THE LION’S TALK:
PERSPECTIVES ON
HUMAN-LION RELATIONSHIPS
MA African Studies 2018/2019 – Thesis
1
stJuly 2019
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ... 2
THEORIES ... 5
COMMON POOL RESOURCES ... 5
COMMON POOL RESOURCES:THE IDEAL SITUATION... 6
APPLICATION TO WILDLIFE ... 10
RISK PERCEPTION THEORY ... 14
METHODS ... 18
STUDY AREA ... 18
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ... 20
HUMAN ... 20
RESULTS & DISCUSSION... 25
RESULTS ... 25 HUMAN ... 25 LION... 29 HUMAN ... 36 LION... 39 CONCLUSION ... 43 REFERENCES ... 46 ANNEXES - MAPS... 53
Introduction
With a growing human population, the XXIst Century sees more conflicts arising for resources control.1,2,3,4 Key studies have been presented in order to mitigate the potential threats on endowments and share of scarce resources over different environments between human actors, leading to insufficient results, as International agencies such as the FAO or UNDP are still concerned about population growth and lack of resources repartition in certain areas such as East and South-East Asia as well as Africa.5 If intra-human competitions are well documented throughout Social Sciences, conflicts arising from competitions involving non-human animals have been taken through a narrow angle in research, that in spite of a recent trend in researching non-human animal behaviors and their relationships with humans.6,7
Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is “(…) commonly described as conflict that occurs between people and wildlife; actions by humans or wildlife that have an adverse effect on the other; threats posed by wildlife to human life, economic security, or recreation; or the perception that wildlife threatens human safety, health, food, and property.”8
Articles have been published within the last few years on HWC testifying of the number of species and biomes affected by this issue9. A common trigger for conflict is the pace at which the world population is growing and the resulting pressure on the resources and lands.10 According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the human population is set to reach 9.7 billion by 205011. During the XXth Century, the population already grew from 1.65
1 Ashton P.J (2007) “Disputes and Conflicts over Water in Africa”; in Violent Conflicts, Fragile Peace:
Perspectives on Africa’s Security; pp. 1-11
2Martine G., Alves J.E.D. (2015) “Economy, society and environment in the 21st century: three pillars or trilemma
of sustainability?”; Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População; Vol.32(3); pp. 433-460
3 Klare, M. T. (2001) “Resource Wars - The new landscape of global conflict.”; New York: Metropolitan books;
289 pages
4 Mildner S-A. et al. (2011) “Resource Scarcity - A Global Security Threat?”; Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik
German Institute for International and Security Affairs; pp. 1-30
5 See 207 and 2018 annual reports from United Nations’ agencies : FAO, World Food Program; UNDP and UNEP 6 Peterson M.N. et al. (2010) “Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict”; Conservation Letters; Vol.3;
pp. 74-82
7 Anand S., Radhakrishna S. (2017) “Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: is conflict escalation real or
imagined?”; Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity; Vol.10 (2); pp. 154-161 (See for overview of studies published
on human-wildlife conflict)
8 Nyhus P.J. (2016) “Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence”; Annual Review of Environment and Resource;
Vol.41; p.145
9 Anand S., Radhakrishna S. (2017) “Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: is conflict escalation real or
imagined?”; Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity; Vol.10 (2); p.154 (See for overview of studies published on
human-wildlife conflict)
10 Pillay N., Seoraj-Pillai N. (2017) “A Meta-Analysis of Human–Wildlife Conflict: South African and Global
Perspectives”; Sustainability; Vol.9 (34); p.1
11 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2017) “World Population: Key Findings and advance tables
billion to 6.5 billion.12 The United Nations (UN) estimate world population as follows : “Sixty per cent of the global population lives in Asia (4.4 billion), 16 per cent in Africa (1.2 billion), 10 per cent in Europe (738 million), 9 per cent in Latin America and the Caribbean (634 million), and the remaining 5 per cent in Northern America (358 million) and Oceania (39 million).”13 In addition, the UN emphasize the African population has the biggest growth rate today with a 2.55% population growth per year.14
In this regard, big cats (Panthera spp) are of particular interest when it comes to talk about Human-Wildlife conflicts, as they are considered among the most dangerous for humans.15 Lions (Panthera Leo) are the largest of the three big cats, found in Africa, and second largest in the world, behind Tigers (Panthera Tigris). Around 30’000 individuals remain in the wild today with declining numbers outside of conservation areas.16 According to Wildaid, only 8% of lions’ historic habitats remain, and about 43% of their territories have been lost within the last two decades.17 With less available area, it happens, more often than not, that lions enter into contact with human settlements, sometimes leading to deadly conflicts for one side or another. The topic of living around lions is sensitive in many places in Africa. The animal is often seen as merciless killer, because of local beliefs or bad publicity.18
This context led to researches conducted in Kenya, Namibia, Zimbabwe or Botswana to understand the pattern of conflicts found between certain communities and lions.19 In this context, the perception, history, beliefs and economic endowments would play a great role in determining the human’s behavior towards the animal. One mitigating element created in Southern Africa, partly as a response to HWC, is the “community-based natural resource management program” (CBNRM).20 The basis of those programs was to empower communities in wildlife conservation and leave them less reliant on cattle farming to sustain themselves, through new economic perspectives in conservation management. However, after
12Thornton P.K. et al. (2011) “Agriculture and food systems in Sub-Saharan Africain a 4 ◦C+ world.”;
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. A; Vol.369; pp. 117–136.
13 The United Nations ; « population » on http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/population/; accessed on
April 18th 2019 14 Ibid.
15 Krafte Holland K. et al. (2018) “Characterizing conflict between humans and big cats Panthera spp: A
systematic review of research trends and management opportunities”; Plos One; Vol.13 (9); pp. 1-19
16 Stuart C. & M. (2017) “Stuarts’ Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa”; Penguin Random House; 4th
Edition; p. 352
17 Panthera, Wildaid; “Beyond Cecil: Africa’s Lions in Crisis”; p.1
18 Andersson A., Matema S. (2015) “Why are lions killing us? Human-Wildlife Conflict and social discontent in
Mbire district, Northern Zimbawe”; Journal of Modern African Studies; Vol.53 (1); pp. 93-120
19 Ibid
20 Sibanda B. (2006) " Community wildlife management in Zimbabwe : The case of CAMPFIRE in the Zambezi
Valley” in “Rights, Resources and Rural Development : Community-based Natural Resource Management in
decades of CBNRM, opinions have changed and “(…)it has largely failed to deliver the expected and theoretically predicted benefits to local communities. CBNRM has become and remains so popular to IFIs, but often so unpopular with target communities themselves.”21
It is common to tackle HWC through the Social Sciences lenses. In many ways, Humans (homo sapiens) are seen as the dominant species on earth, and as such, have been studied in their environments in all the possible ways that we can imagine so far. Nevertheless, when analyzing intra-human conflicts, researchers usually look at all the variables in order to come up with an answer to the question, whereas in human-wildlife conflicts, the wildlife is often forgotten. As Charles Darwin already claimed at the time: “(…) the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”22 That being said, it is more than a century later that we started to acknowledge this fact. Indeed, the main tradition, started by Descartes in the 17th century, was to think of animals as “reflex-driven machines” that could not feel or think and were lacking consciousness.23 Those arguments justified centuries of the “Human” as the superior species, idea that still last today to some extent, even if it is more and more challenged.24,25 As such, rethinking the place of non-human animals in our societies is not a new trend but a necessary one in research that provides insightful thoughts on the way we consider, not only other species, but also our own place.26,27
In the African context, it is therefore essential to firstly, include lions as social actors in the research and secondly, broaden the perspective to more than just conflicts.
This thesis will explore the question of human-lion interactions through different angles, in line with contemporary thoughts, including both parties as conscious actors, capable of reasoning. There is no doubt that humans and lions are two very different species, however, this is no more justification to ignore that non-human animals are fully part of the interactions with human animals, and should be considered as such. More than just proposing a new solution to conflicts, this thesis aims at understanding how humans and lions can share a
21 Blaikie P. (2006) “Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resources Management in Malawi
and Botswana”; World Development; Vol. 34 (11); pp. 1943-1944
22Darwin C. (1871) “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex”; London, John Murray, Albemarle
Street; Vol.1 (1); p.105
23 Descartes R. (1637) “A Discourse on the Method”; Read Book 2008; Part V
24Coley J.D. (2012) “Common Origins of Diverse Misconceptions: Cognitive Principles and the Development
of Biology Thinking” CBE-Life Sciences Education; Vol.11 (3); pp. 209-215
25 Bekoff M. (2000) “Animal Emotions : Exploring Passionate Natures”; BioScience; Vol.50 (10); pp.861-870 26 Meijer E. (2018) “Political Nonhuman Animal Voices: Rethinking Language and Politics with Nonhuman
Animals”; in Animals and Their People; Vol.21; pp. 221-234
27 Pearson C. (2015) “Beyond ‘resistance’: rethinking nonhuman agency for a ‘more-than-human’ world”;
common territory, with common resources, taking into account different synergies between the two species. In this regard, this thesis is giving room for the lions to talk as well and express how they feel around humans.
The main question here is “In what ways humans and lions are able to co-exist on the same territory, with given environmental endowments, without identifying each other as a threat?”
The first section of the thesis will present the theories assessed to explore the question. On the one hand, the Common Pool Resources Theory will be used in order to understand the extent to which resources can be shared in a group, and a fortiori, with wildlife. On the other hand, the Risk Perception Theory will be used to explain the perception of risks that each party can have towards the other. Those two theories are interesting in this context as they have never been applied to human-wildlife relationships. Further than that, the CPR is a key theory in order to understand resources depletion, which can become a serious trigger for conflicts. Applying it to non-human animals can inform us on the way each participants consider its environment with the given resources. The Risk Perception Theory is extremely interesting in the context of this research as the perceptions of dangers and risks are often exaggerated compared to the actual dangers. Studies will be presented further to show that these greater perceptions of risks are a common pattern in both human animals as well as non-human animals. As such, it may be a key concept in order to open doors to other kind of relationships between humans and lions. The second section will present the study area and the methods used to gather data. The Kruger to Canyon Biosphere is one of the few ecosystems in which big lion populations can still be found in the wild. The particularity of the area is the prevalence of fenced reserves, which made an interesting case study for this research. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to assess the question. This section will be followed by the analysis of the data and discussion of the findings. The last section will conclude with the further possibilities in that field of research.
Theories
Common Pool Resources
According to the SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, “The commons refers to a resource shared by a group that may be an entire society or a smaller unit”28 and “A
28 Mills A.E, Tereskerz P.J. (2018) “Commons, Tragedy of the” in “SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and
“tragedy of the commons” occurs when each individual takes something out of or puts something into a resource, believing that the benefits derived from doing so outweigh the associated costs. Each person or entity with a right to use the resource does so without regard to the actions of others or the value of the resource, seeking to maximize the benefit derived from the use of the resource, and eventually, the resource is wasted or depleted. The “tragedy” occurs because rights to use the resource are widely assigned or collectively owned, with no one person having the right to exclude the others.”29
This tragedy of the commons gave birth to the Common Pool Resources Theory (CPR).30 The theory starts with the initial assumption that CPRs are non-excludable and rivalrous.31 In other terms, everyone can enjoy CPRs freely but the use of it can prevent another from enjoying it as well. By applying the Prisoner’s Dilemma game (two participants are always better off when cooperating but often one will defect on another)32, Ostrom found that: “When individual withdraw scarce resource units from the same CPR, when they cannot communicate and establish agreed-upon rules and strategies, and when no other authority has established and enforced effective rules, predictions of suboptimal use of the resource are likely to be correct. Users will overappropriate, individuals will defect on one another, and potential collective benefits will not be achieved. Too many straws will be in the teapot.”33
Common Pool Resources: The ideal situation
What is the optimal use of common pool resources and how to achieve it? This haunting question was the basis of such a big variety of researches, that it seems surprising that we still face this challenge today. As stated previously, the commons are goods that are shared by a group and can tend to disappear in the case of suboptimal use. The case in which optimal use is reached depends on the type of goods we are talking about and, for the purpose of this research, we will limit the discussion to water and food. Territories are also considered as a
29 Mills A.E, Tereskerz P.J. (2018) “Commons, Tragedy of the” in “SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and
Society”; SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2nd Edition; pp. 547-549
30 Ostrom E. (1990) “Governing the Commons : The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions”; Cambridge
University Press; Chapter 3; pp. 58-101
31 Ostrom E. (1994) “Rules, games and common pool resources”; University of Michigan Press; p.5
32 Prisoner’s dilemma definition available on https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp;
accessed on April 22nd 2019
common, and usually are seen as the main source of conflicts with non-human animals.34,35 However, one of the reason behind this need for territories is the access to water and food, without which no species could survive. Studies showed that prides of lions are utilizing large territories in search of resource-rich habitats and strategies of territory control are driven by the need to operate on a food and water abundant habitat.36,37,38 In this sense, it becomes more interesting to actually study the CPR under the light of water and food consumption than territories per se.
The matrix below presents the conditions to fall under different categories.
39
Water is undeniably part of the commons but food on the other hand can be both included in commons and private. It can be considered as private in the way of how it is produced today. Indeed, the way we produce and buy our food today - typically in stores and/or markets – prevents another from enjoying the product I am enjoying myself. However, this definition is bound to the modern days consumption’s style. That is where food can be included as commons. In the case of hunting or fishing, for instance, food is rivalrous as it can be depleted, but the fact that I can enjoy one fish or one tomato does not prevent others to do so
34 Anand S., Radhakrishna S. (2017) “Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: is conflict escalation real or
imagined?”; Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity; Vol.10 (2); pp. 154-161
35 Andersson A., Matema S. (2015) “Why are lions killing us? Human-Wildlife Conflict and social discontent in
Mbire district, Northern Zimbawe”; Journal of Modern African Studies; Vol.53 (1); pp. 93-120
36 Mosser, A et al. (2009) “Serengeti real estate: density vs. fitness-based indicators of lion habitat quality”; Ecology Letters; Vol. 12 (10); pp.1050-1060
37 Mosser, A., & Packer, C. (2009) “Group territoriality and the benefits of sociality in the African lion, Panthera
leo”; Animal Behaviour; Vol.78 (2); pp. 359-370
38 Valeix, M et al. (2012) “Influence of prey dispersion on territory and group size of African lions: a test of the
resource dispersion hypothesis”; Ecology; Vol.93 (11); pp. 2490- 2496
39 “Public and Private Goods / The Tragedy of the Commons” on
as well. Here, the important is not the unit but the resources – as a whole - given in a precise environment.40
The first assumption in utilizing commons to their optimal level is cooperation between the actors, or commoners. As shown in De Moor’s text, historical records show that regulations and strategies were implemented early on in Europe in order to use common-property natural resources in a way that would prevent depletion from overusing, or other external factors inducing the loss of the resource.41 Cooperation between the participants imply (1) that each participant understands what is at stake, (2) effective communication and (3) effective regulations. Through the perspectives of those three pre-requisites, Ostrom developed a comprehensive design of long-enduring CPR arrangement which is as follow :”
1. Clearly defined boundaries. Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.
2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions. Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and to provision rules requiring labor, material, and/or money.
3. Collective-choice arrangements. Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.
4. Monitoring. Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators.
5. Graduated sanctions. Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both. 6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms. Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to
low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize. The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.
For CPRs that are part of larger systems:
40 De Moor T. (2015) “The dilemma of the commoners: understanding the use of common-pool resources in
long-term perspective”; Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions; Cambridge University Press, p.122
8. Nested enterprises. Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.”42
Those 8 points retrieve the basic rules of private property, as imagined in the Western civilization. The first set of rules set the participants and their rights while the second set the core components for the CPR to function, with conflict resolution and sanctions in case of problems. However, this design remains quite limited in its application outside the Western legal system framework, and is oblivious to other core components that fall outside of the Human decision-making’s scope.
In addition of Ostrom’s work, recent studies43 started to emphasize the need for local ecological knowledge in order to use the resources in a sustainable way. CPR literature remained focus for a long time on the behavioral aspects of cooperation, which in turn, created a situation where the resource was out of the discussion. In “Cooperation is not enough”, Schill et al. state “Resource users interact with and affect, not only each other, but also the ecosystem, on which they depend. It is these social and social-ecological interactions that determine not only the capacity of resource user groups to cooperate but also the prospects for sustainable resource use.”44 For them the main condition for sustainability in CPR is that “User groups must have the relevant ecological knowledge in order to manage the shared resources sustainably, including an understanding or awareness of ecological complexities and uncertainties. “Ecosystems are moving targets”, characterized by non-linearity, unpredictable fluctuations and uncertain futures. Moreover, user groups also need to collectively act on their ecological knowledge. Sustainable ecosystem management, thus, depends on both types of interactions: social-social and social-ecological; and is influenced by social and environmental uncertainties.”45 This research gives an interesting twist to what has remained for a long time a theory centered on human’s interactions with each other. In order to achieve an optimal use of commons, it is not only important to create a framework for the interactions between the participants, but it is also fundamental to review the interactions with the given environment. This new components challenge the traditional dichotomy of active/passive, that sees humans as the only possible actors in a CPR. This is of particular interest, as humans more
42 Ostrom E. (1990) “Governing the Commons : The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions”; Cambridge
University Press; Chapter 3; p.90
43 Schill C. et al. (2016) “Cooperation Is Not Enough—Exploring Social-Ecological Micro-Foundations for
Sustainable Common-Pool Resource”; PLoS One; Vol.11 (8); pp. 1-24
44 Ibid; p.2 45 Ibid; p.3
often than not, have to live with other species that are usually considered as passive. By reversing the assumption of non-human animal as passive and keeping the same framework, how can we create a functioning CPR in a multi-species environment?
Application to Wildlife
One major flaw of the theory that has been mentioned is the structural dichotomy of active/passive participants. In the great scheme of common pool resources management, humans are considered the only active participants. This assumption comes from the occidental perspective on private property , that is “the relevant social relationships legitimating resource claims exist only among human persons finds a counterpart in common property theory and its corresponding rights of: management—the right to use property as seen fit; exclusion—the right to exclude others from using property, and; alienation—the right to transfer property.”46 This view on private property was further strengthened by the idea of “humanity” as superior.47 In this sense, non-human animals are always seen as passive, or in other terms, the object. Never can they be seen as an actor since we only account of the history of relationships with animals through the narratives of our perception of it, forgetting that animals have a history of relationship with humans as well.48 By challenging the perspective that human owns the only narratives, it is possible to reconsider the CPR under a new light, with actors from multiple species, that follow the main requirements for using natural resources in sustainable way.
In this regard, the concept of agency is essential. In order to accept non-human animals as agent in the CPR, we need to accept that they make rational choices, based on their feeling and needs. In the Dictionary of the Social Sciences, agency is defined as: “The capacity for autonomous social action. Agency commonly refers to the ability of actors to operate independently of the determining constraints of social structure.(…) More generally, however, social science usage has shifted toward an emphasis on the problem of autonomy itself. In this context, agency raises questions about the importance of human intentions, the nature and social construction of free will, moral choice, and political capacity. In common usage, agency places the individual at the center of analysis.”49 This quite archaic definition is centered on humans. However, the concept can and is now applied to non-human animals as well. For
46Schmidt J.J ; Dowsley M. (2010) “Hunting with Polar Bears: Problems with the Passive Properties of the
Commons”; Human Ecology; Vol.38 (3); p.378
47 Descartes R. (1637) “A Discourse on the Method”; Read Book 2008; Part V
48 Ingold T. (1994) “From Trust to Domination : An alternative history of human-animal relations”; in A.
Manning; J. Serpell “Animals and Human Society : Changing perspective”; Routledge; p.1
instance, Helen Steward published a paper on Animal Agency in 2009 questioning our philosophical stances in order to include non-human animals in the concept.50 Through cases of developmental psychology, the author shows that non-human animals possess prerequisites, such as desire and capability of choices, that make them agents in the light of the concept.51 It is, thus, possible to think of lions as actors in the research of their relationships with humans, as it has been proven that lions and more generally non-human animals do have feelings and have full capacity to choose.52,53,54
To go further, Proust’s study allows a better understanding in the cognitive process in non-human animals and to a later extent the process to make choices.55 This article shows that the approaches we used until now to explain rationality in both human animals and non-human animals were not enough to explain the cognitive process going on while making choices and decisions.56 According to Proust, the dynamic-evolutionary concept fits better in order to understand metacognition in non-human animals, as well as human animals.57 For her, rationality is linked to adaptability, which is a result of a dynamic-evolutionary process that every species have taken in order to survive in their environments, which constantly change.58 In other terms, both non-human animals and human animals are capable of rational choices and decision-making in order to adapt and survive.
Under those lights, studies, such as Fienup-Riordan’s, took place in the Nunavut region of Canada on the representation and the interactions between Inuit and polar bears (Ursus Maritimus) taking into considerations that both parties were rational agents.59 One particularity found in the groups living in this region is that all interactions with the environment – plants and animals – are seen as “mutual relationships” in this sense that humans do not dominate the environment but live in symbiosis with it.60 Based on those researches, Schmidt and
50 Steward H. (2009) “Animal Agency”; Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy; Vol.52 (3); pp.
217-231
51 Ibid
52Proust J. (2006) “Rationality and metacognition in non-human animals”; Rational Animals?; Vol.12 (2); pp.
247-274
53 Bekoff M. (2010) “The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist explores Animal Joy, Sorrow and
Empathy – and why they matter ”; New World Library; 240 pages
54 Gilfillan G. (2016) “Cross-modal individual recognition in wild African lions”; Biology Letters; Vol.12 (8);
pp. 1-5
55Proust J. (2006) “Rationality and metacognition in non-human animals”; Rational Animals?; Vol.12 (2); pp.
247-274
56 Ibid; p.6 57 Ibid; p.7 58 Ibid; pp.8-10
59 Fienup-Riordan A. (1990) “Eskimo Essays: Yupik Lives and and How we see them”; Rutger University Press 60 Ibid
Dowsley proposed a new vision on the CPR with both Inuit and polar bears as actors.61 Their article draws on the relationships that Inuit hunters have with their preys, in this case polar bears. The quotas introduced by the government of Canada to maintain polar bears’ population shifted the relations that Inuit had with the animal from participating actor in the hunting process to a passive resource that must be protected.62 Polar bears hold the highest symbolic value for Northern Canada’s population and have an important cultural value for the groups that used to hunt them. In addition, the natural interactions bears had with the tribes have always reposed on respect with cases showing that the bears would avoid areas in which human settlements could be found. This behavior was interpreted by the Inuit as the mutual respect they have for each other.63 Schmidt and Dowsley conclude by saying that “The active social relationships that exist between human and non-human persons in Inuit communities raise unique difficulties in applying Western notions common-pool resource theory to wildlife management. In addition, problematizing the latent passivity of categories such as “common-property” and “common-pool resources” requires attending to the different ways in which knowledge regarding particular aspects of complex systems is produced. In short: whether we speak of “common property” or “resource units” in delineating claims to the commons we must do so by applying assumptions that transform the Earth’s complex social and ecological systems into the world of social and ecological relationships of which we are a part.”64
Wildlife is seen as a common-pool resource, in particular in Africa, where the protection of fauna is of economic importance. Therefore, the focus is not on how to live with the wildlife and share other common pool resources, but how to use the wildlife as a common pool resource, which clashes with centuries of relationships, just as the Inuit, that local communities had with animals. For instance, Maasai people in Kenya and Tanzania express centuries of relationships with lions that are far more complex than reducing it to a potential economic value (livestock depredation vs. lion conservation for tourism).65 In a similar study, Andersson and Matema showed the complex relationship that communities had with lions in
61Schmidt J.J ; Dowsley M. (2010) “Hunting with Polar Bears: Problems with the Passive Properties of the
Commons”; Human Ecology; Vol.38 (3); p.378
62 Ibid; p.381
63 Wenzel G. (1983) “Inuit and Polar Bears: Cultural Observations from a Hunt Near Resolute Bay”; NWT Arctic;
Vol. 36 (1); pp.90-94
64 Schmidt J.J ; Dowsley M. (2010) “Hunting with Polar Bears: Problems with the Passive Properties of the
Commons”; Human Ecology; Vol.38 (3); p.386
65 Goldman M.J. et al. (2010) “Maintaining Complex Relations with Large Cats: Maasai and Lions in Kenya and
Zimbabwe and Mozambique.66 The interactions between the two species showcased a level of cooperation and also conflicts that was similar to those you could find between different people.
In order to apply the CPR to lions, we need to look in their strategies for choosing and using their habitats.67,68 Indeed, to argument how lions would act in a CPR model (intra-species as well as inter-species) it is mandatory to understand the patterns of territories control and resources use.
Lions usually cover big spaces in search of territories that are resources-rich.69 Some researches point out two fundamental points in pride of lions’ movements and establishment: (1) Avoiding competition with other prides. (2) Presence of waterholes.70,71 It is interesting, in this respect, to understand the importance of water for lions. Lions are not reputed as big drinkers.72 The strategy behind waterholes is to be located where their preys are easier to target.73 As such, the importance of water becomes twofold: it is a source of all needed resources for them to survive: both water and food. In this context, other studies showed that other predators that are vulnerable to lions’ presence can lose prime spots in favor of the later.74,75 In this regard, it seems that both in intra-species and inter-species relations, lions do not share their resources that easily. Intra-species as the stronger pride takes advantage and inter-species as weaker predators (and preys of course) will avoid areas where lions are present.76 The article of De Preez et al. clearly demonstrates how the competition between
66 Andersson A., Matema S. (2015) “Why are lions killing us? Human-Wildlife Conflict and social discontent in
Mbire district, Northern Zimbawe”; Journal of Modern African Studies; Vol.53 (1); pp. 93-120
67 Mosser, A et al. (2009) “Serengeti real estate: density vs. fitness-based indicators of lion habitat quality”;.
Ecology Letters; Vol. 12 (10); pp.1050-1060
68 Benhamou S. et al. (2014) “Movement-based analysis of interactions in African Lions”; Animal Behaviour;
Vol. 90; pp. 171-180
69 Davidson Z. (2011) “Socio-spatial behaviour of an African lion population following perturbation by sport
hunting”; Biological Conservation; Vol.144; p.119
70 Benhamou S. et al. (2014) “Movement-based analysis of interactions in African Lions”; Animal Behaviour;
Vol. 90; pp. 171-180
71 Mosser, A., & Packer, C. (2009) “Group territoriality and the benefits of sociality in the African lion, Panthera
leo”; Animal Behaviour; Vol.78 (2); pp. 359-370
72 “Lion Alert “What’s on the Menu?” available on http://lionalert.org/page/What_do_lions_eat; Accessed on June
18th 2019
73 Valeix, M. et al. (2010). “How key habitat features influence large terrestrial carnivore movements: waterholes
and African lions in a semi-arid savanna of north-western Zimbabwe.”; Landscape Ecology; Vol.25 (3), pp. 337-351
74 Swanson, A. et al. (2016) “In the absence of a “landscape of fear”: How lions, hyenas, and cheetahs coexist.”
Ecology and Evolution; Vol.6 (3); pp. 8534–8545
75 Du Preez B. et al. (2015) “Impact of risk on animal behaviour and habitat transition probabilities”; Animal
Behaviour; Vol.100; pp. 22-37
76 Mosser, A., & Packer, C. (2009) “Group territoriality and the benefits of sociality in the African lion, Panthera
leopards and lions on a same territory prevents the leopard population to access the prime spots for both water and food.77 They clearly identified that leopard had a tendency to avoid open areas for more thick-bush areas when lions were living in the same habitat.78 As they say: “Animal movement and behaviour are influenced by environmental circumstances, and may be impacted by both habitat characteristics and predation risk. A typical antipredator response may be indicated by retreat to safe habitat and our results show that leopard behaviour and transition probabilities were related to the proximity of lions; leopards moved to denser habitat types to reduce risk. Reactions to lions were greatest in grassland habitat, where leopard behaviour changed when at closer proximity to lions, as indicated by the increase in their speed of movement.”79
Overall, the example of Inuit and polar bears was taken through the scope of hunting. However, it focused on the capacity of decision that non-human animals have and the shift in basic assumptions human have. Combined, it creates an adapted framework for the CPR to be applied. In addition, in researching lions’ resources control, we can find some interesting insights in what a CPR would be if it had to happen with them. However, it is clear that wildlife cannot be understood as resource to protect but a fully aware actor that plays a role in the conservation of the resource.
Risk Perception Theory
One inevitable condition of living in a world where, not only humans interact with each other, but also with the environment, is the extent to take risks. The notions of risk and risk-taking encompass many different variables, but one common definition states that a risk is “often seen as the likelihood that an individual will experience the effect of danger”.80 Danger can be interpreted differently from one another but a common definition is given as: “1. The possibility of suffering from harm or injury. 2. The possibility of something unwelcome or unpleasant happening.”81 The core concept of those definitions lies in the uncertainty one can experience an adverse event. In this sense, “it exists only in the mind; if a person’s knowledge
77 Du Preez B. et al. (2015) “Impact of risk on animal behaviour and habitat transition probabilities”; Animal
Behaviour; Vol.100; pp. 22-37
78 Ibid; p. 29 79 Ibid
80Short Jr, J. F. (2010) “The social fabric of risk: towards the social transformation of risk analysis”. American
Sociological Review; Vol.49 (6); pp. 711-725
81 Definition of danger; Oxford Dictionary available at https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/danger; accessed on
was complete, that person would have no uncertainty.”82 Therefore, risk is a question of perception between the possibility of danger and the reality of it.
Risk Perception Theory has been studied under different aspects, two of which makes sense for the purpose of this work, the Cultural theory, developed by Douglas and Wildavsky in 1982, and the Cognitive approach, that has recently served in the field of zoology to assess the notion of risk in non-human animal species.83
The Cognitive approach tries to understand the natural – in the sense of biology – causes of risk perception. It focuses on the creation and perception of a risk and the adapted behavior to cope with it. Two theories were created to support the Cognitive approach: the psychometric paradigm and the Protection Motivation theory. However, the psychometric paradigm has been, since its development, refuted in its conclusions and is considered unreliable.84
The Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) states that “people are more likely to protect themselves when they anticipate negative consequences, have the desire to avoid them and feel they have the ability to take preventive measures.”85 Rogers proposed the following formulation for the PMT : “A fear appeal communication initiates cognitive appraisal processes concerning (I) the noxiousness or severity of the threatened event, (2) the probability of the occurrence of the event and (3) the efficacy of a recommended coping response. These cognitive processes mediate the persuasive effects of a fear appeal by arousing protection motivation, an intervening variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity to protect the self from danger.”86 If those definitions have been created in the spirit of applications on humans, the components presented by Rogers have since been applied to non-human animals as well.
Stankowich and Blumstein conducted a research on fearfulness of predation and risk assessment in non-human animals. To lower biases based on human perception of how another species can think, the research was based on the Flight initiation distance theory developed by Ydenberg and Dill, which is the distance at which the animal will flee from a predator.87 This theory has served Wildlife manager to understand fearfulness in specific circumstances and the
82 Windschitl, P. D. Wells, G. L. (1996) “Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric methods.”;
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied; Vol.2 (4); pp. 343-364.
83 Mikula P. (2018) “Risk perception of vervet monkeys Chlorocebus pygerythrus to humans in urban and rural
environments”; Behavioural Processes; Vol.147; pp. 21-27
84 Sjöberg L. Moen B-E; Rundmo T. (2004) “Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric
paradigm in risk perception research”; Rotunde publikasjoner; Vol. 84; p.25
85 The Campbell Institute (2014); “Risk Perception : Theories, Strategies; and Next Steps”; National Safety
Council; p.5
86 Maddux J.E ; Rogers R.W; (1983) “Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals
and Attitude Change”; Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; Vol.19 (5); pp. 469-479
87 Ydenberg, R. C. & Dill, L. M. (1983) “The economics of fleeing from predators.” Advances in the Study of
set-back areas in which humans (as a form of predator) do not impact wildlife.88 In this article, four dimensions were considered : (1) The responsiveness of animals according to predator characteristics or external factors, such as the group size, (2) the physical conditions of the animal (3) the body and ambient temperature and (4) the past experiences with the predators.89
Through the analysis of these components, it appears that their finding correlates with the PMT. First of all, “predatory effects”, such as predator behaviors or distance to prey was found to play a great role in the perception of threat.90 In the PMT wordings, the “severity” of threat plays an important role in the fleeing decision in animals. More interestingly was the “probability of occurrence of an event” component found in the animal’s behavior. Indeed, according to the PMT, humans will adapt their responses to a risk depending on the probabilities that this said event occurs.91 It appears that non-human animals show the same type of behavior. The study has shown that experiences with predators, due to their high density and prey’s certainty of attack, was inducing a longer flight distance.92 Nevertheless, the study also demonstrated that animals that have been habituated to predator’s presence without threatening experiences were showing better tolerance to risk and had a different risk perception than animals that are less habituated.93
The Cultural Theory takes a different stance from the previous theory by giving the importance on the way social contexts determine our judgment on risks.94 As such, “(…)cultural theory is important for helping to understand the social construction of risk, through processes of value identification and trust building. These procedures are mental and social anchors in grappling with a world full of surprises, uncertainties and a science that can no longer try to exclude values and participatory procedures.”95 In other words, the way humans perceive risks is not bound to individual’s set of experiences and inner impressions of the surrounding environments, but it is a social construct dictating the approach towards the environments. The case of human-wildlife conflicts has also been studied under this light, specifically on communities facing lion attacks in Tanzania and Kenya. Kushnir and Packer
88 Stankowich T.; Blumstein D.T (2005) “Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment”;
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences; Vol.272 (1581); pp. 2627-2634
89 Ibid; p.2628 90 Ibid; p.2630
91 Maddux J.E ; Rogers R.W; (1983) “Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals
and Attitude Change”; Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; Vol.19 (5); p.473
92 Stankowich T.; Blumstein D.T (2005) “Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment”;
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences; Vol.272 (1581); p. 2632
93 Ibid.
94 Tansey J., O’Riordan T. (1999) “Cultural Theory and risk : a review”; Health, Risk & Society; Vol.1 (1);pp.
71-89
published an article on two areas in Tanzania where the risk of an attack was a possibility, and through questionnaire-based interviews, tried to understand to what extent lions were perceived as a risk in the populations.96 Results showed that people of the two villages were overly worried about lion attacks, even if only 1% of the people - according to national statistics - in this region would have a chance to be attacked one day by the animal.97 The reason for such a fear is the large role of the affect in the perception of the risk as well as the “(…) sensational nature of lion attacks on humans (that) makes these events much easier to recall. According to the availability heuristic, this would lead people to consider themselves more likely to be attacked regardless of their personal experience.”98 The underlying fear of a lion attack in this region of Tanzania relies on both a cognitive process of risk perception that will appeal to the affect as a mean of protection, hence exaggerating the actual risk of an attack but also the societal and cultural surroundings creating the suitable climate for fostering this perception of risk.
The implication of risk perception can also be great when it comes to accessing resources. Competition between predators often end up with top predators harassing and stealing prey from weaker predators. Those behaviors push those smaller predators in finding avoidance strategies that “(…) can be costly: By restricting their activity to “safe” areas or times of day in what is referred to as a “landscape of fear”, subordinate species can lose access to vital resources such as prey, water, or shelter.”99 Studies showed that this “landscape of fear” is variable with species. For instance, cheetahs would avoid the presence of lions but would not lose access to preferred habitat and prey availability, whereas wild dogs would be actively harassed by lions, which induced a major loss of habitat and population for them.100 The “landscape of fear” is also reminiscent of the studies showing habitats’ use by prides of lions and the way smaller predators actively avoid them.101
In this context, lions started living in a “landscape of fear” as well due to human predation. An article published in 2012 demonstrated that the apex predator had developed a perception of risk with humans due to always higher number of deadly encounters, either due
96 Kushnir H., Packer C. (2019) “Perceptions of Risk From Man-Eating Lions in Southeastern Tanzania”;
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution; Vol.7 (47); pp. 1-7
97 Ibid ; p.4 98 Ibid; p.5
99 Swanson, A. et al. (2016) “In the absence of a “landscape of fear”: How lions, hyenas, and cheetahs coexist.”
Ecology and Evolution; Vol.6 (3); pp. 8534–8545
100 Ibid; p.8543
101 Mosser, A., & Packer, C. (2009) “Group territoriality and the benefits of sociality in the African lion,
to hunters or farmers.102 The violent interactions between communities and lions created a perception of risks while facing humans.103 That being said, violent interactions are not the only ways to live with predators. Other types of interactions relying on respect and form of communication were developed in mediation programs between Bengal Tigers and communities in India. Raheel found that “Evidence of human–wildlife co-evolution and cultural tolerance to wildlife damage in some parts of the world, such as “Bishnoi” community in Rajasthan (India) and Buddhist philosophy in Central Asia which teaches a balance and coexistence with nature, may offer clues as to how coexistence can be achieved elsewhere”104 In other terms, violence as a responses is not always the case and many other examples exit to prove that human animal and non-human animals do not have to live in a “landscape of fear”. In the case of Central Asia, it becomes interesting to note that the coexistence with other species described in the article relies on the Buddhist Philosophy.105 In this sense, the Cultural Theory presented above plays a role of mediation when it comes to the protective nature of human animal when feeling threatened – through risk perception. In this context, the Cultural Theory played a role in understanding the other species and knowing how to live in peace with them, unlike examples of Tanzania presented before where it was teaching communities to fear lions.
Methods
Study Area
The research was conducted in the Limpopo province in South Africa. This region is located in the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere, which spreads over 2’474’700 hectares and counts around 2’000’000 human inhabitants.106 The area comprises three of the seven biomes in South Africa which are savannah, grasslands and forest biomes.107 The Kruger to Canyons holds a special environmental value as 149 species of mammals, 510 species of birds, 147 species of
102 Valeix M. et al. (2012) “Behavioural adjustments of a large carnivore to access secondary prey in a
human-dominated landscape”; Journal of Applied Ecology; Vol.49 (1); pp. 73–81
103 Bauer, H. et al. (2016) “Panthera leo (errata version published in 2017)” The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016
104 Anwaar R., Singh Saralch H., Kumar A. (2015) “Human-Wildlife Conflict: Issues versus Mitigation”; Indian
Forester; Vol.141 (12); p.1308
105 Ibid;p.1308
106 Kruger to Canyons Biosphere available at
https://www.environment.gov.za/content/projects_programmes/manand_thebiosphere_reserves/list/krugertocan yons#location; accessed on June 1st 2019
107 Kruger to Canyons available on
reptiles 42 species of amphibians and 57 species of fish can be found in this biosphere.108 As such, it is one of the most densely populated areas on the African Continent and one of the most diversified as well.
109
Compared to other places in Africa, this region is known to have reserves and National Parks that are all fenced up. Multiple reasons exist for those fences, notably the poaching issue which is enough in itself to justify the enclosure. This biosphere is also among the few places left where visitors can enjoy the sight of the Big Five (Buffalo, Elephant, Leopard, Lion and Rhino). More specifically, this area is, after the Serengeti/Mara, the second system with the biggest lion populations.110 Lions can virtually be found in every reserve and are one of the focuses of conservation.
The research took place in a Private Game Reserve. This setup was chosen as the proximity with the animal was exceptional in order to explore the theories on field. Interviews and questionnaires were conducted in four villages, namely London, The Oaks, the Willows and Bismark as well as the town of Hoedspruit. Those villages were selected for their close proximity with Private Game Reserves and the Kruger National Park. Hoedspruit is one of the main bush town in the region and the entry point for a lot of conservationists, which was of particular interest to conduct the research.
108 Kruger to Canyons available on
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/africa/south-africa/kruger-to-canyons/; Accessed on June 1st 2019
109Kruger to Canyons Biosphere available on
https://www.environment.gov.za/content/projects_programmes/manand_thebiosphere_reserves/list/krugertocan yons#location; accessed on June 1st 2019
110 Stuart C. & M. (2017) “Stuarts’ Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa”; Penguin Random House; 4th
(google maps)
Data Collection and Analysis
Human
In order to explore the CPR and Risk theories on humans, qualitative methods were used, through the means of interviews conducted in four distinct villages and one town. This design perfectly fits the purpose of this research as it tries to explore different approaches to Human-Wildlife Interactions. In this regard, a qualitative method allow the participants more freedom and the researcher more ground to analyze the data, in comparison to a quantitative approach that would standardize the results. More specifically, this research is based on the Case Study method which seeks to understand the “what” and “why” of a phenomenon through exploratory case study.111
A minimum of six persons were interviewed in each places. I chose to interview a minimum of six people as less would not make a case and more was technically not possible in the context of the research. People from three groups of age were selected, reflecting three periods that are (1) 60 years old and older. This group of age are made of people who used to live without fences (fencing started in the year 1959) and therefore, without separation with wildlife. (2) Between 30 and 50 years old. This group is the first generation that never experienced living with wild animals. However, they were raised by relatives who did. (3) Below 30 years old. This group is a second or even third generation living without wild animals roaming around. Hence, this group is the furthest to experiences with wildlife, either by directly
living with them, or by being educated by relatives about it. In addition of selecting different age groups, special attention was given to an equal ratio between families who owned cattle and families who do not, as it has been proven in various studies that owning livestock was a non-negligible variable in the question of interactions with lions.112 Another component that was taken into account while selecting participants is the socio-economical level, which greatly influences the responses, notably regarding the access to resources.113
The questionnaire was designed to first understand communities’ accesses to resources such as water and food, and how individuals were integrated or not in a communal resources management plan (if such thing existed). The second set of questions was designed around the relations they have with wildlife and their opinion about fencing the reserves and separating the animals from the communities. This section was also a first step into questioning the possibility to co-exist on the same territory with different species. The last section aimed at understanding the relations they have with lions. The questions were quite similar as those with the wildlife in general, but targeted on the lions. For this section, Matema and Andersson’s work was inspiring as it displayed the array of complexity that relations between people and lions encompass.114 The meetings were conducted as semi-structured interviews which allowed the respondents more freedom in the answers given, as well as further questions specific to the cases studied.115
The data were analyzed in a qualitative manner in order to isolate variables that influence people’s opinions on lions on the one side and territories and resources’ sharing on the other side. Special attention was given to the perception of fear or risk that people would tend to have and the link between this perception and experiences with lions.
Lion
To explore both theories on lions, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Using qualitative methods to gather and analyze data on non-human animals is quite explorative116 still and therefore a back-up with quantitative data was necessary.
112 Montgomery R.A. et al. (2018) “Examining evident interdisciplinarity among prides of Lions Researchers”;
Frontiers of Ecology and Evolution; Vol.6 (49); pp. 1-13
113Manstead A.S.R; (2018) “The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings,
and behavior”; British Journal of Social Psychology; Vol.57 (2); pp. 267-291
114Andersson A., Matema S. (2015) “Why are lions killing us? Human-Wildlife Conflict and social discontent in
Mbire district, Northern Zimbawe”; Journal of Modern African Studies; Vol.53 (1); p.100, pp.104-105
115Galletta A., Cross W.E (2013) “Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond”; NYU Press; pp.45-46 116Wemelsfelder F (2007) “How Animals Communicate Quality of Life: The Qualitative Assessment of
The population studied was one pride of lions consisting of 7 individuals at the beginning of the research period and 11 individuals for the last month of research. The population was composed of one main male lion, two females, four male sub-adults and later on four cubs, of which two were males and two were females. The data were gathered two times a day, every day of the researching period. The data consist of (1) individual – s studied, (2) GPS location, (3) type of behaviors displayed during the observation time, (4) full rating and (5) climate data, to see how climate influences the animal’s behavior. Further than the data gathered during the on-field period, I also used data gathered by the organization of the two previous years.
The data collected were processed to create a Geographic Information System (GIS). Geographic Information System is now widely used in wildlife management and ecology, in particular, when thinking about endangered species.117 In this regard, the use of GIS is particularly interesting in this case to understand the pattern of movement and spatial utilization of lions. Through QGIS, a clear cartography of favorite locations in the reserves and spatial utilization of the pride of lions was created. The map and the data collected inform us on the resources utilizations of the lions’ pride. In this case, this method was used to test the CPR Theory on lions. Therefore, one of the main focus of study on those maps was to point out the number of kills and locations of those as well as the lions’ spatial utilization around water points, such as dams or rivers. Through that mean, it was easier to analyze the data in lights of the theories I wanted to apply.
In this regard, sixteen maps were created (See Annexes). The entire pride was mapped for year 2017, 2018 and on-field research of 2019. The same system was reproduced for Maggie’s Male I (MM1), also known as Subby, the Females (LF3 and LF4) alone and the four sub-adults alone, in order to give more clarity. For individual maps, the species of kills were registered. For the year 2017, 994 entries were analyzed, against 871 for year 2018 and 234 for the January-April period of 2019. (See Annexes)
As stated before, this research goes more into an explorative path and, as such, qualitative methods are more interesting to use. In this regard, methods found in ethology were used in order to conduct behavioral studies on lions to assess their perception of human and risks. I used the work of Altmann118 as a basis to create ethograms. The methods used by Altmann have proven to resist time as other authors such as Martin and Bateson were still using
117 Clark, R.D., Mathieu R., Seddon P.J. (2008) ”Geographic Information Systems in wildlife management: a case
study using yellow-eyed penguin nest site data.” DOC Research and Development Series 303; pp. 1-34
it 33 years later.119 In order to be the most accurate in the behavioral data gathering, The Ad
Lib. Sampling and the Focal-Animal sampling methods were used. The Ad Lib. was a good method to quantify the occurrence of behaviors that showed either a perception of risk or threat because of human presence or the exact opposite, as all kind of behaviors were recorded during the observation period.120 The Ad Lib. Sampling was defined by Altmann as “(…) the result of unconscious sampling decisions, often with the observer recording “as much as he can” or whatever is most readily observed of the social behavior of a group in which behaviors, individuals and often the times for behavior sessions are chosen on an ad libitum basis.121 In other terms, Ad Lib. Sampling can be compared with “typical field notes”.122 The second method used was the Focal-Animal Sampling, which allowed a more in depth approach to the lions’ behavior that was relevant to the research. The observations were recorded on a longer period, and were more focused on the quality – as opposed to quantity – of certain types of behaviors.123 Even though ethograms are not necessarily used anymore while observing non-human animals, this method was useful in gathering the kind of data that I needed. Indeed, I was mainly interested in cataloging certain types of behavior and as such needed an organized way to sequence the observations. The Ad Lib. and Focal-animal samplings allowed a better visualization of the different sequences of behaviors and facilitated the analysis of the data gathered on field.
The analysis of lions’ behavior was done through the scope of Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA). The Qualitative Assessment is defined as “a method that relies on the ability of human observers to integrate perceived details of behavior, posture, and context into descriptions of an animal’s style of behaving or `body language`, using descriptors such as `relaxed`, `tense`, `frustrated` or `content`. Such terms have an expressive, emotional connotation, and provide information that is directly relevant to animal welfare.”124
Since this method is inseparable of the observer’s presence, the appraisal of recorded behaviors was always done with the lions acknowledging our presence. Therefore, all the description of behaviors that are presented in the “results” section are influenced also by the fact that I was there. All behaviors qualified in the process of the research were influenced by
119 Martin P.R., Bateson P.P.G. (2007) “Measuring behaviour : an introductory guide”; Cambridge University
Press; Chapter 5; pp. 48-60
120 Altmann J. (1974) “Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods”; Brill; Vol.49 (3,4); p.236 121 Ibid; p. 235
122 Ibid 123 Ibid; p.242
124 Wemelsfelder F. et al. (2009) “Qualitative behaviour assessment”, In: Forkman, B., Keeling, L. (Eds.),
the fact that when I was observing them, they were also observing me. It was not an actor looking at an object, but a process of exchange and sharing that influenced both my observations of them and their behavior with me. Further than this, all the choices made, from the theoretical perspectives, through the process of gathering data and finally to the analysis of the data betrays a personal inclination towards certain methods. Malterud wrote that “A researcher's background and position will affect what they choose to investigate, the angle of investigation, the methods judged most adequate for this purpose, the findings considered most appropriate, and the framing and communication of conclusions”,125 and it makes no doubts that this research was designed with angles I chose, yet by inspirations from other scholars who have preceded me in this field, but sill in a way that is mine.
The perspective of the research was also greatly influenced by the possibilities I had as a researcher. As such, observations on lions could only take place during limited period of time (5:00-9:30 a.m. and 3:30-7:30 p.m.), bound during mostly daytime and under the condition of finding them. This results in a limiting effect for the scope of the research. Lions are nocturnal animals and are found sleeping most of the day.126 If we could have glimpses of activity, most of their active behaviors were missed as we were not out in the field at night. In addition, we were not out either in the middle of the day. All this time that I did not spend observing the pride certainly influences the data I gathered. First, many other behaviors that could have been observed were missed. Second, the amount of data gathered is much less than it could have been in conditions in which I could have had adapted my schedule to theirs. Ideally, I would have spent at least half of the observing time during the night, in order to gather data during their most active time. The other half could have been the same schedule we were working on. Together, it would have created more of a full rounded picture and the outcome of the results certainly would have been different. Of course, night time observations would have come with their difficulties as well, such as lesser vision and adapted sleeping schedule, but overall the research would have had a different impact. That being said, other studies on lions gathered data only during daytime, and if the results were to be mitigated due to the nocturnal habits of
125 Malterud, K. (2001) "Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines." The Lancet. Vol. 358 (9280);
pp. 483-488
126 Du Preez B. et al. (2015) “Impact of risk on animal behaviour and habitat transition probabilities”; Animal
