Effects of human–wildlife conflict on local people's livelihoods and wildlife conservation in and around Alitash National Park, northwest Ethiopia

Abstract

Human–wildlife conflict has become one of the fundamental aspects of wildlife management. It threatens both wildlife and human welfare. People have injured, abused, and killed wildlife in response to perceived and/or actual damage from wildlife. Such negative interactions are common in adjacent protected areas (PAs) where people and wildlife share the same resources. However, the local contexts of the conflict around the most newly established PAs remain unaddressed. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the effects of human–wildlife conflict on local people's livelihoods and wildlife conservation in and around Alitash National Park, Ethiopia. The data were collected by interviewing 198 households from 11 villages and conducting 3 focus group discussions and 12 key informant interviews. The survey questions were designed to understand the occurrence of wildlife damage, species involved, losses incurred, and local people's perception and reaction. The results revealed that 59.6% of the surveyed households encountered at least a single type of wildlife‐caused damage. Crop damage was the most prevalent, encountered by more than half (54%) of the households, of which 34.4 and 19.6% lost at most 25 and 75% of their crop fields, respectively. Common warthog, African porcupines, and common baboon were the top‐ranked wildlife species involved in crop‐raiding. The livestock loss from 2016 to 2020 was 287.89 tropical livestock units, which were shared by 47.5% of the respondents. Human attacks were rare, although 18 attacks by lion, spotted hyena, and leopard were reported by the study participants. The responses of the victims were negative and full of resentment to the wildlife. This undermines conservation efforts and the socio‐economic welfare of the local people. Thus, providing alternative livelihood opportunities and creating a context‐based conservation scheme along with continuous conservation education would help to reduce the negative effect of human–wildlife conflict on both wildlife and people.