clashes between the groups emerge especially when refugees engage in activities that Turkana people have claimed for themselves, such as collecting firewood, or if refugees are found illegally rearing livestock on Turkana community land. While many Turkana interviewees acknowledged economic benefits brought by refugees, they concurrently suggested that the presence of the camp has downsides.

Furthermore, urban hosts are less likely to consider refugees friendly or trustworthy (Table 5, Panel C). In this aspect, there is also large variation between the three countries. Whilst 91% of Ethiopian respondents and 82% of Kenyan respondents agree that refugees are friendly or “good people”, only 52% of Ugandan respondents think so, and the same pattern applies to perceived trustworthiness. Dollo Ado stands out as a site where nearly all hosts consider refugees friendly and trustworthy, illustrating both the “camp effect” and the “ethno-linguistic effect” of the Somali bond.

Finally, urban hosts hold more ‘progressive’ attitudes concerning which rights refugees should be granted (Table 5, Panel D). Hosts across all sites generally portray progressive views about refugees from a rights perspective. For example, an overwhelming 90% agree that refugees should access free health care and that refugee children should access school.<sup>21</sup> Moreover, 85% think that refugees should have the right to work, with only a marginal difference between rural and urban hosts. However, rural hosts are more reluctant than urban hosts to provide refugees with the right to live where they want (57% agree as opposed to 70% of urban hosts).

In summary, our empirical findings highlight the significant variability and complexity of host perceptions. Opinions are heterogeneous both across and within the research sites. Within any given context, seemingly contradictory views may exist. For example, in urban areas, tolerance levels are generally lower and refugees are more likely to be perceived as an economic burden, and yet hosts are more likely to hold progressive (cosmopolitan) attitudes to refugee rights. The Turkana hosts around Kakuma see refugees as a security threat while generally regarding them as friendly and valuing their economic contribution. Ugandan landowners in Nakivale view refugees as both competitors and contributors. These ‘mixed’ sentiments – positive and negative – are not mutually exclusive, but rather co-existent in host society. However, we also observe some clear patterns across contexts. For example, the role of ethno-linguistic proximity (notably revealed through the so-called ‘Somali bond’) plays a role in shaping attitudes, the importance of neighbourhood and household-level attitude formation, and the role of a household’s own socio-economic position in relation to refugees (landlord or tenant, employer or employee, landowner or non-landowner) are important themes across context. Furthermore, a clear theme is the distinction between urban and rural contexts: through our Uganda data there is evidence that direct interactions may play a causal role in shaping attitudes in cities, but not in camp-like settings. Further, we find evidence across the countries that attitudes in camp-like settings are more positive than in

> 21These two statements were asked to hosts in all sites except the Kakuma Camps in Kenya.

28