This paper examines the effects of wildlife tourism‐based payments for ecosystem services (PES) on poverty, wealth inequality and the livelihoods of herders in the Maasai Mara Ecosystem in south‐western Kenya. It uses the case of Olare Orok Conservancy PES programme in which pastoral landowners have agreed to voluntary resettlement and exclusion of livestock grazing from their sub‐divided lands. These lands are set aside for wildlife tourism, in return for direct monetary payments by a coalition of five commercial tourism operators. Results show that, on the positive side, PES is the most equitable income source that promotes income diversification and buffers households from the livestock income declines during periods of severe drought, such as in 2008‐2009. Without accounting for the opportunity costs, the magnitude of the PES cash transfer to households is, on average, sufficient to close the poverty gap. The co‐benefits of PES implementation include the creation of employment opportunities in the conservancy and provision of social services. There is however a need to mitigate the negative effects of PES, including the widening inequality in income between PES and non‐PES households and the leakages resulting from the displacement of settlements and livestock to currently un‐subdivided pastoral commons.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12027Altmetric score:
Dimensions Citation Count:
Export citation:
RIS (.ris)
TI - Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife-tourism based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya
AU - Osano, P.M.
AU - Said, M.Y.
AU - De Leeuw, J.
AU - Ndiwa, N.
AU - Kaelo, D.
AU - Schommers, S.
AU - Birner, R.
AU - Ogutu, J.O.
AB - This paper examines the effects of wildlife tourism‐based payments for ecosystem services (PES) on poverty, wealth inequality and the livelihoods of herders in the Maasai Mara Ecosystem in south‐western Kenya. It uses the case of Olare Orok Conservancy PES programme in which pastoral landowners have agreed to voluntary resettlement and exclusion of livestock grazing from their sub‐divided lands. These lands are set aside for wildlife tourism, in return for direct monetary payments by a coalition of five commercial tourism operators. Results show that, on the positive side, PES is the most equitable income source that promotes income diversification and buffers households from the livestock income declines during periods of severe drought, such as in 2008‐2009. Without accounting for the opportunity costs, the magnitude of the PES cash transfer to households is, on average, sufficient to close the poverty gap. The co‐benefits of PES implementation include the creation of employment opportunities in the conservancy and provision of social services. There is however a need to mitigate the negative effects of PES, including the widening inequality in income between PES and non‐PES households and the leakages resulting from the displacement of settlements and livestock to currently un‐subdivided pastoral commons.
PY - 2013
UR - https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/11065/
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12027
KW - ecosystem services, environmental management, watersheds
ER -Endnote (.ciw)
%T Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife-tourism based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya
%A Osano, P.M.
%A Said, M.Y.
%A De Leeuw, J.
%A Ndiwa, N.
%A Kaelo, D.
%A Schommers, S.
%A Birner, R.
%A Ogutu, J.O.
%D 2013
%U https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/11065/
%R https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12027
%X This paper examines the effects of wildlife tourism‐based payments for ecosystem services (PES) on poverty, wealth inequality and the livelihoods of herders in the Maasai Mara Ecosystem in south‐western Kenya. It uses the case of Olare Orok Conservancy PES programme in which pastoral landowners have agreed to voluntary resettlement and exclusion of livestock grazing from their sub‐divided lands. These lands are set aside for wildlife tourism, in return for direct monetary payments by a coalition of five commercial tourism operators. Results show that, on the positive side, PES is the most equitable income source that promotes income diversification and buffers households from the livestock income declines during periods of severe drought, such as in 2008‐2009. Without accounting for the opportunity costs, the magnitude of the PES cash transfer to households is, on average, sufficient to close the poverty gap. The co‐benefits of PES implementation include the creation of employment opportunities in the conservancy and provision of social services. There is however a need to mitigate the negative effects of PES, including the widening inequality in income between PES and non‐PES households and the leakages resulting from the displacement of settlements and livestock to currently un‐subdivided pastoral commons.
%K ecosystem services
%K environmental management
%K watersheds
Publication year
2013
ISSN
0165-0203
Authors
Osano, P.M.; Said, M.Y.; De Leeuw, J.; Ndiwa, N.; Kaelo, D.; Schommers, S.; Birner, R.; Ogutu, J.O.
Language
English
Keywords
ecosystem services, environmental management, watersheds
Source
Natural Resources Forum: A United Nations Sustainable Development Journal. 37(4): 242-256
Geographic
Kenya
