↓ Skip to main content

Coping with Natural Hazards in a Conservation Context: Resource-Use Decisions of Maasai Households During Recent and Historical Droughts

Overview of attention for article published in Human Ecology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Coping with Natural Hazards in a Conservation Context: Resource-Use Decisions of Maasai Households During Recent and Historical Droughts
Published in
Human Ecology, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10745-014-9683-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian W. Miller, Paul W. Leslie, J. Terrence McCabe

Abstract

Analyzing people's decisions can reveal key variables that affect their behaviors. Despite the demonstrated utility of this approach, it has not been applied to livelihood decisions in the context of conservation initiatives. We used ethnographic decision modeling in combination with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to examine the herding decisions of Maasai households living near Tarangire National Park (TNP) during recent and historical droughts. The effects of the establishment of TNP on herding practices during drought were different than anticipated based on the size and reliability of several prominent resource areas that are now within the park. We found little evidence of people relying on these swamps and rivers for watering cattle during historical droughts; rather, these sites were more commonly used as grazing areas for small stock and wet-season grazing areas for cattle to avoid disease carried by calving wildebeest. Yet during the 2009 drought, many herders moved their livestock - especially cattle from outside of the study area - toward TNP in search of grazing. Our analysis of herding decisions demonstrates that resource-use decisions are complex and incorporate a variety of information beyond the size or reliability of a given resource area, including contextual factors (e.g., disease, conflict, grazing) and household factors (e.g., social capital, labor, herd size). More broadly, this research illustrates that pairing decision modeling with QCA is a structured approach to identifying these factors and understanding how opportunities, constraints, and perceptions influence how people respond to changes in resource access.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 83 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 24%
Researcher 17 19%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Professor 4 5%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 22%
Social Sciences 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2014.
All research outputs
#21,360,948
of 23,857,313 outputs
Outputs from Human Ecology
#745
of 794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,612
of 230,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Ecology
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,857,313 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.