IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0152432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender Differentiated Preferences for a Community-Based Conservation Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Aidan Keane
  • Heather Gurd
  • Dickson Kaelo
  • Mohammed Y Said
  • Jan de Leeuw
  • J Marcus Rowcliffe
  • Katherine Homewood

Abstract

Community-based conservation (CBC) aims to benefit local people as well as to achieve conservation goals, but has been criticised for taking a simplistic view of “community” and failing to recognise differences in the preferences and motivations of community members. We explore this heterogeneity in the context of Kenya’s conservancies, focussing on the livelihood preferences of men and women living adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve. Using a discrete choice experiment we quantify the preferences of local community members for key components of their livelihoods and conservancy design, differentiating between men and women and existing conservancy members and non-members. While Maasai preference for pastoralism remains strong, non-livestock-based livelihood activities are also highly valued and there was substantial differentiation in preferences between individuals. Involvement with conservancies was generally perceived to be positive, but only if households were able to retain some land for other purposes. Women placed greater value on conservancy membership, but substantially less value on wage income, while existing conservancy members valued both conservancy membership and livestock more highly than did non-members. Our findings suggest that conservancies can make a positive contribution to livelihoods, but care must be taken to ensure that they do not unintentionally disadvantage any groups. We argue that conservation should pay greater attention to individual-level differences in preferences when designing interventions in order to achieve fairer and more sustainable outcomes for members of local communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Aidan Keane & Heather Gurd & Dickson Kaelo & Mohammed Y Said & Jan de Leeuw & J Marcus Rowcliffe & Katherine Homewood, 2016. "Gender Differentiated Preferences for a Community-Based Conservation Initiative," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152432
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152432
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152432&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0152432?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip M. Osano & Mohammed Y. Said & Jan Leeuw & Nicholas Ndiwa & Dickson Kaelo & Sarah Schomers & Regina Birner & Joseph O. Ogutu, 2013. "Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism‐based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 0(4), pages 242-256, November.
    2. Roderick Neumann, 1997. "Primitive Ideas: Protected Area Buffer Zones and the Politics of Land in Africa," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 28(3), pages 559-582, July.
    3. David Hulme & Marshall Murphree, 1999. "Communities, wildlife and the 'new conservation' in Africa," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 277-285.
    4. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    5. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    6. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    7. Philip M. Osano & Mohammed Y. Said & Jan de Leeuw & Nicholas Ndiwa & Dickson Kaelo & Sarah Schomers & Regina Birner & Joseph O. Ogutu, 2013. "Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism‐based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 37(4), pages 242-256, November.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    9. de Leeuw, Joyce M. & Said, Mohammed Y. & Kifugo, Shem & Ogutu, Joseph O. & Osano, Philip & de Leeuw, Jan, 2014. "Spatial variation in the willingness to accept payments for conservation of a migratory wildlife corridor in the Athi-Kaputiei Plains, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 16-24.
    10. Caroline Archambault, 2014. "Young Perspectives on Pastoral Rangeland Privatization: Intimate Exclusions at the Intersection of Youth Identities," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 26(2), pages 204-218, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nunan, Fiona & Menton, Mary & McDermott, Constance L. & Huxham, Mark & Schreckenberg, Kate, 2021. "How does governance mediate links between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation? Results from a systematic mapping and thematic synthesis of literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    2. Talpur, Musharaf & Brouwer, Roy & Koetse, Mark, 2019. "Opt-Out Forced Choice Effect in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Discrete Choice Models: A Gender Perspective," MPRA Paper 99631, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ken Ogao Oburah & Clement Lenachuru & Wilfred O. Odadi, 2021. "Does the Community Conservancy Model Work for Pastoralists? Insights from Naibunga Conservancy in Northern Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-27, July.
    4. Agúndez, Dolores & Lawali, Sitou & Mahamane, Ali & Alía, Ricardo & Soliño, Mario, 2022. "Development of agroforestry food resources in Niger: Are farmers’ preferences context specific?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adams, William M. & Infield, Mark, 2003. "Who is on the Gorilla's Payroll? Claims on Tourist Revenue From a Ugandan National Park," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 177-190, January.
    2. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    4. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    5. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Sotirios Thanos & Mark Wardman & Abigail Bristow, 2011. "Valuing Aircraft Noise: Stated Choice Experiments Reflecting Inter-Temporal Noise Changes from Airport Relocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 559-583, December.
    9. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    10. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    11. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.
    13. Sarah Milne & Bill Adams, 2012. "Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 133-158, January.
    14. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Public preferences for livestock presence in pasture landscape: A latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment in Germany," DARE Discussion Papers 1901, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    15. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    16. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    18. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    19. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    20. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.