lost more time in the morning (1.28±0.053 hours; n=98) and in the evening (1.22±0.044 hours; n=93) than those in MKE. Similarly, the time adults lost escorting children to school (t=8.166, d.f=284, p=0.000) were significantly different in the two ecosystems. On average, AE house-holds spent KES 208,540 guarding livestock and crops compared to MKE households who incurred KES 131,309. While guarding, 75.5 % (n=154) of the households in AE and 38.7% (n=79) in MKE contracted diseases such as malaria and pneumonia. In addition, most house-holds in AE, 78.9% (n=161) and in MKE, 61.3% (n=125) experienced anxiety and fear, while 68.1% (n=139) and 51% (n=104) in AE and MKE respectively, had sleepless nights. Transac-tion costs analysed as the losses incurred due to delayed payment of HWC claims over a period of 1 year, revealed that human fatalities resulted to the highest loss in both MKE (KES 228,763.89) and AE (KES 152,462.33). Households in both ecosystems used a range of tech-niques to deal with the HC of HWC, including rescheduling activities, physical structures, and guarding. Overall, HC were more in AE than MKE, suggesting HC varies with wildlife species, human population, land use practices, mitigation measures and ecosystems. A review of the wildlife compensation policy and law to include HC can help deter resentments resulting from uncompensated HWC costs.