Local perspectives on human-elephant conflict near Rimoi National Reserve, Kenya

The goal of this study was to use local perspectives to describe the conflict between humans and elephants (Loxodonta africana) occurring near Rimoi National Reserve and to suggest locally acceptable solutions. Thirty-two household interviews were conducted in Rimoi Sublocation to gather information regarding the socioeconomic context of the conflict; elephant activity and human response to that activity; local attitudes toward wildlife, elephants in particular, and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS); and possible solutions to the conflict. Additional information was gathered through conversations with residents, KWS staff members, and other development organizations active in the area, and from direct and participant observation while camped in Rimoi Sublocation for 5 weeks between 13 June to 20 July 1996 (wet season). In addition 13 household interviews were conducted in neighboring Kabulwa, Biretwo, and Kamnarok National Reserve.

People living in Rimoi Sublocation subsist by growing grain crops in small plots and by raising livestock which graze freely on the communally owned lands. Elephants impact many farmers by entering their fields and destroying crops. Sixty-eight percent of farmers interviewed said that elephants entered their fields during 1995. Elephants leave the reserve and enter fields at night during the rainy season. Men try to keep elephants away by making noise or lighting fires, while most women and small children hide in their houses. People consider elephants the second most important problem they face, with lack of water and rain the most important problem. Fifty-nine percent of those interviewed view wildlife as bad, and 78% view elephants that way. Some aesthetic appreciation of, and curiosity about, wildlife was noted, as was some of the conservation ethic of traditional Kalenjin people. Few people (23%) feel that KWS is doing a good job concerning the problem with elephants. Many feel that fencing the reserve would be a good idea, however locals now benefit from occasional access to the reserve which would be lost with fencing. Other suggestions for ways to mitigate the conflict may be more acceptable, such as employment of local scouts and increasing the number of rangers available to scare away elephants. Impacts of fencing on neighboring areas should also be considered. Kabulwa and Biretwo, for example, appear to have less depredation by elephants, but a fence along the western boundary of the reserve (as planned) might direct the elephants north and south into these areas.