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

Abstract

Human-wild animal conflict has serious conservation consequences, both for populations of wild animals and for the people who live around wild animals’ habitats. The aim of this study was to assess the human-wild animal conflict in Banja Woreda, Awi Zone, Ethiopia. First, the area was selected purposively because it is expected to be prone to a high level of human-wild animal conflict, and then the selected areas were stratified based on the distance to wild animals’ habitats. A total of 95 household heads (HHs) from the two kebeles were interviewed using structured and semistructured questionnaires. Additional information was also gathered through focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews, and personal observation during data collection. About 84 (88%) of the respondents replied that wild animals had an effect on the livelihood of the local communities through both crop and livestock loss. The crop and animal loss was different across the distance categories of the study area ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>P</a:mi> <a:mo>&lt;</a:mo> <a:mn>0.05</a:mn> </a:math> ). The highest proportion of loss was reported in the closest settlement than far-located settlements. The chi-square association test shows that there was a significant association ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>P</c:mi> <c:mo>&lt;</c:mo> <c:mn>0.05</c:mn> </c:math> ) between livelihood activity across crops and domestic animal loss. The farmers who led their livelihoods in both farming and livestock activity reported higher animal and crop losses than the only farming or livestock activity. The crop types that were more raided by wild animals were maize and potato. The risks of crop raiding were significantly different among crop varieties ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> <e:mo>&lt;</e:mo> <e:mn>0.05</e:mn> </e:math> ). Wild animals affected crops in different development stages, and mature stage ranked the first followed by fruiting stage. Crop growth stages that were attacked by wild animals showed significant variations ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>P</g:mi> <g:mo>&lt;</g:mo> <g:mn>0.05</g:mn> </g:math> ). Of the crop type that was attacked by wild animals, potato was highly attacked, which reaches to 113.8 quintals (28%), followed by maize 96 quintals (23%) and small millet 74.7 quintals (18%) within three years. The loss of crops in the kebeles was not significantly different ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>P</i:mi> <i:mo>&gt;</i:mo> <i:mn>0.05</i:mn> </i:math> ). Wild animals also affected the domestic animals; accordingly, 79 (83.2%) of the respondents replied that wild animals attacked all domestic animals and the remaining 16 (16.8%) said wild animals attacked goats, sheep, and chickens. However, the animal loss in the kebeles was not significantly different ( <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mi>P</k:mi> <k:mo>&gt;</k:mo> <k:mn>0.05</k:mn> </k:math> ). The trend of the population status of wild animals was significantly different among the perceptions of respondents ( <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:mi>P</m:mi> <m:mo>&lt;</m:mo> <m:mn>0.05</m:mn> </m:math> ). The settlement near the forest habitat of wild animals and habitat loss due to agricultural expansion and deforestation were the major causes of conflict. The proportion of the causes of human-wild animal conflict in the area was significantly different ( <o:math xmlns:o="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8"> <o:mi>P</o:mi> <o:mo>&lt;</o:mo> <o:mn>0.05</o:mn> </o:math> ). According to the respondents, the most effective controlling mechanisms of the conflict were guarding, followed by fencing and slipping at night in cropland. Out of the total number of respondents, 65 (68.4%) said guarding is the most effective conflict control mechanism, for protecting both crop and livestock. To limit the negative impact of human-wild animal conflict, good wild animal habitat management is required, such as minimizing agricultural expansion and overgrazing, demarcating the forest habitats for wild animals only, and creating awareness among local communities.