The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of Two Lion Conservation Programs in Maasailand, Kenya
Open accessAbstract
Lion (Panthera leo) populations are in decline throughout most of Africa. The problem is particularly acute in southern Kenya, where Maasai pastoralists have been spearing and poisoning lions at a rate that will ensure near term local extinction. We investigated 2 approaches for improving local tolerance of lions: compensation payments for livestock lost to predators and Lion Guardians, which draws on local cultural values and knowledge to mitigate livestock‐carnivore conflict and monitor carnivores. To gauge the overall influence of conservation intervention, we combined both programs into a single conservation treatment variable. Using 8 years of lion killing data, we applied Manski's partial identification approach with bounded assumptions to investigate the effect of conservation treatment on lion killing in 4 contiguous areas. In 3 of the areas, conservation treatment was positively associated with a reduction in lion killing. We then applied a generalized linear model to assess the relative efficacy of the 2 interventions. The model estimated that compensation resulted in an 87–91% drop in the number of lions killed, whereas Lion Guardians (operating in combination with compensation and alone) resulted in a 99% drop in lion killing. Eficacia de Dos Programas de Conservación de Leones en Maasailand, Kenia
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2971733 · Cited by 5,486
Cited by
Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention
Tilman, D., Clark, M., Williams, D. R., Kimmel, K., Polasky, S., & Packer, C. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature22900 · Cited by 1,341
Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock
van Eeden, L. M., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., Macdonald, D. W., Ripple, W. J., Ritchie, E. G., & Newsome, T. M. (2018) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12959 · Cited by 351
Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation
Manfredo, M. J., Bruskotter, J. T., Teel, T. L., Fulton, D., Schwartz, S. H., Arlinghaus, R., Oishi, S., Uskul, A. K., Redford, K., Kitayama, S., et al. (2017) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12855 · Cited by 323
An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A. J., Macdonald, D. W., Marvin, G., Redpath, S., et al. (2017) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12859 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- HAZZAH, L., DOLRENRY, S., NAUGHTON, L., EDWARDS, C. T. T., MWEBI, O., KEARNEY, F., & FRANK, L.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-02-13
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 851-860
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W1597470417
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of Two Lion Conservation Programs in Maasailand, Kenya. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.12244
- The paper
- HAZZAH, L., DOLRENRY, S., NAUGHTON, L., EDWARDS, C. T. T., MWEBI, O., KEARNEY, F., & FRANK, L. (2014). Efficacy of Two Lion Conservation Programs in Maasailand, Kenya. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12244
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.