Human-Wildlife Conflict: The Case of Chebera Churchura National Park,South West Ethiopia

Abstract

Background and Research Aims

Human-wildlife conflict is a significant issue worldwide mainly in developing countries where livestock husbandry and crop production are important aspects of rural people’s livelihoods and income. This study on human-wildlife conflict was conducted in and around Chebera-Churchura National Park from September 2019 to August 2021. The main aim of the study was to investigate the extent of human-wildlife conflict in the study area.

Methods

Data were collected using semi structured questionnaire and direct observation on crop damage. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the collected data and responses were compared by using chi-square test (χ²) and one-way ANOVA.

Results

The result indicated that problems encountered by the local people due to wildlife species were crop damage (99.2%), livestock predation (67.8%), disease transmission (28.8%) and human attack (11.9%). According to the report of those who are affected, the average number of livestock predated by wild animals in and around Chebera Churchura National Park was 2.69±0.17 per household per year. Maize was the most highly affected crop type by different raiders in the study area, for instance the average maize loss by olive baboon (Papio anubis) was 303 ETB (Ethiopian Birr) (6USD) per household per year. Generally, the loss of the total estimated cost of all crop types during the study period due to crop raiders was 320,515.00 ETB (Ethiopian Birr) (6410 USD).

Conclusion

Conflict has occurred in the study area for many years and the rate of conflict is increasing from time to time.

Implication for Conservation

Integrated conflict mitigation measures should be implemented by the park administration and stakeholders to alleviate the problem and ensure sustainable coexistence of wildlife and human in the area.

Keywords

chebera churchura national park conflict crop raiders predation mitigation

Introduction

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is an emerging conservation issue in and neighborhood of many protected areas worldwide (Madden, 2008). It commonly refers to tensions that occur between humans and wildlife wherein, actions by either harming the other (Singh & Singh, 2023). The most common causes of human-wildlife conflict are crop raiding, livestock predation, loss of human life or injury, disease transmission, and damage to property. This has mainly been driven by the increase in human population on the Earth and their consequent activities of expansion into the wildlife habitats (Singh & Singh, 2023).

In Ethiopia, more than 80% of the population is living in rural areas (CSA, 2015) and depend on subsistence small scale agriculture, securing food and livelihood is interconnected to the exploitation of natural resources (Temesgen, 2017; Zerihun et al., 2018). Intense pressure from various human activities had been posing serious threats to the sustainability of the natural resources and maintenance of balanced ecosystems. Human population growth leads to human encroachment in protected areas which in turn worsens human-wildlife conflicts. In Bale Mountains National Park, the destruction of wildlife habitats through agricultural expansion, human settlement, overgrazing, deforestation, illegal grass collection and poaching are causes of human wildlife conflict (Temesgen, 2015).

Human proximity to protected areas is significant predictor of crop loss. According to the study of Ayenew et al. (2019) in Borena Sayint National Park, human proximity has been perceived to be the major causes of HWC. Other studies have also shown that the local communities residing in close proximity are more susceptible to crop damage and livestock predation than the ones living far from protected areas (Aschalew & Meheretu, 2017; Mesele et al., 2009). Crop damage is one of the main causes of human-wildlife conflict which affect the likelihood of subsistent farmers. For instance, in Simien Mountain National Park, the average crop loss by Gelada baboon per household per year was reported to be 117 ± 10 kg (Mesele et al., 2009). Atakilt et al. (2016) also reported that over 31 quintals damaged by wild animals in Kafta-Sheraro National Park. On top of this, many studies reported livestock predation in different parts of Ethiopia. A study conducted in northern highlands of Ethiopia showed that a total of 3122 livestock were predated by spotted hyena, leopard and jackal from 2006 to 2010 (Gidey & Bauer, 2010). Spotted hyena is the main predator of domestic animal in different area of Ethiopia. In Senkele Swayne’s Hartebeest Sanctuary, a total of 963 livestock (556 cattle, 212 sheep, 115 goats, 43 donkeys and 37 horses) were depredated by spotted hyenas (Misganaw et al., 2020). Human deaths and injuries, although less common than crop damage and livestock predation, are the most severe manifestations of human-wildlife conflict and are universally regarded as intolerable. According to the study of Ayenew et al. (2019) in Borena Saint National Park, seven people were attacked by leopards from 1999 to 2009 in an attempt to guard their livestock against attack.

Chebera Churchura National Park is one of the national parks in Ethiopia with rich fauna and flora diversity. It is a region in Ethiopia of high conservation concern. The park is located in an important livestock producing area of the country. However, there are repeated reports on the incidence of human-wildlife conflict including crop raiding, livestock predation and human death in and around the park. It was also reported that there was a series conflict between human and wildlife (Demeke & Afework, 2013). This conflict has a great effect on the livelihood of local people whom mainly depend on subsistent crop farming and livestock rearing. It also hinders the conservation and management activities of the park. The forest cover of the park is declining at alarming rate. A study on human-wildlife conflict in this park is very crucial to solve the existing problem and take appropriate area specific conservation measures. To do this, there is a need of detail study on the existing problem. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate human-wildlife conflict in and around Chebera-Churchura National Park using direct observation on crop damage and questionnaire survey. The objectives of this study were to i) explore the magnitude of human-wildlife conflict; ii) identify wild animals causing crop damage and livestock predation in the area; iii) identify knowledge and conservation attitude towards wildlife; and iv) examine conflict mitigation techniques by the local community. This study provided updated and detail information on area specific causes and magnitude of human-wildlife conflict in and around Chebera Churchura National Park. Furthermore, it will contribute for the conservation activities undertaking in the park at large.

Materials and Methods

The Study Area

The present study was conducted in and around Chebera Churchura National Park (CCNP) located 580 km southwest of Addis Ababa. It is found within Dawro Zone (Churchura) and in Konta special district (Chebera) with coordinates 36^o27′00’’- 36^o57′14’’E longitude and 6^o56′05’’-7^o08′02’’N latitude (Girma, 2005) (Figure 1). It covers an area of 1250 km². The park is bordered by Konta special district to the north, Omo River to the south, Dawro zone to the east and southeast and Agare high mountains and Omo River to the west (Dereje, 2006). It is characterized by few flat lands and highly undulating to rolling plains with river and perennial streams, valley and gorges. Five small crater lakes are found within the park area. The altitude of the area ranges from 550-1700 m asl at the volcano peaks in the western boundary (Fikirte et al., 2018). The study area is characterized by a relatively hot climatic condition. The rainfall distribution is unimodal. The average amount of annual rainfall in the area varies from 1000 to 3500 mm. The hottest months are January and February while, the coldest months are July and August with the mean maximum and minimum temperatures of 28°C and 12°C, respectively (Dereje, 2006).

Figure 1.

Map of Chebra Churchura National Park and study sites.

According to Girma (2005), there are 37 large mammalian species in the area. Some of them are African elephant (Loxodonta africana), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious,), leopard (Panthera pardus), lion (Panthera leo), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), African wild dog (Lycaon pictus,), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), bushpig (Potamocherus larvatus), African wolf (Canis aureus), leopard (Panthera parades), ground squirrel (Xerus erythropus), porcupine (Hystrix cristata) and three species of primates (Olive baboon (Papio anubis), vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) and colobus monkey (Colobus gureza). Most of these mammalian species are common in the forest habitats. The Park is believed to possess high diversity of birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians (Dereje, 2006).

The natural vegetation of Chebere Churchura National Park is highly diverse and dominated by various plant species. Riverine forest occurs along the course of the rivers. This habitat is characterized by mixed vegetation dominated by plant species such as Albizia grandibracteata, Chionantus mildobradii, Grewia ferrugunea, Aspilia mosambicensis, Arundo donax and Ehretia cymosa. The grassland possesses scattered trees and covers the largest part of the park. It is dominated by elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and few scattered trees. The woodland vegetation is found in the southern part of the park (Dereje, 2006; Girma, 2005).

The people living around the area practice traditional agricultural system that combines perennial and annual cultivation with livestock rearing. Thus, the land-use practice is largely traditional shifting cultivation and livestock rearing. Major crops growing in the area are Enset, sorghum and maize. Coffee and honey are the major income earning products of the study area (Girma, 200; Dawro Zone Rural Development, 2004).

Data Collection

The study was conducted from September 2019 to August 2021 in and around Chebera Churchura National Park.

Questionnaire Survey

Questionnaire survey was conducted in eight randomly selected kebeles (Gudumu, Menta Kebule, Malega, Keribela, Yura, Delba, Koysha and Seri) of the study area. The study was limited to these eight kebeles out of twenty kebeles due to financial problem and to pay attention more on these kebeles. Furthermore, some kebeles were not accessible. A semi structured questionnaire was administered using face to face interview. The questionnaire was designed to include both open-ended and fixed response questions. Open ended questions were designed to elicit information on knowledge about wildlife in the area and whether wildlife cause depredation and crop damage or not. Furthermore, the questionnaire also included information on the type and quantity of crops and livestock loss. A series of supplementary questions were also used in the questionnaire to gather personal and socio-economic information at the level of individual respondents. The questionnaire was translated in to Amharic language for a better understanding by local people. A pilot survey was conducted in September, 2019 prior to the actual data collection periods. During the pilot survey, 50 individuals from the local communities were randomly selected and interviewed in order to check whether the prepared questionnaire was appropriate for the area or not. Based on the result from the pilot survey, the questionnaire was evaluated and revised. There were over 800 households from the eight kebeles residing adjacent to the park boundary and faced the problem of human-wildlife conflict. Thus, a total of 384 people were randomly selected and interviewed from the population of the eight kebeles following the formula developed by (Cochran, 1977) at 95% confidence level.

n_{0} = \frac{z^{2} pq}{e^{2}}

where: n₀ is the sample size,

z is the selected critical value of desired confidence level,

p is the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population,

q = 1-p and e is the desired level of precision

n_{0} = \frac{{(1.96)}^{2} (0.5) (0.5)}{{(0.05)}^{2}} = 384

Respondents were selected randomly (Newmark et al., 1993) and only respondents above 18 years old were interviewed. Distance of respondents from the park boundary were categorized as <1km, 1-5km, 6-10km and >10km. Researchers received ethical clearance from Research Ethics Review Board of Addis Ababa University, College of Natural and Computational Sciences with approval number CNCSDO/292/13/2021. Written consent was obtained from each participant by providing adequate information about the study in their local language including purpose, procedure and benefit of the research. The study did not include minors so that no consent received from such group.

Operational Definition

Knowledge of local people about wildlife species of the area was evaluated according to the following operational definitions.

Excellent knowledge- people who know over 8 wildlife species of the area

Very good knowledge – people who know 6-8 wildlife species of the area

Good knowledge – people who know 3-5 wildlife species of the area

Poor knowledge – people who know less than 3 wildlife species of the area

Direct Observation

To observe the extent of crop damage by crop raider and to compare the result with the response given by the local people, different sites were selected based on distance from the park boundary, type of crop grown and information obtained from the local people regarding crop raiding. Then grids were constructed in five sites (Yora, Chebera, Seri, Delba and Gudumu). Each grid covered an area of 62,500 m². Therefore, a total area of 312,500 m² was covered to follow crop damage incidences. Each grid was further divided into five cells, consisting of an area of 12,500 m² (50m X 250m). For each cell, the type of crop grown, condition of the crop before damage, area of damaged portion, part of the plants eaten and the types of crop species eaten were recorded (Naughton-Treves, 1997). Grids consisted of locally available crops such as maize, yam, kidney bean, banana and papaya. Each grid was visited every- 3 days by field assistants. Data collection was started at the seedling stage of each crop. Crop damage was quantified by counting the total number of individual crop samples (i.e. whole leaves of yam, fruits of banana, and leaves and seeds of maize and kidney bean) in each grid and the total number of damaged crops was recorded. Then, for crops such as yam, maize and kidney bean, the damaged portion of the total number quantified were changed in m². For each crop types, 1m X 1m grid was constructed and the average amount of crop produced was estimated in kilograms. This helped to multiply the crop loss in m² by the average value of crop production in kilogram. Ultimately, the estimated crop loss in kilograms was multiplied by the price of each species to calculate their monetary value. However, for banana, the number of damaged trees were counted and then estimated in kilograms by comparing with unraided ones. Average banana production was calculated in kilograms per standing tree. Then, the total loss was multiplied by the locally existing price to get the estimated economic loss.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data collected were cleaned, coded and inserted on Microsoft EXCEL software then exported to Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version 24 for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to generate mean, percentages which are important for comparison purpose. Chi-square test (χ²) was used in understanding the significance differences of research results. One way ANOVA was used to compare mean differences among variables. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between distance and livestock loss and crop damage.

Results

Socioeconomic Pattern

The age of respondents ranged from 18 to 74 years. There was no significant (F _{1 383} = 5.7, P < 0.05) age difference between male and female respondents. Most (85.5%) of the respondents were males where as the remaining 14.5% were females. This gender difference was mainly caused by males were more knowledgeable about the conflict issue in the area than females and males were also interested to attend the survey.

Of the respondents, 46. 8% were lived with in less than 1 km radius away from the park boundary followed by respondents (34.3%) who lived between 1 and 5 km away from the park (Figure 2). The average family size of the local people adjacent to Chebera Churchura National Park is 6.7±2.5 per household with minimum 1 and maximum 14 people.

Figure 2.

Distance from the park of the respondents in the study area.

The average farmland holding of the respondents per household is 2.5±1.4 ha. Land owners differed across the villages (F_{7 377} = 7.54, P < 0.001). All respondents did not have private grazing land but 55.8% of the respondents had common grazing land. The mean size of common grazing land in the study area was 0.56 ± 0.025 ha. Grazing land holdings differed across all sample kebeles (F_{7 277} = 43.6, P < 0.001).

The local community living around the park grows trees on their wood plot to use for different purposes such as firewood and house construction. The average size (ha) of private woodlot in the area was 0.15± 0.015. A total of 46.2% respondents had private woodlot.

Most (93.8%) respondents produced maize. Other crops produced in the study area were bean (22.6%), Enset (59.2%), teff (47%), potato (1%), yam (56.1%), kidney bean (39.2%), sorghum (31.4%), pea (20.5%) and wheat (7.8%). The average crop production per household during last year was 7.27 ±0.39 quintals. The average income value per year per household was 38, 300 ETB (766 US$). The crop production per household differed among the villages (F_{7 377} = 16.12, P < 0.001). However, the Tukey HSD test showed significant difference between Gudum and Delba (P < 0. 001), between Menta Kebule and Kema Gucha (P < 0.01), between Maliga and Delba (P<0.001), Yora and Delba (P<0.001), Seri and Delba (P<0.001).

Besides farming, livestock rearing is the other economic activity of people living around Chebera Churchra National Park. Most (84.7%) of the respondents had livestock. The major livestock kept by the community are cattle, sheep and pack animals (horse, mule and donkey). Each household had mean number of 9.37±0.38 livestock. The number of livestock holding was significantly differed (F_{7 377} = 10.03, P<0.0001) across kebeles.

Resource Utilization

The community living around Chebera Churchura National Park used the park as grazing land for their livestock. Those who are living close to the park boundary utilize the park more (r = 0.42, P < 0.001). Majority (80%) of the respondents did not use the park as grazing land and the remaining 20% used the park as grazing land (Table 1).

Table 1.

Percentage of Respondents Showing Livestock Grazing in and Outside of the Park of Chebera Churchura National Park.

Kebele	No. of respondents	Grazing in the park	Grazing Outside the park
Gudumu	37	2.3	7.27
Menta Kebule	51	5.1	8.05
Maliga	62	2.86	13.25
Yora	39	0.52	9.61
Koyisha	40	0.26	10.13
Seri	46	5.19	6.75
Delba	66	2.6	14.81
Keribela	43	1.04	10.13
Total	384	20	80

Most of the respondents (55.8%) reported the presence of communal grazing land while the remaining (44.2%) did not own communal grazing land. On the other hand, 46.7% had private woodlot. Majority of the respondents (71.2%) reported the use of firewood outside the park while the remaining 28.8% of the respondents collected different plant species from the park. Of these, spices constituted 29.6%, grass 21.6%, Rhamidus prinodus 7.5%, and Giant thatching grass (Hyparrhenia rufa) 9.4%.

Knowledge and Conservation Attitude Towards Wildlife

Based on the operational definition given in the method section, few (4.2%) of the respondents had excellent understanding (knew over 8 wildlife species of the area) about wildlife whereas 29.1% of the respondents had very good knowledge (knew 6-8 wildlife species) about wildlife in their surroundings. Most (64.7%) of the respondents had good knowledge (knew 3-5 wildlife species) and only 2.1% had poor knowledge (knew less than 3 wildlife species of the area) about wildlife of the area. Distance from the park was not correlated (r = −0.006, P>0.05) to knowledge about wildlife in the area. There was a significant difference among kebeles (F_{7 377} = 26.2, P < 0.001) in their knowledge about wildlife of the area. Tukey test showed that there was a significant difference between Gudumu and Koyisha (P < 0.001), Gudumu and Delba (P < 0.01) and between Menta and Koyisha (P < 0.001) in the knowledge of wildlife.

Most (87%) of the respondents had positive attitude towards wildlife conservation while 9.6% had negative attitude and the remaining 3.4% had neutral response (Table 2). There was no correlation (r = - 0.04, P > 0.05) between livestock predation and attitude towards wildlife conservation.

Table 2.

Conservation Attitude of Respondents Towards Wildlife in the Study Area.

Kebele	No	Positive (%)	Negative (%)	Neutral (%)	Total
Gudumu	37	9.4	0.0	0.3	9.6
Menta Kebule	51	12.2	0.8	0.3	13.2
Maliga	62	14.0	1.8	0.3	16.1
Yora	39	10.1	0.0	0.0	10.1
Koyisha	40	6.8	3.6	0.0	10.4
Seri	46	11.4	0.5	0.0	11.9
Delba	66	14.5	1.6	1.3	17.4
Keribela	43	8.6	1.3	1.3	11.2
Total	384	87.0	9.6	3.4	100

Human-Wildlife Conflict

Almost all (99.2%) of the respondents reported that they faced crop damage to wildlife. 67.8% reported as they faced livestock predation in the study area. There was a significant difference (χ² = 372.1, P < 0.001) among kebeles in the extent of damage (crop damage (99.2%), livestock predation (67.8%), disease transmission (28.8%) and human attack (11.9%) faced due to wildlife (Table 3).

Table 3.

Percentage of Conflict Types in the Study Area.

Type of conflict	Yes	No	Total
Crop damage	99.2	0.8	100
Livestock predation	67.8	32.2	100
Disease transmission	28.8	71.2	100
Human attack	11.9	88.8	100

Respondents differed in their response about livestock predation (χ² = 58.9, df=7, P<0.001), disease transmission (χ² = 91.9, df=7, P<0.001), and human attack (χ² = 81.4, df=7, P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference among kebeles in crop damage (χ² = 4.2, df=7, P>0.05) due to crop raiders in the study area (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Percentage of respondents on wildlife damage among different kebeles in Chebera Churchra National Park.

Livestock Predation

A total loss of 1035 livestock was reported in eight kebeles per year. The average number of livestock predated in the study area was 2.69±0.17 per year per household. There was a significant difference among villages (χ² = 68.3, df=14, P<0.001) in the extent of livestock predation they faced. The highest percentage of livestock predation reported was in Menta Kebule (9.8%) followed by Gudumu (9.6%), Maliga (9.6%), Delba (9.6%) and Keribela (9.6%). The least value was reported from Yora kebele (3.5%) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Percentage of Livestock Predation in Different Kebeles of the Study Area.

Kebele	No. of respondents	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total
Gudumu	37	0.0	9.6	9.6
Menta Kebule	51	3.3	9.8	13.1
Maliga	62	6.6	9.6	16.2
Yora	39	6.5	3.5	10.1
Koyisha	40	1.0	9.4	10.4
Seri	46	5.2	6.7	11.9
Delba	66	7.8	9.6	17.4
Keribela	43	1.8	9.6	11.4
Total	384	32.2	67.8	100

The most frequently reported predator responsible for livestock depredation was Olive baboon (36.6 %, n = 141) followed by spotted hyena (27.8 %, N = 107), leopard (26%, n = 100) and lion (7.8 %, n = 30).

There was a significant difference (χ²= 61.5, df=6, P<0.001) in the extent of livestock loss in terms of distance from the park. Distance is one of the major factors for the extent of livestock loss. Almost half (46.8%) of the respondents who lost their livestock lived within <1km away from the park boundary while the least livestock loss recorded between 6 and 10km (9.4%) from the park (Figure 4). There was a strong negative correlation (r= −0.69, P<0.001) between distance of respondents residence from the park and incidence of livestock predation. There was also a positive correlation (r= 0.44, P<0.001) between livestock predation and the number of livestock owned by the local people.

Figure 4.

Livestock loss to wild animals in relation to distance from the park in the study area.

Trends of Damage

Most of the respondents (87.2%) reported as the trend of livestock predation was increasing while the remaining 12.8% reported decreasing. There was a significant difference (χ²=68.3, df = 14, P<0.001) among kebeles in the trends of livestock predation. Highest respondents from Maliga (12.8%) and Menta Kebule (12.8%) reported that there was an increasing livestock predation due to wild animals in their area (Table 5).

Table 5.

Trends of Livestock Predation in Different Kebeles of the Study Area.

Kebele	No. of respondents	Increasing (%)	Decreasing (%)	Total
Gudumu	37	12.8	0.0	12.8
Menta Kebule	51	12.8	0.0	12.8
Maliga	62	12.4	5.9	18.3
Yora	39	10.0	0.0	10.0
Koyisha	40	9.4	3.1	12.5
Seri	46	6.6	3.8	10.4
Delba	66	12.5	0.0	12.5
Keribela	43	10.7	0.0	10.7
Total	384	87.2	12.8	100

Majority of the respondents (95.6%) used guarding to reduce the problem, and 4.4% used keeping their livestock in an enclosure to protect them against predator.

Crop Damage

The highest value for the average crop damage was observed on maize by different crop raiders in the study area such as due to grivet monkey (1.45±0.3 kg per household per year), olive baboon (10.1±1 kg per household per year), hippopotamus (1.7±0.4 kg per household per year) and buffalo (9.1±0.9 kg per household per year). On the other hand, no damage was reported on Enset by crop raiders (Table 6). There was no significant variation (F_{1 383} = 0.17, P>0.05) in the damage among the study kebeles. The current price of maize is 3000ETB per quintal adjacent to the study area, thus there was a loss of 303 ETB per year per household due to olive baboon.

Table 6.

Average Crop Loss (per Household per Year) by Different Wild Animals in Chebera Churchura National Park.

Crop raiders	Maize	Bean	Pea	Mean ± SE Crop loss (in quintal)
Crop raiders	Maize	Bean	Pea	Sorghum	Yam	Enset
Grivet Monkey	1.45 ± 0.3	0.72 ± 0.3	1.3 ± 0.3	0.14 ± 0.1	0.0	0.0
Olive baboon	10.1 ± 1	0.7 ± 0.2	0.3 ± 0.1	0.1 ± 0.05	0.0	0.0
Hippopotamus	1.7 ± 0.4	0.01 ± 0.01	0.1 ± 0.1	0.0	4.1 ± 0.4	0.0
Buffalo	9.1 ± 0.9	1.39 ± 0.3	0.47 ± 0.2	0.15 ± 0.1	0.06 ± 0.01	0.0
Bush pig	0.9 ± 0.2	0.13 ± 0.1	0.1 ± 0.1	0.0	0.14 ± 0.1	0.0

Crop raiders damage crops at different stages from sawing and/or planting to harvesting stages. Overall, most crop damage incidences occurred at seedling stage of crops followed by their vegetative stages. For example, 91.5 % of maize, 58.2 % of yam, 58.8% of banana, 48.8% of sorghum and 69.2% of teff raided at their seedling stage (Table 7).

Table 7.

Percentage of Crop Damage at Different Stage of Crops in the Study Area.

Crop type	Percentage of crop damage at different stage
Crop type	Sawing/planting	Seedling	Vegetative	harvesting
Maize	22.5	91.5	89.1	15.2
Yam	37.3	58.2	48.7	6.6
Banana	41.8	58.8	76.7	1.7
Sorgum	18.4	48.8	45.8	1.4
Teff	16.1	69.2	55.9	6.3

There was a strong correlation (r = 0.5, P < 0.001) between distance from the park and extent of crop damage. Almost all (99.6%) of the respondents reported that there is an increasing trend of crop damage from time to time by wildlife in the study area. On the other hand, majority (81.7%) of the respondents reported as they did not get any help to solve the problem where as the remaining 18.3% got help from other bodies.

Respondents were varied significantly in their response about mitigation techniques (fencing (χ² =118.2, df =1, P<0.001), guarding (χ² =265.9, df =1, P<0.001), use of guarding dog (χ² =342.3, df =1, P<0.001) and digging ditch (χ² =279.8, df =1, P<0.001)) used. The highest (92.7%) mitigation technique used was guarding while the least used method was use of guarding dog (1.6%) (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Conflict mitigation techniques used against wild animals in the study area.

Respondents were not significantly differed (χ²= 0.19, df = 1, P >0.05) in their expectation from the government to reduce damage by wildlife in the study area. Almost half (51.2%) of the respondents expected the government to keep the wildlife in the park. While the remaining 48.8% did not expect any help from the government.

Direct Observation on Crop Damage by Herbivores

A total of 2223 incidences were recorded from direct observation fields from Chebera, Seri, Yora and Gudum kebele with the total estimated cost of 320,515.00 ETB (6410 USD) from September 2019 to August 2021. Banana was the most raided crop in the study area and its estimated economic loss was 241,450.00 ETB (4829 USD) followed by maize was 44,040.00 ETB (881 USD) (Table 8).

Table 8.

Number of Crop Raided and Their Estimated Cost based on Direct Observation on Crop Damage in the Study Area.

Crop type	Number of crop raided	Estimated cost ETB (USD)
Banana	439	241,450.00 (4829)
Papaya	35	10,500.00 (210)
Yam	202	24,240.00 (485)
Maize	1,468	44,040.00 (881)
Cabbage	64	160.00 (3)
Kidney bean	15	125.00 (2.5)
Total	2223	320,515.00 (6410)

ETB= Ethiopian Birr, USD= United States of America Dollar.

There was a significant difference (χ² = 97.7, df=5, P<0.001) among crop raiders in terms of the degree of crop raiding. Olive baboon involved in 186 raiding incidences followed by olive baboon and vervet monkey together (121). However, even though the raiding incidences were few, more crop damage was caused by elephant (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Crop raiders Vs crop raiding incidences in the study area based on direct field observation.

Discussion

Human-wildlife conflicts around protected areas continue to be a growing challenge in contemporary conservation. The result of the present study indicated that human-wildlife conflict continues to be existed in Chebera Churchura National Park. This mainly expressed by crop damage, livestock depredation, human attack and disease transmission. The average family size of the local people adjacent to Chebera Churchura National Park is 6.7±2.5 per household with minimum 1 and maximum 14 people. This will increase the demand for more resources to fulfill the basic need for their family livelihood. Similar finding was reported from Borena Sayint National Park (Salahadin & Dereje, 2021).

Most (64.7%) of the respondents had good knowledge about wildlife of the area. This is probably because respondents lived together with wildlife species since long ago. However, distance from the park was not correlated (r = −0.006, P>0.05) with knowledge of respondents about wildlife in the area. This might be due to most of the wildlife species in park are medium and large sized mammals which have wide home range so that, they have better chance to be seen by the respondents even if the respondents are far distant. This result is in contrast to (Zelealem & Leader-Williams, 2005), where distance of the village from the Guassa area is an important factor in determining the knowledge of respondents.

Most (87%) of the respondents had positive attitude towards wildlife conservation while 9.6% had negative attitude. This result is supported by Mesele et al. (2009) where 74.3% of respondents had positive attitude towards wildlife in the Simien Mountains National Park. Similarly, Harcourt (1986) reported that public attitude towards wildlife conservation in developing countries is positive. In addition, according to Derese (2003), the local communities are not entirely antagonistic to wildlife conservation. Salahadin & Dereje (2021) also reported that 57.8% of respondents had a positive attitude towards the conservation of wildlife in Borena Sayint National Park due to its value to maintaining ecosystem balance, source of income to the local people, enjoyment derived from viewing wildlife, and ethical values. This might be due to awareness creation campaign done by the park staffs about the ecological and ecotourism importance of the park to local community. Furthermore, local people occasionally allowed collecting firewood from the park boundary, so they considered this benefit originated due to the existence of wildlife resources in the area.

Crop raiding by wild herbivores close to an area of protected wildlife is a serious problem that can potentially undermine conservation efforts (Bayani et al., 2016). According to the present study, almost all (99.2%) of the respondents reported that they faced crop damage to wildlife. Similar result reported from Choke Mountains (Leta et al., 2016) where 55.5% of them reported that there were both problem of crop damage and livestock predation to wildlife; Borena Sayint National Park (Salahadin & Dereje, 2021) where 70% reported that there were both problems of crop damage and livestock depredation by wild animals. A research conducted in Senkelle Sweyne’s Heartbeest Sanctuary reported 58.2% of crop damage (Misganaw et al., 2020). Dagne et al. (2014) also explained about 55% of the respondents suffered a high severity of crop damage and significantly contributed to the shortage of food and poverty. Disease transmission (28.8%) and human attack (11.9%) were another form of human wildlife conflict recorded from the study area though they are not as such prominent comparing to crop damage and livestock predation. Similarly, 20.2% of human attack and 3.1% disease transmission was reported from the same study area (Demeke & Afework, 2013). Human attack is a continuous problem in the park mainly caused by African elephant. Farmers usually attack by African elephant when they guard their crop land against it.

The result indicated that 67.8% of respondents reported as they faced livestock predation in the study area. Almost the same result was reported by Demeke & Afework (2013). where 67.7% lost of livestock in Chebera Churuchra National Park. This result revealed that the problem is still existing and continuing. Alemayehu et al. (2017) also reported that 58.12% of the respondents reported the loss of their livestock from Kafta-Sheraro National Park, Northern Ethiopia.

A total loss of 1035 livestock was reported in eight kebeles of the present study area per year with an average number of 2.69±0.17. Similarly, Demeke & Afework (2013) reported that a total of 997 livestock were attacked from the same study area. This is an indication that predator attack is a common problem in and adjacent to different protected areas of Ethiopia. Misganaw et al. (2020) also reported a total of 1062 livestock predated by hyena and African wolf in Senkelle Swayne’s hartebeest sanctuary. However, the figure in the present study is lower compared to the one reported by Wallace & Hill (2012) where a total of 3755 livestock reportedly preyed on by carnivores in the North West Province of South Africa.

The most frequently reported predator responsible for livestock depredation was the Olive baboon (36.6 %, n = 141) followed by the spotted hyena (27.8 %, N = 107), leopard (26%, n = 100) and lion (7.8 %, n = 30). Hyenas accounted for significantly more livestock predation events than African wolves in Senkele Swaynes Hartbeest Sanctuary (Misganaw et al., 2020) Similarly Demeke & Afework (2013) reported hyena, Olive baboon and leopard were considered serious predator, while lion and caracal posed limited problem in Chebera Churchura National Park. This is probably because it is related to the number of predator available in the study area and their habitat. The number of hyena and olive baboon is highest compared to other wild animals and they can approach residents’ area. However, lions survive in limited sites with few numbers in the study area so that there was less chance to meet livestock and posed problem. A study conducted in Gambella National Park revealed that only few livestock were predated by lion over ten years period (Fikirte et al., 2018).

According to the present study, there was strong negative correlation (r= −0.69, P<0.001) between distance of respondents residence from the park boundary and incidence of livestock predation. Those who lived close to the park faced more problem of livestock predation than who lived distant from the park. This is possibly because; livestock had more chance to graze in the park when they live close to the Park boundary. Therefore, distance from the park boundary is one of the major factors that contribute for the loss of higher number of livestock in the study area. Similarly, distance from protected area is the most important determinant of livestock predation by wild carnivores in the North West Province of South Africa (Thorn et al., 2012). Livestock predation intensity increased around the National Park relative to the distance in Chebera Churchura National Park (Demeke & Afework, 2013). Distance of villages from the forest edge and sheep predation were strongly negatively correlated (r = −0.96, P < 0.05) in Choke Mountains (Bezihalem et al., 2017).

There was positive correlation (r= 0.44, P<0.001) between livestock predation and the number of livestock owned by the local people. Those who owned higher number of livestock had a better chance to higher rate of predation than the others. The probability of predation was higher for the higher number of livestock owned in the area. This might be related to frequent grazing activities in the park boundary because of farmers did not feed all their livestock all the time so that they send them to the park for grazing. Such trend would expose their livestock to predation. Furthermore, climate change might be a factor in the area for the increased predation rate. There might not be ample food for the wild predators due to climate change hence; they would shift their diet to livestock in the nearby area. Most of the respondents (87.2%) reported as the trend of livestock predation was increasing while the remaining 12.8% reported decreasing. Similarly, a study conducted in Choke Mountain indicated that 54.6% of the respondents reported increasing trend of livestock predation from time to time (Bezihalem et al., 2017).

Understanding and addressing conflict between humans and wildlife due to crop-raiding is a crucial conservation issue (Bezihalem et al., 2017). The present study showed that the highest value for the average crop damage was observed on maize by different crop raiders in the study area such as due to grivet monkey (1.45±0.3 kg/ household), olive baboon (10.1±1kg/household), hippopotamus (1.7±0.4 kg/household) and buffalo (9.1±0.9 kg/ household). The average income value from crop production per year per household was 38, 300 ETB (766 US$). However, the monetary value for the loss of maize in particular was 303 ETB per year per household. This amount is a big loss for subsistent farmers in the study area when we compare the income and the loss. Therefore, crop damage is the main factor affecting the livelihood of the subsistent farmers in the area. Similarly, primates such as olive baboons and vervet monkeys were involved in 96% of crop raiding incidences around Budongo Forest Reserve in the northern Albertine Rift, western Uganda (Wallace et al., 2012). The reason why maize was highly affected crop in the study area is due to its high productivity. Based on direct observation on crop damage by herbivores a total estimated cost of 320,515.00ETB (6439 US$) was lost from the study area. Of these, banana took greater proportion with 241,450.00 ETB (4850 US$). This is because banana was highly raided crop by elephants.

There was a strong correlation (r = 0.5, P < 0.001) between distance from the park and extent of crop damage. Those who live close to the park faced more crop raiding problem that those who lived distantly from the park boundary. This is because wild herbivores had more chance to get farmland as they move short distance away from park boundary. Almost all (99.6%) of the respondents reported that there is an increasing trend of crop damage from time to time by wildlife in the study area. Similarly, a study conducted in Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, Central India indicated that crop raiding by wild herbivores close to an area of protected wildlife is a serious problem (Bayani et al., 2016). Hence, planting a crop relatively far from forest edge could be considered as an immediate solution to minimize the likelihood of the crop being raided by crop raiders (Naughton-Treves, 1998). Almost all (99.6%) of the respondents reported that there was an increasing trend of crop damage from time to time by wildlife in the study area. A study conducted in Cheha Woreda of Guraghe Zone, Ethiopia revealed that 68% of the respondents claimed increasing trend of crop damage due to an increasing population of crop raiders (Dagne et al., 2014). The Park did not take any significant measure to reduce human-wildlife conflict incidences in the study area.

Conservation Implications

Ongoing land use change and habitat fragmentation in and around protected areas are associated with most conflict incidents particularly wide-ranging large mammals such as elephants. Human-wildlife conflict is a serious issue in Chebera Churchura National Park. Crop raiding is the major problem affecting the local people’s economy followed by livestock depredation. Olive baboon, elephant and hyena are the main actors in the human-wildlife conflict incidents of the study area. On the other hand, human death due to elephant is another problem in the area though not frequent. Therefore, the following integrated mitigation approach should be taken in to consideration by the park administration, South Western Region Tourism Bureau and NGOs working on conservation in the study area to alleviate the existing problem. The park has to create awareness to the local community on how to prevent human-wildlife conflict. Promote the use of most effective conflict mitigation strategies used elsewhere by the local people. Particularly, support the local people to cultivate deterrent plant species surrounding their farmlands which are vulnerable to crop raiders. The park should promote community based conservation in the area. Promote local people to cultivate livestock feeds on their plot of land and use selected breeds of livestock. This will improve their livelihood status. On top of this, the park should create a compensation scheme for the loss in collaboration with governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Human-Wildlife Conflict: The Case of Chebera Churchura National Park, South West Ethiopia

Supplemental Material for Human-Wildlife Conflict: The Case of Chebera Churchura National Park, South West Ethiopia by Mesele Yihune, and Adane Tsegaye in Tropical Conservation Science

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Addis Ababa University thematic research project for funding to conduct this study. We would like to acknowledge Chebera Churchura National Park for providing permission to collect data for the study.

Author Contributions

Mesele Yihune: Design of the study, data collection and analysis, and writing and reviewing of the paper

Adane Tsegaye: Data collection

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Addis Ababa University thematic research project, N/A.

ORCID iD

Mesele Yihune

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Alemayehu

Mathewos

Hans

(2017). Wildlife depletion and its associated factors in Chebera-Churchura National Park, South Ethiopia. World Journal of Zoology, 12 (3), 60–66.

Aschalew

Meheretu

(2017). Community perceptions of grivet monkey crop depredation in the Ethiopian Highlands: implications for primate conservation. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 11, 175–181.

Atakilt

Gidey

Gebregizabher

(2016). Human-Wildlife Conflict in Kafta-Sheraro National Park, Northern Ethiopia. World Journal of Zoology, 11 (3), 154–159.

Ayenew

Girma

Zerihun

(2019).Human-Wildlife Conflict in and Around Borena Sayint National Park, Northern Ethiopia. Human - Wildlife Interaction, 13,111–114.

Bayani

Tiwade

Dongre

A.P.

Phatak

Watve

(2016). Assessment of crop damage by protected wild mammalian herbivores on the western boundary of Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR), Central India. Plos One, 11(4), e0153854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153854

Bezihalem

Mesele

Bewuketu

(2017). Human-wildlife conflict in Choke Mountain, Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity Conservation, 9(1), 1–8.

Cochran

W.G.

(1977). Sampling Techniques. 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

CSA (2015). Key findings of the 2014/2015 agricultural sample surveys. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Dagne

Rothschuh

Mehari

(2014). Farmers’ perceptions of the impacts of human–wildlife conflict on their livelihood and natural resource management efforts in Cheha Woreda of Guraghe zone, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, 8(1), 67–77.

10.

Dawro Zone Rural Development (2004) Forest Conservation Workshop. Bench Maji Zone Rural Development, Mizan Teferi.

11.

Demeke

Afework

(2013). Conservation challenge: Human-carnivore conflict in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Biological Sciences, 3(3), 108–115.

12.

Dereje

(2006). Diversity, distribution and relative abundance of Avian species of Chebera Churcura National Park, Ethiopia. M. Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

13.

Derese

(2003). Attitudes and Perception of Local Community Towards the Ethiopian Wolf. MSc. Thesis, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Biology (DICE). University of Kent.

14.

Fikirte

Bauer

Vadjunec

J.M.

Papes

(2018). Beyond the numbers: Human attitudes and conflict with lions (Panthera leo) in and around Gambella National Park, Ethiopia. Plos One, 13(9), e0204320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204320

15.

Gidey

Bauer

(2010). Prey of Periurban Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocuta) in Southeastern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2(4), 124–127.

16.

Girma

(2005). Diversity, Abundance, Distribution and Habitat Association of large mammals in the Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

17.

Harcourt

A.H.

Pennington

Weber

(1986). Public attitudes to wildlife and conservation in the Third World. Oryx, 20, 152–154.

18.

Leta

Debela

Tariku

(2016). Identification of Crop Raiding Species and the Status of Their Impact on Farmer Resources in Gera, Southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 8(5), 49–54.

19.

Madden

(2008). The growing conflict between humans and wildlife: law and policy as contributing and mitigating factors. Journal of International Wildlife Law Policy, 11(2-3), 189–206.

20.

Mesele

Afework

Zelealem

(2009). Human-wildlife conflict in and around the Simien Mountains National Park. SINET: Ethiopian Journal of Sciences, 32(1), 57–64.

21.

Misganaw

Anagaw

Diress

Nga

Afework

(2020). Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence: a case study from Senkele Swayne's Hartebeest Sanctuary in Ethiopia. Wildlife Biology, 3, 1–11.

22.

Naughton-Treves

(1997). Farming the forest eqge: vulnerable places and people around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review, 87, 27–46.

23.

Naughton-Treves

(1998). Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology, 12, 156–168.

24.

Newmark

W.D.

Leonard

N.L.

Sarko

H.I.

Gemassa

D.M.

(1993). Conservation Attitude of Local People Living Adjacent to Five Protected Areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 63, 177–183.

25.

Salahadin

Dereje

(2021). Assessment of Human-Wildlife Conflict and the Attitude of Local Communities to Wild Animal Conservation around Borena Sayint National Park, Ethiopia. International Journal of Ecology, 2021, 1–8.

26.

Singh

(2023). Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence. Biophilia Insights, 2023, 1(2), e202312004.

27.

Temesgen

(2015). Threats of Bale Mountains National Park and solutions, Ethiopia. Journal of Physical Science and Environmental Studies, 1(2), 10–16.

28.

Temesgen

(2017). Poverty, peasantry and agriculture in Ethiopia. Annals of Agrarian Science, 15, 420–430.

29.

Thorn

Green

Dalerum

Bateman

P.W.

Scott

D.M.

(2012). What drives human–carnivore conflict in the North West Province of South Africa? Biological Conservation, 150, 23–32.

30.

Wallace

G.E.

Hill

C.M.

(2012). Crop Damage by Primates: Quantifying the Key Parameters of Crop-raiding Events. Plos One, 7(10): e46636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046636

31.

Zelealem

Leader-Williams

(2005). Indigenous common property resource management in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 33, 539–563.

32.

Zerihun

Tsunekawa

Haregeweyn

Adgo

Cochraned

Floquete

Abele

(2018). Applying Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework to soil and water conservation activities. Land Use Policy, 71:1–10.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB