ABBREVIATIONS
AGP:
Agricultural Growth Program
ETB: Ethiopian Birr
FAO:
Food and Agriculture Organization for the United Nations
HWC:
Human-wildlife conflict
LMD:
Livestock Market Development
SPSS: Statistical Package
for Social Scientist
USAID: United States
Agency for International Development
VIF:
Variance inflation factor
WoWF:
Wof-Washa Forests
χ2: Chi-square
test
INTRODUCTION
Human-wildlife
conflict (HWC) refers to the interaction between wild animals and people and
the resultant negative impact on people or their resources, or wild animals or
their habitats (Messmer, 2000; Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson, 2001; Conover,
2002; Gadd, 2005; Madden, 2008; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay,
2017). For example, HWC occurs when growing human populations overlap with
established wildlife territory. Although both developed and developing
countries are affected by HWC, developing countries are more prone than
developed countries due to a heavily dependent economy on subsistent use of
natural resources (Hill, 1998, 2000; Gadd, 2005; Lamarque
et al., 2009; Fairet, 2012; Bibi et al., 2013; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017;
Biset et al., 2019). Some of the major reasons for such HWC are competition for
limited resources (e.g. habitat overlap), fear as a threat to the local
community, crop raiding, diseases and parasites transmission, livestock
predation, and trading the body parts of wild animals (Newmark et al., 1994;
Hill, 1998, 2000; Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson, 2001; Conover, 2002; Gadd, 2005;
Lamarque et al., 2009; Hoffman and O’Riain, 2011; Datiko and Bekele, 2013; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017).
For example, due to competition for shared natural resources between people and
wildlife, HWC influences food security of people and the well-being of people
and animals (Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Agyeman and
Baidoo, 2019).
The
common resultant effects of HWC include crop damage, livestock predation,
damages on properties and human themselves (Newmark et al., 1994; Hill, 1998,
2000; Gadd, 2005; Woodroffe et al., 2005; Lamarque et al.,
2009; Bibi et al., 2013; Datiko and
Bekele, 2013). HWC are most prevalent along the boundaries of wildlife
protected areas (Hill, 1998, 2000; Datiko
and Bekele, 2013; Karanth et al., 2013; Mbise et al., 2018; Biset et
al., 2019). Indeed, wildlife species involved in conflict are more vulnerable
to extinction (Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998; Gadd, 2005; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017) and also create a basis
for resentment due to the undermined welfare of the local people through crop
damage and livestock predation (Bower and Baquete, 1998; Hill, 1998, 2000; Gadd, 2005;
Lamarque et al., 2009; Datiko and
Bekele, 2013; Mbise et al., 2018; Biset et al., 2019). Resulting from HWC,
local people’s reactions (e.g.
poaching, harassment, and habitat destruction) towards wild animals created important threats to the survival of several wildlife species
and is increasingly significant obstacle to the conservation of wildlife in both developing
and developed countries around the world (Newmark et al., 1994; Bower and Baquete, 1998; Hill,
1998, 2000; Messmer, 2000; Conover, 2002; Madhusudan, 2003; Gadd, 2005;
Graham et al., 2005; Osborn and Hill, 2005; Woodroffe et al., 2005; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Madden 2008; Lamarque et al., 2009; Karlsson
and Johansson, 2010; Hoffman and O’Riain, 2011; Fairet, 2012; Bibi et al., 2013; Datiko and
Bekele, 2013; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Biset et al.,
2019).
Farming
practice and rearing of livestock are the integral parts of the local economy
especially in most developing countries around the rural landscape. However,
the economic loss incurred due to crop raiding and livestock predation is
rarely compensated through the loss because such incidences can be relatively
paramount in developing countries (Newmark et al., 1994; Bower and Baquete, 1998; Hill,
1998, 2000; Gadd, 2005; Linkie et al., 2007; Lamarque et al., 2009;
Fairet, 2012; Bibi et al., 2013; Datiko
and Bekele, 2013; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017; Mbise et al.,
2018; Biset et al., 2019). For example, encounter of crop damages was reported
in a wide range of wildlife species, including elephant (Loxodonta africana) (Bower and Baquete, 1998; Hill, 1998; Gadd, 2005;
Nyirenda et al., 2011; Datiko and
Bekele, 2013; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017), wild boar (Sus scrofa) (Linkie
et al., 2007), primates (Hill, 2000; Yihune et al., 2009a; Engeman et al., 2010;
Oduntan et al., 2012; Agyeman and Baidoo, 2019; Biset et al., 2019), and
rodents (Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson, 2001; Singleton et al., 2005). Livestock
predation by various carnivores is another conflict observed in several parts
of the world which is exhibited by different carnivores in many countries (e.g.
Newmark et al., 1994; Bower and Baquete, 1998; Hill, 1998, 2000; Gadd, 2005;
Kolowski and Holekamp, 2006; Holmern et al., 2007; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Roskaft et
al., 2007;
Kissui, 2008, Dar et al., 2009; Karlsson and Johansson, 2010; Kabir et al.,
2013; Mwakatobe et al., 2013; Bhattarai and Fischera, 2014; Linkowski et al.,
2017; Megaze et al., 2017; Mbise et al., 2018;
Biset et al., 2019). Similar to other countries, HWC also exist in Ethiopia. In
fact, field studies are very few though such HWC are severe in the country
(e.g. Yihune et al., 2008, Yihune
et al., 2009a,b; Gebeyehu and Bekele, 2009; Atickem et al., 2010; Yirga et al., 2011; Mekonnen et al., 2012; Datiko and Bekele, 2013; Kumssa and Bekele, 2013; Megaze et
al., 2017; Biset et al., 2019).
Resulting
from diverse ecological conditions, Ethiopia is popular for its endemic
wildlife species. However, the damages (i.e. crop raiding and livestock
predation) caused by different wildlife species in the country vary from place
to place. This is because the nature of HWC, type and extent of crop damage and
livestock predation depend on the wildlife species involved. For instance,
conflict manifested in terms of livestock predation was noted where spotted
hyena (Crocuta crocuta),
leopard (Panthera pardus),
and common jackal (Canis aureus) are
common (Yirga et al., 2011;
Biset et al., 2019). Sheep predation by Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) (Yihune et al., 2008) and crop raiding by gelada (Theropithecus gelada) were also reported around the Simien Mountains National Park (Yihune et al., 2009a) and Borena Sayint
National Park (Biset et al., 2019).
However, Yihune et al. (2009b) have noted prevalent problems (e.g.
domestic goat and sheep predation) caused by common jackal. In addition,
minimal problems resulting from Ethiopian wolf, leopard (Panthera pardus),
vervet monkey (Chlorocebus aethiops),
hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas), and crested porcupine (Hystrix
cristata) were reported around the Simien Mountains National Park of
Ethiopia (Yihune et al., 2009a, b).
Gebeyehu and Bekele (2009) noted that vervet monkey is
one of the major problematic wildlife species around the Zegie Peninsula (i.e.
a small island), Lake Tana, Ethiopia. In another
study, Atickem et al. (2010) reported that spotted hyena followed by leopard
were responsible for livestock predation to the pastoral society in the Bale
Mountains. Mekonnen et al. (2012) also noted that crop raiding by the Bale
monkey (Chlorocebus
djamdjamensis) is becoming a chronic problem in Oromia National
Regional State, Ethiopia. However, Datiko
and Bekele (2013) claimed that the common problematic wildlife
species damaging food crops in Ethiopia include buffalo (Syncerus caffer), anubis baboon (Papio anubis), vervet monkey, and
warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus).
Moreover, Kumssa and Bekele (2013) noted that warthog was considered notorious pest in Senkelle Swayne’s Hartebeest
Sanctuary. Spotted hyena and leopard
were responsible for livestock predation around Chebera Churchura National Park
of Ethiopia (Datiko and
Bekele, 2013; Megaze et al., 2017). In a very
recent study, Biset et al. (2019) reported that leopard and spotted hyena were
the top livestock predators while grivet monkey, gelada, and crested porcupine
were notorious crop raiders around Borena Sayint National Park, Ethiopia.
Given
the prevalence of HWC around various wildlife areas in Ethiopia, it is
essential to reduce or control HWC where local people and wildlife coexist
(Newmark et al., 1994; Bower and Baquete, 1998; Hill, 1998, 2000; Gadd, 2005;
Holmern et al., 2007; Kideghesho et
al., 2007;
Roskaft et al., 2007; Madden, 2008; Yihune et al., 2009a, b; Karlsson and Johansson, 2010; Karanth et al.,
2012; Mwakatobe et al., 2013; Megaze et al., 2017; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay,
2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Biset et al., 2019). In fact, knowledge on the underlying
human and habitat driving factors is mandatory for effective mitigation of HWC.
So far, no study was conducted to examine the magnitude of HWC around WoWF,
North Shewa Administrative Zone, Ethiopia. However, crop raiding and livestock
predation are perceived to be the major problems challenging the local
communities living adjacent to WoWF. Hence, the following two questions were
addressed in this study. These were: (1) how is the knowledge of local people
on HWC around WoWF? (2) How are the attitudes of the local people towards
problematic wildlife (i.e. crop raiders and livestock predators)? To answer the aforementioned two questions, the
study aimed at examining the knowledge of the local people on HWC and their attitudes towards problematic wildlife
around WoWF.
Mitigating crop and livestock loss from the impacts of
problematic wildlife and improving compensation distribution are important
for conservation efforts in a landscape where people and wildlife coexist (Hillman, 1993; Hill,
1998, 2000; Madden, 2008; Yihune et
al., 2009a, b; Hoffman and O’Riain, 2011; Tadesse and
Kotler, 2016; Mbise
et al., 2018; Biset et al., 2019). Unlike most previous
studies conducted in Ethiopia (e.g. Tessema et al., 2010; Yihune et al.,
2009a, b; Datiko and
Bekele, 2013; Kumssa and Bekele, 2013; Megaze et al., 2017;
Biset et al., 2019) and other countries (e.g. Fiallo and Jacobson,
1995; Bower and
Baquete, 1998; Hill, 1998; Bowman et
al., 2001;
Walpole and Goodwin, 2001; Gadd, 2005;
Kideghesho et al., 2007; Morzillo et al., 2007; Roskaft et
al., 2007;
Ogra, 2008; Bhattarai and Fischera, 2014; Mbise et al., 2018; Agyeman and
Baidoo, 2019), the present study utilized a
combination of knowledge and attitudes of local people to address HWC around
WoWF, Ethiopia. Hence, this study is believed to uniquely provide
comprehensive evidence that helps increase our insights and understanding about
the resultant impacts of HWC. Moreover, the study is important to develop
remedial wildlife conservation strategies and measures that integrate the local
people in the conservation and management of wildlife species. Thus, the resulting information
is crucial for policy analysts, decision-makers, land use planners, and forest
and natural resources conservation managers working in and around WoWF,
Ethiopia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study
Area
Wof-Washa Forests (WoWF) are located in North Shewa Administrative
Zone (about 9°45' N and 39°45' E), central highlands of Ethiopia, some 160 km northeast of Addis Ababa (Fig. 1).
There are different opinions about the size of WoWF. For example, previous
researchers estimated that WoWF were thought to cover an area of 3,500 ha (Von
Breitenbach, 1962; Chaffey, 1979). However, FAO (1988) estimated that WoWF cover an area of 10,000 ha. The total area of WoWF is 6604.35 ha (Personal communication with Tarmaber District
Administration Office, March 10, 2017). These
differences suggested the need for further investigations about the exact
boundary of WoWF. However, WoWF are under steady human and livestock pressures,
which are believed to reduce the area of the forests as time goes on (Teketay and Bekele, 1995; Woldie and Tadesse, 2018).
The WoWF are known for their very steep slopes and rugged topography. For
example, there are several peaks covered by WoWF and ericaceous shrubs among
which the highest is at about 3,500 m at the north-western part of the forests (Teketay and Bekele, 1995).
The common woody plant species in WoWF include Juniperus procera, Afrocarpus falcatus, Cynoglossum amplifolium, Polyscias
fulva, Hypericum revolutum, Vernonia amygdalina, Vernonia
rueppellii, Ekebergia capensis, Bersama abyssinica, Ficus
sur, Maesa lanceolata, Myrsine africana, Dovyalis
abyssinica, Olea africana, Olea hochstetteri, Celtis
africana, Hagenia abyssinica, Prunus africana, Allophylus abyssinicus, Rosa
abyssinica, and Galium simense (Bekele, 1994; Teketay and Bekele, 1995; Woldie and Tadesse, 2018).
The WoWF provide shelter, food, and breeding sites for a number of
wild mammal species, including anubis baboon (Papio anubis), gelada (Theropithecus
gelada), bushbuck (Tragelaphus
scriptus), common duiker (Sylvicapra
grimmia), Menelik's bushbuck (Tragelaphus
scriptus meneliki), guereza (Colobus
guereza), vervet monkey (Chlorocebus
aethiops), klipspringer (Oreotragus
oreotragus), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), leopard (Panthera pardus), rock hyrax (Procavia
capensis), common jackal (Canis
mesomelas), common warthog (Phacochoerus
africanus), African civet (Civettictis civetta), and bush pig (Potamochoerus larvatus) (Teketay and Bekele, 1995; Woldie and Tadesse, 2018). The WoWF
are also known for bird species, and some of the endemic bird species in the
forests include Ankober serin (Serinus
ankoberensis), abyssinian catbird (Parophasma galinieri), abyssinian
long-claw (Macronyx flavicollis), Ethiopian siskin (Serinus nigriceps),
spot-breasted lapwing (Vanellus melanocephalus), and wattled ibis (Bostrychia
carunculata) (Ashenafi et al., 2005; Woldie and Tadesse, 2018).
Survey Instruments
Attitudes are positive or
negative responses
of
people towards problematic wildlife (Hill, 1998; Bowman et al., 2001; Morzillo et al., 2007; Romanach
et al., 2007; Karlsson
and Johansson, 2010; Dickman et al., 2014; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016; Pirie et
al., 2017; Mbise et al., 2018). Thus, negative or positive
attitudes of local people will likely affect their contribution and participation
in conservation and management of wildlife (Hill, 1998; Gadd, 2005;
Hazzah, 2006; Kideghesho et
al., 2007;
Romanach et al., 2007; Roskaft et al., 2007; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016; Pirie et al., 2017;
Mbise et al., 2018). Behaviour of
people can be influenced by their knowledge and experience about wildlife resources (Jotte, 1997; Hill, 1998; Walpole
and Goodwin 2001; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016; Mbise et al., 2018). Attitudes of local people can be affected by their behaviors
(Jotte, 1997; Hill,
1998; Roskaft et al., 2007; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016; Pirie et al., 2017;
Mbise et al., 2018).
So, understanding how behavior affects the attitudes of local people is of
paramount importance for the conservation, management, and sustainable
utilization of wildlife resources,
especially in the developing countries, like Ethiopia, where local people are
directly dependent on the natural resources to satisfy their livelihoods (Jotte,
1997; Hill,
1998; Gadd, 2005; Karlsson and Johansson, 2010; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016; Megaze et
al., 2017; Pirie et al., 2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Biset et al., 2019). Previous studies suggested that attitudes of local people towards problematic wildlife were affected by social factors, such as sex, age,
level of education, family size, annual income, occupation type, land and
livestock ownerships, and distance between the residence area of the
respondents and the edge of wildlife area (Hill, 1998; Bowman et al., 2001; Gadd, 2005; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Romanach et al., 2007; Roskaft et al., 2007; Dickman et al., 2014; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016; Megaze et
al., 2017; Pirie et al., 2017; Biset et al., 2019).
The local people in the study site are historically
linked to WoWF. More importantly, they can affect the forests and the wildlife
resources because of their direct dependence on them for fuelwood, construction
materials, wood products sold by households, foods, medicinal values, source of
water, and free-range livestock grazing (Teketay and Bekele, 1995). Hence, the successful conservation of wildlife
resources depends on
knowledge about HWC and attitudes of the local people who
are inherently connected with the local landscape (Hillman, 1993; Hoffman
and O’Riain, 2011; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016), and through their active
participation in its management.
To
examine the relative importance of social factors (e.g. sex, age, level
of education, family size, annual income, occupation type, distance between the residence area of
the respondents and the edge of WoWF, land and livestock ownership) affecting the knowledge of
local people on HWC and their attitudes towards problematic wildlife around
WoWF (Dickman et al., 2014; Megaze et al., 2017), we chose local communities
living adjacent to the forests, who had reported crop damages and livestock
predation by problematic wildlife. This is because crop damage and livestock
predation are the major causes for the incidences of HWC all over the world (Hill,
1998, 2000; Gadd, 2005; Holmern et al., 2007; Romanach et al., 2007; Lamarque
et al., 2009; Karlsson and Johansson, 2010; Bibi et al., 2013; Mwakatobe et
al., 2013; Dickman et al., 2014; Megaze et al., 2017; Pirie et al., 2017;
Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Agyeman and Baidoo, 2019;
Biset et al., 2019). And hence, the data are more reliable to deal with
the knowledge of local people on HWC and their attitudes towards problematic wildlife around WoWF,
Ethiopia. Thus,
the study site was more or less representative of the local communities’
interactions with wildlife, and also it allowed us to evaluate the relative
importance of the social factors in shaping attitudes towards problematic
wildlife around WoWF.
Structured
questionnaire comprising closed-ended questions were prepared (Tadesse and
Kotler, 2016; Megaze
et al., 2017) that likely help examine the knowledge of local people on HWC and
their attitudes towards problematic wildlife (i.e. crop raiders and livestock
predators) around WoWF. Most socio-economic, knowledge and experience measuring
questions were measured in nominal scale and rated using 2 = yes, and 1 = no. Distance between the
residential area of the respondents and the edge of WoWF, age, family size, annual income, and level of education were
measured in numerical quantitative values. To quantify the
attitudes of the respondents towards crop raiders and livestock predators, Likert scale was employed and rated using 5 =
strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = unsure, 2 = disagree and 1 = strongly disagree through a structured
questionnaire survey (Cohen
et al., 2000; Hren et al., 2004; Tadesse and Kotler, 2016). Larger
values reflected positive attitudes towards crop raiders and
livestock predators.
Data
Collection
After briefly
orienting about the purpose of the study and the questionnaire survey, a total
sample size of 162 respondents who live around WoWF were contacted. Respondents
for the questionnaire survey were randomly selected through a lottery system
based on their house identification numbers. Pre-testing of the structured
questionnaire was carried out to ensure that all questions were clear and a
final version was prepared for sampling.
The incidences of
crop raiding and livestock predation by wildlife were noticed around WoWF from
the pre-testing survey. Hence, the study was conducted by focusing on: (i) sex;
(ii) age; (iii) level of education; (iv) family size; (v) annual income; (vi)
occupation type; (vii) distance between the residence area of the respondents
and the edge of WoWF; (viii) land ownership; (ix) livestock ownership; (x) the
opinion of the local people on the nature of crop damage; (xi) the type and
extent of crop damage; (xii) the techniques used by the local people to protect
crops from the damage caused by crop raiders; (xiii) remedial measures
suggested by the respondents to prevent the loss of food crops; (xiv)
identifying and quantifying the type and number of livestock loss due to
predation; (xv) people’s knowledge on the trend of livestock predation; and
(xvi) the attitudes of the respondents towards problematic wildlife. The
correct identification of the observed predators was assured by showing the
photographs of different predators to the respondents. The data were collected
through a household survey via house-to-house visits in April 2017.
Data Analyses
Descriptive statistics (i.e. proportion,
mean, and standard deviation values) were computed. A summary of the proportion values was presented
in tabular format. The monetary loss for
each respondent from livestock killed by wild predators was calculated based on
the market price (Ethiopia Birr) with reference to the nearest town (i.e. Debre
Berhan town), which was later converted to US dollars for the different
livestock type.
Chi-square test (χ2) and multiple linear regression were used to analyze and interpret the data (Zar, 1999).
Prior
to the Chi-square test (χ2) and multiple linear regression analyses,
we tested continuous independent variables for collinearity using Spearman rank
analysis and Pearson r correlations,
as appropriate, and categorical variables using Pearson Chi-square to test for
association between categorical variables (see also Hazzah, 2006 for the
correlation matrix). The cut-off value for significance of the Spearman Rank
and Pearson was r > 0.70 and P < 0.001 for Pearson Chi-square
tests. We also tested the variance inflation factor (VIF) and checked the
variance decomposition proportions; both tests confirmed that there was no
collinearity present among the predictors. Finally, we ran additional
diagnostic tests to check for the presence of outliers, influential
observations, and heteroscedasticity (Fox, 1997). All test results were at
normal levels; allowing us to proceed with the multiple regression analysis.
After choosing the independent variables, we ran the multiple regression. For all
statistical analyses, the alpha value was set to be 0.05. All the analyses were done using Statistical
Package for Social Scientist (SPSS)
version 16 (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, USA).
RESULTS
A total 162 persons
responded to the questionnaire survey. Majority (79.75%) of the respondents
were males. The average age of the respondents was 43.4 years with a standard deviation of 9.36. Regarding the level of
education, more
than half of the respondents (68.6%) went to elementary school. The average family size in a household was about five
persons. The average annual income of the respondents was about 28,935.23 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) which was equivalent to $1,263.55. Among all the respondents contacted, more
than two-third of them (76.4%) practiced
subsistence mixed farming (i.e. crop farming and livestock rearing). The mean distance between the residence area of the
respondents and the edge of WoWF
was 2.34 km with a standard deviation of 1.43. Majority of the respondents
(82.4%) had land to grow food crops. Regarding livestock ownership, most of the
respondents (about 89%) had livestock (Table 1).
As farming was
practiced by the local people in proximity to WoWF, most of the respondents
(90.0%) reported that HWC around WoWF arose from both crop damage and livestock
predation (Table 2). The presence of HWC was also significant (χ2 = 154.23; df = 1; P <
0.001) among the respondents.
Vervet monkey,
warthog, anubis baboon, and gelada were
perceived as the major wildlife species accused for crop raiding around WoWF.
The proportion of the respondents experienced crop damage adjacent to the
boundaries of WoWF was significant for vervet monkey (χ2 =
104.63, df = 1, P
< 0.001), warthog (χ2 = 89.34;
df = 1; P < 0.001), anubis baboon
(χ2 = 76.34; df = 1; P < 0.001), and gelada (χ2
= 56.43; df = 1; P < 0.001).
However, porcupine and rodents were identified as minor crop pests. The
important crops affected by crop raiding wild animals around WoWF, included
faba bean, pea, sorghum, potato, barley, and wheat. This suggests that they
were the most frequently grown crops to be damaged by crop raiding wild animals
around WoWF (Table 3). The number of respondents reported for the presence of
crop damage around WoWF was significant for faba bean (χ2 = 94.86, df = 1; P < 0.001), pea (χ 2=
67.54, df = 1, P < 0.001), potato
(χ2 = 65.34; df = 1; P < 0.001), sorghum (χ2 = 59.76;
df = 1; P < 0.001), barley (χ2 = 54.32; df = 1; P < 0.001), and wheat (χ2 = 47.45;
df = 1; P < 0.005).
More than half of the
respondents (53.6%%) believed that the main reason for the tendency of crop
damage was due to the increase in subsistence agriculture followed by an
increase in the populations of crop raiders (34.8%). However, some of the
respondents believed that lack of natural food and/or attraction of staple food
as an alternative reason for the tendency of crop damage around WoWF (Table 4).
The respondents’ reason to the tendency of crop damage was significant (χ2 = 189.32, df = 4; P <
0.001). As to the different mitigation strategies used by the local people to
protect food crops, most of the respondents (92.8%) reported that they used
guarding, chasing, and planting scarecrow (Table 4). The choice of the
different mitigation strategies among the respondents was significant (χ2 = 342.23, df = 4; P <
0.001). Indeed, more than two-fifth of the respondents (43.2%) suggested that
minimizing crop raiders either through translocating them to other areas or
complete removal as remedial measures are good to prevent crop loss.
Surprisingly, few of the respondents adopted some of the remedial measures,
such as shifting from agriculture to either perennial plantation or animal
husbandry practice. However, some of the respondents still practice guarding during
the day- and nighttimes as remedial measures to protect their food crops
against crop damaging wild animals (Table 4). The opinion of the remedial
measures suggested by the respondents to prevent the loss of food crops was
significant (χ2 =
89.43; df = 4; P
< 0.001) among the respondents.
Regarding livestock predation, more than half of the respondents experienced this conflict from common jackal (56%) and spotted hyena (52%). However, the incidence of livestock predation by leopard was reported
by some respondents (38.4%) (Table 5). The proportion of the respondents who
experienced livestock predation was
significant only for common jackal (χ2
= 46.64; df = 1; P
< 0.005). As to the
respondents, a total of 365 domestic
animals (i.e. 267 sheep and goats, 12 head of cattle and 86 pack
animals) were lost due to predation by wild animals around WoWF whose potential
economic loss was estimated to be $26,830.00
per year (Table 5). Majority of
the respondents (86.4%) noted that the trend of livestock predation had
increased around WoWF (Table 5). The proportion of the respondents’ opinion on
the trend of livestock predation was also significant (χ2 = 432.26; df = 2; P < 0.001) among respondents. Among
the common mitigating strategies, more than half of the respondents (62.0%)
reported that they used active guarding because it helps them to save their
livestock from predators. Moreover, some of the respondents used to restrict
the domestic animals around their backyards as another alternative technique to
reduce predation by wild carnivores (Table 5). The choice of different
mitigating strategies among the respondents was significant (χ2 = 173.26; df = 3; P <
0.001).
Generally, the study revealed that more than three-fourth
(78.93%) of the respondents held negative attitudes towards problematic wildlife (i.e. crop raiders and livestock predators) around WoWF. As
revealed from their coefficients, age (ß = 0.63), level of education (ß
=
0.21), annual income (ß
= 0.31), and distance between the residence area of the respondents and
the edge of WoWF (ß = 0.37) had positively significant effect on the attitudes of the respondents towards problematic wildlife
(i.e. crop raiders and livestock predators) around WoWF.
However, land (ß = -0.84) and livestock
ownerships (ß = -0.59) had negatively
significant effect on the attitudes
of the respondents towards problematic wildlife around WoWF.
Overall, the multiple linear regression model
revealed that the socioeconomic variables (i.e. sex, age, level of education,
family size, annual income, occupation
type, distance
between the residence area of the respondents and the edge of WoWF, land and
livestock ownership) which were introduced
into the model had significant effect on the attitudes of the
respondents towards problematic wildlife around WoWF
(49% variance explained) (Table
6).
DISCUSSION
Incidences of wildlife damage, loss of crops, and
livestock predation occasionally are quite obvious with human settlements
around wildlife areas (Studsrød and Wegge, 1995; Hill, 1998; Holmern
et al., 2007; Romanach et al., 2007; Sillero-Zubiri et al., 2007; Atickem et al., 2010; Karlsson
and Johansson, 2010; Karanth et al., 2013;
Mwakatobe et al., 2013; Megaze et al., 2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Biset et al.,
2019). This study was the first attempt that investigated
the knowledge of local people on HWC and their attitudes towards problematic
wildlife species around WoWF. The
local people noted that the impacts of HWC on food crops
and livestock were significant because most of the respondents practiced crop
production and livestock rearing to meet their livelihoods around WoWF. The
prominent reason for HWC incidences is either strayed wild animals outside WoWF
(Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998; Holmern et al., 2007; Ogra, 2008; Karlsson and Johansson,
2010; Agyeman and Baidoo, 2019) or people who
approach WoWF to meet their household needs (Ogra, 2008; Biset et al., 2019).
Most often, herbivores particularly vervet
monkey, warthog, anubis baboon, and gelada are blamed
to be the major crop raiders around WoWF. In fact, previous studies reported that primates were the most
frequent pests damaging food crops in different African countries, including
Uganda (Hill, 1998, 2000; Naughton-Treves et al., 1998), Zambia (Nyirenda et al., 2011), Ghana (Agyeman
and Baidoo, 2019), and Ethiopia (Yihune et
al., 2009a; Gebeyehu and Bekele, 2009; Mekonnen et al., 2012; Datiko and Bekele, 2013; Kumssa
and Bekele, 2013; Megaze et al., 2017; Biset et al., 2019). The most important
describing factor for such crop loss is the growing of food crops near to the
edge of the forests or probable surrogates or greater
reporting by affected local people (Studsrød and Wegge, 1995; Hill,
1998; Linkie et al., 2007; Megaze et al., 2017; Biset et al., 2019). Shortage
of forest-based food or instead opportunistic (Naughton-Treves et al., 1998)
probability is the other factor. The attraction of primates due to the presence
of palatable crops grown around wildlife areas can also be accounted for such
HWC (Hill, 1998, 2000; Yihune et al.,
2009a; Datiko and Bekele, 2013; Megaze et al., 2017; Biset et al.,
2019). In fact, some of the respondents reported the same reason in this study.
According to Datiko and Bekele (2013), particularly food crops, such as maize,
teff, and sorghum attract crop raiders around Chebera Churchura National Park,
Ethiopia. The respondents also reported similar situation adjacent to WoWF in
which faba beans, pea, sorghum, potato, barley, and wheat were highly preferred
by primates as these crops were grown more often around the forests. Majority
of the respondents believed that the sole reason for the tendency of crop
damage was due to the increase in subsistence agriculture followed by an
increase in primate populations. Previous studies also noted that large
wildlife populations (Jones and
Elliott, 2006) or increase in population density and/or range expansion
were the most probable reasons for crop raiding (Newmark et al., 1994; Studsrød
and Wegge, 1995; Hill, 2000; Madden, 2008; Engeman et al., 2010; Megaze et al.,
2017; Biset et al., 2019).
Livestock
predation by predators is another kind of HWC in different parts of the world
which is also common around wildlife areas in Ethiopia. For example, according
to USAID (2013), leopard and spotted hyena were the main livestock predators in
Ethiopia. In the present study, majority of the respondents reported that
livestock predations are caused by common jackal and spotted hyena around WoWF.
Moreover, in other parts of Ethiopia, livestock predation was witnessed (e.g.
Atickem et al., 2010; Datiko and Bekele,
2013; Megaze
et al., 2017; Biset et al., 2019) because livestock are inherently vulnerable
to predation due to their reduced anti-predatory skills (Jackson, 2012; Megaze
et al., 2017; Mbise et al., 2018). Considering the fact that variety of
domestic prey available to predators, medium sized livestock, such as goats and
sheep are more vulnerable than cattle and pack animals to predation as revealed
in the current study, because medium sized prey can be killed and predators
leave to a safer place easier (Dar et al., 2009, Atickem et al., 2010; Bibi et
al., 2013; Biset et al., 2019).
Resulting
from livestock predation by wild animal species mainly common jackal and
spotted hyena, the present study revealed that a total of 365 domestic animals were killed
around WoWF with a potential revenue loss of $26,830.00 per year. Previous studies noted that, around Chebera Churchura National Park, out
of 997 domestic animals preyed, around 200 animals (i.e. sheep, goats, and
cattle) were killed by leopard and spotted hyena in three years, of which 75.5%
of the domestic animals were killed by leopard alone (Datiko and Bekele, 2013; Megaze et al., 2017). However, in the Bale
Mountains, out of 704 domestic animals preyed by wild carnivores, 57% and 18%
of the domestic animals were killed by spotted hyena and leopard, respectively
(Atickem et al., 2010). These incidences accounted more economic loss than revealed
by the present study. This regional variation in livestock predation by
different wild predators could be attributed to the differences in densities of
carnivores, animal husbandry practices, or relative abundance of different
stock species (Kolowski and Holekamp, 2006; Mbise et al., 2018). Most of the
respondents reported that there is an increase in the trend of livestock
predation in the recent past around WoWF. This increase in the trend of
livestock predation by wild carnivores may be influenced either by push factors, such as reduction of natural
prey and/or foods (Lamarque et al., 2009; Dickman et al., 2014)
or pull factors like reduced anti-predatory skills of the livestock themselves
(Jackson, 2012; Dickman et al., 2014).
As revealed from their coefficients, age, level of education, annual income, and distance between the residence area of the respondents and
the edge of WoWF had positively
significant effect on the attitudes
of the respondents towards problematic wildlife around WoWF.
One of the possible reasons for the increase in the positive attitudes of the
local people towards problematic wildlife with the increase in
age is that old people are highly knowledgeable
about problematic wildlife, including the different values
of wildlife (e.g. economic, ecological, and recreational). As a result, they
may tolerate the negative impacts of HWC so that they may worry about the
conservation of wildlife resources, including the problematic wildlife existing
around WoWF. Previous studies also noted that local people tolerate HWC when
they have deep indigenous knowledge and experience about the different values
of wildlife, which may in turn allow the sustainable coexistence of people and
wildlife in the same area (Agrawal, 1997; Hill, 1998; Woodroffe et al., 2005;
Holmern et al., 2007; Romanach et al., 2007; Madden,
2008; Dickman et al., 2014; Megaze et al., 2017; Pirie et al., 2017; Mbise et
al., 2018; Agyeman and Baidoo, 2019). As the educational level of the respondents’
increases, people may know more about the different values of wildlife and hold
positive attitudes towards wildlife conservation around WoWF. Previous studies
also noted that education and awareness had been suggested as being important
in motivating people to develop positive attitudes towards problematic wildlife (Hill,
1998; Bowman et al.,
2001; Morzillo et al., 2007; Dickman et al., 2014; Tadesse
and Kotler, 2016; Pirie et al., 2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Agyeman and
Baidoo, 2019). Moreover, people who have high annual income may not depend on
the direct use of wildlife products and/or they do not have frequent physical
contact with wildlife and its habitats so that they could hold positive
attitudes even if the wildlife species is problematic as revealed in the
present study. Similarly, one of the possible reasons for the positive
correlation between the attitudes of the respondents with the increase in distance between the residence area of the respondents and
the edge of WoWF could be explained by the less likely physical contact between
humans and wildlife. Biset et al. (2019) also found a positive correlation
between the attitudes of local people and the
increase in distance between the
residence area of the respondents and the edge of Borena Sayint National Park,
northern Ethiopia.
However,
the present study revealed that land and livestock ownerships had negatively
significant effect on the attitudes
of the respondents towards problematic wildlife around WoWF.
When people have land to grow food crops and/or practice livestock rearing,
this will lead to resource use competition and ultimately HWC (Sillero-Zubiri
and Laurenson, 2001; Conover, 2002; Gadd, 2005; Kideghesho
et al., 2007; Lamarque et al., 2009; Hoffman and O’Riain, 2011; Megaze et al.,
2017; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017). This is because problematic wild animals
are blamed to damage food crops and/or accused for preying livestock belonging
to the local people (Hill, 1998, 2000; Holmern et al., 2007; Romanach et al.,
2007; Madden,
2008; Atickem et al., 2010; Dickman et al., 2014; Pirie et al., 2017; Mbise et
al., 2018; Biset et al., 2019). Moreover, the government does not legally
restrict the local people while they freely drive their livestock inside WoWF
so as to practice free range livestock grazing (Tadesse and Teketay, 2017;
Woldie and Tadesse, 2018). Hence, the local people usually drive their herds of
livestock into WoWF especially during the crop growing season when they face a
scarcity of grass for their livestock. This in turn increases physical contact
and resource use competition between livestock and wild animals which
ultimately leads to an increase in HWC (e.g. livestock predation) around WoWF.
For example, Linkowski et al. (2017) noted that during the twenty-first
century, large carnivores have increased in human dominated landscapes and have
resulted in increasing numbers of livestock killed by large carnivores.
Previous studies also noted that wild carnivores commonly generate negative
attitudes among rural residents in many regions of the world where they prey on
domestic animals because they negatively impact the livelihoods of the local
people (Oli et al., 1994; Romanach et al., 2007; Røskaft et al., 2007;
Mwakatobe et al., 2013; Dickman et al., 2014; Megaze et al., 2017; Pirie et
al., 2017). Similar findings have been reported in plenty of other countries,
including India (Oli et al., 1994; Madhusudan, 2003; Osborn and Hill, 2005),
Pakistan (Dar et al., 2009), Nepal (Bhattarai and Fischera, 2014), Kenya (Gadd, 2005; Romanach et al., 2007), Tanzania (Newmark et al., 1994;
Holmern et al., 2007; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Mwakatobe et al., 2013; Dickman
et al., 2014; Mbise et al., 2018), Uganda (Hill, 1998, 2000; Webber et al.,
2007), Ghana (Agyeman and Baidoo, 2019), South Africa (Treves and Karanth,
2003; Graham et al., 2005; Seoraj-Pillai and Pillay, 2017), Namibia (Potgieter
et al., 2015), Mozambique (Bower and Baquete, 1998), Ecuador (Fiallo and
Jacobson, 1995), Bhutan (Wang and Macdonald, 2006), Indonesia (Tilson,
2004), Norway (Røskaft et al., 2007), Sweden (Linkowski et al., 2017), USA
(Treves and Karanth, 2003; Morzillo et al.,
2007), and Ethiopia (Yihune et al., 2008; Gebeyehu and Bekele,
2009; Atickem et al., 2010; Yirga et
al., 2011; Kumssa and Bekele, 2013; Megaze et al., 2017; Biset et al.,
2019). As a result, respondents may hold negative attitudes towards problematic
wildlife as revealed in the present study.
Among
different mitigating techniques, the respondents noted that guarding, chasing,
and planting scarecrows were the most effective traditional methods to protect
food crops grown around WoWF. Moreover, the respondents mentioned that they
used active guarding to save their livestock from wild predators. Previous
studies also reported that one of the common practices to protect food crops
across agriculture-wildlife interface was guarding (Hill, 2000; Hockings et
al., 2009; Karlsson and Johansson, 2010; Datiko and Bekele, 2013; Megaze et
al., 2017; Mbise et al., 2018; Biset et al., 2019). Apart from using
traditional techniques to protect their food crops, most of the respondents
suggested to reduce the population of crop raiders either through translocating
them to other areas or completely removing them. In contrast, removal of
problematic harem of primates potentially creates an empty wildlife range which
invites another harem to occupy that empty range (Hill, 2000; Naughton-Treves
et al., 1998; Lamarque et al., 2009; Yihune et al., 2009a; Megaze et al.,
2017). This suggested that HWC around WoWF demands better management practices,
including buffer zone plantation, fencing, guarding, chasing, and planting
scarecrows (Karlsson and Johansson, 2010; Megaze et al., 2017).
CONCLUSION
The
present study revealed that majority of the respondents (about 79%) held negative attitudes towards problematic
wildlife around WoWF. This suggested that HWC resulting from crop raiding and
livestock predation are prevalent around WoWF. For example, the respondents reported that herbivores particularly vervet
monkey, common warthog, anubis baboon, and gelada were
the major crop raiders in the study site. Moreover,
resulting from livestock predation by wildlife species, such as common jackal,
spotted hyena, and leopard, a total of 365
domestic animals were killed around WoWF with a potential revenue loss
of $26,830.00 per year. Hence,
the respondents reported that guarding, chasing, and planting scarecrows were
the main traditional measures used to manage HWC in the study site.
As
strong negative attitudes towards problematic wildlife are
evident among local people around WoWF, paying due attention is mandatory to resolve HWC. For
example, informing the local
communities about the various values (e.g. recreational, economic, and
ecological) of wildlife through conservation education and advocating the need
for sustainable utilization may improve the positive attitudes and increase the
support of local people in wildlife conservation activities around WoWF. More importantly, public awareness programs and conservation
education can assist in improving the attitudes of young people towards the
conservation and management of wildlife. Introducing community-based
ecotourism initiative is essential to mitigate HWC in the study site. This is
because developing WoWF for community-based ecotourism seems to be a promising
business in the future. Hence, eco-tourism activities can improve and diversify
the incomes of the local people through creating job opportunities, such as
tourist guiding services, souvenir selling, and horse renting all of which can
help make eco-tourism economically viable around WoWF. Moreover, developing
hiking trails and interpretive materials, including field guides to bird, wild
mammal, and woody plant species would be valuable assets for implementing
community-based eco-tourism around WoWF. Therefore, such kind of activities
helps improve the livelihood of the local people living around WoWF and thereby
reduce HWC.
Introducing
sustainable and culturally acceptable conservation strategies and measures,
such as guarding, chasing, and planting scarecrows are necessary to maintain an
optimal balance between wildlife conservation priorities and the needs of the
local people. For example, chasing and scaring can be done in various ways:
drumming, shooting, rattles (i.e. short sharp sounds emitted quickly one after
the other), shots in the air, chasing wild animals away from crops may be efficient
for short periods, for example, when crops are ripening.
As
a technique for mitigating HWC, people perceive translocation as humane,
compassionate, and effective. Hence, on top of the aforementioned measures, the
following management options are forwarded. For example, fences erected between
WoWF and the agricultural lands help keep the problematic wildlife inside
the forests and domestic animals out. However, the fences must be solid
construction, of sufficient height, and they should be visible. Buffer zone
plantations are the best solution, but the size and the location are very
important. Such zones are important to reduce the tendency of wild animals to
come out of the forested area by encircling WoWF with unattractive buffer zone
planted with species that are not very palatable plant species (e.g. Eucalyptus
plantation) to problematic wildlife or domestic stock,
but are useful to improve the livelihoods of the local communities living
around WoWF. When measures noted above prove ineffective, introducing
compensation scheme- paying of restitution for the lost products (i.e. crops
damaged and/or livestock preyed by problematic wildlife) to the
local farmers is essential. Moreover, promoting the direct participation of
local residents in decision-making and implementation is crucial towards the
conservation and management of wildlife species existing in and around WoWF. In
return, the remedial solutions help make coexistence and sharing of resources
possible in the study site.
Ethics approval
and consent to participate
Not applicable in this section because there are no close
contact or disturbances imposed on the prevailing wildlife species or their
habitats in this study.
Consent for
publication
Not applicable in this section.
Availability of
data and material
Please contact authors for data requests.
Authors’
contributions
SA
Tadesse – designed and conducted the field research, analyzed the data, and
drafted the manuscript. NT Zewde – interpreted the results and helped in the
manuscript writing. Both authors read, revised
and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The
authors would like to extend their grateful thanks to the
local people residing
around Wof-Washa Forests for sharing their fruitful ideas and abundant
experiences about the impacts of human-wildlife conflicts existing around the
study site and their attitudes towards problematic wildlife during
the questionnaire survey. The data enumerators are gratefully acknowledged for their
assistance during the household survey. The
authors would like to forward their gratitude to Debre Berhan University for
covering all sources of funding that helped in the design, analyses and interpretation of the data, and
also in writing the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
REFERENCES
Agrawal
A (1997). Community in conservation:
beyond enchantment and disenchantment. Conservation and Development Forum,
Gainesville. Available at:
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3963/Community_in_Conservation.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
accessed on June 20, 2019.
Agyeman YB and Baidoo S (2019). Farmers’
perceptions of the effectiveness of strategies for managing wildlife crop
depredation in Ghana. International
Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation. 11(6): 165–174.
Ashenafi ZT, Coulson T, Sillero-Zubiri C and
Leader-Williams N (2005). Behavior and ecology of
the Ethiopian wolf in a human-dominated landscape outside protected areas.
Animal Conservation.
8: 1–9.
Atickem
A, Williams S, Bekele A and Thirgood S (2010). Livestock
predation in the Bale Mountains, Ethiopia. African
Journal of Ecology. 48(4): 1076–1082.
Bekele
T (1994). Vegetation ecology of remnant Afromontane forests
on the central plateau of Shewa, Ethiopia. Acta
Phytogeography Suec.
79: 1–59.
Bhattarai
BR and Fischera, K (2014). Human–tiger Panthera tigris
conflict and its perception in Bardia National Park, Nepal. Oryx. 48(4): 522–528.
Bibi SS, Minhas RA, Awan MS, Ali U and Dar NI
(2013).
Study of ethno-carnivore relationship in Dhirkot, Azad Jammu
and Kashmir. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 23(3): 854–859.
Biset
A, Mengesha G and Girma Z (2019). Human–wildlife
conflict in and around Borena Sayint National Park, northern Ethiopia. Human–Wildlife Interactions.
13(1): 111–124.
Bower WF and Baquete DS (1998). Natural resource use,
crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo
Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation. 25: 208–218.
Bowman JL,
Leopold BD, Vilella FJ, Gill DA and Jacobson HA (2001). Attitudes of landowners towards
American black bear compared between areas of high and low bear populations. Ursus. 12: 153–160.
Chaffey DR (1979). Southwest
Ethiopia forest inventory project: a reconnaissance inventory of forest in
southwest Ethiopia. Ministry of Oversea
Development, Land Resources Development Centre. Project Report. 31: 1–316.
Cohen L, Manion L and Morrison K (2000). Research
methods in education. 5thedn. London: Routledge Falmer,
UK. 657p.
Conover MR
(2002). Resolving
human–wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management.
Lewis Publishers. Boca
Raton, Florida, USA. 440p.
Dar NI, Minhas RA, Zaman Q and Linkie M (2009). Predicting the patterns, perceptions and causes of human–carnivore
conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan. Biological Conservation. 142(10): 2076–2082.
Datiko D and Bekele A (2013). Conservation
challenge: human-herbivore conflict in Chebera Churchura National Park,
Ethiopia. Pakistan Journal of
Biological Sciences. 16(23): 1758–1764.
Dickman AJ, Hazzah L, Carbone C and Durant SM
(2014).
Carnivores, culture and 'contagious conflict': multiple factors influence
perceived problems with carnivores in Tanzania's Ruaha landscape. Biological Conservation.
178: 19–27.
Engeman RM,
Laborde JE, Constantin BU, Shwiff SA, Hall P, Duffiney A and Luciano F (2010). The economic impacts to
commercial farms from invasive monkeys in Puerto Rico. Crop Protection. 29(4):
401–405.
Fairet EMM
(2012). Vulnerability to crop-raiding: an
interdisciplinary investigation in Loango National Park, Gabon. PhD dissertation, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
276p.
FAO
(Food and Agriculture Organization for the United Nations) (1988). Report on the mission
to Ethiopia on Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Rom, Italy. Food and
Agriculture Organization for the United Nations: FAO. 328pp.
Fiallo
EA and Jacobson SK (1995). Local communities and
protected areas: attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and
Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation. 22(03):
241–249.
Fox J (1997). Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related models.
Sage Publications, Inc., California.
Gadd ME (2005). Conservation
outside of parks: attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environmental
Conservation. 32: 50–63.
Gebeyehu G and Bekele A (2009).
Human-wildlife conflict in Zegie Peninsula (Ethiopia) with emphasis on vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops aethiops). SINET: Ethiopian Journal of Science.
32(2): 99–108.
Graham
K, Beckerman AP and Thirgood S (2005). Human predator-prey
conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biological Conservation.
122: 159–171.
Hazzah L (2006). Living among lions (Panthera leo): coexistence or Killing?
Community attitudes towards conservation initiatives and the motivations behind
lion killing in Kenyan Massai land. In: Conservation
Biology and Sustainable Development. University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA. 140p.
Hill CM
(1998). Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the
Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environmental Conservation. 25: 244–250.
Hill CM
(2000). Conflict of interest between people and baboons: Crop raiding in
Uganda. International
Journal of Primatology. 21: 299–315.
Hillman JC
(1993). Compendium of
wildlife conservation information. Vol. 1 NYZS and
EWCO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 580p.
Hockings KJ, Anderson JR and Matsuzawa T (2009).
Use of wild and cultivated foods by chimpanzees at Bossou, Republic of Guinea:
feeding dynamics in a human-influenced environment. American Journal of Primatology. 71(8):
636–646.
Hoffman
TS and O’Riain MJ (2011). The spatial ecology of
chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) in a
human-modified environment. International Journal of Primatology. 32: 308–328.
Holmern
T, Nyahongo J and Røskaft E (2007). Livestock
loss caused by predators outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biological Conservation.
135: 518–526.
Hren D, Lukic IK, Marusic A, Vodopivec I, Vujaklija A,
Hrabak M and Marusic M (2004). Teaching research methodology in medical
schools: students’ attitudes towards and knowledge about science. Medical Education.
38: 81–86.
Jackson R (2012). Fostering community-based stewardship of wildlife in Central Asia:
Transforming snow leopards from pests into valued assets. In V. R. Squires, Rangeland
stewardship in Central Asia. Dordrecht Heidelberg, New York, NY:
Columbia University Press. 357–380p.
Jones
BTB and Elliott WJ (2006). Human wildlife conflict
in Namibia: experiences from a portfolio of practical solutions. Nature and Faune. 21(2):
20–25.
Kabir M,
Ghoddous A, Awan MS and Awan MN (2013). Assessment
of human–leopard conflict in Machiara National Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir,
Pakistan. European
Journal of Wildlife Research. 60(2):
291–296.
Karanth KK, Gopalaswamy
AM, DeFries R and Ballal N (2012). Assessing patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensation
around a central Indian protected area. PLOS ONE. 7(12): 1–13.
Karanth KK,
Naughton-Treves L, DeFries R and Gopalaswamy AM (2013).
Living with wildlife and mitigating conflicts around three Indian protected
areas. Environmental
Management. 52(6):
1320–1332.
Karlsson
J and Johansson OR (2010). Predictability of repeated carnivore attacks
on livestock favors reactive use of mitigation measures. J. Appl. Ecol. 47:
166–171.
Kideghesho
JR, Røskaft E and Kaltenborn BP (2007). Factors
influencing conservation attitudes of local people in western Serengeti,
Tanzania. Biodiversity
and Conservation. 16:
2213–2230.
Kissui BM (2008). Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas and their
vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the Maasai Steppe, Tanzania. Animal Conservation.
11(5): 422–432.
Kolowski
JM and Holekamp KE (2006). Spatial, temporal and
physical characteristics of livestock depredations by large carnivores along a
Kenyan reserve border. Biological
Conservation. 128(4):
529–541.
Kumssa T
and Bekele A (2013). Human-wildlife conflict in Senkele Swayne’s
Hartebeest Sanctuary, Ethiopia. Experimental
Biology and Agricultural Sciences. 1(1): 32–38.
Lamarque
F, Anderson J, Fergusson R, Lagrange M, Osei-Owusu Y and Bakker L (2009). Human-wildlife conflict in Africa: Causes, consequences and management
strategies. FAO Forestry Paper. Food and
Agriculture of the United Nations: FAO, Rome, Italy. 157:112.
Linkie
M, Dinata Y, Nofrianto A and Leader-Williams N (2007). Patterns and perceptions
of wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Animal Conservation.
10(1): 127–135.
Linkowski
WA, Kvarnström M, Westin A, Moen J and Östlund L (2017). Wolf and
bear depredation on livestock in Northern Sweden 1827–2014: combining history,
ecology and interviews. Land.
63(6): 1–24.
Madden FM
(2008). The growing conflict between humans and wildlife: law and policy as
contributing and mitigating factors. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy. 11: 189–206.
Madhusudan
MD (2003). Living amidst large wildlife: livestock and crop
depredation by large mammals in the interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve,
south India. Environmental
Management. 31: 466–475.
Mbise
FP, Skjærvø RG, Lyamuya RD, Fyumagwa RD, Jackson C, Holmern T and Røskaft E
(2018). Livestock depredation by wild carnivores in the
Eastern Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity and
Conservation. 10(3):
122–130.
Megaze A, Balakrishnan M
and Belay G (2017). Human–wildlife conflict and attitude of
local people towards conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National
Park, Ethiopia. African
Zoology. 52: 1-8.
Mekonnen A, Bekele A,
Fashing PJ, Lernould J, Atickem A and
Stenseth NC (2012). Newly discovered Bale monkey populations
in forest fragments in southern Ethiopia: evidence of crop raiding,
hybridization with vervets, and other conservation threats. American Journal of
Primatology. 74(5):
423–32.
Messmer TA
(2000). Emergence of human–wildlife conflict management: turning challenges
into opportunities. International
Biodeterioration. 45:
97–100.
Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N and
Liu J (2007). Resident attitudes towards
black bears and population recovery in East Texas. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife. 12:
417–428.
Mwakatobe A, Nyahongo J and Røskaft E (2013). Livestock depredation by carnivores in the Serengeti Ecosystem,
Tanzania. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 3(4):
46–57.
Naughton-Treves
L, Treves A, Chapman, C and Wrangham R (1998). Temporal patterns of
crop-raiding by primates: linking food availability in croplands and adjacent
forest. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 35(4):
596–606.
Newmark
WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa DM and Sariko HI (1994). The conflict between
wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: human
density as a predictor. Conservation
Biology. 8: 249–255.
Nyirenda
VR, Chansa WC, Myburgh WJ and Reilly BK (2011). Wildlife
crop depredation in the Luangwa Valley, eastern Zambia. Journal of Ecology and the
Natural Environment. 3(15):
481–491.
Oduntan
OO, Akintunde OA, Adesina OA, Ojo SO and
Oladoye AO (2012). Economic damages of primates on farmlands in old Oyo
National Park neighborhood. International Journal of Molecular Ecology and Conservation.
2(4): 21–25.
Ogra MV (2008).
Human-wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study
of costs, perceptions and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal),
India. Geoforum.
39(3): 1408–1422.
Oli MK,
Taylor IR and Rogers ME (1994). Snow
leopard (Panthera uncia) predation of
the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biological Conservation. 68(1): 63–68.
Osborn FV
and Hill CM (2005). Techniques to reduce crop loss: human and technical
dimensions in Africa. In people and
wildlife: conflict or coexistence? (eds R.
Woodroffe, S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge
University Press. 72–85p.
Pirie
TJ, Thomas RL and Fellowes MDE (2017). Increasing game
prices may alter farmers’ behaviours towards leopards (Panthera pardus) and other carnivores in South Africa. Peerj. 5: e3369.
Potgieter
GC, Kerley GIH and Marker LL (2015). More bark than bite?
The role of livestock guarding dogs in predator control on
Namibian farmlands. Oryx. 50:
514–522.
Romanach SS, Lindsey PA and Woodroffe R
(2007).
Determinants of attitudes towards predators in central Kenya and suggestions
for increasing tolerance in livestock dominated landscapes. Oryx. 41(2): 185–195.
Roskaft E,
Handel B, Bjerke T and Kaltenborn BP (2007). Human attitudes
towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biology. 13: 172–185.
Seoraj-Pillai
N, and Pillay N (2017). A Meta-analysis of
human–wildlife conflict: South African and global perspectives. Sustainability. 34(9): 1–21.
Sillero-Zubiri
C, Sukumar R and Treves A (2007). Living
with wildlife: the roots of conflict and the solutions. In: D. W.
MacDonald & K Service, (Eds) Key
topics in conservation biology. Oxford,
UK. Oxford University Press. 253-270p.
Sillero-Zubiri
CM and Laurenson K (2001). Interactions between
carnivores and local communities: conflict or co-existence? In: J. Gittleman,
K. Funk, D. Macdonald, R. Wayne, Carnivore
conservation. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.
282-312p.
Singleton
GR, Sudarmaji, Jacob J and Krebs CJ (2005). Integrated
management to reduce rodent damage to lowland rice crops in Indonesia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 107(1): 75–82.
Studsrød
JE and Wegge P (1995). Park–people
relationships: the case of damage caused by park animals around the Royal
Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation. 22(2): 133–142.
Tadesse SA and Kotler
BP (2016). Attitudes of local people towards the mountain nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni) in Munessa, Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology.
54: 488–499.
Tadesse
SA and Teketay D (2017). Perceptions and attitudes of local people
towards participatory forest management in Tarmaber District of North Shewa
Administrative Zone, Ethiopia: the case of Wof-Washa Forest. Ecological Processes. 6: 1–16.
Teketay D and Bekele T (1995). Floristic
composition of Wof-Washa Natural Forest, Central Ethiopia: Implications for the
conservation of biodiversity. Feddes Repertorium. 106: 127–147.
Tessema
ME, Ashenafi ZT, Lilieholm RJ and Williams NL (2010). Community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in Ethiopia.
Society and Natural
Resources. 23(6):
489–506.
Tilson R
(2004). Characterizing human-tiger conflict in
Sumatra, Indonesia: implications for conservation. Oryx. 38: 68–74.
Treves
A, and Karanth KU (2003). Human-carnivore conflict
and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology. 17: 1491–1499.
USAID
(2013).
Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) -
Livestock Market Development (LMD): Cost-benefit analysis of the meat value
chain in Ethiopia. Final report (AID-OAA-C-11-00169).
40p.
Von
Breitenbach F (1962). National forestry development planning, a feasibility and
priority study on the examples of Ethiopia. Ethiopian
Forestry Review. 3(4): 41–68.
Walpole
MJ and Goodwin HJ (2001). Local attitudes towards
conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation.
28(02): 160–166.
Wang
SW and Macdonald DW (2006). Livestock predation
by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation.
129: 558–565.
Webber AD, Hill CM
and Reynolds V (2007). Assessing the failure of a community-based
human-wildlife conflict mitigation project in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda.
Oryx. 41(2): 177–184.
Woldie BA and Tadesse SA (2018). Potentials and opportunities of community
tourism venture in Wof-Washa Dry Afromontane Hotspot Forests, North Shewa
Administrative Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality. 7(5): 1–8.
Woodroffe
R and Ginsberg JR (1998). Edge effects and the
extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science. 280(5372): 2126–2128.
Woodroffe R, Thirgood S and Rabinowitz A
(2005).
People
and wildlife: conflict or co-existence? Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 497p.
Yihune
M, Bekele A and Tefera Z (2008). Human-Ethiopian
wolf conflict in and around the Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia.
International Journal
of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. 34(2): 149–155.
Yihune
M, Bekele A and Tefera Z (2009a). Human-gelada
baboon conflict in and around the Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia.
African Journal of
Ecology. 47(3): 276–282.
Yihune
M, Bekele A and Tefera Z (2009b). Human-wildlife conflict in and around the Simien
Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Science. 32(1): 57–64.
Yirga G, Bauer H, Worasi Y and Asmelash S (2011).
Farmers' perception
of leopard (Panthera pardus) conservation in a human dominated landscape
in northern Ethiopian highlands. International Journal of Biodiversity Conservation. 3(5):
160–166.
Zar JH (1999). Biostatistical Analysis. 4th
edition. London, United Kingdom: Prentice-Hall. 672p.
