Using the centre-periphery framework to explore human-carnivore relations

Abstract

Living alongside carnivores can incur both costs and benefits on people's lifeways. While positive outcomes of carnivore presence can foster coexistence, negative relations with carnivores can trigger carnivores' killing and undermine their conservation. In response to this, conservation efforts increasingly focus on promoting positive human-carnivore relations, most often through improvements in the flow of economic benefits from carnivores to local communities. However, there is a question mark over the effectiveness and potential consequences of market-based instruments for carnivore conservation. To understand the opportunities and pitfalls of market-based instruments for carnivore conservation, we use a centre-periphery framework to compare human-carnivore relations in two pastoral systems with uneven market-based conservation efforts across Kenya. We conducted 230 semi-structured interviews on costs and benefits, mitigation strategies and self-reported propensity to kill carnivores. Our study shows how different human-carnivore relations are enacted in areas with uneven market-based conservation efforts. We found that the extent to which benefits are attributed to alive carnivores is largely shaped by the existence of market-based conservation efforts in the area. Our results also document an openly self-reported propensity to kill carnivores in places where market-based conservation efforts are meagre at best. A more robust understanding of the effectiveness of market-based instruments for carnivore conservation is essential to sustain positive human-carnivore relations into the future.