Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence?
Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/2041-7136-2-19
复制
发表时间：
2012-12-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Brockington, Daniel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Homewood, Katherine M.;Trench, Pippa Chenevix;Brockington, Daniel
东非干旱和半干旱地区是世界上许多牧民和最壮观的稀树草原野生动物种群的家园，吸引了大量的保护和旅游收入。然而，这些人是最贫穷的人（受极端气候事件影响最大），野生动物正在不可持续地减少。各国政府、国际捐助者和保护机构赞成通过保护与发展的双赢解决方案。马赛兰是一个保护、贫困和重新分配旅游收入的新举措的热点。我们概述了牧民的生计以及这些生计是如何变化的，然后总结了东非和马赛兰的野生动物种群、旅游收入以及保护和发展举措的现状和趋势。我们要问的是，野生动物收入在多大程度上有助于牧民的生计，以及这是否转化为共存的坚实基础。为了说明野生动物和旅游活动的作用和重要性，我们概述了马赛人生计多地点研究的结果。在所有地点，牲畜贡献了平均年收入的一半或更多，非农工作和农业分别排名第二和第三，但在马拉，野生动物收入在所有财富类别中贡献了约20%的收入。在大多数地方，有相当大的区域被预留用于保护和旅游，但野生动物最多只占一小部分家庭收入的5%。野生动物带来的利益很少流向牧民，而保护限制限制了生产和应对战略，破坏了共存的潜力。在特殊情况下，大量的野生动物收入可能会进入家庭，但相关的保护协议的全面社会和生态影响仍然不清楚。
East African arid and semi-arid lands are home to many of the world's pastoralists and most spectacular savanna wildlife populations, attracting substantial conservation and tourism revenues. Yet these peoples are among the poorest ( and most affected by extreme climatic events), and the wildlife is in unsustainable decline. National governments, international donors and conservation agencies favour win-win solutions through conservation with development. Maasailand is a hotspot of conservation, poverty and new initiatives to redistribute tourist income. We outline pastoralist livelihoods and how these are changing, then summarise status and trends of wildlife populations, tourism revenues, and conservation and development initiatives in East Africa and Maasailand. We ask to what extent wildlife revenues contribute to pastoralist livelihoods and whether this translates into a robust basis for coexistence. To put in context the role and importance of wildlife-and tourism-based activities, we outline findings from a multi-site study of Maasai livelihoods. Livestock contribute half or more of the mean annual income in all sites, with off-farm work and farming ranking second and third, respectively, except in Mara, where wildlife-based income contributes around 20% income across all wealth categories. In most sites, significant areas have been set aside for conservation and tourism, but wildlife contributes < 5% income to a small proportion of households at most. Few wildlife-derived benefits flow to pastoralists, while conservation restrictions constrain production and coping strategies, undermining potential for coexistence. In exceptional circumstances, significant wildlife revenue may reach households, but full social and ecological implications of associated conservancy agreements remain unclear.