| |

Received: 11 August 2021    Revised: 23 May 2022    Accepted: 22 June 2022

DOI: 10.1111/aje.13049

S H O R T C O M M U N I C AT I O N

Promoting harmony between local people and wild animals

around the Humbo Community Managed Forest area, southern
Ethiopia

Samuel Oyda | Wondimagegnehu Tekalign  | Aberham Megaze

Department of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia

Correspondence
Wondimagegnehu Tekalign, Department of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Wolaita Sodo University, PO Box 138, Wolaita Sodo,
Ethiopia.
Email: wondimagegnehubeyene@gmail.com

1  |  I NTRO D U C TI O N
Human-­wildlife conflict is a rising global problem that is a serious
issue in Africa and other developing areas of the world, where human
population growth is rapid (Gobosho et al.,  2016; Lwankomezi &
Abwe,  2016). Consequently, the habitat available for wildlife is
shrinking, triggering increased contact between humans and ani-
mals (Blair, 2008). Crop damage is a major source of conflict in com-
munities adjacent to protected areas (Angela et al., 2014; Mwamidi
et al., 2012). This is also evident in Ethiopia, where crop raiding is be-
coming an increasing problem for those communities living adjacent
to wildlife habitats (Murray & Admasu, 2013; Reddy & Sema, 2014;
Wilfred, 2010).
Understanding the factors influencing the community's attitudes
is essential for designing strategies to alleviate the conflict (Larson
et al., 2016). Zaffar et al. (2015) described how, in order to reduce
the negative attitudes of the local community towards wildlife con-
servation and to minimise crop damage and livestock predation, ap-
propriate mitigation measures should be identified and utilised. In
Humbo, southern Ethiopia, the local communities are suffering from
crop loss, livestock depredation, and fear of wild animals (Lemma &
Tekalign, 2020; Oyda, 2017). Even though they have been using var-
ious indigenous mitigation measures, such as making noise, throw-
ing objects, scarecrows, using fire, guarding dogs, spears, traps, and
killing animals, the problem persists (Oyda, 2017). Therefore, it was
crucial to investigate the causes of human-­wildlife conflict in order
to understand the drivers of persistent human-­wildlife conflict and
promote the sustainable coexistence of the local community and the
existing wildlife.
2  |  M E TH O DS A N D M ATE R I A L S
2.1  |  The study area
The Humbo Community Managed Forest area is one of the recently
declared areas in southern Ethiopia, which is located about 420 km
south of the capital, Addis Ababa. It covers an area of 796 hec-
tares. It is situated between 6°46″48.47 and 6°41″04.28N and from
37°48″35.44 to 37°55″14.51E (Negewo et al., 2016; Figure 1). The
total population of the area is estimated at 162,000. The principal
ethnic groups of people found around the study area are the Wolaita
ethnic groups.
Mixed agricultural practices are the only livelihood for the bulk
of the inhabitants. Thus, the land-­use practice is predominantly tra-
ditional, shifting cultivation and livestock rearing. The vegetation of
the district can be classified as woodland savannah with dry wood-
land forest types (Kuma & Shibru, 2015). The existing wild animals in
the forest area are as follows: Anubis baboon (Papio anubis), Warthog
(Phacochoerus aethipicus), Bushpig (Potamochoerus larvatus), Vervet
Monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops), Porcupine (Hystrix cristata), Leopard
(Panthera pardus), Jackal (Canis adustus), Hyena (Crocuta crocuta), and
Serval (Leptailurus serval). Farmers grow mainly maize (Zea mays),
peas (Pisum sativum), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), sweet potatoes

|
1374    © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aje Afr J Ecol. 2022;60:1374–1379.
 |

13652028, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.13049 by Wolaita Sodo University, Wiley Online Library on [01/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
OYDA et al.       1375

F I G U R E 1  A location map of the study

area

(Ipomoea batatas), enset (Ensete ventricosum), cassava (Manihot escu-
lenta), teff (Eragrostis tef), and different leguminous plants.
2.2  |  Methods
Data were collected between October 2017 and April 2018. The
three kebeles (the smaller administrative unit) were identified with
the 2040 targeted population, which included households, develop-
ment agents, kebele, and cooperative leaders between the ages of
18 and 80 years. A random sampling approach was used to select
respondents from the three kebeles, and the survey sample size was
calculated according to the formula by Bartlett and Chadwick (2001):
N = the total population.
d = the degree of accuracy desired (0.05).
The information was gathered using both closed-­ended and
open-­ended questionnaires. The study area has seven neighbouring
kebeles, from which three kebeles (Bossa Wanche, Bolla Wanche,
and Abela Shoya) were selected based on their distance from the
forest. Fifteen villages were selected from the three selected kebe-
les, ranging from 0 to 4 km apart from the boundary of the forest.
The villages and households were selected by using a random sam-
pling approach.
A total of 322 households were involved in the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was translated into the local language (‘Wolaytegna’).
Ten to fifteen participants from each kebele, developmental agents,
cooperatives, elderly people, and kebele leaders were involved in

n0 = Z ∗
(P)(q)
2 n1 FGD. The collected data were analysed using SPSS version 20 soft-
→ ( ) = n0 .
d2 1 + n0 ∕ N ware. A chi-­square test and descriptive analysis were used.

Since the population size of the study area is estimated at 2040

and >2000, the sample size will be 322. 3  |  R E S U LT S

n
n1 = ( 0 ) n0 = 322∕1 + 322∕2040 = 322 3.1  |  Demographic profiles of respondents
n
1 + N0
A total of 322 respondents from the three kebeles [Bossa Wanche
Here: (49.4%, n  =  159), Bolla Wanche (28.3%, n  =  91), and Abela Shoya
When the population is greater than 10,000, n 0 = desired sample (22.4%, n = 72)] were involved (Table 1). The respondents with in-
size. creasing education levels had more positive attitudes towards wild-
n1  =  population correction factors with a finite population of life. The distance of the respondents from the border of the forest
<100,000. ≤0.5 km up to 1 km was 150 (46.6%), between 1 and 2.5 km was 90
Z = standard normal deviation (1.96 at 95% confidence). (28.0%), from 2.5 to 3.5  km was 45 (14.0%), and >3.5  km was 37
P  =  0.1 (proportion of the population to be included in the (11.5%). The main sources of income for most of the respondents
sample, i.e., 10%). (n = 134, 41.6%) were crop farming, 18.6% (n = 60) were engaged in
q = 1−P, i.e., (0.5). livestock production, and 39.8% (n = 128) mixed sources of income,
 |

13652028, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.13049 by Wolaita Sodo University, Wiley Online Library on [01/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1376      OYDA et al.

TA B L E 1  Socio-­demographic information and attitudes of the respondents

Attitudes of the respondents

Category Variables Respondents Percentage Positive Negative Neutral

Sex Male 222 68.9 171 46 5

Female 100 31.1 64 30 6
Age 20–­45 156 48.4 123 29 4
46–­65 127 39.4 86 37 4
66–­8 0 39 12.1 26 10 3
Educational status Illiterate 33 10.2 27 6 0
Literate 1–­4 65 20.2 43 20 2
5–­8 125 38.8 88 32 5
9–­12 86 26.7 66 17 3
≥12 13 4.0 11 1 1
Marital status Single –­ –­ –­ –­ –­
Married 322 100 –­ –­ –­

TA B L E 2  Causes of conflict between

Causes of human-­wildlife conflict
humans and wildlife in the villages
Crop Livestock Property Human
Villages damage depredation damage attacks Total

Shosha 28 2 1 1 32
Lewit 22 3 4 3 32
Hagaza 21 9 0 2 32
Andinet 27 4 0 1 32
Tesfa 24 5 2 0 31
Tiya 13 5 1 0 19
Suriya 10 7 0 0 17
Shako 12 5 0 2 19
Womba 12 5 1 0 18
Torojiya 14 3 1 0 18
Fana 13 0 2 0 15
Korobita 9 6 0 0 15
Tazaz 14 0 1 0 15
Terara 15 0 0 0 15
Ediget 12 0 0 0 12
Total N = 246 N = 54 N = 13 N = 9 N = 322

such as crop farming, livestock keeping, fattening of cattle, and
beekeeping.
3.2  |  Causes of human-­wildlife conflict and
possible solutions
The majority of the respondents (76.4%, n = 246) pointed out that
crop damage was a cause of human conflict with wildlife, while live-
stock depredation (16.8%, n = 54), property damage (4.0%, n = 13),
and human fear, injury, and death (2.8%, n = 9) were the other causes
(Table  2). The types of crops damaged by wildlife included maize
(84.8%, n = 273), enset (0.6%, n = 2), teff (0.3%, n = 1), sweet potato
(8.1%, n = 26), and legumes (6.2%, n = 20; Table 3). The extent of
crop loss in quintals per year by the wild animals was determined
by the size of productive land reported by the respondents within
the range of crop loss of 1–­10% (23.6%), 11–­20% (31.4%), 21–­30%
(31.7%), and 31–­55% (13.4%). According to the respondents, the
most common types of wildlife involved in the crop damage were
the Anubis baboon (45.3%, n  =  146), Common warthog (14.9%,
n = 48), Bush pig (14.6%, n = 47), Vervet monkey (13.7%, n = 44), and
Porcupine (11.5%, n = 37).
 |

13652028, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.13049 by Wolaita Sodo University, Wiley Online Library on [01/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
OYDA et al.       1377

TA B L E 3  Crop types harmed by wild

Percentage of respondents on crop types damaged
animals (N = 322) Distance of villages
(km) Maize Enset Teff Sweet potato Legumes

< 0.5–­1 41.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.9

>1–­2.5 21.7 0.6 0.3 3.1 2.2
>2.5–­3.5 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.9
>3.5 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
Total 84.8% 0.6% 0.3% 8.1% 6.2%

TA B L E 4  Threats to wildlife conservation and possible solutions

Solutions for the threats of wildlife conservation

Wildlife conservation Compensation for Training farmers in Implementing land use

threats the loss Leaving buffer zone off-­farming management Total

Agricultural expansion 39 11 39 36 125

Lack of sufficient food 15 9 16 12 52
Population growth 28 3 15 21 67
Grazing pressure 13 8 7 20 48
Nothing 13 3 5 9 30
Total respondents 108 34 82 98 322

All respondents confirmed the occurrence of predation of do-
mestic animals and listed the responsible animals, such as leopard
(8.7%, n = 28), serval (12.4%, n = 40), hyena (14.0%, n = 45), jackal
(53.4%, n  =  172), Anubis baboon (10.9%, n  =  35) and others, such
as mongoose and caracal (0.6%, n  =  2). The numbers of predated
domestic animals within the last 2 years were diverse, such as chick-
ens (53.4%), goats (29.5%, n  =  105), sheep (8.4%, n  =  71), calves,
and heifers (5.6%, n  =  16), cows and oxen (3.1%, n  =  9). Most of
the livestock depredation occurred during the daytime. The majority
of the respondents (55.0%, n  =  177) were keeping their livestock
around the home; 30.4% (n = 98) of them were herding on communal
land; and the rest (14.6%, n = 47) were herding their livestock in both
of their home areas and communal land. Most (93.5%, n = 301) of
the respondents stated that there was no attack on humans by wild
animals, while 6.5% (n = 21) of them stated that there was the oc-
casional occurrence of human attacks by leopards and hyenas. The
time of the attacks was mainly at night while they were guarding
their crops and livestock.
The other causes of conflict between humans and wildlife in the
study area were habitat loss (n = 84, 26.1%), agricultural expansion
(37.0%, n  =  119), human population growth (18.6%, n  =  60), and
livestock grazing pressure (18.3%, n = 59). The identified direct and
indirect impacts of the local communities on the wildlife during the
study period were as follows: clearing of the forest (8.4%, n = 27),
disturbance (66.1%, n = 213), and intentional killing (14.0%, n = 45)
of the wildlife while guarding their crops and livestock. Only a few
of the respondents (11.5%, n = 37) replied that the residents had no
negative impact on the wildlife in their localities. The largest part
of the respondents (50.3%, n = 162) replied that the trend of con-
flict between humans and wildlife in the area was increasing, 45.3%
(n = 146) strongly increasing, and 4.3% (n = 14) unknown. The views
of the respondents did not differ significantly among the study
kebeles with respect to the trend of conflict (χ2  =  13.309, df  =  4,
p > 0.05). Only 2.8 percent (n = 9) of those who reported the impact
were satisfied with the response of the concerned bodies, whereas
the majority (87.0%, n = 280) of the respondents were not satisfied.
The respondents' attitudes towards the wild animals that cause
conflict varied (χ2  =  128.201, df  =  28, p < 0.05). The majority of
respondents' (73.0%, n  =  235) attitudes towards conserving the
wildlife in the area were positive, 23.6% (n = 76) negative, and 3.4%
(n = 11) neutral.
The local community also predicted the future possible threats
to wildlife in the forest area might be an agricultural expansion
(38.8%, n = 125), a shortage of food and water in the forest due to
the frequent drought occurrences in the area (16.1%, n = 52), human
population growth (20.8%, n  =  67), and livestock grazing pressure
(14.9%, n = 48), and 9.3% (n = 30) of the respondents thought noth-
ing about the future threats to wildlife. The communities also sug-
gested possible solutions to mitigate the threats to wildlife, such as
giving compensation for the loss (33.5%, n  =  108), leaving buffer
zones (10.6%, n = 34), and off-­farming (25.5%, n = 82), and 30.4%
(n  =  98) of the people suggested implementation of the land use
plan (Table 4).
4  |  D I S C U S S I O N
The majority of the respondents in the study area have low levels
of educational status. The study indicated that respondents with
increasing education levels have more positive attitudes towards
 |
1378      OYDA et al.
wildlife. Megaze et al. (2017) indicated that the level of education is
a major factor in the attitudes of people towards wildlife.
The identified impacts of the wildlife were crop loss, livestock
depredation, property damage, and human fear and injury. Mainly
due to crop loss, the local community may suffer from food inse-
curity. The most vulnerable crops were maize, followed by sorghum
and potatoes, and the damage was mainly caused by baboons. This
finding is similar to the study done by Shanko et al.  (2021) in the
Belo-­Bira Forest, Dawro Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia. Senthilkumar
et al. (2016) and Gobosho et al. (2015) noted that crop damage is pro-
gressively known to cause conflict between humans and crop raid-
ers, particularly across the African continent. Crop-­raiding by wildlife
has a significant impact on rural people's livelihoods by causing food
insecurity (Angela et al., 2014; Mojo et al., 2014; Tesfaye, 2015).
The most common animals responsible for crop loss were Anubis
baboon, warthog, bush pig, vervet monkey, and porcupine, similar to
the findings of Mekuyie (2014) and Kebede et al. (2016), who identi-
fied that Anubis baboons, warthogs, bushpigs, vervet monkeys, por-
cupine, and mole-­rats are responsible for the crop loss in decreasing
order. The responsible wildlife for the livestock predation were the
Anubis baboon, leopard, jackal, hyena, and serval. The studies of
Datiko and Bekele (2013) and Acha et al. (2017) at Chebera Churchura
National Park, Ethiopia have shown that hyenas, leopards, and ba-
boons were the major responsible animals for livestock predation.
Compensation for losses from wildlife predation, such as through
payment for ecosystem services schemes, due to the benefits they
share from the carbon sale obtained from the forest, may increase
people's tolerance to conflict with wildlife (Ronald et al.,  2015;
Tumusiime et al., 2011). For instance, most of the people had a posi-
tive attitude towards wildlife and the conservation of the forest area.
Also, Mamo  (2014) described that the overall attitude of the local
people towards the Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia is pos-
itive because of the benefits they are sharing from the ecosystem
services and the majority of them are supporting the park's conserva-
tion activities. However, the negative attitude should not be ignored.
According to Gathuku (2015), negative attitudes towards wildlife can
be tackled by creating awareness in the community and providing
compensation for losses. Such combined strategies, starting with
community awareness programs and providing alternative income
generation to the members of the communities of nearby protected
areas, are likely to minimise human-­wildlife conflict and improve
wildlife conservation outcomes (Datiko & Bekele,  2013; Megaze
et al., 2017). In addition, human-­wildlife conflict mitigation interven-
tions should also build on indigenous knowledge already being used
in Humbo as it has been shown that indigenous knowledge has a con-
siderable impact on effective wildlife management efforts in reduc-
ing conflict between humans and wildlife (Gathuku, 2015).
The conflict between the local people and the wild animals is one
of the main threats to the sustained existence of species and is also a
threat to the local community. If the conflict resolution is inadequate,
the attitude of the local people towards wild animal conservation will
be negative. Our finding shows that agricultural expansion, lack of
sufficient food, population growth, and livestock grazing pressure
13652028, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.13049 by Wolaita Sodo University, Wiley Online Library on [01/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
are the main driving forces for the conflict between the local people
and the wild animals in and around the study area. Therefore, giving
training to farmers in improving livestock farming systems and cre-
ating awareness among the local people on conflict mitigation strat-
egies (such as implementing a participatory management approach
to conservation, implementing capacity-­building programs for the
concerned stakeholders, designing compensation programs to cater
for the losses incurred, and implementing land use management) are
recommended as identified strategies for conflict resolution.
C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T
The authors declare no competing interests.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
The data are archived with the corresponding author and can be re-
quested by email.
ORCID
Wondimagegnehu Tekalign  https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-4721-7528
Aberham Megaze  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7417-7162
REFERENCES
Acha, A., Temesgen, M., & Bauer, H. (2017). Human-­wildlife conflicts
and their associated livelihood impacts in and around Chebera-­
Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Society and Natural Resources,
31, 1–­16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941​920.2017.1347974
Angela, M., Julius, N., Janemary, N., & Eivin, R. (2014). The impact of crop-­
raiding by wild animals in communities surrounding the Serengeti
National Park, Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity and
Conservation, 6(9), 637–­646. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2​014.​0753
Bartlett, J. W., & Chadwick, C. (2001). Organizational research:
Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information
Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–­50.
Blair, A. (2008). Human-­wildlife conflict in Laikipia, North Kenya:
Comparing official reports with the experiences of Maasai pasto-
ralists. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 89–­112.
Datiko, D., & Bekele, A. (2013). Conservation challenge: Human-­
carnivore conflict in Chebera Churchura National Park, Addis
Ababa University, Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Biological Sciences,
3(3), 108–­115.
Gathuku, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of using indigenous knowledge in
human-­wildlife conflict management in Sagala, TaitaTaveta, Kenya.
School of Physical Sciences and Technology, Department of Geo
Sciences and the Environment, in Partial Fulfillment of the Award
of Bachelor of Technology in Environment Resource Management.
Pp. 1–­75.
Gobosho, L., Feyssa, D. H., & Gutema, T. M. (2015). Identification of crop
raiding species and the status of their impact on farmer resources
in Gera, southwestern Ethiopia. International Journal of Sciences:
Basic and Applied Research, 22(2), 66–­82.
Gobosho, L., Feyssa, D. H., & Gutema, T. M. (2016). Assessment of types
of damage and causes of human-­wildlife conflict in Gera District,
southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Ecology and Natural Environment,
8(5), 49–­54. https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2​015.0543
Kebede, Y., Tekalign, W., & Menale, H. (2016). Conservation challenge:
Human-­herbivore conflict in Sodo community managed conser-
vation Forest, Wolaita Sodo Zuriya District, Southern Ethiopia.
Advances in Life Science and Technology, 44, 38–­48.

OYDA et al.
Kuma, M., & Shibru, S. (2015). Floristic composition, vegetation struc-
ture, and regeneration status of woody plant species of Oda Forest
of Humbo carbon project, Wolaita, Ethiopia. Journal of Botany,
2015, 1–­9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/963816
Larson, L. R., Conway, A. L., Hernandez, S. M., & Carroll, J. P. (2016).
Human-­w ildlife conflict, conservation attitudes, and a poten-
tial role for citizen science in Sierra Leone, Africa. Conservation
and Society, 14, 205–­217. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-­4923.​
191159
Lemma, A., & Tekalign, W. (2020). Abundance, species diversity, and dis-
tribution of diurnal mammals in Humbo community-­based Forest
area, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Zoology, 2020, 1–­5.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5761697
Lwankomezi, E. B., & Abwe, F. G. (2016). Conservation challenges and
human-­wildlife conflicts around Arusha National Park, Tanzania. A
paper presented at the 2nd international scientific conference. https://
www.acade​mia.edu/27006​0 89/
Mamo, Y. (2014). Attitudes and perceptions of the local people towards
benefits and conflicts they get from conservation of the Bale
Mountains National Park and mountain Nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni),
Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 7(1),
28–­4 0. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2​014.0792
Megaze, A., Balakrishnan, M., & Belay, G. (2017). The attitudes and
practices of local people towards wildlife in Chebera Churchura
National Park, Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity
and Conservation, 9(2), 45–­55. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2​
016.0976
Mekuyie, M. (2014). Human-­wildlife conflicts: A case study in Wondo
Genet District, Southern Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
3, 352–­362. https://doi.org/10.11648/​j.aff.20140​3 05.14
Mojo, D., Jessica, R., & Mehari, A. (2014). Farmers' perceptions of the
impacts of human-­wildlife conflict on their livelihood and natural
resource management efforts in Cheha Woreda of Gurage zone,
Ethiopia. Human-­Wildlife Interactions, 8(1), 67–­77. https://doi.
org/10.26077/​eqph-­5w63
Murray, M., & Admasu, B. (2013). Development of a marketing strategy for
wildlife tourism in Ethiopia. Unpublished Report (pp. 65).
Mwamidi, D., Mwasi, S., & Nunow, A. (2012). The use of indigenous
knowledge in minimizing human-­wildlife conflict: The case of Taita
community, Kenya. International Journal of Current Research, 4(2),
26–­3 0.
Negewo, E., Ewnetu, Z., & Tesfaye, Y. (2016). Economic valuation of
forest conserved by local community for carbon sequestration: The
case of Humbo community assisted natural regeneration reforesta-
tion carbon sequestration project; SNNPRS, Ethiopia. Unpublished
document.
|
13652028, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.13049 by Wolaita Sodo University, Wiley Online Library on [01/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
      1379
Oyda, S. (2017). Human-­wildlife conflict in Humbo community-­managed
forest area, Humbo district, Ethiopia, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita
Sodo, Ethiopia (M.Sc. thesis. Unpublished document).
Reddy, U., & Sema, W. (2014). The conflict between the conservation
of elephant and human activities: In the case of Babile elephant
sanctuary. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 7(2), 25–­29.
https://doi.org/10.5897/JGRP12.036
Ronald, O. N., John, G. M., & Justus, M. O. (2015). Untapped potential
of wildlife agricultural extension mitigation strategies in influenc-
ing the extent of human-­wildlife conflict: A case of smallholder
Agro-­pastoralists in Laikipia County, Kenya. International Journal of
Agriculture Extension, 3(1), 73–­81.
Senthilkumar, M. K., Manivannan, P. C., Jayathangaraj, M. G., &
Gomathinayagam, S. (2016). A study on the tolerance level of
farmers toward human-­wildlife conflict in the forest buffer zones
of Tamil Nadu, India. Veterinary World, 9(7), 747–­752. https://doi.
org/10.14202/​vetwo​rld.2016.747-­752
Shanko, G., Tona, B., & Adare, B. (2021). Human-­wildlife conflict around
Belo-­Bira Forest, Dawro Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia Hindawi.
International Journal of Ecology, 2021, Article ID 9944750. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2021/9944750
Tesfaye, H. (2015). Human-­wildlife interaction: wildlife crop raiding con-
flict in Ethiopia Department of Biology (Zoological Science), Adigrat
University, Ethiopia. International Journal of Science and Research,
5(6), 1–­4.
Tumusiime, D. M., Vedeld, P., & Gombya-­Ssembajjwe, W. (2011). Breaking
the law? Illegal livelihoods from a protected area in Uganda. Forest
Policy Economics, 13(4), 273–­283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forpol.2011.02.001
Wilfred, P. (2010). Towards sustainable wildlife management areas in
Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 3(1), 103–­116. https://doi.
org/10.1177/19400​82910​0 0300102
Zaffar, R. M., Athar, N., Bilal, H., & Gopi, G. V. (2015). Attitudes of local
people towards wildlife conservation: A case study from the
Kashmir Valley. International Mountain Society, 35(4), 392–­4 00.
https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-­JOURN​AL-­D-­15-­0 0030.1
How to cite this article: Oyda, S., Tekalign, W., & Megaze, A.
(2022). Promoting harmony between local people and wild
animals around the Humbo Community Managed Forest
area, southern Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology, 60,
1374–­1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13049