Well-being and conservation: diversity and change in visions of a good life among the Maasai of northern Tanzania

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The Simanjiro plains, east of Tarangire National Park in Northern Tanzania are a key dispersal area for wildlife, and are of vital importance to Maasai pastoral livelihoods, which are rapidly diversifying. Diversification is coupled with fragmentation of the rangelands as agriculture expands and multiple actors compete for land. These changes reflect transformations occurring across pastoral rangelands, and pose the broader challenge of reconciling conservation and development objectives. We propose that qualitative research using a three-dimensional human well-being framework, encompassing material, relational, and subjective aspects, can inform locally legitimate and socially just conservation. Through semistructured group interviews across four villages, we explore well-being conceptions of Maasai men and women in Simanjiro. In particular we focus on the value of understanding social complexity for conservation research in the form of (i) the heterogeneity of conceptions of well-being across gender, age groups, and villages; (ii) temporal dynamics in notions and experiences. Material assets, namely land (for grazing and agriculture) and livestock are important to people but are intertwined with other aspects of well-being. Subjective well-being is centered on concerns about future security, especially with regards to land. Autonomy and social unity (relational dimension) are key priorities. We reflect on the implications for conservation at the study site, and more broadly on how well-being can better be incorporated into policy and practice that takes social justice seriously. The diversity we find in well-being priorities and experiences shows the importance of taking a disaggregated approach that conceptualizes benefits and burdens across a range of locally important well-being components ensuring the priorities of the most marginalized groups are represented.

Capabilities Under Telecoupling: Human Well-Being Between Cash Crops and Protected Areas in North-Eastern Madagascar

“…During this period, we conducted eight focus group discussions (FGDs), two in each of our four study villages, with a group of men and a group of women, respectively. The methodology employed draws on previous experiences on conducting FGDs to explore local understandings of well-being (Abunge et al, 2013;Dawson and Martin, 2015) and is in line with approaches of subsequent work conducted on these issues (Beauchamp et al, 2018;Woodhouse and McCabe, 2018). Distances are estimated from the center of the main built-up area in each village.…”

A brave new world: integrating well-being and conservation

“…The publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) highlighted the intricate and diverse links between human wellbeing and the environment. Of course, the linkages between human well-being and nature depend on how one defines wellbeing (Leisher et al 2013, Smith et al 2013, Agarwala et al 2014, and definitions encompass dozens of study agendas, ranging from public health to psychology to development studies. Despite this diversity of thought, it is broadly agreed that human well-being comprises at least three dimensions: material (such as income, livelihoods, and housing), relational (social and political processes that determine how people meet their needs and achieve their goals), and subjective (individual, social, and cultural norms that influence people's preferences and behavior; Gough and McGregor 2007).…”

“…Since the 1980s, social approaches in conservation included alternative livelihood strategies, ecotourism, or direct payments for ecosystem services to reduce dependence of local communities on natural resources. Despite some successes, these approaches have generally failed to reconcile the priorities of local and marginalized groups with conservation objectives (Newmark and Hough 2000). Programs and research approaches that use singular definitions of well-being overlook important social impacts and dynamics, such as tenure security, that can ultimately backfire on conservation effectiveness.…”

“…Programs and research approaches that use singular definitions of well-being overlook important social impacts and dynamics, such as tenure security, that can ultimately backfire on conservation effectiveness. Just as development studies are responding to the inability of financial indicators alone to describe one's state of poverty (Imran et al 2014), conservation initiatives that focus on monetary benefits are increasingly scrutinized for their lack of attention to broader, nonpecuniary aspects of well-being such as cultural traditions, personal identity, and sense of place (Pascual et al 2014, Calvet-Mir et al 2015, Masterson et al 2017).…”

“…This view, however, has been highly disputed with some work showing that conservation initiatives can still succeed (ecologically) despite severe impacts on people's well-being (Brockington 2004). Moreover, social scientific research has found that exclusive conservation strategies have often resulted in severe negative impacts on people who are already poor and politically disadvantaged (West et al 2006, McKinnon et al 2016. Such impacts inform a broad moral stance that ignoring the well-being of people affected by conservation is unfair, especially given the power asymmetries often involved (Lele et al 2010).…”