Human–wildlife conflict in the surrounding districts of Alage College, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

Abstract

The study was conducted between September 2018 and March 2019 to investigate the nature and extent of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in the surrounding area of Alage College, the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, and to assess the perception of the local people to wildlife. For data collection, a total of 140 household (HH) heads were selected randomly for interviews from nine villages using structured and semistructured questionnaires. Moreover, focus group discussion, key informant interviews, and personal observation were carried out to obtain additional information.Descriptive statistics, Chi-square test (2 tailed), one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Likert scale statements were used to analyze the data.Based on, 66 (47.1%) of the respondents, HH heads, the local people of the area experienced livestock predation leading to HWC. Whereas, (40.7%, n = 57) of the respondents perceived both crop damage and livestock predation as a cause of conflict.A total of 932.43 total livestock unit of livestock and 218 dogs' losses were reported by HH due to predators over the last 5 years. Thus, the largest number of livestock (89.9%) and dogs (100%) attacks was happened due to spotted hyenas. Nearly half of the respondents (49.3%, n = 69) ranked warthogs as the primary crop raiders, while the majority of respondents (82.1%, n = 115) reported maize as a severely damaged cereal crop.More than half, (57.1%, n = 80) of respondents used different methods simultaneously to minimize damage caused by wild animals. About half, (48.6%, n = 68) of respondents had a negative attitude toward wildlife conservation. The level of education and amount of money imposed as a penalty for illegal grazing were affecting the local community's attitudes to wildlife conservation. Using effective methods to reduce damage and loss to crops, including improved livestock husbandry and creating better awareness to the local community could make the locals actor of conservation.

Human-Terrestrial Wildlife Conflict in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review

“…The results of this review also revealed that illegal poisoning affected Canis simensis [ 45 ], which was an endangered species according to IUCN. Different nonlethal methods that are used to reduce HWC are guarding [ 33 , 40 , 41 ] with the help of dogs through chasing livestock predators [ 38 ], physical barriers like fencing [ 39 , 46 ], loud noises [ 47 ], seasonal displacement [ 33 ], fear-provoking stimuli such as scarecrows and beating drums [ 48 , 49 ], sound mechanisms for scaring [ 44 ], and repellent chemicals like scents [ 34 ]. Lethal methods used are shooting and trapping [ 34 , 50 ].…”

Living with a large predator: Assessing the root causes of Human–brown bear conflict and their spatial patterns in Lahaul valley, Himachal Pradesh

“…The respondent claimed only two incidents of lethal removal of HBB, suggesting retaliatory killing of the brown bear to reduce damage. Several studies have highlighted that the retaliatory killing of bears is a major conservation and management issue for bears in the Himalayas and elsewhere (Charoo et al, 2011 ; Rathore, 2008 ; Temesgen et al, 2022 ). The local communities have developed a negative perception of HBB due to HBC's‐associated high economic loss.…”

“…The assessment of the human–HBB conflict was carried out in Lahaul valley from July 2018 to December 2019. We interviewed local communities using a semi‐structured “close and open‐ended” questionnaire to collect information on various aspects of human–HBB conflict in the study landscape (Temesgen et al, 2022 ). We also placed a total of twelve camera traps in the agriculture field and recorded the presence of HBB in the seven camera traps (Figure 2 ).…”

Human-Wild Animal Conflict in Banja Woreda, Awi Zone, Ethiopia

“…After stratifying the area into homogeneous groups, random sampling was conducted. Each respondent of the study settlement was selected randomly and interviewed [21,22]. Depending on the distance between the forest habitat of wild animals and the settlement area of the respondent, the distance between the forest habitat of wild animals and the settlement of the local communities was categorized as near (≤2 kilometers), medium (>2 to ≤4 kilometers), and far (>4 kilometers).…”

“…e questionnaire was used to explore the type and extent and causes of human-wild animal conflict, mitigation measures, livelihood characteristics of households, and local people's perceptions towards wild animal conservation. In order to gain the attention and confidence of respondents as well as to gather good information, the interviews took place at respondents' homes [22]. Participant observation in this study physically looks at what is the reality on the ground and what it made comparisons with the respondents in the household and key informant interviews.…”