1. WALLAGA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS AROUND BIRBIR PROTECTED FOREST,
WESTERN ETHIOPIA
MSC.THESIS:
BY: DINKINESH TASISA
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY FOR THE
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR MSC. IN
BIOLOGY
SUBMITTED TO: MOSISA GELETA (PhD)
DECEMBER, 2024
NEKEMTE, ETHIOPIA
2. WALLAGA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
P.O. BOX: 395, NEKEMTE, ETHIOPIA
APPROVAL SHEET FOR SUBMITTING MSc THESIS:
As members of the Board of Examining of the Final Thesis open defense, we certify
that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by DINKINASH TASISA under
the title “HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS AROUND BIRBIR PROTECTED
FOREST, WESTERN ETHIOPIA and recommend that the Thesis has accepted as
fulfilling the thesis requirement for the degree of Masters Sciences in Biology.
Submitted by: DINKINASH TASISA Signature_______________ Date_____
Approved by:
MOSISA GALATA (PhD) _______________ ______________
1. Name of Advisor Signature Date
_______________________________ ________________ ___________
2. Chairperson Signature Date
_______________________________ ________________ ________
3. Internal Examiner Signature Date
_______________________________ ________________ _______
4. External Examiner Signature Date
Final Approval and Acceptance
Thesis Approved by
___________________________________ ______________ _______
5. Department PGC Signature Date
___________________________________ ________________ ____
6. Dean of College Signature Date
Certification of the Final Thesis
I hereby certify that all the correction and recommendation suggested by the board of
examiners are incorporated into the final thesis entitled “human-wildlife conflicts
around Birbir protected forest, western Ethiopia BY: DINKINASH TASISA.
_____________________________________ ________________ ___
7. Dean of SGS Signature Date
3. I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am deeply grateful to my advisor Dr. Mosisa Galata for his whole hearted consistent guidance
and enthusiastic advice, fast and urgent response while correcting and commenting my thesis
throughout the research period. It is my pleasure to thank staff members of Lalo secondary
school, my classmates, and agricultural office of Lalo kile district for their contribution in many
aspects, my husband Zagaye Kumara who helped me to collect data from the study sites, district
administrators and kebele administrators who gave me permission to conduct this research.
Finally, I would like to put forward my heartily felt thank wallaga University , Biology
department for providing me financial support to conduct this study and at the end, thanks to
almighty God to the father of all from the beginning of this work up to the last time
accomplishment of this study.
4. II
Acronyms
CITIES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
DA Developmental Agency
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
HH Households
LKDADO Lalo Kile District Agricultural Development Office
HWC Human Wildlife Conflict
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science.
5. III
Table of Contents
Contents page
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………..………………..I
Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………...II
Table Of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..III
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Back Ground Of The Study ................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement Of The Problem ...............................................................................................4
1.3 Objectives Of The Study .....................................................................................................4
1.4 Research Questions..............................................................................................................5
1.5 Significance Of The Study...................................................................................................5
2. Literature Review……………………………………………………….……………………..6
2.1 Local Societies And Wildlife In Habitats...........................................................................6
2.2. Geographical And Temporal Contexts.............................................................................8
2.3 The Importance Of Wildlife Animals, ...............................................................................9
2.4 Attitudes Of Humans Towards Wild Animals...............................................................10
2.5 The Causes Of Crop Raiding By Wildlife Animals ........................................................11
2.6 Factors Affecting Frequency Of Crop Raiding By Wildlife Animals ...........................11
2.7 Impacts Of Crop Raiding Wild Animals On The Local Communities.........................14
2.8 Management Of Crop Raiding By Wild Animals...........................................................15
2.9.1 Reducing Crop Losses.................................................................................................16
2.9.2 Goals Of An Intervention ...........................................................................................17
2.9.3 Implementation Of An Intervention..........................................................................17
2.9.4 Increasing Human Tolerance For Wild Animals Damaged....................................17
6. IV
3. Materials And Methods………………………………………………………………………18
3.3 Data Collection Techniques ..............................................................................................20
3.3.1 Questionnaire Survey..................................................................................................22
3.3.2 Target Group Discussion (Tgd) ................................................................................22
3.3.4 Personal Observation..................................................................................................22
3.3. 5 Secondary Data...........................................................................................................23
3.4 Method Of Data Analysis..................................................................................................23
4. Results………………………………………………………………………………………..24
4.1wild Animals Which Damaged Crops In The Study Area Of Laaloo Qilee District
Along Birbir Protected Forest ......................................................................................24
4.2 Crops Grown In Birbir Protected Forest In Laaloo Qilee District............................27
4.3 Problems Encounter The Local Community Due To Crop Raiding Wild Animals....29
4.4 Crop Raiding Wild Animal Management .......................................................................29
4.5trends In Crop Damage Severity For The Last Five Years ...........................................30
4.6 Attitude Of Local Community Toward Crop Raiding Wild Animals ..........................31
4.7 Distance Of Farmlands From Residences .......................................................................32
4.8.Support Expected From The Governmental Representative To Secure Crop Loss By
Wildlife............................................................................................................................33
4.9. Target Group Discussion.................................................................................................33
4.10. Interview With Key Informant Farmers ......................................................................34
5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 36
6. Conclusion And Recommendation.............................................................................. 39
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................39
6.2. Recommendations.............................................................................................................40
7. References…………………………………………………………………………………….43
Appendix I………………………………………………………………………………………46
8. VI
List of tables pages
Table1. Wild Animals in Lalo kile District…………………………………………………….22
Table 2. Rank of top crop raider wildlife animals based on the incidence of field crop damage
inLalo kile District…………………………………………………………………….26
Table 3. Different types of crops grown in Lalo kileDistrict.………………………………….274
Table 4.Percentage of respondents and chi square value about the stages at which maize and
sorghum more damaged by wild animals………………………………………………275
Table 5. Stages at which crop damaged by wild animals……………………………………….286
Table 6. Key Informants report about estimated crop loss by wild animals.……………………27
Table 7. Respondents report about local methods used to deter crop raiding wild
animals……………………………….……………………………………………...…28
Table 8.Percentage of respondents about trends in population number of crop damaging wildlife
and trends in crop damage severity over the past ten years in Lalo KileDistrict
…………………………..………………………..………………………….………29
Table 9. Percentage of respondent attitude toward crop raider wild animals...........................30
Table 10. Percentage of the respondents report about distance of farmlands from
residences…………………………………………………………………………..…....30
Table 11. Percentage of respondents about the effect of near farmlands to the forest edge on the
extent of crop raiding by wild animals………………….………..……………………31
9. VII
List of Figures page
`
Figure 2.Daguza plants near Birbir Protected forest…………………………..………….21
Figure 3. Top crop damaging wildlife in the study area ……………..…………………...23
10. VIII
Abstract
Human wild life conflict from crop raiders is becoming one of the most common conflicts antagonizing
human wildlife relationships. This study was conducted in Lalo kile District from November 2022 to
December, 2024 with the objectives to assess types of crops most raided by wild animals, major wild
animals involved in crop raiding and mitigation strategies used by the local communities to determine
wild animals. The study district established from twenty three Kebele administrations from these
Billee Buba and Manjoso Jiru kebeles with four sample areas were selected to collect data using
structured questionnaires, formal interview, target group discussion and observation. The data was
collected from thirty (30) households using systematic random sampling technique of target group
method. The data were analyzed using SPSS version two kebeles and later was presented using
descriptive statistical techniques. From the finding the majority of the respondents (93.3%) reported
that the presence of high crop damage on their farmlands. The result of the study showed that the
major wild animal species involved in crop raiding were monkey,wild pigs (Potamochoerus
larvatus,apes,apes and hippopotamus. The majority of local community in the study area used
personal guarding as the best local methods to reduce crop loss by wildlife.Therefore it is important to
create awareness about the use of buffer zone of Birbir protected forest by farmers to reduce the
conflict as much as possible. Hence, different management options like shouting, chasing, scaring
system and cooperative guarding must be adopted to mediate the effects and minimize future conflicts.
Keywords: crops, crop raiders, Lalo kile, Birbir river, raiding, wildlife animals.
11. 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back ground of the study
conflict between humans and wildlife is a global issue, happening both in developing and
developed countries Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a serious global issue in the developing
world where expansion of settlements and human population growth are reducing wildlife habitats
and increasing HWC (A. Treves,Mwamidi, A. Nunow).
As wildlife habitat becomes more and more fragmented and wildlife gets confined into smaller
pockets of suitable habitat, humans and wildlife are increasingly coming into contact and in conflict
with each other (Madden, 2008). Until recently, there has been little attention given to vertebrate
species that damage crops, particularly crops of small-scale farmers in tropical and sub-tropical
regions. Yet, there is good evidence that crop raiding is not a new phenomenon perhaps not
surprisingly, certain species of primates are very successful crop raiders, (Hill, 1997).
A cross the globe, primates are the most frequently identified crop raiding animals. This is because
of the renowned crop raiding behavior of the species of crop raiders (Sillero and Switzer, 2001). In
Kenya, food items such as maize, cassava, beans, potatoes, and fruits are the target for animals like
elephant, baboons, zebra and buffalo. Wild life damage to crops varies considerably from site to site
and farmers have unequal capacity for preventing such losses. The changes in the vegetation
structure of closer to the protected areas attract wild herbivores (Kimega, 2003).
There is a high degree of dependence on agricultural for subsistence with in communities of the
study area, as it may be the case elsewhere in Africa. For approximately up 80% of people,
agriculture is the sole source of livelihood crop- raiding animals may cause substantial damage to
agricultural crops, and this has always been a major issue of contention throughout the world. Due
to the expansion of cultivated land into previous wildlife habitat, crop raiding is becoming one of the
most common conflicts antagonizing human-wildlife relationships.
Currently, effective management of wildlife should have an objective of managing the relationship
between people and wildlife to achieve the desired goals stated by di¡erent stakeholders [. Riley, D.
J. Decker]. It also requires policymakers and conservation managers to take into consideration that
the support and cooperation of stakeholders are required to meet the conservation goals (Decker, C.
12. 2
A. Jacobson, and J. F. Organ,) Mitigation of HWC is central to ecosystem health and human safety;
however, this requires an insightful consideration of interrelated ecological and social
relations.•Therefore, understanding stakeholder’s attitude living near to wildlife is recognized as an
essential to design and implement a successful HWC mitigation measure
One of the main challenges facing wildlife conservation in the twenty-first century is the inter action
between people, wildlife and the resulting conflicts that emerge. Because of increasing demand for
land and the declining productivity of the already cultivated land, human communities are looking to
virgin lands especially forests, which they live to be more fertile than their own land, for increasing
agricultural productivity.
In particular, cultivation in forest areas which at the same time act as wild habitats in Africa is
increasingly leading to conflict. This quandary is epitomized by primates, especially baboons,
chimpanzees and other herbivores raiding valuable crops, which cause serious hardship to the
already impoverished farmers (Sillero and Switzer, 2001). The conflict is set to increase as Africa’s
human population keeps growing at a high rate and encroachment of agriculture into land containing
wildlife habitats continues (Hill, 2000).
Farmers to protect their crops against wildlife raiding, utilize strategies that are often cruel and
ineffective. People lay traps e.g. snares, metal traps, hunting them and worst of it all, cutting down
the forests which act as homes for these animals not knowing that they are increasing the problem
both in terms of crop raiding and compromising conservation and preservation efforts (Hill, 1997).
In some countries, governments have even resorted to the whole sale capture and trade of primates
as a putative control measure (Else, 1991). While arbitrary killing or trapping of suspect crop-raiders
may provide a short-term solution to the perceived problem it fails to address the long term needs of
either farmers or wildlife. For example captured animals are frequently taken at random and their
removal often has little effect on the level of crop damage.
Crop raiding by wild life does not only affect farmer’s ability to feed his family but it also reduces
cash income and has consequence for health, nutrition, education, and ultimately, development. For
example, it has been estimated that the annual cost caused by elephant on crops ranges from US $ 60
in Uganda to US $ 510 in Cameron on per affected farmer (Naughton et al., 1999).Associated
annual productivity losses on crop lands in the Ethiopian high lands are estimated to be 0.12-2%
(Keppel,1996). The occurrence and frequency of crop raiding by wildlife depends on availability,
13. 3
variability and type of food sources in the natural ecosystem for wild animals, the level of human
activity on farm and the type and maturation time of crops as compared to natural food sources.
Crop raiding is well known phenomenon and is the interaction between wild animals and people. It
is resulted in negative impact on people or their resources, and/or wild animals or their habitat and
has existed for as long as humans and wild animals have shared the same landscapes and resources
(Lamarque et al., 2009).
Crop damaged by wild animals of ten affects substance farmers ability to feed their families, causing
children to miss school and adults to miss work in order to guard fields, and causing community
members to lose sleep due to overnight guard duties and suffer from the fear of crop damage: at its
most severe, human wild conflict can result in human fatality (Hoare, 1992). Humans’ reactions to
human wild conflict have as much to do with the perceptions of risk and lack of control as they do
with the actual damage done (Madden, 2004). Because of community members’ experience of
human wild life conflict does not rely solely on the facts of the damage done by wildlife but on a
host of social, political, cultural, economic and ecological factors (Dick man, 2008).
Conflicts between humans and wild animals are recognized as major issues in conservation of
wildlife species. Different types of encroachment in areas adjacent to protected areas in Ethiopia
have been widely documented. Our review evaluated the trend, status, biological components,
drivers, and management intervention of HWC findings in Ethiopia. In order to foster human-
wildlife coexistence, different individuals must understand the benefits and costs of wildlife.
As in other parts of the world, in Ethiopia, large herbivore mammals have been causing damage to
agricultural crops and plantations. There are wide varieties of pest herbivores, primates and small
mammals. These mammals cause serious damaged to agricultural crops in different parts of the
country (Demeke and Afework, 2011). The conflict over a limited resource has an increasing effect
on conservation of wildlife (Madden, 2008). Thus, the objective of conducting this study were to
assess types of crops most raided by wild animals, major wild animals involved in crop raiding,
mitigation strategies used by the local communities to deter wild animals and to reduce the problem
of crop damage as much as possible in collaboration with all the concerned bodies through using
short term and long term management strategies.
14. 4
1.2 Statement of the problem
Crop raiding by wildlife is among the major outcome of human wildlife conflict that will result in
shortage of food and reduce income. As a result of the socio-economic activities in the Lalo kile
district, forest cover has been reduced leaving the animals with smaller habitats and less food.
Therefore the wild life animals have resorted to feeding on crops in people’s gardens or farm lands
resulting in a conflict. Human beings want survival while wild animals need the same. This has
brought about confusion and resentment from both sides rendering conservation and preservation a
challenge, hence need for interventions that reduce crop raiding to enhance ecological, economic
and social sustainability so as to foster co-existence.
Crop plants, especially maize, sorghum,daguza sugarcane, potato tuber and sweet potato were
severely damaged by wild animals like monkey, apes , wild pig, hippopotamus in Lalo kile district,
where this study was conducted. If crop raiding by wildlife animals is not appropriately addressed, it
will result in to adverse effects on the socio-economic advancement and biodiversity conservation
and preservation processes. There was no study carried out about assessment of crop raiding by
wildlife in the study area. Therefore, this study was conducted in view of bridging this gap and come
up with recommendations for future dissemination of the solutions. The reason this study topic was
selected and conducted by the researcher in the district because of the following issues.
In addition crops affected by wild animals that challenged livestock production. Farmers utilized
several mechanisms to defend their crops. They either hunt or chase big game and applied various
mechanisms to defend insects. With regard to this, despite the productivity of the region, it can be
argued that the agricultural history of Lalo kile was characterized by a continuous human-wildlife
struggle along Birbir protected forest seemingly. This was partly because of this factor that the
region is known by intensive and extensive hunting.
These are different type of crop raiding wild animals involved in crop raiding which differ from
place to place, types of crops mostly raided by wildlife differ from place to place and knowledge of
local communities to use a combination of crop loss mitigation strategies differ from one district to
another.
1.3 Objectives of the study
To assess human wildlife conflicts in Birbir protected forest ,Lalo kile district.
15. 5
1.4 Research questions
1. What are the impacts of crop damage by wild animals on the livelihoods of farmers?
2. What are the animals species most involved in crop raiding?
3. What crops are most affected and to what extent?
4. What are the causes of crop raiding by wild animals in the study area?
5. What are the management options must be adopted to mediate the effects of crop damage?
1.3 Objectives of the study
1.3.1 General objective
The general objective of this study is to assess human wild life crop raiders as well as local societies
and in Birbir protected forest.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
To identify wild animal species most involves in crop damage.
To identify crops most damaged by wild animals
To quantify crop loss caused by wild animals
To identify the root causes of crop raid by wildlife animals.
To identify the different types of local methods used by the farmers to reduce the effect of
crop loss.
1.5 Significance of the study
The significance of this study for the local communities were to brought sustainable dimensions for
local peoples along the valley of Birbir river in their socio-economic stability of the farmers
through increasing agricultural improvement of human wild animals, increasing the tolerance level
of farmers to ward crop raiders in Indigenous knowledge to bring behavioral change, encouraging
effective local methods to deter crop raider from farmlands to minimize the effects, enhancing local
support for the conservation of wildlife by local communities and finally the study paper might be
used as a reference materials for further studies used by other researchers on similar topic.
16. 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 local societies and wildlife in habitats
The world Current relationships between humans and non-human primates are generally assumed to
be rooted in conflict over land use and relatively recent, and thus have limited evolutionary and long
term ecological impact.
Despite the fact that human–wildlife conflicts across the world predominantly common and well
documented in areas adjacent to protected areas (Gillingham & Lee, 2003; Le Bel et al.,2011). In
Tanzania, for example, local communities living adjacent to protected areas were found to have a
negative attitude and feelings towards wildlife largely as a result of the damage they sustain
(Gillingham & Lee,2003).
Various projects and publications demonstrated that long-term sympathy between human and non-
human primates fall out in a complex web of behavioral, ecological, epidemiological, and socio-
economic relationships, suggesting a need for increased attention by anthropologists (Fuentes and
Wolfe, 2002). Human alterations of the landscape including forest modification, road construction,
irrigation systems, and preferential use of specific forest or other habitat area can modify, restrict or
even enhance pathways between groups in a population of primates (Fuens et al., 2005).
Broad knowledge of pest ecology, overall foraging strategies, and habitat restriction must help
farmers predict pest crop-raiding behaviors. This knowledge could help to minimize crop-raiding by
allowing for farmers to modify their guarding strategies in response to patterns of crop loss and pest
foraging behaviors. The general ecology of pests discussed in my research report served to direct the
analyzed of guarding strategies specific to pest ecology.
The home range of duiker, wild pig, and Columbus monkey were restricted by vegetation cover. The
duiker requires habitat consisting of wood land, thickets, and bush, completely avoiding open
country and home range is not restricted by water. Dense vegetation cover is a habitat requirement
of wild pig, Porcupine habitat consists of burrows, caves, cocks or dense vegetation, with several
animals using the same burrow system (Stuart, 1998).
As Wells et al., 1992) put that .the nature of conflict shows an increasing tendency between humans
and wildlife over the use of natural resources mainly land, forests and water (Wells et al., 1992).
Conflicts are manifested when people are killed or injured by wild animals, loss of livestock through
17. 7
predation, competition for pasture, wildlife invasion of crops in farms and inadequate or lack of
compensation for losses (Tchamba, 1996). Human-wildlife conflict was more intensive in
developing countries where livestock holdings and agriculture are important parts of rural people
livelihoods and income (Boer and Baquete, 1998). In these areas, competition between local
communities and wild animals for the use of natural resources is particularly intense and direct
Baboon’s home range is not necessarily restricted by forest, as it is found in savanna, monotone
areas, dense forest fringes and coastal habitats; however restrictions include water accessibility and
large trees or cliffs for sleeping out of reach of predators (Stuart 1998). Very vet monkeys are found
in savanna and riverine wood land, and coastal scrub forest. Similar to the baboon, habitat
restrictions include sufficient sleeping sites, such as in trees or occasionally cliffs when suitable
trees are not available (Stuart, 1998).
The porcupine, duiker and wild pigs are mainly active at night and foraging is primarily a solitary
activity (Stuart, 1998). When duikers feed, they may maintain close proximity to other species,
including savanna baboons and larger antelope. Baboons, Columbus monkey and vervet monkeys
are diurnal, sleeping at night and foraging during the day. All three primates are social animals
traveling in large troops ranging in size (Stuart, 1998).
Hence seemingly in Birbir protected forest the study may confirm enmity between humans and wild
life habitats as a result of agricultural activities, crop raiding, hunting and other social aspects. So
the study tangible conflicts among human and monkey, apes , pig, hippopotamus, buffalo , etc in
the Birbir protected forest and the local surrounding .
In my research report I put the majority of local community respondents of the study area develop
negative attitude toward crop damaging wildlife and this in turn result in reduces local support for
conservation and increasing retailer killing of wild life, which increases vulnerability of wildlife
populations. Therefore educating local community to develop tolerance behavior in order to save the
life of wildlife animals to address conservation goals in the local societies of Birbir protected forest
lands in Lalo kile district.
Baboon’s home range is not necessarily restricted by forest, as it is found in savanna, monotone
areas, dense forest fringes and coastal habitats; however restrictions include water accessibility and
large trees or cliffs for sleeping out of reach of predators (Stuart 1998). Vervet monkeys are found in
18. 8
savanna and riverine wood land, and coastal scrub forest. Similar to the baboon, habitat restrictions
include sufficient sleeping sites, such as in trees or occasionally cliffs when suitable trees are not
available (Stuart, 1998). The porcupine, duiker and wild pigs are mainly active at night and foraging
is primarily a solitary activity (Stuart, 1998). When duikers feed, they may maintain close proximity
to other species, including savanna baboons and larger antelope. Baboons, colobus monkey and
vervet monkeys are diurnal, sleeping at night and foraging during the day. All three primates are
social animals traveling in large troops ranging in size (Stuart, 1998).
2.2. Geographical and temporal contexts
In the United Republic of Tanzania, home to the world’s largest wildlife population, lion attacks are
widespread. Between 1990 and 2004, lions killed at least 563 people and injured more than 308. The
problem has increased dramatically over the past 15 years, with the majority of cases occurring in
the southern part of the country (Packer et al., 2005).
The zones of sympatric fall primarily in Africa, South, East and South east Asia, and South/Central
America and reflect the distribution of non-human primates for at least the last ten millennia
(although one species of monkey, the Barbary macaque, may have ranged into southern Europe as
recently as 2000 -5000 years ago). That is, ecological pressures impact mammals in particular ways;
and mammals that share many morphological and physiological facets in common, such as the
anthropoid primates (monkeys, apes and humans), may also share similar adaptations at a variety of
levels. This is important in understanding the interconnections between humans and non-human
primates because long-term overlap and similarity in behavior/other modes of adaptation (even if
slight) can impact human conceptualizations of “nature” and act to facilitate distinct patterns of
integration engagement between the humans and other primates (Fuens et al., 2005).
Conflicts between wildlife and human are a major conservation problem which conservation
organizations all over the world are dealing with (WCS, 2010). Human-wildlife conflict is one of the
major threats to conservation in Africa. They occur in different settings such as increasing land
scarcity, hunting prohibition and wildlife induced damage to property and these constitute factors
that may create local hostility towards wildlife and protected areas (Dublin, 1995).
The research study will conduct at Birbir protected forest ,Laaloo Qilee ,western Ethiopia(Figure
1).Three villages were selected for the study proposed based on the distance from the Birbir
19. 9
protected forest , impacts of Wild animals around the protected areas.that is, ecological pressures
impact mammals in particular ways; and mammals that share many morphological and
physiological facets in common, such as the anthropoid primates (monkeys, apes and humans), may
also share similar adaptations at a variety of levels.
Photo skech by: Zagaye kumera the of Birbir River which goes southwards to Baro River,Sep, 2023)
Hence the understanding of the interconnections between humans and wild life habitats because
long-term overlap and similarity in behaviour or by other effects which can impact human
conceptualizations of “nature” and act to facilitate distinct patterns of integration engagement
between the humans and other primates (Fuens et al., 2005).
2.3 The importance of wildlife animals,
The benefits of wild animals are source of animal protein, help to maintain the balance of nature by
feeding on each other and plants, source of income, educational value, used as raw materials of
different industries, used in bio-medical study, attract tourists and add aesthetic value to the
environment (Elisabeth, 2007).
20. 10
There were wild animals importance in every aspects . But with high deforestation has resulted in a
scarcity of resources for wild animals to fulfill their requirement of survival and production
(Amare, 2015). The major conflicts that happened in human-dominated landscapes were due to the
segregation of wild animals in their farmlands or settlement areas (Makindi et al., 2014). These
results in retaliatory killing (Tufa et al., 2018) and aggravating the disappearance of wildlife
inhabited in human-dominated areas (Masanja, 2014).
2.4 Attitudes of humans towards wild animals
As long as crop losses due to non-human primate are considered acceptable or normal within
general crop yields, perceptions of the significance of the ‘monkey’ problem might rank relatively
low in the general context of pest. It can be suggested that a euro-centric attitude to wildlife, which
veers from extreme forms of animal control to passionate advocacy of animal rights, is often at odds
with indigenous attitudes (Adams, 1996).
Cultural perceptions towards crop raider wild animals vary enormously and have shifted over time.
Local farmers settled near the protected areas and at the edge of forest, are unable to control the crop
losses caused by wild herbivores, are likely to develop negative attitude towards these animals.
Because of crop damaging properties of crop raider wild animals are considered as crop raiders that
consume crops during any stage of the agricultural cycle from planting to post harvest shortage
(Naught on-Treves, 2005).
The crop raiding control mentality associated with agrees- business and a market economy have
been exported along with the plantations. This at least potentially, promotes contexts for negative
perceptions and increases the potential for conflict. As long as crop losses due to non-human
primates were considered acceptable or normal within general crop yields, perceptions of the
significance of the ‘monkey’ problem might rank relatively low in the general context of pest. It can
be suggested that a euro-centric attitude to wildlife, which veers from extreme forms of animal
control to passionate advocacy of animal rights, is often at odds with indigenous attitudes (Adams,
1996).
21. 11
2.5 The causes of crop raiding by wildlife animals
Different types of encroachment in areas adjacent to protected areas in Ethiopia have been widely
documented. Our review evaluated the trend, status, biological components, drivers, and
management intervention of HWC findings in Ethiopia. In order to foster human-wildlife
coexistence, different individuals must understand the benefits and costs of wildlife. +e result
showed an increase in interest in studying HWC; however, the research is biased geographically.
Most of the studies focused on nationally significant PAs and surrounding.There were Increasing
human populations and increasing wildlife populations:-Increment in both wild life and human
population create competitions on fixed natural resources which lead to conflict (Seller-Zubiri and
Switzer, 2001).
Lack of a buffer zone: -The absence of a buffer zone between the forest and farmers farm lands,
wild animals move freely to the farmlands to destroy crops (Chetri, 2004)
Migration of wild animals due to some factors:- Due to the war, habitat destruction, drought and
lack of food sources animals can be displaced from one area into another area or occupying buffer
zones and increased contacts with humans some displaced animals may turn to crop raiding to get
resource-in poor habitats (Tchamba, 1995).
Migration of rural people: - Rural people migrate into areas where resources could be obtained
and occupy wild life habitat, as result conflict arises between human and wildlife animals (Madden,
2008).
The habitat factors: - Competition for space, resources and the reduction of habitat may be a
powerful factor which threatening wild lives. If habitats are converted to agricultural or pastoral
land, crop raiding which is the major human wildlife conflict is bound to increase (Hill, 2000).
2.6 Factors affecting frequency of crop raiding by Wildlife animals
Rainfall, season, crop variety and characteristics, wild- food availability, distance from forest,
nearest farm or village and farm protection methods will have an impact on raiding and the raiding
frequency and intensity will feed back into attitudes towards the primates (Biquand etal., 1992)
22. 12
Distance from the boundary: Distance of field boundaries from the forest and other habitats is an
important factor in determining the livelihood of incursion by wild animals. Farmers reported no
crop losses from animals in cultivated fields that were over 300m away from the forested areas and
plantations. Different wild animal species are commonly associated with different habitat types
(Sitati et al., 2005).According to Sitati etal. (2005) two aspects of farm location need to be
considered: the nearest food habitat from boundaries and the distance between habitat types and
filed boundaries. Other physical factors or guarding measures had no effect on crop raiding
incidence.
In a field trial, Linkieet al. (2007) showed that the spatial patterns of crop raids by pig-tailed
macaque raids were not as widespread as those of wild boar, implying that various animals have
different extents of raiding. In contracts to situations where animals raid gardens that are far away,
the majority of those experiencing crop-raiding have farms within 100m from the protected area
boundaries. Linkie et al. (2007) reported that all farms within 50m experienced crop raiding by
mammals. However, farms closets to the forest edge were most frequently raided by wild boar, pig-
tailed macaque porcupine individually and by all species combined. An important point to note here
is that it is not just distance per that is important (Sitati et al., 2005).
The further away from the forest or plantation edge a given farm is the greater the number of
buffering farms there are between that farmland and the forest boundary. Animal are less likely to
enter a farm if they have to traverse several other farms to reach it. Sitatei et al. (2005) showed that
those farmers who do not experience crop-raiding have on average, two other farms between them
and any tree habitat.
Crop species grown: The extent of raiding depends on the crop available. There are a number of
factors, including the stage at which a crop raided and the diversity of species that will feed on it.
Hill (1997) reported that maize is attacked at all stages in its development from the newly sown seed
to the time when cobs are mature. While, raiding sustained at any stage can cause severe crop losses,
the most serious time is when a mature crop sustains a substantial loss which is potentially the case
with maize. Certain crops such as maize, bananas and passion fruits are favored foods of primate
crop raiders while other such as cassava and sweet potatoes are mainly raided by bush pigs and
rodents. Crops that is less susceptible to raiding included ground nuts, beans and coffee (Sitati et al.,
2005).
23. 13
Seasonally variation of crop raiding incidence is mostly attributed to forage availability. In a dry
season, farms suffered more crop raiding. Rainfall determines the growth of the farm-bush mosaic
that is so attractive for example, to elephants (Barnes et al., 2005). It also promotes the growth of
maize and it is the maturing maize crop that draws crop raiders. Correlated rainfall frequency with
incidence of elephant raiding and found the former to be an important predictor.
Furthermore, on wet nights farmers prefer to sleep at home and consequently crop raiding animals
are free to move about under cover of the rain. Clouds obscure the moon so that rainy months are
darker and this also explains why rain and the moon together have a significant effect up on elephant
movements. According to Dickinson (1998) the moon could influence elephant behavior associated
with crop raiding. Animals vulnerable to nocturnal predators are more active around the new moon
e.g. and elephants feel safer venturing into the fields on moon less nights. Rural people are more
likely to stay awake on brightly lit nights and guard dogs are more vigilant. According to Barness et
al. (2005) analysis of radio-tracking data confirm that in other habitats, the nocturnal range of
elephants depends on the lunar cycle.
Seasonal intensity of crop riding may correspond with the activity of certain animals or the activity
farmers. Activity of all the top crop raiding pests corresponds with early stages of crop maturity,
also with periods of heavy rainfall from July to September, and time intensive cultivation activities.
During the wet season’s crop raiding intensity increase due to heavy rainfall, due to intensive
cultivation activity, early stage of crops maturity. The high crop riding intensity that reported
coincides with the green stages of wet land crops may be exacerbated by shorter rainy seasons,
resulting in fewer available food and water resources. Therefore, changes in climate to more rid
conditions may also be a factor contributing to the growing pest problem (Quirin, 2005).
Depends upon animal density: Sites with high densities of crop raiders will have higher severities
of crop raiding. Kirstin found that the consumption of coconuts was highest in areas of high red
Columbus density and low availability of alternative food resources. On the contrary, Hoare (1999)
showed that incidence of crop raiding by elephants did not correlate positively with local changes in
the elephant density. Although, protected Areas (Pas) serving as elephant refuges, in the Sebungwe
National park in Zimbabwe, they are known to have almost twice the elephant density of refuges
within the Coward neither the type of refuge nor the elephant density within it appeared to
determine levels of elephant crop raiding in adjacent gardens (Boulton et al., 1995).
24. 14
2.7 Impacts of crop raiding wild animals on the local communities
At all sites of the study baboons and vervet monkeys are responsible for the most crop loss in an
area. Damage wild pigs are not similar to that of baboon and vervet monkey, likely due to
differences infrequence foraging and social behavior. Baboons and vervet monkeys forage more
frequently through the week and day than do wild pigs. In addition, the social behavior of baboons
and vervet monkeys may be responsible for their elevated raiding impact, i.e. larger number of
individuals foraging in one out compared to solitary foraging by nocturnal pests. Baboons have also
been described to “strategically forage” by directing farmers attention towards one raiding
individual while other members of the troop raid unoccupied section of the plot. Strategic crop
raiding of this nature has also been observed in Kenya (Maples et al., 1976).
Both considered as wild pigs and porcupines dominant potato foragers becausedemonstrate a
preference to wards potato in wet land crops.Wild pigs foraging the most on sorghum and
somewhat less on maize and porcupine foraging on maize and potato The direction from
which porcupines approach maize may be more difficult to determine since its habitat is
unrestricted by forest cover. The porcupine is listed as one of the top three pests in all sites,
foraging on a variety of crop development (Hill, 2000).
The Columbus monkey was described to be very dangerous, ex habiting an aggressive
behavior much different than other primates to and aggressive towards women and children
and can only be deterred by men. TheColumbus monkey has been recently observed to
forage on sorghum tassel in all sites and on ripened coffee berry. Within the last three years,
the Columbus monkey has been observed to begin foraging maize. Farmers claim that the
Columbus monkey has learned these foraging behaviors from the vervet monkey (Hill,
2000).
Baboons are reported dominant forager on both maize and potato, sugarcane, sorghum and
the vervet monkey appears to be major pest at all three sites, occurring in both up land and
wet land plots. Primates are particularly successful crop raiders due to their cooperative
behaviors, opportunistic life style, non-specialized and omnivorous diet, and their ability to
learn rapidly and change their behavior accordingly. In addition to these behaviors, primates
seem to be less effected by reduced forest than other wild animals as they have been
25. 15
observed to readily live beside humans in rural, urban and semi urban environments (Hill,
2000).
Crop raiding has most likely been occurring since humans first settled down and started practicing
agriculture. Different types food items are targeted by wild animals, from cereals to fruits and from
vegetables to trees (Sillero and Switzer, 2001). The extent of crop damage caused by large mammals
is insignificant when it is considered at the global level compared to the damage caused by
invertebrates and rodents. However, in areas where more animals occur, a major part of the crop
may be lost in a single night (Naught on, 1997).
Primates among the crop raiders that damages crops particularly in Africa and Asian, reserves,
accounting for over 70% of the crop damage and 50% of the area damaged (Naught on-Treves,
1998). Because of their intelligence, opportunism, adaptability and manipulative abilities, some
species can easily turn to crop foraging and make formidable crop raiders. Human wildlife conflict
is recognized as a significant threat to the success of conservation initiatives (Strum, 1994). In
Kenya for instance, the remarkable transition from semi nomadic to semi agricultural and
settlement. Most natural wildlife buffer zones have led to competition food, water, habitats, and
space for both humans and wildlife hence resulting in a conflict for survival (Kagiri, 2000).
The damage to human interest caused by contact with such animals can include loss of life, injury,
threats to economic security, reduced food security and livelihood opportunities. These are further
result in impoverishment of the poor, reduced local support for conservation and increased
retaliatory killings of wildlife caused increased vulnerability of wildlife populations (Sukumar,
1990). In different areas of Ethiopia due to increasing agricultural activities leads to habitat
destruction and encroachment there further leads the farmers have increasingly lost crops to raiders
or problem causing animals (Joseline, 2010).
2.8 Management of crop raiding by wild animals
No single management strategy can prevent all crop raiding. The goals of management strategy can
prevent all crop raiding. The goal of management should not only be able to reduce levels of crop
raiding but also to raise tolerance levels of crop raiding by lessening its impact to farmers (Sillero-
Zubiri and Switzer, 2001). No solution will work without site specific knowledge of what is
possible, practical, or acceptable in any particular area. According to Hill et al. (2002) the most
26. 16
viable options to reduce crop loss were increasing vigilance by farmers. This has been shown to
make a considerable difference in the amount of crop lost, increasing farmers’ tolerance to crop
raiders for the lost crops and increasing the ability of farmers to repel crop raiders using existing
local methods. Thus, various management possibilities are presented according to the characteristics
of conflict to reduce the damage (Lamaque et al., 2009).
Without mitigating crop damaged by wild animals the results are further impoverishment of the
poor, reduced local support for conservation and increasing retaliatory killings of wildlife. Thus,
obtaining the cooperation of local people in effort of both conserve and control crop raiders is a
significant mechanism for sustaining wild animal populations. In the study area wild animals,
population decreases from time to time because of different reasons for instance crop raiding nature
of vertebrate mammals around the study area resulted for human in property damage, economic
losses and harassment. Therefore wild animals can have very significant impact up on human
directly or indirectly. These impacts range from clear cut economic hardship to less tangible effects
such as increased opportunity costs and decreased quality of life. Living a long side of wild animals
can incur a variety of additional costs aside from the direct impact of depredation. As people have to
invest more heavily in strategies such as livestock herding, guarding and predator control which
need additional cost (Dickman, 2008).
2.9.1 Reducing crop losses
Many traditional repelling techniques are fairly effective it formalized, but are labor intensive. But
where an animal can be repelled adequately using conventional methods it seems in appropriate, and
certainly not particularly cost effective, to try to introduce more expensive techniques requiring
grater technological input or back up (Conover, 2002).
By definition, management may have a continued effect, by instating longer-term protection of
crops or herds (FAO, 2010). The most effective short-term deterrent is guarding the fields, together
with throwing missiles and perhaps using a sling shoot (Lee and Priston, 2005). This is however a
considerable drain is on time in school if children are guarding the fields or reduce time to complete
other work with consequently lost income.Long term measures that might some hope for conflict
management include buffer zone and alteration of crop patterns, although these are not always
possible when land is allocated to individuals by governments and good is grown only for
subsistence methods such as translocation, taste-aversion conditioning and trapping have the
27. 17
potential to be effective. But rarely are: they can result in populations skews when individuals or
whole social groups are removed, they require the upturn animals, individuals need to be
provisioned, most are prohibitively expensive(Hill, 2002).
2.9.2 Goals of an intervention
According to Hill et al. (2002) conflict resolution or management methods have the following
possible goals:- reducing the amount of crop losses to wildlife, improving local people’s attitudes
and perceptions towards protected area and its wildlife, helping affected farmers to improve
agricultural production, increasing the amount of crops being harvested locally through improved
local yields and reducing levels of poaching.
2.9.3 Implementation of an intervention
Before developing and implementation an intervention a number of points need to be addressed. The
reasons for the conflict must be considered, information needs to be gathered about the type of
conflict tissue, farmers perceptions of the situation and perhaps their expectations regards a potential
intervention program the researcher should understand the ecology of the pest species. The goals of
the intervention must be clearly defined. A decision should be made regarding the deterrence or
removal of the crop pest and finally, farmers need to be involved to ensure their support for and
acceptance of the intervention (Hill et al., 2002).
2.9.4 Increasing Human tolerance for wild animals damaged
Another approach that has been used successfully to manage human wild animal’s conflict involves
changing the perceptions of people experiencing the damage, thus, increasing their willingness to
tolerate damage (Conover, 2002). This can be accomplished by enhancing an individual’s
appreciation for wildlife and its non-tangible benefit. Agricultural producers already are receptive to
this argument and appreciate the wildlife on their habitat and their tolerance can be enhanced by
providing economic incentives (Messmer, 2009).
28. 18
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1Laaloo-Qilee is located in Qellam Wallagga Administrative Zone, Western Oromia National
Regional State with about 546 km from Finfinnee westwards, and 117 KM to the east of Dambi-
Doolloo, the capital of zonal administration. Laaloo-Qilee has 22 rural kebeles, with one municipal
city administration since 2007.1
Yubdo borders the district in Eastern direction, Aira in Northern
direction, Daallee Sadii in Western, Sayyoo Noolee in South Eastern and Daarimuu, Iluu -Abbaa
boor and Birbir River.
Map 1 shows Laaloo-Qilee District and surrounding woredas
Source: Short study of General situation of Laaloo-Qilee District (GSLK), 2018.
1
Short study of General situation of Laaloo-Qilee district( GSLK),2018 p6
29. 19
3.2. Geographical Settings
3.2.1 Topography
In the district according to survey study of ‘the district’s Land and Environmental Conservation
office 2017 report the physiographic of the district land use activities is categorized into four
types of land of almost flat ,gentle sloping, and moderately steep and sloping topography between
1500-1800masl.2
This topography has shaped the climate, settlement pattern and land use in the
district.
Climate
The agro- climatic condition of the district includes 35%of Kolla and 65% of Woina Dega climate.
However, the region experienced extreme fluctuation in rain fall ,both in its annual totals and the
distribution throughout the year, which constraints on agricultural activities under rain fed condition
, when cropping seasons affects usually either begins lately or quits very early before the crops get
mature. The average annual rainfall was about 1000-1500m2
. The highest rainfall occurs in the
spring and summer seasons (from May to September). The rainfall reaches its peak in the month of
July and August.3
Natural resources
The district is endowed with rivers, forest and wild life. One of these major rivers is Birbir that
flows from the Eastern toward the Southwestern part of the zone to join Baro River, which pass
through the district border. There are also other rivers that was endowed such forested areas along
Buubaa, Qilee and Birbirsa rivers that flows towards Birbir River which flows to south wards as far
as Baaroo River. 4
These forest were composed of tree species like Albizzia gummifera, Syzygium guinnennense,
Allophyllus abyssinicus, Schefflera abyssinica, Draceaena afromontana, Celtis
2
Short study of General situation of Laaloo-Qilee District (GS LK), 2018 …pp. 9-10.
3
Agricultural Office of Laaloo-Qilee,2018 report
4
Land and Environmental office of Laaloo-Qilee district, 2019. report
30. 20
africana,Chionanthus mildbraedii, Erythrococca trichogyne, Olea welwitschii, Vepris dainelli,
Grewia ferruginea, Cyathea manniana, and Ficus spp.5
Bamboo, ‘Shimala’forests was the dominant land cover of this unit. ‘Shimala’was also intermingled
with the forest. Planted forest is mainly located around Laaloo town. These trees were planted by
Bethel synod NGO and NGO (SLMP, TCP). Among these, Gravila and Cupressus species are the
dominant species planted in this unit.6
3.3 Data collection techniques
In addition, oral as well as written data indicated that the district was rich in wildlife resources in its
forest areas. The region Qellam Wallagga paid tribute to the central government from these rich
resources. In the district the types of soil is Nitisols, these species naturally acidic, which made
problems on the agricultural activities in the district.7
The dense forest in the Lalo-kile is mainly
located in Billee Buubaa , Manjaso Jirukebele, along the Birbir and Kile River. From 22'n rural
kebele or ganda (Afan Oromo) two administrative kebele were selected randomly or purposefully
method which their names are: Billee Buubaa , Manjaso Jiru, kebele, along the Birbir and Kile
River
Key informant’s interviews (KI) are qualitative in depth interviews with people who know what is
going on in the community. The purpose of key informants interviews is to collect information from
a wide range of people including community leaders, professional or residents who firsthand
knowledge about the community. 20 Key informants of the study were identified by using
systematic method of informant selection however other informants were selected purposeful.
The sampling size of the study was determined based on formula adapted from Kothari (2004) as
follows. The formula below was used to calculate the size as: n=
𝑧2𝑝𝑞𝑁
𝑒2 (𝑁−1)+𝑧2 𝑝𝑞
Where; N= is the size
of population which is the number of households; n= is the sample; e= the precision level or margin
of error considered is 5% for this study; P= population reliability (or frequency estimated for a
sample of size n), where p is 0.5 which is taken for all developing countries population and p+q =1;
z 𝛼
2
⁄ = normal reduced variable at 0.05 level of significance is 1.96.
31. 21
n=
𝑧2𝑝𝑞𝑁
𝑒2 (𝑁−1)+𝑧2 𝑝𝑞
n=
3.841∗0.5∗0.5∗4462
0.1∗0.1(4462−1)+3.841∗0.5∗0.5
=
133860
4462
= 30 therefore, sample size (n) =
30.According to the above formula, the sample size for all six sites is n=
𝑁∗𝑛
𝑁
where N (site) = is
the house hold number of a site; n (all sites) is the sample size of all two sites; N (all sites) = is the
house hold of number of two sites through which the survey was conducted. According to the
formula, the sample size for the two sites was:
n1 =
𝑁1∗𝑛
𝑁
=
330∗339
4462
=
66930
4462
= 15; n2 =
𝑁2∗𝑛
𝑁
=
310∗339
4462
=
66930
4462
= 15; for furthermore, from the total of
4462, population density of six farmer associations, a total of 30 respondents were selected and the
questionnaire was transferred purposive and systematic method.
The respondents were selected purposive based on their ability, awareness adjacent to area and
knowledge contributes the overall research objective. The sample size of the study was determined
based on formula adapted from Kothari (2004) as follows.
n= Z2
pqN/e2
(N-1) + Z2
pq
N= the total population from six farmer associations,
n= the required sample size,
Z= is the critical value = 1.96; e is the desired precision level (5%precistion= 0.05),
p =is an estimated proportion attribute present in the population (0.4), q= 1-p (1-0.4=0.6).
By substituting these values in the above formula the sample size n was calculated
n=(1.96)2
(0.4)(0.6)(4462)/(0.05)2
(4462-1)+(1.96)2
(0.4)(0.6) = 30 sample respondent.
From the total population of (4462) a total six farmer associations of 30 respondents was selected
purposive and systematic method based on their ability, awareness, adjacent to an area and
knowledge contribute to the overall research objectives and stratified proportional probability
sampling technique used to divide and allocated the sample size (30) to each of the two selected
sample strata. For each six farmer associations the sample size is taken proportionally.
The formula allocation from the strata is, where n= is the sample size selected from two strata. In
this case 30 house hold, pi = is population included from two strata; N = is total households in the
two sample selected strata, k= sample of house hold respondents in each strata.
Based on this k= (n×pi)/N.
32. 22
3.3.1 Questionnaire survey
Pilot survey was conducted in the selected kebeles between November, 2022 to January,2023 based
on the information gathered during the preliminary survey. During the pilot survey 30 households
were randomly selected and questionnaires distributed following systematic random sampling. The
main purpose of the pilot survey was to evaluate human wild life animal’s conflicts and the causes
of crop raiding in the study area. Four complementary data collection methods namely household
survey (individual interviews), key informant interviews and direct observation were used during
present study.
Household survey was a formal survey method where a semi structured interview scheduled was
employed with closed and open-ended questions. Five trained individuals and one researcher had
administered the questionnaires to thirty respondents by following a pattern of skipping six
households at regular intervals and the eleventh household was selected by following systematic
random sampling method. The questionnaire survey was carried out between November, 2022 to
January,2023 among local community in Billee Buubaa and Manjoso Jiru kebele administrations of
Laaloo Qilee district. 16( 10 Males and 6 females) were selected from billee Buubaa with two
study sites Dugda Guddaa and Dugda Xinnaa ) and the rest fouteen respondents (10 males and
4females) were selected from Manjoso jirru kebele administration. The questionnaire was
administered within the respondents territory and interviewing atmosphere by translating
questionnaire to their local language.
3.3.2 Target group discussion (TGD)
This technique is help to acquire useful information, which might be difficult to collect through the
household survey regarding top ranked crop damaging wild life animals and the cause of crop
damage by wild mammals in the study areas. Discussion was made with eight participants in each
Billee Buubaa and Manjoso Jiru under the guidance of a moderator checklist were prepared to
guide topics for open-ended discussion with group of farmers (appendix II).
3.3.4 Personal observation
Observation is important to assess Human wild life conflicts onextent of crop damage, field visits
and observations would be mainly used for the accurate and reliable information. This method was
to collect primary data. Observation carried out through systematic observation and used to obtain
33. 23
data on distance of farmlands from forest edge, the raided crops, and frequency of crop raiding wild
animals to farmlands, estimating crop lost by crop raider, type and diversity of the top ranked
damage causing wild animals.
3.3. 5 Secondary data
Secondary data were sought from the previous studies carried out on crops damage by wildlife from
Articles journals, thesis, books and internet. Secondary data were obtained by a researcher from
Articles ,journals,seminar paper, and thesis used as reference materials to compare the results of the
study with others finding in the discussion regarding the causes of crops damaged by wildlife, local
methods used to determine human wild life conflicts from crop raiding wildlife in different areas
and problems encounter the local communities by wildlife.
3.4 Method of data analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS (20) and the results of the analyzed data were presented using
descriptive statistic in the form of tables and percentage.
34. 24
4. RESULTS
4.1Wild animals which damaged crops in the study area of Laaloo Qilee district along Birbir
protected forest
About 30 of the respondents reported that the presence of crop damaged by wild animals on the
local farmlands were about 93.3% , while the rest of the respondents reported that as their
farmlands did not face the problem of crop damaged by wildlife habitats because their farmlands
were not exposure to the problem.In general as above the respondents reported that the underlying
causes of crop raiding by wildlife animals on the farmers farmlands in the study area depends on
different variables butamong these the major factor wasproximity of crops to the forest edge is the
main reason leading to frequent crop raiding by wild animals (Figure 2).
Photo taken by: (Zagaye kumera,2023)
Figure 2.Daguja plantsnear birbir protected forest edge in the Lalo kile District
35. 25
However,some of respondents were blaming only wild animals for the cause of crop damage
without having the root cause knowledge of crop raiding by wildlife which leads them for illegal
hunting. Respondents mentioned that monkeyapes, hippopotamus wild pigs, warthog, civet, and
quellabirds as the major wild animals which damage crops to different degrees in the study area of
Laaloo Qilee (Table 1).
Table 1. Wild Animals in Birbir Protected forest are explained in the following table
Wild Animals Scientific name
Hippopotamus Hippopotamus
Porcupine Hystrix cristata
Monkey Cercopticus mitis
Wild Pig Potamochoerus larvatus
Civet Civettictis civetta
Ape
quella birds
Warthog
The selected respondents and key informants ranked crop raider wildlife from the one which caused
most damage to the least one. Five respondents reported that, were the frequent crop raider which
caused much damage and ranked first to fifth were , hippopotamus porcupine ,wild
pigs(Potamochoerus larvatus), , Monkey ,civet monkeys (Chlolocebus pygerythrus), and the
followed ape ,quella birds and warthdogranked followed respectively based on the extent of crop
damage. However, seven key informants ranked wild pig (2nd
), grivet monkey (3rd
) and porcupine
fourth(Table 2).
36. 26
Table 2. Rank of top crop raider wildlife animals based on the incidence of field crop damage
in Birbir protected forest
Wild animals Rank
Monkey
Respondents rank Key informants Rank
9 (30%) 1 5(45.4%) 1
Wild pigs 8(26.6%) 2 3(27.2%) 3
Apes 7(23.3%) 3 2(18.1%) 2
Hippopotamus 6(20%) 4 1(0.9%) 4
The most crop raiding animals in Birbir protecting forest in lalo kile district were olive Monkey ,
Wild pigs and apes and hippopotamus . A B
Photo taken by; Zagaye kumera,(2023)
Figure 3.Top crop raider wild animals in the study area of Birbir protected forest
37. 27
4.2 Crops grown in Birbir protected forest in Laaloo Qilee District
The respondents mentioned different types of crops grown in their area (Table 3).
Table 3. Different types of crops grown in Guto Gidda District.
Crops Scientific name
Maize Zea mays
Sorghum Sorghum bicolor
Daguza Daguza
Sweet potato Imponoebatatos
Coffee CoffeaArabica
Sugar cane Saccharum officinarum
Finger millet Eleusinecoracana
Ground nuts Arachishyplgaea
Dinichaoromo Coleusedulis
Barely Hordeum vulgare
Wheat
About 20( 66%) of the majority of the respondents reported that maize and sorghum damage events
were less after flowering than before flowering while about10(34%) of the respondents shown maize
and sorghum damage by wild animals higher after the stage of flowering.
Table 4.Percentage of respondents and chi square value about the stages at which maize and
sorghum more damaged by wild animals
At which stages maize and
sorghum damaged by wild animals
Before flowering After flowering
Percent 66.4% (20) 33.6% (10)
According to the view of respondents different crop raider wild animals damage crops at different
stages for example maize mainly destroyed near the maturation stage by monkey, olive baboon and
38. 28
bush pig ,apes were observed damaging on crops at all stages, while warthog affects crops early in
the seedling (Table 5).
Table 5. Stages at which crop damaged by wild animals
N
o
Crop Crop
raiding wild
animals
Stages at which crops are attacked by wild animals
1 Maize Plowing Seedling Growing Flowering all stages
Bush pigs
monkey
apes
Porcupine
Wild birds
2 Sorghu
m
Bush pigs
monkey √
apes √
Porcupine
Wild birds
4 Potato
tuber
and
sweet
potato
baboons
Wild pigs
Porcupine
During target group discussion and key informants interview maize lost estimated in kg/hectare
during seedling flowering ,harvesting. During harvesting 100 kg- 150 kg/hectare maize was lost and
/80Kg -100kg/hectare of sorghum were lost due to crop raiding wildlife animals (Table 6).
Table6. Key Informants report about estimated crop loss bywild animals.
Crop raiders Crop raided estimated crop loss per
hectare during harvesting
Average
Cost loss
baboons Maize 100kg –150kg 4000 birr
39. 29
monkeys
Bush pigs
Porcupines
Warthdog
baboons
monkeys
Wild pigs
Quella birds
Sorghum 80kg-100kg 1500 birr
4.3Problems encounter the local community due to crop raiding wild animals
About12 ( 38.3% ) of the respondents mentioned that in addition to crop damaged by wild animals,
there were also injury to humans while on guarding. However, 61.7% (18) of the respondents
reported that neither the problem of injury nor loss of livestock encounter them by crop raider wild
animals.
4.4 Crop raiding wild animal management
Respondents mentioned that the local community used several methods to protect the crops from
crop raiding wild animals (Table 7)
Table 7. Respondents report about local methods used to deter mine crop raiding wild animals
Crop Crop raiders Local methods used to determine crop raiding wildlife
Anubis baboon - Personal guarding (chasing, culling, dog ,hunting, photo
likes hunter with cloths
- Clearing forest, Noise deterrence, mimicking objects and
40. 30
Maize firewood.
Wild pigs - Personal guarding (chasing)
- Thorny fence, smoking, perfumes or soaps and mimicking
objects
Porcupine - Personal guarding ,
- Smoking, perfumes/ and mimicking objects, perfumes, soap
Sorghum Monkey - Personal guarding (chasing)
- Smoking and Noise deterrence
Wild pigs - Personal guarding
- Thorny fence, smoking, soaps, perfumes
Quella birds - Personal guarding
- Throwing stone and noise deterrence
Sweet
potato,
Potato
tuber
monkey - Personal guarding
- Smoking and mimicking objects
Wild pigs - Personal guarding
- Smoking, thorny fence
Porcupine - Personal guarding
- Smoking, soaps or perfumes and mimicking objects
Coffee apes - Personal guarding (chasing)
monkey - Personal guarding (chasing)
4.5Trends in crop damage severity for the last five years
About21(70%) of the respondents reported that a number of some wildlife populations increasing
for the last ten years as a result of reduced illegal hunting while8(26.7%) of the respondents
mentioned that the population number of wildlife in the study area decreases for the past five years
because of illegal hunting. However, about 1 (3.3%) of the respondents reported that trends in crop
damage by wild animals neither increased nor decreased for the past fiveyears (Table 8). Therefore
41. 31
the result of this study showed that there was association between the number of wildlife
populations with the incidence of crop raided by wild animals(chi-square =3.23, df=l, p > 0.05).
P=0.07
Table8.Percentage of respondents about trends in population number of crop damaging
wildlife and trends in crop damage severity over the past ten years in Laaloo qilee
District
Trends in population number of crop raider
wild life and trends in crop damage
Increases Decreases I do not know
Population number of crop damaging
wildlife
70% (21) 26.7%(8) 3.3% (1)
4.6 Attitude of local community toward crop raiding wild animals
From the findingabout17 (56.7%)of the respondents indicated that the local community in the study
area had negative attitude toward crop raiding wildlife animals because wild animals damaged their
crop, attack them and kill their livestock while10(33.3%) of the respondents showed that local
farmers developed positive attitude toward crop damaging wild animals. However, 3(10%) of the
respondents did not give response whether farmers had positive nor negative attitude toward crop
damaging wildlife (Table 9).
Table 9. Percentage of respondent attitude toward crop raider wild animals
Attitude Percentage Number
Negative attitude 56.7 17
Positive attitude 33.3 10
Don’t know 10 3
Total 100 30
42. 32
4.7 Distance of farmlands from residences
Most of the respondents of the study area reported thatas the distance between farmers residence
and farmlands increases, crop damage by wild animal increases and if the distance between home
and farm land decreases, crop loss by wildlife decreases because near farm lands easily guarded by
women and children without fear than distant farmlands (Table 10).
Table10. Percentage of the respondents report about distance of farmlands fromresidences
Distance of farmlands from residence (km) Percentage (number)
O< lkm 26.6%(8)
1 km – 2km 23.3% (7)
2km – 4km 20%(6)
3km – 4km 20% (6)
>4km 10% ( 3)
Total 100%
About26.6%(8) of the respondents reported that proximity of farmlands to the forest edge increases
field crop damaged by wild animals while23.3% (7)of the respondents reported that proximity of
farmlands to the forest edge does not increases field crop damage by wild animals. However, 6(25
%) of the respondent proximity of farmlands to the forest edge neither increases nor decreases crop
raiding by wild animals (Table 11).
Table11. Percentage of respondents about the effect of near farmlands to the forest edge on
the extent of crop raiding by wild animals
Do you think that proximity of farmlands to
the forest edge increases or decreases crop
raiding by wild animals?
Increases Decreases
43. 33
Percentage 26.6%(8) 23.3% (7)
4.8. Support expected from the governmental representative to secure crop loss by wildlife
About26 (87.7%)of the respondents suggested that the local community wanted training from the
district agricultural office regarding how to use appropriate local methods to reduce crop loss and
felt the need for the government to intervene by providing necessary materials, legalizing killing of
more populated adult crop raider wildlife and require inspection from the governmental authorities
per month to follow up the extent of crop damaged on the farmland to provide incentive to more
suffered farmers.
4.9.target group discussion
During the focus group discussion, it was indicated that there is considerable increasing population
growth rate of humans as a result demand for natural resource will continue and this in turn in
destruction of wildlife habitats. Therefore, wildlife lacks enough food in the habitats and this forced
wild animals to feed on field crops. This indicated that there was high crop damage by wildlife on
the farmlands of the local communities in the study area. Other factors like increasing wildlife
population, distance of farm lands from residences, proximity to forest edge and children based
guarding field crops were also increased crop raiding by wildlife. As it was reported during focus
group discussion top wild animals which caused Sevier crop damage were monkeys, wild pigs,
warthogs and porcupine and crops which were highly damaged were maize and sorghum. The most
crop raider wild life was Anubis baboon because this animal it will take a whole range and diversity
of foods. Most crops in this study area were targeted by wildlife from newly sown seed to the time
the cobs are mature. Maze and sorghum more seriously damaged the time before crops mature.
However, other crops that experienced less damage were finger millet, barely, sesame,
During discussion it was suggested that the majority of local community of the study area develop
negative attitude toward crop damaging wildlife and this in turn result in reduced local support for
conservation and increasing retailer killing of wild life, which increased vulnerability of wildlife
populations. Therefore it was good to educate local community to develop tolerance behavior in
order to save the life of wildlife animals to address conservation goals.
44. 34
The local communities of the study area the problem encountered them by crop raiding wild
animals is not only crop raiding but also creation of an environment of fear while guarding, injury,
threats to economic security and livestock killing. These are further result in impoverishment of the
poor, reduced local support for conservation and increasing wild life killing. To reduce crop loss
caused by crop raider animal local communities adopt several measures but personal guarding was
indicated to be the primary and most effective means of guarding against pest mammals. In addition
to guarding other methods used were fire wood, thorny fences, cleaning vegetation, illegal hunting
and mimicking objects (scaring system). The smell originating from the perfume /soaps gave the
false feeling of the presence of human beings in the field which act as a deterrent to the wild pigs
and porcupine. This method was only effective for few days.
Finally, as it was indicated during focus group discussion the local communities felt the need or
support from the governmental representatives how to deter crop raider wildlife using local methods
support by training to use an integrated methods to reduce the effect of crop loss and need
supervision per month to follow up the extent of crop damage to plan a short term measure and
along term measure to solve the problems of crop raiding by wildlife. The participants also
explained that creating education is also very important to promote an awareness of the significance
of the crop raiding wildlife, their conservation status , how humans can help protect them showing
an interest in the animals themselves and initiate local community schemes to increase dialogue and
promote positive benefits.
4.10. Interview with key informant farmers
During the interview of key informant farmers, it was indicated that crop raiding by wildlife is
greatest during wet season, but it does occur throughout the year. In particular maize and sorghum
were seems to be targeted and highly damaged crops by four top ranked crop raiding wildlife. The
four top crop raiders were ranked monkey (1st
), wild pigs (2nd
), apes (3rd
) and hippopotamus which
is differ from the rank which was given by the respondents in the appendix one based on the extent
of crops damage. It was fond out that crop raiding was adversely affecting the livelihoods, may
cause injury and livestock killing of the majority of the local communities in the study sites.
Livelihood was associated with food security, income, leisure time of individuals and social
relationship among neighbors.
45. 35
This had shown wild animals contribute to food security problem which further determines the
livelihoods of the local communities. As it was reported during interview the major causes of crop
raiding were proximity of farmlands to the forest edge, followed by increased habitat destruction,
increasing wildlife populations due to reduced illegal hunting, poor guarding methods and distance
of farm lands from residences. Because of all of the above factors wild animals have resorted to
raiding on crops which are actually grown field that was originally occupied by wildlife. To reduce
crop loss increasing vigilance by farmers is very important method to deter wild animals. This has
shown to make a considerable difference in the amount of crop lost and increasing farmer tolerance
to crop raiders for the lost crops.
46. 36
5. DISCUSSION
The result of the study showed that habitat distraction, increasing the number of population of
primates (monkey, apes and pig ), distance of farmlands from residences proximity of farmlands to
the forest edge and guarding of crops usually by children and women, were the major factors cause
crop raiding by wildlife in the study area.
The majority of respondents mentioned that due to the expansion of cultivated land in to previous
wild life habitat, crop raiding is becoming one of the most common conflicts antagonizing human-
wildlife relations as result increasing demand for land and the declining productivity of the already
cultivated land, local communities in Birbir protected forest along Southern edge of district are
looking to virgin lands especially forests, which they believe to be more fertile than their own land,
to increase their agricultural productivity.
During focus group discussion with the participants it was indicated that wild animals in the study
area especially primates their population number increases from time to time but other crop raiders
like bush pigs, warthogs and porcupine their population number in comparison with the last ten
years somewhat improved this is because at the present time legal measures taken on any illegal
hunting of wild animals as a result there is declining in illegal hunting activities. The result of this
study in agreement with the finding of Frank (2012) although there is a general concern over
declining of wild animal population, particularly in tropical ecosystems, some species of wild
animals may actually be increasing in numbers because of the subsequent decline in poaching.
Farmers in the study area used different methods simultaneously to protect their property from
predators and crop raiders. Sometimes local people may kill wild animals in response to crop
damage, livestock depredation, and threat to humans even if they knew it is illegal. Similarly, the
local communities in Gera district, Southwestern Ethiopia used guarding, chasing, fencing,
scarecrow, and smoking to reduce crop damage and livestock predation (Gobosho et al., 2015).
Farmers in Kenya also used different crop protection methods simultaneously depending on the type
of raiders involved (Musyoki, 2014).In particular, cultivation in forest areas by travelling long
distance which at the same time act as wild habitats in the area increasingly leading to conflict with
crop damaging wildlife and reduce effort to guard crops.
47. 37
The result of study showed that the type of crop damaged and the type of wildlife involved in crop
raiding differ from place to place. This result in agreement with the finding of Datiko and Bekele
(2011), the number and type of damaged caused by wildlife vary based on the species, the time of
year, and crop raiding species. Olive baboons raid farms more frequently than other species of wild
life do.
The result of the study indicated that maize and sorghum were the most raided crops of the study
site while , barely and sesame crops were less susceptible to crop raiding wildlife. Maize daguja and
sorghum are the two most frequently cultivated field crops within the community, and they form the
basis of most household meals and these crops were highly damaged by wildlife. The result of the
study dis- agrees with the finding of Muluken (2014) report about crops which were highly damaged
by wildlife like maize, sugar cane and Enset in Wondo Genet District.
The result of the finding from the study site revealed that thetop problematic crop raiding wild
animals were olive baboon, bushpigs, monkey, and porcupine. However this study differs from other
studies which were carried out by different researchers in Chehaworeda of Guraghe zone and
Wondo Genet district. According to Muluken (2014) the top six animals responsible for the most
damage to crops were determined to be Olive baboons, warthog, wild pig, grivet monkey; porcupine
and molerat. The result of this study also disagrees with the finding of Daganeet al. (2015) about
species of animals which damage crops in ChehaworedaofGuragh zone which include grivet
monkey, porcupine, antelopes, warthogs and wild pigs as the major crop raiders.
Restriction of access to wildlife resources, penalties as a result of illegal grazing and illiteracy can
result in unfavorable perceptions toward wildlife conservation among local people in the present
study. This is in line with the findings of Gezahagn et al. (2014) and Shi et al. (2010), who reported
that restricting access to wildlife resources and enforcing punishments have a negative impact on the
perception of the local people.The present day study also indicated that crop raiding by wildlife
animals affects subsistence farmers directly through the loss of their primary food and cash
resources and indirectly through a variety of social costs (Hill, 2009).
From the result of the finding the most commonly used crop protection strategy was constant
guarding of the farm throughout the cropping season.local societies reported guarding their farm
throughout the day and night by patrolling their fields, actively chasing the wild animals especially
primates away from the farms using dog guarding. Among these the chasing and scaring system
48. 38
common method in all areas in which humans uses impersonating as a way to frighten primates.
During the day time women and children scare away invading pest mammals by shouting at the
animal and by throwing objects, sticks and spears at the crop raiders. In the study site of Birbir
protected forest, Lalo kile district guarding most often carried out by children which increase crop
raiding frequency by wild animals. The result of the finding disagreed with the finding of Hill
(2000) successful guarding required that people in the fields for long periods of the day throughout
the seasons when there were vulnerable crops in the ground most of the year.
During target group discussion the participants indicated that there was absence of using buffer
zone between forest edge and farmland as one factor which aggravates crop damage by wildlife.
TheimpactofHWCmayvaryaccordingtoconflicttypes and the degree of tolerance by humans. People
do not want to tolerate animals that kill their livestock and humans. Various human-wildlife
relations occur that are highly tied to local communities and indigenous lifestyles, in various ways.
During focus group discussion and key informant interview, it was reported that the local
communities felt need of support from the governmental authorities to provide them support moral
and material support to reduce crop loss in the area. The result of the finding supports the finding of
Noughton-Tereves (1998) and Hoare (1999) most studies on human wildlife conflict are based on
surveys examining perceptions of the problem held by local people. However it is recognized that
perceived an actual extent of conflicts do not match, an exaggeration of the extent of damage is
therefore the consequence. Therefore, careful documentation of economic losses is essential in order
to assess the extent of human wild lifeconflicts in the country , seemingly in the surrounding
regions.
49. 39
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
CONCLUSION
As indicated by the current study, where subsistence farming is a major income source of the
conflict could occur between humans and wildlife. Therefore, losing their property and human
threats due to wild animals may sometimes lead the local people to kill wild animals intentionally
and develop unfavorable perceptions toward wild animals. Moreover, habitat destruction for
subsistence farming, overgrazing, and proximity to wildlife habitat were the major factors.
Seemingly by the local societies in the study area of Lalo Kile district used farm lands which far
from residences and closer to forest edge , for this reason the researcher interested to conduct the
study because the problem of HWC is more serious there as the main factor accounting for the
reduction crop production in an area.
The result of the study indicated that types of crops damaged and types of wild animals which
damage crops differ from place to place. Thus the most problematic wild animals of the study area
were Monkey ,wild pigs, apes , Hipoppotamus and porcupine ranked as the most destructive crop
raiders in the study area while , warthogs and Quella birds were ranked least crop raider wild
animals. Field crops are the most raided crops as compared to cash crops. Forinstance maize is the
most raided crops by animals while Daguja and Sorghum is the second raided crop,also potato
among the most raided crops identified in the study area. However,, rice, barely and sesame were
the less vulnerable to crop raiding wildlife.
Conflictsbetweenhumans and wild animals are recognized as major issues in
conservationofwildlifespecies.Differenttypesofencroachment in areas adjacent to protected areas in
Ethiopia have been widely documented. My research report discussed the trend, status, biological
components, drivers, and management intervention of HWC findings in Ethiopia seemingly in the
surrounding regions.
The finding showed that there is a high incidence of crop raiding attributed mostly to neighboring
the forest. Furthermore increased habitat destruction, high population of wild animals, poor guarding
methods and distance of farm lands from residences have also contributed to increased crop raiding
by wildlife. At present time the reason wild animal increases due to reduced illegal hunting.
50. 40
HWC is the causes of poverty as result farmers lose a lot of income per season to crop raiders for
instance during harvesting season maize loss was huge in number in Laaloo Qilee district.
Nonetheless, food shortages and loss of income caused by crop raiders were not the only factors
affecting people’s livelihoods other factors like high population growth, over dependence on
subsistence farming among others. This study has shown that crop damage by wildlife affect farmers
yield obtained from crop. Therefore farmers in the study areas mostly used traditional ,non-lethal
measures to secure their crop from wild animals. The most widely used measures were personal
guarding which includes dog guarding, legal rifles and swards or local chasing and noise materials.
Guarding field crops most often carried out by children. This is the main reason which increases
crop damage in the study site. Therefore it important to guard field crop by experienced adult men in
order to reduce the effects crop loss.
During the target group And Key Informants interview stated that the main ideas to be performed
were local societies have to develop tolerance behavior to crop damage to mitigates the effects of
crop loss and also farmers have to use appropriate guarding methods, growing crops which are not
highly damaged by crop raiders like rice, teff, barely and finger millet, using buffer zone,
considering time of cultivation and adjusting season for cropping with others to reduce the effect of
crop loss in order to make guarding crop most effective. Damage in the study areas at the worst
stage and this problem has to be reported to the governmental authorities in order to provide
guarding materials, to educate local populations how to determine crop raiders, to legalizing killing
of wildlife and to introduce compensation schemes.
6.2. Recommendations
The study has Shawn that crop damage by wildlife affects farmers income. This can leads to an
increased negative human attitude toward crop loss. The selected farmers their farmlands located
far from their home and near the forest edge, as a result there will be some risk of crop loss
ameliorating these losses and evaluating local tolerance for wildlife incursion will require a
sophisticated blend of technical, social and economic interventions.
From the result of this study, the following recommendations were made to help to reduce the effect
of the crop raiding Led to human wild life conflicts .Recommendations given to mitigate the effects
of crop loss categorized as short term measures and long term measures.
51. 41
Short term measures to reduce crop loss by wild animals are:
Organizing the local societies to defend from their crop in wisely way
Moving wild animals to another place from the conflict area by the indigenous knowledge..
Painting white or red color and releasing to frighten troop members by mamma king to the
other animals.
Police makers of the concerned bodies should implement benefit from the forest in a wise
way.
Cooperative guarding method should be encouraged.
Adult men base guarding method should be encouraged.
Long term measures to mitigate crop loss by wild animals are:
Local societies shouldbe aware in order to live proper way in Ecosystem by using
Indigenous knowledge.
To provide in minimizing the impact of HWC is through the provision of compensation for
the losses arising from the conflicts to improve attitudes toward wildlife and enhance their
survival
Farmers should have to aware the time at which crops damaged by wildlife.
Farmers should not use local method which harms wild animals.
To minimize crop loss to wildlife investing high guarding investments and highly palatable
seasonal crops such as maize and sorghum should not be grown near the forest edge.
Local societies should be encouraged to adjust timing of plowing toharvesting time to
minimize crop loss by wild life rather than conflicting with wild animals.
Ecological concern related laws proclamation;strategy should be enforced to minimize
encroachment and forest harassment and habitatdestruction.
It is important to change attitudes of local farmers toward crop raiders.
Farmers should be encouraged to use combination guarding methods including buffer zone
chasing mimicking of men photo against the wild habitats .
A lot expected from the study areas agricultural office workers to do more and more to
educate local community to mitigate the problem, to use buffer zone and to provide
appropriate compensation schemes.
52. 42
Indeed my research recommended for the detailed quantification or estimation of the area
population of wildlife, in order to assess the extent of damage and estimation of economic on
environmental values of the damaged by the wild animals internationally as well regional ,
seemingly in Birbir protected forest , Lalo kile district , western oromia.
53. 43
7. REFERENCES
Adams, W. (1996).Future Nature: A vision for Conservation London, UK: Earth scan.
Agriculltural office of Lalo kilen district
Barnes, R. (2007). Crop Raiding Elephants and the Moon. Afr. J. Ecol., 45; 112-115
Biquand, S.(1992). The Distribution of Papiohamadryas in Saudi Arabia: Ecological Correlates and
Human Influence. In t. J. primatol13 (3): 233-243.
Chetri, B. (2004). Securing protected Area Integrity and Rural peoples Livelihoods: lessons from
Twelve years of kibale and semiliki Conservation and Development project.
Conover, M.(2002). R
esolving Human Wildlife Conflicts the Science of Wildlife Damage Management, Lewis Publishers,
New York, 418 p.
CSA, (2007).Ethiopian Population Census.
,D.J.Decker,L.H.Carpenteretal.,“Theessenceof wildlife management,” Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol.
30, pp. 585–593, 2002.
Demeke Datiko and Afework Bekele (2011).Population Status and Human Impact on the
Endangered Sywayne’s Hartebeest (Alcelaphusbuselaphus swaynei) in Nechisar Plains,
Nechisar National Park, Ethiopia.Afri. J. Ecol.,49:311-319.
Dickman, (2008).Key Determinants of Conflict between People and Wildlife Particularly Large
Carnivores Around Ruaha National Park Tanzania.PhD Thesis, University College London
(UCL) and Institute of Zoological Society of London.
Elisabeth, B. (2007). Extreme Book series Geography for Grade Eleven and Twelve.Pp.137, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Eniang, E. (2011). Assessment of Human Wildlife Conflicts in Fling a Range of Gashaka Gumit
National Park, Nigeria PAT., 1: 15-35.
FAO, (2010).Managing Conflict between People and Lion, Review and Insights from the Literature
and Field experience.
54. 44
Fuentes, A. (2005). Monkey Forests and Human Land Scapes: Is Extensive Sympatric Sustainable
for Homo sapiens and Macacafasicularis in Bali: In Commensalism and Conflict: The
Primate-Human Interface. J. Patterson and J. Wallised eds. Ameri. Soci.Primato.,Pub.PP.
168- 195.
Fuentes, A. and Wolfe, L. (2002). Monkeys, Humans and Politics in the Mentawi Islands: No
Simple Solutions in A complex world In: Fuentes A, Wolfe LD, Editors. Primates Face to
Face. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pp 187-207.
LKDADO, (2018 G.C).Lalo kile Agricultural Development Office, lALO.
Hill, C. (2000). Conflict of Interest between People and Baboons: Crop raiding in Uganda. Intl. J.
Primato., Vol. 21 and No.2.
Hill, C. (2002). Human- Wildlife Conflict: Identifying the Problem and Possible Solutions.
Albertine Rift Technical reports series vol. 1, wildlife Conservation society.
Hill, C. (1997).Crop Raiding by Wild Vertebrates: the Farmers Perspective in Agricultural
Community in Western Uganda. Int.J.pest.mgt .,43(1):77-84.
Hoare, R. (2000). African Elephants and Humans in Conflict: the Outlook for Co-existence.
Kagiri, J. (2000). Human Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya: A conflict Resolution Concept. Farmers
Perspective 43-45.
Kimega, G. (2003). Un Resolved Human wildlife Conflict in Kenya.The Source of Misery and
Poverty. Ecofiles, Nairobi PP. 97-102.
Lamaarque, F. (2009).Human Wildlife Conflict in Africa Cause, Consequence and Management
Strategies.
Land and Environmental office of Lalo kilen district
Lee, p. and Priston,N.(2005) .Human Attitude to Primates : perception of Pests ,Conflict and
Conquences for Conservation ,Commensalism and Conflict : the Primate Human Interface.
J.D. Paterson. Winniipeg, Manitoba, Hignell Printing.
Madden, F. (2004). Creating Coexistence between Human and wildlife, GlobalPerspectives on
Local Efforts to Address Human. Wildlife Conflict, Human Dimension of Wildlife, 9:247-
257.
55. 45
Madden, F. (2008). The Growing Conflict between Humans and wildlife; Law and Policy as
Contributing and Mitigating Factors.Int. J. Wildlife Law and policy, 11: 189-206.
Messmer, T. ( 2009). Human Wildlife Conflicts: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. Jack H.
Berryman Institute, Utah State University, terrym@ext.usu.edu.
Muluken Mukuyie (2014). Case Study in Wondo Genet District, Southern Ethiopia.
Naught on- Treves, L. (1997). Vulnerable Places and People Around Kibale National Park, Uganda.
Geographical Review 87: 27-47
Naught on Treves, L. (1998). Temporal Patterns of Crop Raiding by Primates: Linking Food
Availability in Crop Lands and Adjacent Forest. J. Appl. Ecol.35: 596-606.
Naught on –Treves, L. (1999). Whose animals? A history of Property Rights Wildlife Toro, Western
Uganda Land Degradation and Development 10: 311- 324.
Paterson, J. (2005). Commensalism and Conflict: The Primate Human Interface.
Ameri.Soci.Primato.Pub.PP.156-160.
Quirin, C. (2005). Crop Raiding by wild vertebrates in the Ilubabor zone, Ethiopia.
Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Switzer, D. (2001). Crop Raiding Primates: Searching for Alternatives,
Human way to Solve Conflict with Farmers in Africa People and wildlife Initiative, wildlife
Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University.
Strum, S. (1987). Almost Human: Ajourney in to the World of Baboons. New York, N.Y: Random
House.
Stuart, C. (1998). Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa. Ralf Curtis Books, sanibel Island
Florida.
Sukumar, R. (1990). Ecology of the Asian Elephant in Southern India. II. Feeding Habits and Crop
Raiding Patterns. J. Trop. Eco. 6:33-53.
Tchamba, M. (1996). History and Present Status of Human (Elephant Conflict in the Wazaloone
Region, Cameroon, West Africa. Biol. Consv. 75: 35-41.
A. Treves and K. U. Karanth, “Human carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management
worldwide,” Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1491–1499, 2003.8. APPENDICES
