Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Hindawi International Journal of Zoology Volume 2022, Article ID 7002645, 14 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7002645 Research Article Human-Wild Animals Conflict in and around Amba Forest, Ezha District, Gurage Zone, Southern Ethiopia 1 1 1 1,2 Demelash Sime , Zemedkun Siraj, Ashenaﬁ Teklemariam , and Belete Tilahun Department of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Wolkite University, P.O. Box 07, Wolkite, Ethiopia Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, College of Agriculture and NRM, Wolkite University, P.O. Box 07, Wolkite, Ethiopia Correspondence should be addressed to Demelash Sime; firstname.lastname@example.org Received 27 April 2022; Accepted 2 July 2022; Published 29 August 2022 Academic Editor: Joao Pedro Barreiros Copyright © 2022 Demelash Sime et al. �is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. �e con€icts between humans and wild animals with the same resources are common but seldom reported in Ethiopia. �is study was carried out to assess the causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies of the local communities with human-wild animal con€ict (HWC) in and around Amba forest of Ezha District, Gurage Zone, Ethiopia: implications for wildlife conservation. Cross- sectional study design was applied, and data were collected from November 2019 to July 2020 through a semistructured questionnaire, focus group discussion (FGD), and “eld observation. A total of 53 respondents were randomly selected. �e data were analyzed using SPSS software, and the results were presented using tables, graphs, charts, and text. �e study result revealed that human-wild animal con€ict exists, and it was seriously occurring at various places, time, and seasons. Papio anubis, Potamochoerus larvatus, Cercopithecus aethiops, Hystrix cristata, and Crocuta crocuta were the main con€icting wild animals, respectively. Abundance of wild animals, presence of forest, crop raiding, expansion of agriculture, and livestock predation were the main causes of con€ict in the study area. �ere was a statistically signi“cant relation between con€ict and the cause of con€ict (χ 17.075, p 0.004). Psychological and economic impacts were the main impacts encountered. Most of the respondents (5) = (86.8%) had applied con€ict mitigation strategies, but it was ineŸective, although the trend of con€ict was increasing. Many of the respondents (41.5%) had a negative attitude toward wild animals, but 58.5% encouraged wild animals’ conservation. HWC had increasing trends of con€ict, and thus, a negative attitude was developed by the communities on wild animal coexistence and conservation. �erefore, awareness creation, training, and promoting coexistence mechanisms between humans and wild animals are necessary in the study area. species, starting from grain-eating rodents  to man-eating 1. Introduction tigers . Hence, it is rising like a considerable wildlife Historically, there have been strong negative interactions be- management issue  for the reason that its eŸect is very tween humans and wildlife that become causes of the no- severe. As it is evidently recognized, HWC occurs while wildlife ticeable problem referred to as human-wildlife con€ict (HWC) requirements overlie with human needs and goals and has costs and consequently are converted into aspects of wildlife man- for both humans and wildlife . �e con€ict can also exist as agement throughout the world and currently a di¢cult chal- the requirements and wildlife behaviors harmfully impact the lenge for conservationists of the Earth . HWC is a universal goals of human beings  and aŸect the free movement of phenomenon in both developed and developing countries ; wildlife and vice versa. For that reason, human-wildlife con€ict however, it is further practiced within several developing can be expected and measured in all communities where both countries . Presently, HWC is more prevalent, and the issues humans and wildlife commonly exist and share the same of conservation actions are highly associated. HWC and habitat . �e depletion of natural habitats that provide wildlife conservation issue comprises a variety of features and support to wildlife can also cause a con€ict problem. 2 International Journal of Zoology Accepting the factors connected with conﬂicts and where Globally, HWC is an extremely increasing problem, which occurs in any geographical region or climatic con- they are expected to happen is signiﬁcant for conservation and conﬂict . %erefore, the main objective of the ditions and is common in all areas where wildlife and humans coexist and limited resources are shared . In the present study was to study the causes, impacts, and miti- same way, HWC is also common in Africa in all areas where gation strategies of the local communities with human-wild wildlife and human populations coexist and have limited animal conﬂict in and around Amba forest of Ezha District, resources, and the condition is getting not as good as it costs Gurage Zone, Ethiopia: implications for wildlife individual safety and loss of economy in urban areas . %e conservation. fundamental causes of the problem are the growth of human population and settlements encroaching into formerly un- 2. Materials and Methods inhabited areas in both number and intensity . As a 2.1.DescriptionoftheStudyArea. Gurage Zone, which is part consequence, HWC accuses wildlife and humans of long- of the Southern Nations Nationalities and People’s Region term conservation goals, threatening livelihoods and com- (SNNPR), is located in the southwest part of Ethiopia. %e munities that provide support to biodiversity conservation zone is bounded by Hadiya, Kembata, Alaba, and Tembaro , and species involved in the conﬂict are more prone to zones in the south, Yem special woreda in the southwest, and extinction  and result in several resource damage in the Oromia Regional state in the northwest and east . various ways. %e zone is divided into 13 woredas, but currently 16 Conservation biologists of the world face the most woredas and two city administrations, Welkite and Butajira. important challenges from human-wildlife conﬂict for %e total population in the zone was 1,279,646, of whom wildlife management goals . It is the most repeated 622,078 were males and 657,568 were females . %e problem in countryside areas where most people depend on majority of the people (95%) live in rural areas engaged in farming, animals, goods, and agriculture for their livelihood agriculture . %e remaining 5% live in urban areas , and returns . It is more vulnerable in developing cited in . %is study was carried out in and around Amba countries like Ethiopia when compared to developed forest, located in Ezha District of Gurage Zone (Figure 1). countries because livestock and agriculture are an important %e forest (Figure 2) comprises various fauna and ﬂora part of rural livelihoods [11,15]. According to [16–18], re- resources. %e local communities had various interactions ports are few regardless of whether the conﬂicts are severe in and interferences with the forest and its resources. Ethiopia. In this regard, conservationists and practitioners recommend that local participation and support for a conservation project are necessary for its success and sus- 2.2. Study Design, Periods, Sample Size Determination, tainability. %e distinguished resource damage caused by Sampling Methods, and Study Population. To conduct this wildlife near forest habitats and around the protected areas study, a cross-sectional study design involving qualitative could be an opportunity or a threat . and quantitative data was conducted from November 2019 %e conﬂict between humans and wildlife ranks among G.C. to July 2020 G.C. A total of 53 study participants/ the main threats to biodiversity conservation and has become households (from four Kebeles Woyiradebane, 21 (39.6%), frequent and severe in diverse sections of Ethiopia . In Yesiray, 15 (28.3%), Agena, 9 (17%), and Gedeb, 8 (15.1%)) diﬀerent conservation areas of Ethiopia, the competition were involved in this study based on the total population size between local people and wild animals was frequently re- of the study area and areas close to the forest. In the study ported as it was stated in [21,22]. However, the environment area, more than 2400 population and 450 households were and magnitude of the diﬃculty diﬀer from place to place found. However, the households located around the forest based on the increase in human population rate and shortage and facing the conﬂict were 128. %e sample size was de- of signiﬁcant natural resources, especially grazing and termined purposively, and a simple random sampling farmland . Countryside communities with a shortage of technique was used to involve respondents from the source livelihood prospects are regularly the hardest stroke for population, community members who were living close to conﬂicts with wildlife . Rural communities with restricted and around Amba forest in the district. livelihood chances are repeatedly the hardest stroke by conﬂicts with wildlife . Without mitigating HWC, the results are further impoverishment of the poor, reduced local 2.3. Data Collection Methods and Analysis. Semistructure support for conservation, and increased retaliatory killing of questionnaires with appropriate variables pertaining to wildlife causing increased vulnerability of wildlife populations human-wild animal conﬂict causes, impacts, and mitigation . Practical and durable management of wildlife and its strategies used by the local community in the study area as habitats desires the understanding of the ecological and well as background information of respondents were in- socioeconomical perspectives of human-wildlife conﬂict . cluded to collect data via interviewing . Field observation %e problem of conﬂict between humans and wildlife can be using a preprepared data collection sheet was used to collect considered the most important fear to the food security and data concerning conﬂict causes, types of impacts, wildlife income of many rural households. In the current study area, causing conﬂict, identifying species of wildlife, and so on. there was no previous study on human-wild animals conﬂict, Focus group discussion (FGD) among selected key infor- and the challenge was relevant from socioeconomic and mants was conducted to supplement the information ob- conservation point of view. tained using other methods of data collection . Prior to International Journal of Zoology 3 37°53′30″E 37°59′0″E 38°4′30″E 38°10′0″E Ethiopian Regions Ezha woreda Bojebar Gurage zone woredas 37°53′30″E 37°59′0″E 38°4′30″E 38°10′0″E 0 20 40 80 km Yoteyet Yewzera Natural Forest Amba Natural Forest Town viserayi kobolo River Geodob kobolo Road Figure 1: Map of Amba forest (study area) . Moreover, 67.9% were farmers, or agriculture was their type of occupation. %is implies that the highest proportion of the respondents was farmers who possess land and perform agricultural activities, so they encountered the conﬂict. 3.2. Presence of Conﬂict in the Study Area. All respondents Figure 2: Amba forest (study area) (photo by authors). (100%) replied with the presence of conﬂict between humans and wild animals in the study area (Figure 3). actual data collection, there was a preliminary survey in the %is was also conﬁrmed by all focus group discussion study area to collect relevant information about the study discussants. %is implies that human-wild animal conﬂict is area. %e data were analyzed using SPSS software in which a serious issue in the study area and inﬂuences the livelihood one-way ANOVA was used to compare the response mean of the local communities and the survival of wild animals. As variation among the causes; types of conﬂicting wild animals, stated in , human-wildlife conﬂict is a common phe- impact diﬀerence, and mitigation strategy diﬀerences were nomenon in both developing and developed countries. analyzed. Chi-square (χ2) was used to analyze the response Moreover, according to , HWC exists in diﬀerent forms diﬀerence of respondents regarding their academic status, age, all over the world and is more experienced in developing crops grown and damaged, and other relevant variables for countries, and it has been in existence as long as humans this analysis. Additionally, descriptive statistics were used to have existed and wild animals and people have shared the analyze the mean, frequency, and percentage of quantitative same landscapes and resources . HWC occurs when data. In all cases, a 95% level of signiﬁcance was considered for wildlife requirements overlap with those of human pop- the diﬀerence to be observed. %e obtained analysis results ulations, having costs for both residents and wild animals were presented using tables, graphs, charts, and text. . It exists when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively the goals of human beings . As the human population increases and settlements encroach into previ- 3. Results and Discussion ously uninhabited areas, HWC is increasing in both number 3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants. In and intensity . It was also in line with the study results of this study, 64.2% of the respondents were males, and 41.5% , in which the majority of respondents (56%) reported had an age group of 31–40 years. Of the respondents, 39.7% the existence of HWC manifested through both crop damage had a primary education level (Table 1). %e education status and livestock predation. of the respondents had a statistically signiﬁcant relation (χ 18.98, p< 0.001). (4) � Most of the respondents (71.7%) were married, and 3.3. Occurrence of HWC Time and Severity of Conﬂict. As the 67.9% had children, of whom 28.3% had 2 to 3 children, results of this study revealed, the conﬂict between humans while 5.7% had 6 to 7 children per family (Table 1). and wild animals occurs dominantly during the time within 8°5′0″N 8°10′30″N 8°16′0″N 8°5′0″N 8°10′30″N 8°16′0″N 4 International Journal of Zoology Table 1: Demographic characteristics of study participants. Gender/sex Male Female Total N 34 19 53 % 64.2 35.8 100 Marital status Single Married Divorced Total N 15 38 0 53 % 28.3 71.7 0 100 Age category 21–30 31–40 41–50 Above 51 Total N 17 22 11 3 53 % 32.1 41.5 20.7 5.7 100 Education status Degree Diploma 9–12 1–8 Uneducated Total N 4 4 13 21 11 53 % 7.5 7.5 24.6 39.7 20.7 100 Occupation Agriculture Trade No job Private Government Total N 36 6 4 3 4 53 % 67.9 11.4 7.5 5.7 7.5 100 Family size No children 2–3 4–5 6–7 8–9 Total N 17 15 14 3 4 53 % 32.1 28.3 26.4 5.7 7.5 100 120 3.4. Seasons and Places of Conﬂict. As the respondents re- plied, conﬂicts between humans and wild animals occurred during all seasons, but the most conﬂict season was De- cember to February (96.2%), whereas the least serious conﬂict season was from June to August (66%) (Table 3). %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant relation between conﬂict between humans and wild animals and season of a year (χ � 32.358, p< 0.001). %e ANOVA result also showed (3) 20 that there was a statistically signiﬁcant mean response dif- ference concerning the season of conﬂict (F (5, 48) � 4.007, p � 0.004). Yes No I don’t know %e result in Table 3 implies that there was conﬂict in all Frequency seasons, but there was variation in terms of the diﬀerent Percent seasons. %e communities in the study area encounter the Figure 3: Presence of HWC in the study area. conﬂict via a year. %is then costs a lot for both humans and wild animals in the area. %is study result was in agreement with the study results of , which noted that season, a day (77.4%), but the conﬂict becomes severe during the day variety and characteristics of crops, food availability, dis- time dawn or early in the morning (84.9%), followed by tance from the park, and farm protection methods will have night time (77.4%) within a day (Table 2). However, conﬂict impacts on crop raiding and depredation of domestic ani- occurs the least during day time noon (22.6%), and the mals by wildlife. It was also in line with the study results of severity of conﬂict was the least during day time dusk (69.8%  in Midre-Kebid Abo Monastry, Gurage Zone, South- (Table 2). %e time of HWC had a statistically signiﬁcant 2 west Ethiopia. relation to the time of a day (χ � 58.77, p< 0.001). %e (5) Concerning places of conﬂict, the conﬂict between ANOVA result also showed that there was a statistically humans and wild animals occurs mostly around home and signiﬁcant mean diﬀerence among the respondents’ re- garden areas (84.9%), followed by on farmland (75.5%), sponses regarding the time of conﬂict (F (5, 48) � 3.69, whereas conﬂict occurs the least on grazing land (22.6%) p � 0.007). %e severity of conﬂict during the time of a day (Table 4). %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant relation be- had a statistically signiﬁcant relation to the particular time of 2 tween conﬂict and place of conﬂict (χ � 55.57, p< 0.001). (5) a day (χ � 15.038, p � 0.010). However, the ANOVA (5) %is result implies that the wild animals move to home, result showed that there was no statistically signiﬁcant mean garden, and farmland areas, and thus, conﬂict occurs with diﬀerence among the respondents’ responses concerning the humans since these areas are not common habitats for wild severity of conﬂict (F (5, 48) � 1.580, p � 0.184). %is implies animals. However, depletion of food supply in the wild that the conﬂict occurs during all times of the day, but there forces wildlife to switch to crops and livestock as their food was an association with certain times of the day. %e pre- source . %us, the wild animals move around homes, ferred time of conﬂict occurrence is related to the suitability gardens, and farmland areas so that conﬂict arises. Conﬂict for wild animals to look for food, while humans in the area occurs in various areas in the study area. %is means the may not actively prevent wild animals during that time of the possibility of encountering conﬂict was high. As wildlife day. International Journal of Zoology 5 Table 2: Time of conﬂict occurrence and severity between humans and wild animals. Conﬂict occurrence response Conﬂict severity time response Time categories N (�53) Percentage (%) N (�53) Percentage (%) DTD (5:30–7:00 AM) 15 28.3 45 84.9 DTM (7:00–12:00 AM) 15 28.3 39 75.5 DTN (12:00–3:00 PM) 12 22.6 41 73.6 DTDK (4:00–7:00 PM) 17 32.1 40 69.8 NT (7:00 PM–5:00 AM) 13 24.5 37 77.4 ALT (24 hours of a day.) 41 77.4 DTD � day time dawn, DTM � day time morning, DTN � day time noon, DTDK � day time dusk, NT �night time, ALT �all time, N � frequency of response, and % � percent of response. Table 3: Ranking seasons of conﬂict between humans and wild animals. Ranks (response frequency) Seasons Number (total � 53) Percentage (%) 1 2 3 4 September–November 15 10 17 1 43 81.1 December–February 29 16 6 0 51 96.2 March–May 7 17 10 2 36 67.9 June–August 0 0 2 33 35 66 Table 4: Places of occurrence of conﬂict between humans and wild animals. Ranks (response frequency) Place of conﬂict Number (total) Percentage (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Around home and garden 30 10 4 1 0 0 0 45 84.9 2. On farmland 12 19 7 0 0 2 0 40 75.5 3. Around forest 4 7 4 10 1 0 0 26 49.1 4. Adjacent to forest 2 1 1 5 2 4 0 15 28.3 5. Inside forest 3 1 4 2 4 0 0 14 26.4 6. On grazing land 0 2 8 0 1 0 1 12 22.6 7. Everywhere 5 0 1 0 1 2 9 18 34 habitat becomes increasingly fragmented and wildlife gets of wild animals causing conﬂict and humans in the study conﬁned into smaller pockets of suitable habitat, humans area (χ � 28, p< 0.001). However, there was no statisti- (8) and wildlife are increasingly coming into contact and in cally signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence among the re- conﬂict with each other [24, 33]. spondents concerning the species of wild animals causing Furthermore, human population growth and the asso- conﬂict (F (8, 45) � 0.680, p � 0.707). However, there was a ciated increase in rates of resource use, habitat modiﬁcation, statistically signiﬁcant relation between species of wild an- and fragmentation are forcing wildlife to live in increasing imals causing conﬂict and humans in the study area with proximity to humans . %e highest intensity of conﬂict particular kebeles (χ � 22.804, p � 0.004). %e mean re- (3) tends to occur where humans live adjacent to protected areas sponse of the respondents also showed that there was a . When humans live adjacent to larger wildlife habitats statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerence among the kebeles re- and increasingly alter their habitat, conﬂict between humans garding the types of animal species causing conﬂict with and wildlife may occur . humans ((F (3, 50) � 3.807, p � 0.016). %is study result implies that there were various but some commonly conﬂicting wild animals in the study area. 3.5. Wild Animals Conﬂicting with Humans and Causes of Because of this, the communities and wild animals were Conﬂict. %ere are diﬀerent wild animals conﬂicting with experiencing the negative consequences of the conﬂict. humans in the study area. Regarding wild animals con- According to , HWC is one of the most widespread issues ﬂicting with humans, respondents responded that Papio in conservation, encompassing a considerable diversity of anubis (90.6%) were the most conﬂicting wild animal, fol- situations and species, from grain-eating rodents to man- lowed by Potamochoerus larvatus (71.7%) and Chlorocebus eating tigers . It is emerging as a signiﬁcant wildlife aethiops (69.8%), respectively (Table 5). Leopards, foxes, management issue . It was also in line with the study various birds, and other wild animals were the least con- results of , who did a study on human-wildlife conﬂict in ﬂicting animals in the study area (Table 5). During FGD, the Choke Mountain, in which most (71%) of the respondents same conﬂicting wild animals were listed in the study area. identiﬁed ﬁve wild animals as problematic that caused crop %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant relation between species damage and livestock predation, namely, Papio anubis, 6 International Journal of Zoology Table 5: Wild animals conﬂicting with humans in the study area. Ranks (response frequency) Wild animals (species) Number (total � 53) Percentage (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Papio anubis 46 2 0 0 0 0 48 90.6 2. Potamochoerus larvatus 0 17 11 6 4 0 38 71.7 3. Cercopithecus aethiops 3 18 7 5 3 1 37 69.8 4. Hystrix cristata 0 6 11 9 0 2 28 52.8 5. Crocuta crocuta 0 0 10 8 4 4 26 49.1 Others (leopard, fox, and birds) 0 0 0 3 9 5 17 32.1 Crocuta crocuta, Potamochoerus larvatus, Hystrix cristata, 3.6. Major Crops Grown and Parts and Stages of Crops and Canis aureus. As the study results of  revealed, Damaged by Wild Animals. As this study revealed, Ensete Chlorocebus aethiops and Papio anubis were the main ventricosum (81.1%; 88.7%) and Solanum tuberosum (77.4%; conﬂicting wild animals in Midre-Kebid Abo Monastry, 79.2%) were the ﬁrst and second major crops grown and Gurage Zone, Ethiopia. Furthermore, it was also in line with damaged by wild animals, while Eragrostis teﬀ (9.4%) was the the study results of  on the assessment of HWC in and least grown and damaged crop in the study area (Table 7). around Gemshat Forest Area, Wollo, Amhara Region, Diﬀerent fruits (avocado, apple, papaya, banana, and mango) and vegetables (cabbage, carrot, and onions) were Ethiopia. %e same result was obtained with the study results of  regarding conﬂicting wild animals in Wondo Genet also grown in the study area, and these were also damaged by district, Ethiopia. wild animals. Crops like coﬀee, khat, and others are also With reference to the causes of conﬂict, abundance of grown and damaged by wild animals. %ey grow crops wild animals (100%) and the presence of forest in the area mostly once a year (66.7%). %ere was no statistically sig- (100%) were the ﬁrst agreed causes of HWC in the study area niﬁcant mean response diﬀerence concerning crops grown (Table 6). Moreover, FGD discussants mentioned similar (F (3, 50) � 0.279, p � 0.840) and damaged (F (3, 50) � 0.258, hierarchical conﬂict causes in the study area. %ere was a p � 0.855) in the study area. statistically signiﬁcant relation between conﬂict and the As this result implies (Table 7), the major crops were similarly damaged by wild animals in the study area. %is cause of conﬂict (χ � 17.075, p � 0.004). However, there (5) was no statistically signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence situation may intensify the conﬂict issue. It also implies that the conﬂicting wild animals were making the communities’ among respondents concerning causes of conﬂict (F (5, 48) � 0.55, p � 0.737) and among the kebeles (F (3, 50) � diﬃculty of selecting and cultivation certain crops from others. %is ﬁnding was in line with the study results of  1.295, p � 0.287). %is study’s results implied that various causes of conﬂict in Midre-Kebid Abo Monastry, Gurage Zone, Ethiopia, and were present, but there was a diﬀerence in terms of the ranks also in line with the study results of , where the same of the causes. To reduce the conﬂict, focusing on the top crops were grown and damaged by wild animals except causes may be relevant. %is ﬁnding was in line with the Ensete crop which is not commonly found in northern study results of  and also in agreement with the study Ethiopia (Gemshat Forest Area, Wollo, Amhara Region). results of , in which abundance of wild population and Relating to the parts of crops damaged by wild animals, wild animals damaged mostly seeds of crops grown in the resource competition were the main causes of conﬂict in Midre-Kebid Abo Monastry, Gurage Zone, Southwest study area (71.7%), followed by stem (50.9%), but ﬂowers of the crops were damaged to the least (28.3%) (Table 8). Ethiopia. %is study result was also in agreement with the study results of , in which expansion of subsistence Moreover, diﬀerent parts of crops were aﬀected by wild animals. %is means that the conﬂicting wild animals had a farming accounts for the highest percent cause of conﬂict (53.6%), followed by increased population of wild animals preference for certain parts of a crop based on the nature of and expansion of subsistence farming (34.8%). According to the crop and the feeding behavior of the animal. %is again , HWC arises mainly because of the loss, degradation, means that communities are involved in protecting the and fragmentation of habitats through human activities such crops, parts, and stages. %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant as logging, animal husbandry, agricultural expansion, and relation between conﬂict and parts of crops damaged developmental projects. As the habitat gets fragmented, the (χ � 13, p � 0.023), and there was also a statistically (5) boundary at the interface between humans and wildlife signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence among the respondents increases, while the animal populations become compressed regarding parts of crops damaged by wild animals (F (3, in insular refuges. Consequently, it leads to greater contact 50) � 0.258, p � 0.855). and conﬂict with humans as wild animals seek to fulﬁll their Concerning stages of crops damaged by wild animals, nutritional, ecological, and behavioral needs . %e wild animals damage the mature stage of crops mostly damage to human interests caused by contact with such (83%), followed by all stages of crops without stage selection animals can include loss of life or injury, threats to economic (30.2%) (Table 8). %ere was no a statistically signiﬁcant security, reduced food security, and livelihood relation between conﬂict and the stage of crops damaged opportunities. (χ � 5.208, p � 0.267), but there was a statistically (4) International Journal of Zoology 7 Table 6: Cause of human-wild animals conﬂict. Ranks (response frequency) Causes of human-wild animal conﬂict (HWC) N % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 1. Abundance of wild animals 7 16 12 4 2 6 1 5 0 53 100 2. Presence of forest 18 7 7 4 3 4 5 0 0 53 100 3. Crop raiding 19 8 3 9 8 3 2 0 0 52 98.1 4. Resource destruction 0 3 8 5 4 10 11 4 0 45 84.9 5. Human injury 0 6 7 9 9 5 7 0 0 43 81.1 6. Forest wood collection 1 8 1 4 1 6 4 14 0 39 73.6 7. Human and domestic animals interference 2 4 0 1 2 3 6 11 8 37 69.8 8. Agriculture expansion 6 2 5 0 4 1 0 9 7 34 64.2 9. Livestock predation 0 5 6 12 5 3 3 0 0 34 64.2 Table 7: Crops grown and damaged in the study area by wild animals. Crops grown in the area Crops damaged by wild animals Crops (species) Number (�53) Percentage (%) Number (�53) Percentage (%) 1. Ensete ventricosum 43 81.1 47 88.77 2. Solanum tuberosum 41 77.4 42 79.2 3. Hordeum vulgare 32 60.4 34 64.2 4. Triticum spp. 31 58.5 32 60.4 5. Zea mays 13 24.5 14 26.4 6. Vicia faba 10 18.9 10 18.9 7. Pisum sativum 8 15.1 8 15.1 8. Eragrostis teﬀ 5 9.4 5 9.4 Table 8: Parts and stages of crops damaged by wild animals. Response (frequency) Response (frequency) Parts of crops damaged Stages of crop damaged N (�53) Percentage N (�53) Percentage 1. Roots 26 49.1 Mature 44 83 2. Stem 27 50.9 Flowering 12 22.6 3. Leaves 19 35.8 Vegetative 5 9.4 4. Flowers 15 28.3 Seedling 14 26.4 5. Fruits 16 30.2 All stages 16 30.2 6. Seeds 38 71.7 signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence concerning parts of diﬃculty of rearing domestic animals in the area. Livestock crops damaged by wild animals (F (5, 48) � 2.924, predation follows seasonal patterns , and studies at Waza p � 0.022). %is means that the various stages of crops were National Park in Cameroon  and Tsavo National Park in damaged by wild animals, but there was a stage preference to Kenya  revealed predation of domestic animals by wild attack the crops. %is also means that the community must animals. %is study result was also in line with the study results of  in Southwest Ethiopia. %is study result was in protect the various stages of the crops. %is implies depri- vation of time for other private or social activities and line with the study results of , in which baboons, hyenas, impacting many aspects of life of the community. and leopards predated many domestic animals by a year. Pertaining to livestock attack and predation by wild Trends of livestock predation had increasing trends, as in- animals, the majority of respondents (96.2%) explained the dicated in the study result of . existence of livestock attack and predation by wild animals, Anubis baboons killed the largest number of domestic whereas 3.8% explained that there was no livestock attack animals in the last two years, followed by spotted hyenas and predation by wild animals. As this study revealed, ba- (Table 9). Totally, 179 animals have been killed in the last two boons mainly attack goats, followed by poultry and sheep, years. %is implies that great economic loss occurred due to respectively, but their attack and predation were on sheep, livestock predation in addition to crop loss in the study area. goats, and poultries in the study area (100%) (Table 9). However, foxes had no attack and predation on goats, but 3.7. Impact and Types of Conﬂict Impact. Among the re- sheep and poultry were in the least proportion (9.4%). %is implied that the wild animals attack and damage not spondents, 90.6% believed that the conﬂict had an impact on the area, family, or individuals (Figure 4). %ere was a only crops but also domestic animals in the study area. %is by itself negatively aﬀects the economic activities and the statistically signiﬁcant relation between impact of conﬂict 8 International Journal of Zoology Table 9: Livestock attacks and predation by wild animals. Response to domestic Number of domestic animals attacked by wild animals killed by wild Wild animals N � 53 Percentage (%) No. of domestic animals killed animals animals in the past 2 years Sheep Goat Poultry Sheep Goat Poultry Baboons 10 27 16 53 100 18 39 41 98 Hyena 8 7 0 15 28.3 20 15 0 35 Leopard 3 0 3 6 11.3 2 2 0 4 Fox 3 0 2 5 9.4 2 5 10 17 Genet 0 0 8 8 15.1 0 0 25 25 Total 24 34 29 42 61 76 179 Table 10: Types of human-wild animals’ conﬂict impact encountered. Response to impact type Number Impact types Percentage (%) (ranks) (total) 1 2 3 4 1. Psychological 1 28 15 4 48 90.6 2. Economic 44 3 0 0 47 88.7 3. Social 7 15 11 10 43 81.1 4. Health 0 2 14 21 37 69.8 Yes No I don’t know Total Response Category conservationists around the world . It has a signiﬁcant social impact which depends on the capacity of a community to support a certain level of conﬂict . In Africa, it is not restricted to a particular geographical region or climatic Figure 4: Impact of conﬂict. condition but is common in all areas where wildlife and human populations coexist and have limited resources . and conﬂict (χ � 78.151, p< 0.001), but there was no (2) %e conﬂict results in severe impacts on communities in the statistically signiﬁcant mean response concerning the form of crop depredation, property damage, loss of livestock, presence of conﬂict impact (F (3, 50) � 1.185, p � 0.326). human injury, and human killing. %e conﬂict that takes %is implies that the majority of the respondents considered many forms ranges from loss of life or injury to humans and that the conﬂict had an impact on their various aspects of animals, both wild and domesticated, to competition for life. scarce resources to loss and degradation of habitat and In addition, psychological impact (90.6%) was the ﬁrst habitat quality . As indicated in , the human-wild main impact the communities were encountering, the im- animal conﬂict has economic, social, and other impacts. pact of wild animals in the study area. Moreover, economic impact was ranked ﬁrst by most respondents (n � 44), but totally, it was the second main impact (88.7%) (Table 10). 3.8. Types of Mitigation Strategies Applied and Eﬀectiveness of %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant relation between the types Methods. Most of the respondents, 46 (86.8%), replied that of impact of conﬂict and conﬂict (χ � 59.585, p< 0.001), they had applied wild animal and human conﬂict reducing (2) but there was no statistically signiﬁcant mean response methods or conﬂict mitigation strategies. %is result implies concerning types of conﬂict impact (F (3, 50) � 1.672, that, due to the conﬂict, the communities in the study area p � 0.186). were applying various methods to reduce the impacts of the %e results obtained from FGD also supported the above conﬂict. %ey were struggling to solve the problems. results. %is impact result implies that the community in the Various mitigation strategies were applied by the re- spondents to solve the conﬂict between human and wild study area was inﬂuenced by human and wild animal conﬂict impacts and these impacts challenged their lives. %ey look animals as the respondents replied (73.6%), while 5.7% did not apply any method to solve the problem. %e rest (20.7%) for solutions to get rid of the impacts or reduce the extent of the impacts. Human-wildlife conﬂict tends to manifest itself of the respondents did not give any response to this issue, so in scenarios where human strategies aﬀect the free move- considered as missing values. However, FGD discussants ment of wild animals and vice versa. As explained in , it also mentioned the same list of strategies being exercised in can be considered inevitable in all communities where the study area (Table 11). Guarding mitigation strategy is the humans and wildlife coexist and share the same habitat. mostly and commonly applied mitigation strategy for all Recently, it has become one of the fundamental aspects of wild animals, while the poisoning method is the least and only applied for baboons (Table 11). Moreover, respondents wildlife management as it represents the most widespread and complex challenge currently being faced by replied that numerous mitigation strategies can be applied to Frequency and/or Percent International Journal of Zoology 9 Table 11: Mitigation strategies applied to human and wild animal conﬂict. Response to mitigation used for wild animals Mitigation strategies Baboons Pigs Porcupine Vervet monkeys 1. Team hunting 5 7 1 3 2. Fencing 0 2 13 0 3. Guarding 10 8 11 15 4. Sounding 10 12 6 5 5. Deforestation 9 9 2 3 6. Exposing to natural enemy 7 5 4 5 7. Fire burning 0 2 13 0 8. Smoking 0 0 16 0 9. Gunshot 10 10 0 2 10. Guarding by dog 8 0 0 10 11. Symbol hanging 6 0 5 7 12. Poisoning 2 0 0 0 13. Team journey 8 0 0 0 baboons to reduce the conﬂicts except methods such as N=53 smoking, fencing, and ﬁre burning (Table 11). %e mitigation method applied so far to reduce human and wild animal conﬂict was eﬀective according to certain respondents (36%), while 40% of the respondents replied that the applied methods were not eﬀective (Figure 5). %is result implies that community in the study area used n= 13, 24% various methods of conﬂict impact reducing methods or mitigation strategies for diﬀerent conﬂicting wild animals. n= 19, 36% %is also implies that they realized certain behavioral aspects of the conﬂicting wild animals from experience in the study area, and thus, they tried to use it to avoid the impact of those wild animals. %ey applied their indigenous knowl- edge of preventing or reducing human-wild animals’ con- n=21, 40% ﬂict. Communities are essential to better prevent and mitigate human-wildlife conﬂict in a safe way . For any human-wildlife conﬂict management strategy to succeed, it must be sustainable and is therefore ideally administered by the local community itself . Moreover, conﬂict mitiga- tion requires a comprehensive record of crop raiding ac- Yes tivity, including patterns of raiding, farmer and raider No behavior, crop losses, and the parameters of raiding events No response . According to the study results of , the respondents explained that they had the experience of applying various Figure 5: Eﬀectiveness of mitigation methods applied so far. traditional methods of mitigating conﬂict to reduce the impact of conﬂict. attention to shift the trends of conﬂict in the study area via Regarding the trends of the conﬂict, most of the re- sounding methods of intervention. %is study result was in spondents (88.7%) replied that the conﬂict situation was line with the study results of . As  explained, with becoming serious from time to time, whereas 7.5% of the increasing human population and pressure on forest areas, respondents replied that the conﬂict situation was not be- human-wildlife interaction and resultant conﬂict are also coming serious from time to time. Furthermore, the increasing. It occurs when growing human populations remaining respondents (3.8%) did not give any response to overlap with established wildlife territories, increasing the this issue. As most of the study participants (95.8%) replied, interaction of man and wild animals and thus resulting in the trend of conﬂict was increasing (Figure 6). %ere was a increased levels of conﬂict. statistically signiﬁcant relation between conﬂict and conﬂict trends (χ � 114.623, p< 0.001), but there was no statis- (3) tically signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence among re- 3.9. Conservation of Wild Animals and Forests Conservation spondents concerning trends of conﬂict (F (3, 50) � 0.842, and Its Beneﬁts. Regarding the conservation of wild animals, p � 0.478). %is implies that appropriate intervention was many respondents (50.9%) replied that the survival of wild not taken by the concerned bodies, and the magnitude of the animals was not important in the study area, while only problem was intensiﬁed from time to time. It requires 28.4% of the respondents supported the importance of the 10 International Journal of Zoology 120 100 95.8 100 80 50.9 28.4 80 27 9.4 11.3 5 6 47 0 Yes No I don’t know No Total response Response 2.1 2.1 Increasing Unknown I don’t know Total Trends of conflict Figure 7: Response to the importance of wild animals’ survival in the study area. Figure 6: General trends of human-wild animal conﬂict in the study area. 47.2 28.3 50 25 18.9 5.6 survival of wild animals in the study area (Figure 7). %ere 3 was a statistically signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence Yes No I don’t know No Total response among respondents concerning the importance of the Response survival of conﬂicting wild animals in the area (F (3, 50) � 2.899, p � 0.045). %is implies the respondents had diﬀer- ences in their support of the importance of wild animals in % the area. Many of them did not support the survival of wild Figure 8: Response of killing of all wild animals to solve the conﬂict animals. problem. Killing all conﬂicting wild animals was considered a solution to solve the conﬂict problem by many of the re- spondents (47.2%), whereas 5.6% of the study participants Table 12: Study response to conserving wild animals using ap- replied that they did not know whether killing was a solution propriate methods. or not (Figure 8). %ere was no statistically signiﬁcant mean Study participant responses to response diﬀerence among study participants (F (3, 50) � conserving wild animals using 1.308, p � 0.283) regarding whether killing all conﬂicting Response options appropriate methods wild animals should be considered as a solution to solve the N (total) Percentage (%) problem. %is implies that many of the study participants 1. Yes 32 60.4 agreed that all conﬂicting wild animals should be killed to 2. No 10 18.9 avoid the conﬂict problem. %is means that they did not 3. I do not know 11 20.7 have a positive concern for the conﬂicting wild animals, and Total 53 100 they consider the animals as pests due to the negative conﬂict consequences they were encountering. Among the respondents, 60.4% considered that wild increased , but global biodiversity continues to decline animals should be conserved using an appropriate method, . Conﬂict between wildlife and humans costs many lives, while 18.9% of respondents replied that wild animals should both human and wildlife, threatens livelihoods, and jeop- not be conserved using appropriate methods (Table 12). ardizes long-term conservation goals such as securing %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence protected areas and building constituencies in support of among respondents (F (3, 50) � 7.856, p< 0.001) regarding biodiversity conservation . Species involved in conﬂict are conserving wild animals using appropriate methods. more prone to extinction  and create a basis for re- %is result implies that the respondents concerned with sentment due to undermined welfare of the people through wild animal conservation in the study area were inﬂuenced crop damage and livestock predation. If serious solutions to by the conﬂict impact they were facing. As a result, their conﬂicts are not adequate, local support for conservation support for the survival of wild animals was negative, and also declines . Habitat destruction is forcing animals to even they considered killing all conﬂicting wild animals as a move through human settlements , and habitat loss is solution to mitigate the problem. %is means that the extent one of the greatest obstacles to biodiversity conservation in of the problem is high and needs attention. Furthermore, the tropics. awareness of the issue of conﬂict management and wild Concerning the beneﬁts of forest conservation to the animals’ importance was relevant for the community in the respondents, the majority of respondents (96.2%) explained study area. However, the community seems to support the that the forest in the study area was important, while 3.8% conservation of wild animals in appropriate ways in general. replied that they did not know whether the forest was Over the past decades, biodiversity conservation has re- important or not. However, 90.6% of the respondents ceived increasing attention, and protected area coverage has explained that the forest should be conserved. %ere was no Frequency (n) and/or % Frequency (n) Frequency (n) and/or % and/or % International Journal of Zoology 11 Table 13: Beneﬁts of the forest to study participants. statistically signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence among the respondents (F (3, 50) � 0.171, p � 0.915) regarding the Study participants’ importance of conserving forest in the study area. %e response Beneﬁt types gained from forest importance of forest conservation was related to the beneﬁts N (total) Percentage (%) of forest to the communities (χ � 78.151, p< 0.001). (2) 1. Soil conservation 34 64.2 Moreover, there was no statistically signiﬁcant mean re- 2. Suitable climate and environment 30 56.6 sponse diﬀerence among respondents (F (3, 50) � 1.721, 3. Rainfall 22 41.5 p � 0.176) concerning forest conservation activities. %is 4. Firewood collection 10 18.9 implies that they had a similar view of conserving the forest, 5. House construction 4 7.5 and this might be related to the beneﬁts they were obtaining 6. Food income 7 13.2 from forests. 7. Water resource 2 3.8 8. Shading 4 7.5 In this study, most of the respondents (64.2%) believed 9. Aesthetic value 7 13.2 that they obtain soil conservation beneﬁts from the forest. 10. Future tourism 9 17 %is was followed by suitable climate and environment 11. Timber production 4 7.5 beneﬁts (56.6%), whereas 3.8% of the respondents explained 12. Habitat for wild animals 10 18.9 that they got water resources (Table 13). 13. Medicine 4 7.5 %e response of the respondents implied that the 14. Keeping domestic animal 4 7.5 community in the study area had adequate know-how on forest importance and the need to conserve forest. %is might be related to the beneﬁts they were obtaining from the Table 14: Response to importance of coexistence of human and forest in the area. %is could be used as a good base for wild animals. further conservation work on forest and natural resources, Study participants’ response to and thus, it contributes to wild animals’ conservation. importance of coexistence of human Formal eﬀorts to involve local communities in natural re- Response options and wild animals (HWC) source management and promote community-based natural Number (total) Percentage (%) resource management and related approaches in East Africa 1. Yes 25 47.2 have been diverse and have included wildlife, forestry, 2. No 21 39.7 marine, and lake ﬁsheries . East Africa is also charac- 3. I do not know 4 7.5 terized by the persistence of long-term community-based 4. No response 3 5.6 resource management systems used by resident communi- Total 53 100 ties, such as pastoralists in the Rift Valley of southern Ethiopia . As explained in , wildlife-human conﬂicts are a serious obstacle to wildlife conservation and the livelihoods of people worldwide and are becoming more 41.5 35.9 13.2 5 9.4 7 prevalent as human population increases, development expands, and global climate change and other human and Positive Negative Neutral No Total environmental factors put people and wildlife in greater response direct competition for a shrinking resource base. Response In relation to attitudes of community toward wild an- imals, even though 47.2% of the respondents considered the importance of the coexistence of humans and wild animals Figure 9: Attitude of study participants toward wild animals. in the study area, 39.7% of the respondents did not consider the importance of coexistence of human and wild animals (Table 14). %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant relation be- results of , in which 62% of the respondents had a tween supporting the importance of coexistence of humans negative attitude to wild animals. %e current study result and wild animals and conﬂict in the study area was in contradiction with the study results of  in Midre- (χ � 29.340, p< 0.001), but there was no statistically Kebid Abo Monastry, Gurage Zone, Ethiopia, in which (3) signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence (F (3, 50) � 0.605, 64.4% of the respondents had a positive attitude about wildlife, that they thought wildlife conservation is important. p � 0.615) among respondents in supporting coexistence of humans and wild animals in the study area. %e diﬀerence might be related to the study area, sample size, Many of the respondents (41.5%) had a negative attitude and extent of conﬂict impact in the study area. toward wild animals, while 9.4% had neither positive nor In this study, 58.5% of respondents explained that they negative attitudes toward wild animals (Figure 9). %ere was encourage conservation activities on wild animals, whereas a statistically signiﬁcant relation between attitude of re- 30.2% did not encourage conservation activities. Moreover, spondents and the conﬂict in the study area (χ � 16.057, 11.3% of the study participants did not give any response to (3) p< 0.001). However, there was no statistically signiﬁcant this issue. %ere was a statistically signiﬁcant relation be- mean response diﬀerence among respondents concerning tween encouraging conservation activities on wild animals their attitude toward wild animals (F (3, 50) � 1.942, and conﬂict situations (χ � 17.925, p< 0.001), but there (2) p � 0.136). %is study result was in agreement with the study was no statistically signiﬁcant mean response diﬀerence Frequency (n) and/or % 12 International Journal of Zoology between respondents (F (3, 50) � 0.202, p � 0.894) regarding creation training and ways of promoting coexistence be- encouraging conservation activities of wild animals. tween human and wild animals are necessary in the study area to achieve conservation activities successfully. %e ﬁnding concerning attitude implied that even though there was support for the importance of coexistence of humans and wild animals, there could be a lot of work to Data Availability be done to have adequate attitudinal support on the issue. %e datasets generated and analyzed during the current Moreover, many of the respondents had a negative attitude study are included in the manuscript. toward wild animals. %is might be related to the various impacts they were encountering in the study area. However, Ethical Approval a better proportion of the study participants encouraged conservation activities on wild animals. %is implies that if %e ethical approvals were approved by Wolkite University, more work on awareness and other coexistence methods as Ezha District Administrative Oﬃce, Ezha District Agricul- well as the value of wild animals is oﬀered, there will be a tural Oﬃce, and Ezha District Wildlife and Ecotourism better change for the community. %e conﬂict between Oﬃces prior to data collection. people and wildlife is one of the main threats to the con- tinued survival of many species in diﬀerent parts of the Consent world and is also a signiﬁcant threat to local human pop- ulations. If serious solutions to conﬂicts are not adequate, Written consent was gained from the respective kebeles local support for conservation also declines. administrators and respondents for making discussions on the objectives of the study before actual data collection 4. Conclusions and Recommendations processes. Human-wild animal conﬂict exists, and it was becoming Conflicts of Interest serious from time to time occurring in various places, time, and seasons in Amba forest/in the study area. Conﬂict %e authors have declared that there are no conﬂicts of occurs mostly around home and garden areas, followed by interest between them. on farmland. %e most conﬂict season was December to February. Anubis baboon, Potamochoerus larvatus, Chlor- Acknowledgments ocebus aethiops, and Hystrix cristata were the most con- %is research was funded by Wolkite University (Wku/RDd/ ﬂicting wild animal, respectively. Abundance of wild 436/05/12), Ethiopia. %e funding body has provided ﬁ- animals, presence of forest in the area, crop raiding, ex- nancial support in the process of data collection, analysis, pansion of agriculture, and livestock predation were the and interpretation. %e authors would like to acknowledge main causes of HWC in the study area. Ensete ventricosum the Research and Community Service Oﬃce of Wolkite and Solanum tuberosum were the ﬁrst and second major University for ﬁnancial support. %e authors also extend crops grown and damaged by wild animals. Wild animals their gratitude to the Ezha District Administrator, Biodi- damage various stages and parts of crops. Psychological versity and Environment Protection Oﬃce of Ezha District, impact and economic impacts were the main impacts en- kebele administrators, and study participants for their countered. Most of the respondents had applied wild animal hospitality, respect, and genuine response to successfully and human conﬂict mitigation strategies, but many con- complete our study. sidered that it was not eﬀective, and the conﬂict situation was becoming serious from time to time. %e trends of the References conﬂict were increasing. Many of the respondents replied that the survival of wild animals was not important in the  F. M. Muluken, “Human-wildlife conﬂicts: case study in study area, but almost all respondents explained that the wondo genet district, southern Ethiopia,” Agriculture, For- forest in the study area was important and, thus, forest estry and Fisheries, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 352–362, 2014. should be conserved. Forest gives them various beneﬁts like  S. S. Bibi, R. A. Minhas, M. S. Awan, U. Ali, and N. I. Dar, soil conservation and suitable climate and environment “Study of ethnocarnivore relationship in dhirkot, azad Jammu beneﬁts. About 40% of the respondents did not consider the and Kashmir,” ?e Journal of Animal & Plant Science, vol. 23, importance of the coexistence of humans and wild animals, no. 3, pp. 854–859, 2013.  G. A. Leta, H. F. Debela, and M. G. Tariku, “Assessment of and many of the respondents (41.5%) had a negative attitude types of damage and causes of human- wildlife conﬂict in toward wild animals, but generally, 58.5% encourage con- Gera district, south western Ethiopia,” Journal of Ecology and servation activities on wild animals. %is study result showed the Natural Environment, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 49–54, 2016. that HWC was serious and became intensiﬁed from time to  D. Pimentel, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison, “Update on the time with increasing trends of conﬂict aﬀecting the com- environmental and economic costs associated with alien-in- munities in the study area; thus, a negative attitude was vasive species in the United States,” Ecological Economics, developed by many of the communities on wild animal vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 273–288, 2005. coexistence and conservation. %us, attention is relevant to  A. Barlow, ?e Sundarbans Tiger: Adaptation, Population successfully promoting the coexistence of conservation ac- Status and Conﬂict Management, University of Minnesota, tivities in the area. As a recommendation, awareness Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2009. International Journal of Zoology 13  A. Pandey, A. Oberoi, A. Sharma, and A. Bhardawaj,  T. Kumsa and A. Bekele, “Attitude and perceptions of local “Analysis of human–wildlife conﬂict management,” Engi- residents toward the protected area of abijata-shalla lakes national park, Ethiopia,” Ecosystem & Ecography, vol. 4, no. 1, neering Sciences International Research Journal, vol. 5, pp. 1–5, 2014. pp. 63–65, 2017.  R. Sukumar, “Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India.  World Parks Congress, “Preventing and Mitigating II. Feeding habits and crop raiding patterns,” Journal of Humanwildlife Conﬂict,” 2003, https://www.iucn.org.  A. Nelson, P. Bidwell, and C. Sillero-Zubiri, “A review of Tropical Ecology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 33–53, 1990.  F. M. Madden, “%e growing conﬂict between humans and human-elephant conﬂict management strategies,” Wildlife wildlife: law and policy as contributing and mitigating fac- Conservation Research Unit, vol. 25, 2003. tors,” Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, vol. 11,  S. LeBel, G. Mapuvire, and R. Czudek, “Human-wildlife no. 2-3, pp. 189–206, 2008. conﬂict toolkit: comprehensive solutions for farmers and  Planning and Economic Development Department (PEDD), communities,” Unasylva, vol. 236, no. 61, pp. 12-13, 2010. Guraghe Zone Economic Base Line Survey, p. 1, PEDD,  B. L. Emmanuel and G. A. Furaha, “Conservation Challenges Wolkite, Ethiopia, 1998. & Human-Wildlife Conﬂicts Around Arusha National Park,  Central Statistical Agency (CSA), ?e 2007 population and Tanzania,” 2016, https://www.academia.edu/27006089/ housing census of Ethiopia, CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007. Conservation_Challenges_and_Human_Wildlife_Conﬂicts_  Y. Amare and T. Serekebirhan, “Human-wildlife conﬂict around_Arusha_National_Park_Tanzania. around midre-kebid Abo Monastry, gurage zone, southwest  A. J. Dickman, “Complexities of conﬂict: the importance of Ethiopia,” International Journal of Biodiversity and Conser- considering social factors for eﬀectively resolving human- vation, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 212–229, 2019. –wildlife conﬂict,” Animal Conservation, vol. 13, no. 5,  B. Bizuayehu, M. Belete, and T. Demsis, “Ethnomedicinal pp. 458–466, 2010. plant diversity study aroundYotyet- yewezera and Amba  R. Woodroﬀe and J. R. Ginsberg, “Edge eﬀects and the ex- Natural Forest, Ezha district, Gurage zone, Central Ethiopia,” tinction of populations inside protected areas,” Science, Trends in Applied Sciences Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–29, vol. 280, no. 5372, pp. 2126–2128, 1998.  C. Sillero-Zubiri and D. Switzer, “Crop raiding primates:  W. D. Newmark, D. N. Manyanza, D. G. M. Gamassa, and searching for alternative, humane ways to resolve conﬂict with H. I. Sariko, “%e conﬂict between wildlife and local people farmers in Africa,” Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, 2001, living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: human density http://www.peopleandwildlife.org.uk/crmanuals/CropRaidin as a predictor,” Conservation Biology, vol. 8, no. 1, gPrimatesP&WManual. pp. 249–255, 1994.  E. A. Eniang, H. M. Ijeomah, G. Okeyoyin, and A. E. Uwatt,  F. Lamarque, Human-Wildlife Conﬂict in Africa- an Overview “Assessment of Human–Wildlife Conﬂicts in Filinga Range of of Causes, Consequences and Management Strategies, Working Gashaka Gumti National Park,” Nigeria PAT, vol. 1, 2011. Paper of IFCW and FAO, Rome, Italy, 2008.  M. E. Tessema, RJ. Lilieholm, Z. T. Ashenaﬁ, and N. Leader-  N. Bezihalem, Y. Mesele, and T. Bewuketu, “Human-wildlife Williams, “Community attitudes toward wildlife and pro- conﬂict in Choke mountains, Ethiopia,” International Journal tected areas in Ethiopia,” Society & Natural Resources, vol. 23, of Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2017. no. 6, pp. 489–506, 2010.  J. M. Kolowski and K. E. Holekamp, “Spatial, temporal, and  A. Mekonnen, A. Bekele, P. J. Fashing, J. M. Lernould, physical characteristics of livestock depredations by large A. Atickem, and N. C. Stenseth, “Newly discovered Bale carnivores along a Kenyan reserve border,” Biological Con- monkey populations in forest fragments in southern Ethiopia: servation, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 529–541, 2006. evidence of crop raiding, hybridization with grivets, and other  F. Lamarque, J. Anderson, R. Fergusson, M. Lagrange, Y. Osei conservation threats,” American Journal of Primatology, Owusu, and L. Bakker, Human Wildlife Conﬂict in Africa vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 423–432, 2012. Cause, Consequences and Management Strategies, FAO,  T. Kumsa and A. Bekele, “Human-wildlife conﬂict in senkele Rome, Italy, 2009. swayne’s hartebeest sanctuary, Ethiopia,” Journal of Experi-  A. Blair, Human-wildlife Conﬂict in Laikipia North, Kenya: mental Biology and Agricultural Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, Comparing Oﬃcial Reports with the Experiences of Maasai pp. 32–38, 2013. Pastoralists a ?esis Submitted to Mc Gill University in Partial  H. Alemu, K. Sh. Goudar, and H. Ibrahim, “Assessment of Fulﬁllment of the Requirements of Degree of Master of Science, human-wildlife conﬂict in and around Gemshat forest area, Department of Geograph Mc Gill University, Montreal, Wollo, amahra region, Ethiopia,” Abyss Journal of Science and Canada, 2008. Technology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2017.  V. A. Conforti and F. Cesar Cascelli de Azevedo, “Local  K. S. Goudar, B. Ayalew, M. Adem, and A. Biniyam, “As- perceptions of jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma sessment of distribution and characteristics of domestic concolor) in the Iguacu National Park area, south Brazil,” damage caused by wild animals around Yegof National Forest Biological Conservation, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 215–221, 2003. Priority Area,” Abyssinia Journal of Science and Technology,  F. Michalski, R. L. P. Boulhosa, A. Faria, and C. A. Peres, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 8–16, 2017. “Human–wildlife conﬂicts in a fragmented Amazonian forest  A. Megaze, M. Balakrishnan, and G. Belay, “Human–wildlife landscape: determinants of large felid depredation on live- conﬂict and attitude of local people towards conservation of stock,” Animal Conservation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 179–188, 2006. wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia,”  P. Fernando, E. Wikramanayake, D. Weerakoon, African Zoology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2017. L. Jayasinghe, M. Gunawardene, and H. Janaka, “Perceptions  M. E. Tessema, Z. T. Ashenaﬁ, R. J. Lilieholm, and N. Leader- and patterns of human-elephant conﬂict in old and new Williams, “Community attitudes towards wildlife conserva- settlements in Sri Lanka: insights for mitigation and man- tion in Ethiopia,” in Proceedings of the 2007 George Wright agement,” Biodiversity & Conservation, vol. 14, no. 10, Society Conference, Michigan, Hancock, 2007. pp. 2465–2481, 2005. 14 International Journal of Zoology  T. Holmern, J. Nyahongo, and E. Roskaft, “Livestock loss caused by predators outside the serengeti national park, Tanzania,” Biological Conservation, vol. 135, no. 4, pp. 518–526, 2007.  H. Bauer, “Local perceptions of Waza national park, northern Cameroon,” Environmental Conservation, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 175–181, 2003.  B. D. Patterson, S. M. Kasiki, E. Selempo, and R. W. Kays, “Livestock predation by lions (Panthera leo) and other car- nivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo National Parks, Kenya,” Biological Conservation, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 507–516,  R. Woodroﬀe, S. %irgood, and A. Rabinowitz, People and Wildlife, Conﬂict or Coexistence?” (No. 9), Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.  B. Taylor and J. Francis, “Preventing and mitigating human–wildlife conﬂicts: world parks congress recommen- dation, human dimensions of wildlife,” International Journal of Ecology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 259-260, 2004.  WWF-SARPO, Human Wildlife Conﬂict Manual, WWF- SARPO, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2005.  G. Wallace and C. Hill, Development of Techniques to Reduce Farmer-Wildlife Conﬂict Associated with Crop-Raiding in Masindi District, Uganda, %e Ruﬀord Maurice Laing Foundation, London, UK, 2007.  C. Zubri and D. Switzer, Crop Raiding Primates: Searching for Alternative Human Ways to Resolve Conﬂict with Farmers in Africa,” People and Wildlife Initiative, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, London, UK, 2001.  S. H. M. Butchart, J. P. W. Scharlemann, M. I. Evans et al., “Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets,” PLoS One, vol. 7, no. 3, Article ID e32529, 2012.  S. H. M. Butchart, M. Walpole, B. Collen et al., “Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines,” Science, vol. 328, no. 5982, 1168 pages, 2010.  Q. A. Ahmad, M. Abrar, Z. Farooq et al., “Human-wildlife conﬂict assessment along the river satluj, Pakistan,” Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 235–238, 2017.  D. Roe, F. Nelson, and C. Sandbrook, “Community Man- agement of Natural Resources in Africa: Impacts, Experiences & Future Directions,” 2009, https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/235959522.  T. Blomley, K. Pﬂiegner, J. Isango, E. Zahabu, A. Ahrends, and N. Burgess, “Seeing the Wood for the Trees: An Assessment of the Impact of Participatory Forest Management on Forest Condition in Tanzania,” 2008, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.934. 2936&rep=rep1&type=pdf.  G. Gizachew, “Human wildlife conﬂict and its implication for conservation around chebera churchura national park, konta special district in southern Nations Nationalities and peoples region(SNNPR), southern Ethiopia,” M.Sc. %esis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016.
International Journal of Zoology – Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Published: Aug 29, 2022
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.