Ambo University

College of Natural &Computational Science

Department of biology

DETERMINANTS OF FACTORS AND MANAGEMENT PRAC-

TICES OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE IN AND AROUND CHILLIMO
FOREST DENDI DISTRICT, WEST SHEWA ZONE, OROMIA,
ETHIOPIA.
By: Shanane Milkesa I.D.No; UGE/39198/12

Advisor: Takilu Gosaye (Assistant Professor)

A Research Proposal submitted to Department of Biology for Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirement for the B.A Degree in Biology.

Ginchi, Ethiopia
June 2023

1
 DECLARATION
This is to declare that, this is my original work on the “determinants of factors and manage-
ment practices of human-wildlife in and around chillimo forest of Dendi District, west
shewa zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. “The requirement for the degree of Bachelor Science in Bi-
ology Department at Ambo University.”

Name of student ID. No Signature Date

1. Shanane Milkesa UGE/39198/ 12 ___________ _________

Supervisors’ Approval

This thesis has been submitted with our approval as university supervisors.

Advisor, _______________________ FILI.D, ____________________.

Department Biology, Ambo University

Signature _____________________ Date _____________________

Department head, _________________________

Signature ____________________________Date_________________

2
Contents
pages
DECLARATION......................................................................................................................................................ii
ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................................................vii
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the Study...................................................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the problem...................................................................................................................................3
1.3. Objective of the study;.......................................................................................................................................4
1.3.1. General objective of the study................................................................................................................4
1.3.2. Specific objective of study......................................................................................................................4
1.3.3. Significance............................................................................................................................................5
1.3.4. Scope of the study;..................................................................................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................................................6
2.1.1. HWC Management In many parts of the world,.....................................................................................6
2.2.2 Public Participation and HWC management............................................................................................7
2.2.3. Resource competition and HWC Management.......................................................................................9
2.2.4 Stakeholders participation and HWC management................................................................................10
2.2.5 Effects of wildlife compensation on HWC management;......................................................................10
2.3. Theoretical Framework;..........................................................................................................................11
2.3.1 Social Conflict Theory;..........................................................................................................................11
2.3.2 Stakeholder theory.................................................................................................................................12
2.3.3 Value Belief Norm Theory (VBN)........................................................................................................12
3. Methodology..................................................................................................................................................13
3.1. Description of the Study Area..........................................................................................................................13
3.1.1. Population.............................................................................................................................................13
3.1.2.......................................................................................................................................................Climate
........................................................................................................................................................................13
3.1.3.................................................................................................................................................Topography
........................................................................................................................................................................13
3.1.4..............................................................................................................................Socio economic activity
........................................................................................................................................................................14
3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques...................................................................................................14
Table 1. Sample size of Selected Household at Chilimo Forest..............................................................................14
3.3. Data source and data collection...............................................................................................................15
3
3.4. Method of data collection.........................................................................................................................15
3.5. Data analysis;............................................................................................................................................15
3.6. Budget Breakdown and work plan...................................................................................................................16
3.6.1. Budget Break Down..............................................................................................................................16
3.6.2. Work plan.............................................................................................................................................16
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................17
APPINDECES........................................................................................................................................................19

4
List of Tables Pages
Table 1. Sample size of Selected Household at Chilimo Forest.
3.6.1.Budget Break down13
3.6.2.Work Plan13

5
ACRONYMS
CBC: Community-based conservation

DCA: Damage causing animals

FAO: Food and agriculture organization

HWC: Human wildlife conflict

KWS: Kenya wildlife service

NNP: Nyungwe National Park

PA: Protected Areas

TAL: Terai Arc Landscape

TCA: Tsavo Conservancy Area.

6
OPERATIONAL DEFINATION OF TERMS
Social factors: Factors that concern human to human interactions within the society and that are not eco-
nomic or technical in nature.

Human Wildlife Conflict: Interactions between Human beings and wildlife that brings about losses, in-
juries, discomfort and resentment to individuals and the community.

Effective Implementation: The state of being fully completed according to specification and serving the
purpose in a sustainable manner.

Public participation: Activities that foster community ownership of HWC management process by the
local communities. Private stakeholders: Owners of Local Ranches and resident NGO’s.

Resource Competition: Competition for resources i.e Range land by groups or social classes within the
community. Compensation: Payment in cash or in kind done to a person or persons as result of HWC re-
lated damages, losses, injuries, or loss of life.

Multi-Agency: National government MDA’s and county government.

Social Inequality: The imbalance of level of influence on distribution of resources between social
classes due to social connections, literacy levels, and amount of wealth.

7
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the Study
Human Wildlife Conflict has had wide study across the World, Africa as well as in Ethiopia. As Global
view Human wildlife conflict is a threat to both Wildlife conservation and wellbeing of humans living in
subsistence-based or low-income communities especially those bordering the protected areas (El-Hajj,
Khater, Tatoni, Adam, & Errol, 2017). They represent a widespread, complex and intractable challenge to
conservation (Das, Lahkar, & Talukdar, 2012). Such conflicts are most prevalent in the tropics, where
wildlife directly competes with the booming human demand over scarce resources. Globally, human pop-
ulation growth has led to increased occupation of natural habitats by Humans, leading to greater contact
between humans and wildlife. As a result, historical respect, and reverence for some animals like ele-
phants in some cultures and societies, is rapidly eroding due to the increased HWC cases (Das et al.,
2012). All over the world, the increasing of human population has led to high demands for cultivatable
lands and conversion of forest habitat to human habitation and farmlands. This has led to extremely af -
fected animal population thus increased HWC. As a result, several activities have been undertaken, to
mitigate HWC and promote co-existence of humans and wildlife. The activities comprise a multi-dimen-
sional project targeting the local people as the main stakeholders (Das et al., 2012). In Nepal, Terai which
has been a good wildlife habitat for many years, human activities that range from farming to increased
population have with time converted better part of these habits to human settlements thus depriving
wildlife of their habitat hence creating more conservation problems to Asian wildlife. As a result wild an-
imals, about 25% of crop lost a lot of property and human life loss were took place and injuries have in -
curred because of, which in corrective face killings. Consequently, HWC mitigation plans have been im-
plemented by both the government and the community. Among the measures implemented include Elec-
tric fences, walls and ditches which prevent entry of elephants onto farms and human settlement areas in
Nepal and Asia in general. Residents also result to creating loud noises including fire crackers or drums
during the night to keep elephants away. The authorities have also relocated raiding elephants to reduce
HWC cases in Asian countries. Thus, at some point, Nepal authorities resulted to culling to reduce HWC
cases, something which saw the decline of wild animals like Elephant (Neupane, Johnson, & Risch,
2013). In Northern America, Wildlife has been blamed for causing disorders in the streets and causing ac-
cident with automobiles and as a result injuring an average of 29000 peoples annually with a financial
implication of 1 billion USD. Likewise, between 1982 and 1986, Wolves had killed over 2806 domestic
animals in Canada. In other parts of United States like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, wildlife like
Wolves had been reported to have killed over 728 domestic animals between 1987 and 2001(Pousette et
al., 2014). Similarly, in Europe, wildlife has been responsible for causing damage to both crops and
forests. This has led to labeling of some wildlife species to as "pests" thus can be killed outside the hunt-
ing season. In France in 2007, wildlife caused damage amounted to 23 million pounds. Between 2000
and 2003, over 1440 claims were made out of wildlife predation on farms (Paper, n.d.). Meanwhile, in
Australia, federal government authorizes the culling of specific wildlife due to damage on crops and do-
mestic animals i.e. about 9 million Kangaroos are eliminated each year (FAO, 2015).
8
In East Africa just like other African countries, HWC around PA's are a serious problem to conservation
stakeholders. Despite the implementation of these strategies, most of these local populations still suffer
the ineffectiveness of some of these measures.(Gloriose, 2019). In Rwanda, Nyungwe National Park
(NNP), which is one of the largest remaining forest tracts in East and central Africa and designated as a
national park in 2005 under Rwandan law, is surrounded by communities and households who depend on
agriculture as the mainstay economic activity? Wildlife also crosses the boundaries raiding the small, cul-
tivated farms prompting the shortage of food during the year, socio-economic instability, and consider-
able strain on the available natural resources. This has forced the Rwanda Development Board (RDB), to
come up with a compensation program (2012) to ease the effects of HWC among the local communities.
The compensation is done based on field pictures, assessment by agronomist and after verification of
claims by Conservation animators famously known as ANICOs for the compensating agency. This ar-
rangement has been lauded to reduce HWC cases and tensions associated with it(Gloriose, 2019). Mean-
while, local communities in Tanzania, see wildlife as a liability, a view provoked by nasty experiences
they endure through conflict with wild animals. The local communities blame Wildlife conservation for
inflicting extra cost to them through loss of access to legitimate and traditional rights, risk of wildlife
transmitted diseases among other common HWC effects. Although, Tanzania has covered considerable
economic milestones through wildlife conservation, local communities who face the brunt of HWC, bear
the cost of conservation and yet get no benefits from it. Tanzania therefore is endeavoring to contribute
wildlife resources for development of local communities, so to change the popular notion that wildlife is
a liability to them (Conservation & Kikuu, 2000). As such, Extension has been recommended for Tanza-
nia to deal with the issue HWC. (Conservation & Kikuu, 2000), quotes wildlife extension definition as ''a
methodology for generating people’s greater participation in wildlife resources management and utiliza-
tion so that local communities may benefit more from wildlife'' (Berger, 1988).

It has evolved due to the need to give deserving attention to communities adjacent to PA, and it pursues
to forest conservation action at the community level through participatory wildlife management. It also
endeavors to enhance tolerance of local communities to wildlife conservation. As such, Tanzania Game
division has instituted some pilot projects on Community Based Conservation (CBC), with the objective
to engage the local communities in wildlife conservation (Conservation & Kikuu, 2000). In Uganda,
wildlife management is under Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap 200 of 2000. The act is guided by the wildlife
policy of 1999. It established the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) as the entity responsible for wildlife
management both within and without PA’s (Babaasa& Emmanuel, 2015). Uganda has embraced revenue
sharing between PA's and adjacent communities. This is done though sharing the gate entry revenue,
something which is provided in the wildlife Act. This ensures strong partnership and good relations be -
tween PA's local communities and other stakeholders thus sustainable wildlife conservation. It enables
the local communities to obtain financial benefits derived from existence of the PA's hence fostering tol-
erance (Babaasa& Emmanuel, 2015).

The Chilimo forest is found in Dendi District of the West Shewa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia is a critical
habitat for various wildlife species. However, the coexistence of wildlife and local communities had led
to increasing human-wildlife conflicts in the area. These conflicts have detrimental effects on both human
livelihoods and wildlife conservation efforts. Therefore, understanding the determinants of factors con-
9
tributing to human-wildlife conflicts and identifying effective management practice is crucial for human-
wildlife conflict in the area.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Forests are the cluster of trees which are the most use full for human beings and wildlife in common. In
other case, forests are common wealthy of human beings, wild life and also domestic animals. There are
factors that affect HWC management, and these should be understood by stakeholders for effective strat-
egy implementation. Communities adjacent to protected areas perceive the government as the 'owners' of
wildlife thus responsible for their management and accountable for mitigating HWC (Nyhus, 2016).
However, the communities have a role in the fight against HWC. Poor success rate of HWC management
efforts has been because of inherent factors within the local communities (Galvin, Beeton, & Luizza,
2018). This is something which had not attracted much attention in the academic field, thus no study had
focused on the community inherent factors that affect implementation and success of HWC management
strategies. Furthermore, most HWC management studies focus on technical aspects ignoring the social
dimensions of effective management of HWC. Noteworthy, HWC involve a complex social dimension
which can only be addressed by involving the victims who mostly are the local communities and focus-
ing on wildlife laws (Colding & Barthel, 2019). Moreover, wildlife confinement in protective areas
makes them more aggressive posing more risks to local people, enhancing negative attitudes towards
wildlife (Perrotton, de Garine-Wichatitsky, Valls-Fox, & Lepage, 2017). Unfortunately, most of the local
households depend solely on farming for livelihood, which ultimately gets disrupted by wildlife.

In Ethiopia, many protected areas faced significant challenges in meeting human and wild life interaction
like protected areas. Chilimo forest had been facing a number of threats due to increasing human popu-
latin and livestock pressure through heavy grazing. In study area, wild animals are facing a serious threat
to their survival. Habitat distraction and wild life depilation are among the critical problems(Hailegebrel,
2015).Chilimo forest is one a such places of conservation concern in Ethiopia facing serious destruction
by human impacts(Muluken, 2014). Chilimo forest is located in areas where the populations are highly
engaged on agricultural activity by rearing of animals and cultivating lands to grow crops for different
purpose. In this area the gap of knowledge, lack of wise use or forest resource, high number of popula -
tion, scarcity of land for use and similar factors are the major problem.

However, the forest cover has been declining at a very fast rate. To fill the gap on human- wildlife con-
flict, in and around chilimo forest, scientific data should be important to solve the human-wildlife con -
flict.

Consequently, Ethiopia which is a mandated entity to deal with wildlife in Ethiopia is said to have done
little to resolve the increasing HWC and have severally been accused of using provisions of law to pro-
tect wildlife but dragged when it involved compensation for HWC related cases. This has narrowed the
focus of wildlife management to fight for compensation by HWC victims, who perceives wildlife as a lia-
bility and risky to their livelihoods. This study, therefore, purposed to find out the determinants of HWC
management, to fill the gap in knowledge that ensures healthy co-existence between wildlife and affected

10
communities, especially those adjacent to PA’s (Protected Areas) by answering the following research
questions.

1. What
are the factors that cause human-wildlife conflict in study area?

2. What is the effect of human-wildlife conflict in study area?

3. What are the managing practices of human-wildlife in study area?

1.3. Objective of the study;

This study has both General and specific objective which are explained as follows.

1.3.1. General objective of the study

The Main objective of this study will be to identify the determinants of factors and managing practices of
human-wildlife conflict around chillimo forest in Dendi Woreda (of study area.)

1.3.2. Specific objective of study

 To
identify the key determinants and factors contributing to human-wildlife conflict in and around Chilimo
Forest.
 To as-
sess the impact of human-wildlife conflict on local communities and wildlife conservation efforts in the
study area.
 To ex-
plore existing managing practices and their effectiveness in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts.
 To pro-
vide recommendations for improved management strategies and policies for conflict resolution.

1.3.3. Significance
This study is crucial to provide different information for stakeholders who include: The communities
around the protected areas (PA) to understand the strategies of dealing and co-existing with wildlife; To
the relevant ministries, Departments and Agencies to be able to effectively implement HWC management
measures; To policy makers of county’s government to make decisions on the way forward to ensure
communities especially the ones closer to Chillimo forest and the wildlife live in, thus peaceful coexis-
tence. In addition, the study tried to expose the role of social factors on HWC management.

1.3.4. Scope of the study;

The study was focused on some populations of the surrounding eight Keble’s of Chillimo forest areas to
examine and asses the determinants of factors and managing practices of human-wildlife conflict around
chillimo forest in Dendi District..

11
12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Empirical Literature Review
Several authors have discussed HWC. The causes, impacts, and mitigations of HWC have been widely
studied. Meanwhile, several studies have pointed out on the impact of several social factors on HWC.

2.1.1. HWC Management In many parts of the world,

HWC has had negative impacts in the human and animal ecology, and as such impacting harmfully on
human life and well-being. These impacts are not always obvious due to the ambiguousness of policy im-
plementation. Visible impacts include loss of crops, property damage, physical injury, and fatalities to
human, while the less visible are particularly on the psycho-social soundness of rural areas. Indirect loss
of income or food is compounded by a loss of psychological and physical health brought on by the stres-
sors of protecting fields and homes (Desai & Riddle, 2015). Desai & Riddle (2015) reveals that 60 to 70
percent of Indian budget for wildlife conservation is spent on HWC mitigation, but despite this, the con-
flict persists with deaths on humans rising. Approximately 500, 000 households in India have been re-
ported to have fallen victims of HWC. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, several local based strategies are being
considered in HWC management. Some of these include Chilli based deterrents which comes in several
forms which are sprayed, launched as bomb like smoke canisters, made in form of a chilli fence or burnt
to produce noxious smoke which repels the wildlife. During the experiments, it was revealed that it is
possible to keep elephants off farms using unsophisticated tools and guarding techniques which can be
voluntarily adopted by local communities if their effectiveness is demonstrated. There is need for farmers
to take responsibility of the safety of their farm products from elephants by desisting from the theory that
centralized Animal control authorities will reduce the conflict (Hedges & Gunaryadi, 2010).

According to Webber et al. (2007) as cited in (Hoffmeier-Karimi & Schulte, 2015), Crop raids in sub-Sa -
hara Africa comprises a pervasive and economically damaging form of human-wildlife conflict and crop
losses to wild animals are considered the leading economic problem for areas bordering wild lands. Jack-
son et al., (2008), observes that HWC solutions in Africa, target symptoms rather than the underlying
causes. He further, recommended the modification of wildlife spatial use to reduce crop raiding in
Botswana. They believe here was that physical barriers would restrain wild animals’ movements,
whereby effective fencing schemes like chemical deterrents such as chilli peppers were recommended. In
addition, spatial distribution of wildlife was found to be manipulated by provision of mineral licks as for -
age, soils and water in sodium which attract wildlife like elephants. This was the case during dry seasons,
where waterholes could be created away from areas where people live to reduce spatial overlap between
them and the wildlife. Jackson et al., (2008) further revealed that land use planning influences HWC in a
great way. He observed that given the increase of human population, land use and zonation need to be
carefully planned to ensure that future human settlement patterns will consider wildlife habits. In
Laikipia, HWC play out within a landscape that has been shaped by struggle for land which has com -
monly been utilized by pastoralists. Roaming elephants in Laikipia created a major problem to farmers by
raiding their crops especially where their farms lie adjacent to protected areas. HWC in Laikipia involves
13
both direct and indirect impacts of wildlife behaviors on people which include crops and property de -
struction, social disruption and psychological trauma as well as impacts on elephants themselves which
include injury and deaths (Evans & Adams, 2018). Since then, HWC has been known to affect school at-
tendance. Often pupils are unable to attend classes due to fear of encountering elephants and other wild
animals on their way to school. Also, HWC has affected the economic livelihoods of their families hence
they can’t pay for their school fees and as a result affecting their performance and eroding the commu-
nity's overall education level (Weinmann, 2018). Despite all the efforts by the government to manage this
problem, cases of HWC are on the increase hence threatening the livelihood of the local communities
(Mwamidi, Mwasi, & Nunow, 2014). Meanwhile, illegal livestock herding in the National Parks has be -
come a norm, hence creating unwarranted pressures on the landscape and resources, thus elephants are
forced to move out in search of these resources for survival. Moreover, National parks act as safe zones
for wildlife, and their long borders make wide areas vulnerable to HWCs. According to Kissui (2008),
these conflicts bring about negative attitudes towards wildlife conservations and hence retaliatory killings
(Mika Siljander et al, 2017).

Anthony (2007) posits that HWC is a major threat to wildlife conservation since it turns the local com-
munities against it, hence creating a paradox within this area where successful conservation has likeli-
hood to increase HWC which in turn has a negative influence on local attitudes towards wildlife conser -
vation. In, Taita Taveta people perceive the Tsavo parks as a liability, since very few have directly bene-
fitted from wildlife proceeds and none of them could legally generate any revenue from the parks. Ac-
cording to (KASIKI, 1998), the local people could not actually understand why grazing, access to tradi-
tional shrines and water within the parks was denied. This according to Kasiki, resulted to apathy towards
wildlife conservation and lack of adherence as well as frustration of wildlife regulations imposed by
KWS (Smith, Smith, & Kasiki, 2015). Among measures that have been applied by KWS to control HWC
in this area include; Problem Animal Control (Tsavo & Area, 2016), Translocation and Relocation, which
is the transfer or removal of Elephants to different habits, and Electric fencing (Smith et al., 2015).

2.2.2 Public Participation and HWC management

According to Judith Syombua, (2013), Community participation is defined as "the involvement of local
people in the identification, planning and implementation of projects and programs that they commit
themselves to contribute towards the evolution and development”. Involvement of local communities ful -
fils the important requirement of HWC being managed through other effective means and which focus on
humans as well. This kind of involvement fosters participation which in turn enhances co-existence of
wildlife in human dominated landscapes (Judith Syombua, 2013). Local people perceptions of Wildlife
are influenced by observable effects of HWC and cultural beliefs, all of which affect how any HWC miti-
gation strategies are implemented and received locally. Thus, local experiences and values when coming
up with effective HWC mitigation strategies is critical (Weinmann, 2018). In a research done in lower
Sagalla in Taita Taveta by Weinmann (2018), local residents complained of elephants raiding their grain
stores on top of their farms, hence endangering not only their lives but the food security. This in turn,
negatively impacts perceptions and relationship of local people with Kenyan government and KWS who
are seen to value Wildlife than local people. The rampant HWC cases make the local people feel that the

14
government does not punish the wildlife. Moreover, they feel that the government does not fairly com-
pensate them for HWC related damage (Weinmann, 2018). Farmers interviewed believed that wildlife
belongs to the government and hence the government should pay for damages incurred because of HWC.
They also believe that the government benefits from the Wildlife through tourism that’s why they are
protecting and valuing them (Weinmann, 2018). Prior to the use of modern wildlife management strate-
gies, indigenous knowledge (IK) allowed local communities conserve wildlife and other natural resources
for future generations. Boafo et al. 2015 observe that several communities still rely on IK to conserve
wildlife regardless of the innate limitations. Technology has ushered in a new era of wildlife management
tools. While these tools have supported local communities in conservation of natural resources including
wildlife, such technologies have as well modified the perception of PA's by local communities, since they
eventually influence the type of conservation polices. And as such, these tools could lead to marginaliza -
tion of local communities from natural resources (ElHajj et al., 2017).

Active involvement of local communities and use of Indigenous knowledge is very paramount in the
management of HWC. Indigenous knowledge is defined as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practices,
and belief, evolving by adaptive processes, and handed down through generations by cultural transmis-
sion about the relationship of living beings with one another and with the environment” (Berkes et al.
2005). Although often considered primitive, indigenous knowledge plays a significant role in HWC man-
agement and wildlife management. For example, the Tukano community in Colombia still relies on in-
digenous knowledge for preservation of species of locally found wildlife. Incorporating indigenous
knowledge in HWC management will increase effectiveness of the management strategies and as well
promote healthy dialogue between all stakeholders (El-Hajj et al., 2017). Taita Taveta local community
has embraced some of the indigenous knowledge and skills to curb HWC. These include both destructive
and destructive practices like burning of Elephant dung, use of scare crows, painting of primates, drum
beating and use of acacia mellifera (iti)(Mwamidi et al., 2014). Meanwhile, Taita-Taveta leadership feels
that wild animals on private and communal lands should be trusted to the local people who should plan,
manage and use them sustainably. (Mwamidi et al., 2014), argues that management of wildlife risks lack
of public support if they are not relevant to people’s everyday life and concerns. Makindi, et al. (2014),
observes that People who live in HWC prone areas depend more on natural resources thus find it difficult
to tolerate wild animals in their lands as they consider them as threat to their lives and livelihood. Where
HWC solutions are not adequate, local support for wildlife conservation efforts gets eroded and reduced.
Thus, public participations, brings onboard skills and knowledge that will improve sustainability in HWC
management around PA’s.

2.2.3. Resource competition and HWC Management

According to Madden (2008), major source of HWC is struggle for scarce natural resources because of
population explosions for both people and wildlife. As such, struggle for land and continuous decrease of
habitation are main contributors for HWC. Hill, (2000) observes that HWC might be on the rise if PA's
are dominated by human activities like grazing and other forms of farming. Increased human population
and activities has precipitated unavoidable HWC challenge, as this brings about contact between them
and wildlife that compete for the limited natural resources (Machoka. Lydia, 2017). Nyhus et al. (2003)

15
also observed that scarcity of resources is the ultimate reason for HWC and that ex-gratia schemes do not
really reduce its intensity. As such, Romanach et al. (2007) revealed that competition for natural re-
sources is being enhanced by the increasing human population and encroachment of wildlife habitats
(Makindi, Mutinda, Olekaikai, Olelebo, & Abdillahi, 2014b). HWC management funs other human-hu-
man conflicts due to the resources associated with it. Social hierarchies have also been found to affect
HWC mitigation and resource allocation. This has been observed in Uganda where many women and
older members of the community were found to be most isolated from decision making in the vermin trap
project. Many low income earners felt disempowered and thus perceived that the dominant figures and
those with social standing in the local communities had more influence in the project than them (Webber,
Hill, & Reynolds, 2020). Good governance is paramount to be able to secure the political and community
support essential for effective HWC management. This has necessitated the need to embrace Lockwood's
(2010) seven principles of good governance for PA's i.e., legitimacy, transparency, inclusiveness, ac-
countability, fairness, connectivity and resilience (Ulibarri, 2019). Human activities in marginal lands ad-
jacent to wildlife habitats do not only contribute to conflict between humans, wildlife and other stake -
holders, but poses threat to wildlife sustainability as a whole(Koech, 2018). HWC cannot be detached
from the context of conflict between groups of people about how to manage the HWC and wildlife in
general. The implementation of HWC management policies has often aggravated feelings of disenfran-
chisement and injustice among members of local communities (FAO, 2015).

2.2.4 Stakeholders participation and HWC management

Stakeholders are those parties affected by the decisions made by decisions makers and who have the
power to influence those decisions. According to Mitchell et al. (1997), the existence and nature of the
stakes dictates the counts of stakeholders. It is therefore paramount to identify those holding stakes and
their nature in HWC management. The planning and implementation of HWC management involves dif-
ferent stakeholder interests who are important for the success thereof (Ulibarri, 2019). Some PA's have
become isolated in the landscapes due to Land use changes while others take advantages of integrative
approaches which address both biodiversity conservation alongside human livelihood concerns. As such,
more inclusive planning processes and coordination between different stakeholders in HWC management
is being increasingly recommended for success of these measures. According to Lockwood (2010), PA's
and the surrounding affect each other in a greater way, either directly or indirectly through resource shar -
ing and land use decisions making, thus effective engagement is needed(Mannetti, Göttert, Zeller, & Es-
ler, 2019). South Africa has invented several participatory approaches to manage the environment, with a
focus to collective nature management by conservation authorities and PA's adjacent communities. This
approach known as integrated conservation or community-based conservation emerged due to the failure
of previous approach which focused on top-down decision making (Mannetti et al., 2019).

2.2.5 Effects of wildlife compensation on HWC management;

Compensation involves reimbursing with cash or in-kind payment to people who have suffered wildlife
related damage, injuries, or death. Due to unfair compensation however, this process causes an atmos -
phere of mistrust and resentment which in-turn greatly impact on HWC management. Local communities
adjacent to PA's complain about socio-economic and livelihood losses, injuries, and food insecurity.

16
Compensation has been pointed out as a way of settling such kind of losses. However, its difficult re-
quirements, complicated procedures, delay, rejection, undervalued payment hamper the management of
HWC. This process has been found to be slow and costly that victims end up abandoning the whole com-
pensation claims. This in turn foster, negative attitudes towards wildlife conservation as whole (Gloriose,
2019). Notably, development and conservation are increasingly becoming integrated. Increasing wildlife
populations resulting from effective conservation threaten both human livelihood and life. It is observed
that different entities have different recovering capacities from HWC consequences. HWC raises the
costs of living with wildlife which can go over the conservation benefits, reducing incentives enjoyed by
local communities as they conserve wildlife (Khumalo & Yung, 2015). In Botswana, Government com-
pensation due to elephant caused damage was set to relieve social and economic hardships. This interven-
tion, however, was found to be detrimental to conservation efforts and cumbersome and expensive to ad-
minister. Also, government bureaucracy to process compensation claims exceeds the total value of claims
by the victims. On the flipside, compensation for damage hinders creativity and incentive to adopt current
practices to curb HEC, a factor referred to as moral hazard of compensation schemes. To address this
challenge, Farmers can generally be rewarded for living with wildlife, rather than compensating them for
damage. This kind of intervention is more cost-efficient than the direct incentives (Jackson et al., 2008).
In south Africa, Socio-economic and political landscapes have been blamed for human wildlife conflicts
since it concerns resources with high economic value which are in turn highly and legally protected. As
such, South African government has instituted roles and policies to control damage causing animals
(DCAs) at Kruger National Park (KNP) and Limpopo Province along its western border. The increased
HWC cases around KNP, made many locals less likely to believe that the park will yield any benefits to
them. This is because the procedures are flawed and riddled with corruption and bureaucracies, even
though DCA in Kruger national park poses a significant threat to both lives and property of local commu-
nities. They undermine livelihoods and as well as damaging relations between the communities and the
park hence negative perception. This according to researchers can be mended by addressing the weak-
nesses of the institutional structures controlling DCA's. The compensation for damage caused by wildlife
is the most unclear issues at all levels and across every relevant institution. It is embroiled with unmet
promises, differing expectations and lack of clear and coherent policy. This in turn, makes the local com -
munity members think that the authorities are illegally holding money from the victims of human wildlife
conflicts (Anthony, Scott, & Antypas, 2010). HWC related Compensation in Kenya is done for human in-
jury and death. The amount is however seen as insufficient. According to the Human Elephant Taskforce
report (2001), the Kenyan compensation policy for wildlife crop damage is inefficient, corruption-prone
on top of being unworkable. Some technocrats have argued that monetary compensation for HWC related
cases cannot decrease the level of the problem. The Kenyan Wildlife conservation and management Act
(2013) introduced a new compensation scheme which covers human injury, crop and property damage
and destruction and killed livestock. The act stipulates that the demands will be processed by a compen-
sation committee.

2.3Theoretical Framework;

17
The study was assessed three theories. Meanwhile, Stakeholders theory was adopted based on its call for
inclusion of all relevant actors in problem solving processes including human wildlife conflict manage-
ment.

2.3.1 Social Conflict Theory;

Social conflict as a theory was developed by Karl Marx (1971). He argued that parties in a community,
either individuals or groups, are based on conflict and not unity and that through conflicts, groups gain
varying resources due to struggle of scarce resources. According to Marx, social conflict is necessary for
a society to exist, and that people should not be afraid of them but accept them as a lifestyle. The assump-
tion is that conflict happens because of variation between aims. Conflict occurs when groups compete for
similar prize like power, authority, territory, or materials. Karl Marx (1971) opines that conflict occur due
to lack of physical and psychological needs (Machoka. Lydia, 2017).

2.3.2 Stakeholder theory

This theory was proposed by Freeman in 1984, who described an occurrence by its relationship with sev -
eral groups and individuals affected by it. Communities being key stakeholders in HWC ought to be iden-
tified, taken into consideration, involved, and fulfilled. According to Bryson et al. (2002) main stakehold-
ers should be satisfied at least minimally for projects to succeed. Phillips & Freeman (2003) observes that
successful approaches demand the incorporation of all stakeholders, thus HWC management demands the
same (Machoka. Lydia, 2017). In this regard, the study concluded that for the HWC management to be
successful, then all relevant stakeholders including community and private stakeholder, and relevant gov-
ernment department, need to brainstorm and come up with resolutions acceptable by all.

2.3.3 Value Belief Norm Theory (VBN)

Paul stern theory of value-belief-norm theory (VBM) demystifies about values that brings about moral
obligation to the environment and natural resources. (Stern et al. 1999). The theory champions for envi-
ronmental behavior which is derived from moral obligations or personal norms embedded to value orien-
tation. Paul stern and his colleagues believed that valued objects are threatened and that the actions of the
communities can help restore those values thus experience an obligation as a matter of norm (Esiromo,
2012). VBN theory reveals a chain of influence on behavior from peoples value sets and beliefs that the
danger posed by the threats is greater than they are obliged to address environmental challenges
(Esiromo, 2012). Value sets are divided into three categories: egoistic, biosphere and altruistic. VBN the -
ory offers best account of support for social and environmental concerns to communities. It reveals three
types of support which support socio-environment principles. These include citizenship actions, policy
support and acceptance, and personal-sphere behaviors. Stern argues that the interface between self-con-
cept and collectivism provide good foundation to community-based management of the socio environ-
ment. Although wildlife management is bestowed to KWS in Ethiopia, the biggest percentage of wildlife
is found outside PA'S. Logical framework for peaceful co-existence between the wildlife and the local
communities is necessary for sustainability of wildlife as well as environmental, economic and social
wellbeing (Esiromo, 2012).

18
19
3. Methodology
3.1. Description of the Study Area
This study will be conducted at Dendi distrct,West shewa zone, Oromia Regional state, Ethiopia. Dendi
Woreda is one of the eighteen West Shewa zone. Ginchi is the capital town for dendi which is located on
the distance of 75km to west of Addis Ababa on the main Addis Ababa – Nekemte main Road. This
wored has total area of 109.73km2 with an Altitude range of 2000-3000 m.a.s.l. (Mohammad and Inoue
2012).

The district is endowed with natural flora and fauna species which can attract tourists and researchers.
Among this tourist destination site, chilimo forest is one of the 58 National forest priority areas of
Ethiopia. Chilimo forest, the center of which located at 9 0 5’ North latitude and 380 10’ east longitudes is
one of the few remaining dry afromontane forest found in Ethiopia. The main species in the canopy layer
are Juniper procera, podocarpus flactus, prunus Africana, Olea Europaea, sub species cuspidate, Hagenia
abyssinica, Apodytes dimidiate, Ficus species, Erythrina brucei, ana Croton macrocytachus (Deressa,
2014). The name ‘chilmo’ was given by the emperor Minilik, which means chellema (dark), in the local
language, describing the dense natural forest.

3.1.1. Population
The number of total population in the District of Dendi Woreda is 209,554. Out of these total populations
about 84% are living in rural and about 16% are living in the towns of this Woreda. It has 48 rural peas -
ant associations and 7 urban and semi urban peasant association. These populations are the cumulative of
varieties of the Ethiopian nations and nationalities. But, out of all nations and nationalities of the study
area, the Oromo peoples are covering the highest number of about more than 90% of the total population.

3.1.2. Climate
The study area has an average altitude of 2,228 meter above mean sea level (a.m.s.l.). It lies in the cli-
matic zone locally known as “Woyna Daga” covers about 75% of the study area (1,500-2,300 a.m.s.l)
which is considered ideal for agriculture as well as the annual rainfall ranges between1138-1690 mm and
the mean annual temperature is between 150c to 200c. The remaining 25%of an area is Dega (2300-3300
meter a.m.s.l.) and the temperature ranges from 10 to 15 0c. The maximum precipitation occurs during the
three months period (June, July and August), with minimum rainfall occurring in December and January.
From a climatic point of view, abundant rain fall makes this area one of the best watered regions of
Ethiopian high lands, conducive for agricultural production (Alemuet al., 2011).

3.1.3. Topography
The study areas are relatively located to the southern direction of Jeldu Woreda, to the western direction
of Tullu Becho Woreda, to the eastern direction of Ambo town Woreda and to the north western direction
of Wonchi Sea. The study area has known by some of its known natural resources and human resources.
Some of the natural resources found in this woreda are the chilimo forest, the Dendi Sea (has the shape of
20
8 number and the name of the wereda was derived from Dendi), the Awash River (start from Dendi
wereda) and some of the known peoples either by their knowledge of creativity or by their different roles
they played are like Professor Gebisa Ejeta, Esrael Belema, Jagema Kello and etc. are the known peoples.
The man-made resources are also found in Ginchi town like that of one paper industries, the two gypsum
industries and one gypsum industries around the Asgori town. The woreda’s geographical coordinates
are found at the astronomical location of 99, 73, 31 ‟North latitude and 40, 53, 12 ‟East longitude. The
study areas are known by its different types of land forms like mountain peaks, plateaus, mountains,
plains and etc.

3.1.4. Socio economic activity

The major economic activity of the population in this Woreda depends on agricultural activities of either
cultivating crops or rearing animals. Especially the populations who will be the target for this study are
dependent on cultivation of crops, plumbing the Timber, burning charcoals, selling fire woods, selling
forest woods for construction from Chillimo forest towards the near towns. In addition to the points dis-
cussed they also use the Chillimo forest for feed of their animals and cutting trees for widening the area
of agricultural land which of these all has direct influence on the ecology of the surrounding environ-
ment.

3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

There are about seven peasant associations which surround the chilimo forest area. But the researcher se-
lected purposively two kebeles of Gare Arara and Yubdo Legabatu for its manageability of research. The
purposes of purposively selection for the two selected areas are for the normal condition of peace. Most
of the areas under study are under the influence of forest military forces that may kill attack and hung any
people when they get in the areas under study. Though the situation of the two selected areas are not to-
tally sure for the security of the researcher, it is more preferable than the remaining kebeles under
study.According to Dendi District Administration Office, a total household living inside and around the
forest hence, these peasants association were selected purpo sively. The sample selection method em-
ployed by Yemanes formula (1967)to determine the required sample size at 95% confidence level and
with 5% level of error. The study will be aimed at the Human-Wildlife conflicts and the association fac-
tors. A purposive and simple random sampling will be used. Then, 88 households will be selected choos-
ing proportionally from each peasant association. Again, simple random sampling will be used to choose
an equal number of households from dwellers of household nearby chillimo forest.

Table 1. Sample size of Selected Household at Chilimo Forest.

Selected kebeles Total number of households %of total households Share of households
Gare Arera 1150 34.3 59
Yubdo lagabatu 1028 34.2 53
Total 2178 68.s 112 = 88(sample size
Source; Dendi District Administration Office, 2023

21
 N 112
The formula is n= = = 88
1±+ N ( e ) 2 1+ 112 ( 0.05 ) 2

3.3. Data source and data collection

Data collected to accomplish this study will be both the primary and secondary data. Primary data will be
collected through structured survey, interview and focus group discussions with local communities,
wildlife experts and relevant stakeholders. Even though the duration of time is not much enough, obser -
vation can also be used for somewhat to collect information and the secondary data will be collected from
published and unpublished materials like books, journals, project report and maps. Then data collection
will be held through structured survey, interview and focus group discussions and the secondary source
will be used based on its necessities and availabilities. Field survey will be done through the observation
of wild life when HWC struggle together to get their wants. In this case the researcher will planned to ob-
serve the wildlife especially those live in group when they search shelter and food around the villages by
following their activities and how peoples tried to protect, who will be influential?, how one affect the
other and how it will be treated? Will be answered through the researcher’s observation.

3.4. Method of data collection

The structured survey, interview and focus group discussions will be conducted to check whether there is
a human-wildlife conflict or not around the study areas. Data concerning the status of human -wildlife
conflict, the challenge of wildlife depredation, the general socio economic status of community and atti-
tude of local people to wildlife will be collected from the participant households. The questionnaire will
be administered to farmers within their farming area or residence by the researcher and field assistants.
The questionnaire will include both open-ended and close-ended questions to get information about
HWC interactions in the area. To observe the extent of HWC on wildlife and to compare the result with
the response given by the local people three sites will be purposefully selected.

3.5. Data analysis;

The data collected will be analyzed by using appropriate statistical methods and qualitative techniques to
identify the determinant and factors contributing to human-wildlife conflicts. The descriptive statistics
such as frequencies, percentages, cross tabulation, measures of central tendency, standard deviation, stan-
dard error of mean, minimum and maximum will be analyzed based on describing the forest management
practice, incomes of the community and the forest dependent households in the study area.

3.6. Budget Breakdown and work plan

3.6.1. Budget Break Down
Research material and Equipment The price Birr it needs

Data collection and analysis 550

22
 Travel and accommodation expenses 500
Research personnel and consultants 900
Miscellaneous expenses 600
Materials and equipment’s required 1000
Total 3550

3.6.2. Work plan

TIME TABLE
May June July August September
ACTIVITY (2015)
(2015) (2015) (2015) (2016)
Topic selection X
Proposal prepa tion X
Proposal submission X
Data collection X
Submission first draft re- X
port
Final draft write up X
Submission X

23
REFERENCES
Anthony, B. P., Scott, P., & Antypas, A. (2010). Sitting on the fence? policies and practices in managing
human-wildlife conflict in limpopo province, South Africa.

Conservation and Society, 8(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972- 4923.73812 Babaasa, D., & Em-
manuel, A. (2015).

Emmanuel Akampulira and Robert Bitarih, (November). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1889.4809

Colding, J., & Barthel, S. (2019).

Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology and Society, 24(1).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598- 240102 Conservation, N., & Kikuu, C. (2000).

Human-wildlife conflicts in tanzania: what research and extension could offer to conflict resolution,
3(April), 569–577. Das, J. P., Lahkar, B. P., & Talukdar, B. K. (2012).

Increasing Trend of Human Elephant Conflict in Golaghat, District, Assam, India: Issues and Concerns.
Gajah, 37, 34–37. Desai, A. A., & Riddle, H. S. (2015).

Human-Elephant Conflict in Asia, (June), 1–92. El-Hajj, R., Khater, C., Tatoni, T., Adam, A. A., & Er -
rol, V. (2017).

Integrating Conservation and Sustainable Development through Adaptive Co-management in UNESCO

Biosphere Reserves. Conservation and Society, 15(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs Esiromo, E.
(2012).

An assessment of human - wildlife conflict: A case of OL Donyo 63 Sabuk National Park, Machakos
County, 1–85. Retrieved from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/10463/Esiromo_

An Assessment Of Human - Wildlife Conflict A Case Of Ol Donyo Sabuk National Park%2C Machakos
County.pdf? sequence=3&isAllowed=y Evans, L. A., & Adams, W. M. (2018).

Elephants as actors in the political ecology of human–elephant conflict. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, 43(4), 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12242 Falcetto, A. (2012).

Perceptions of Conservation and Ecotourism in the Taita-Taveta County , Kenya. FAO. (2015).

Sustainable wildlife management and human−wildlife conflict, 6. Galvin, K. A., Beeton, T. A., & Luizza,
M. W. (2018).

African community-based conservation: A systematic review of social and ecological outcomes. Ecology
and Society, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10217-230339 Gloriose, U. (2019).

24
Community Perceptions of Human-wildlife Conflicts and the Compensation Scheme Around Nyungwe
National Park (Rwanda), 4(6), 188– 197. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20190406.15 Hedges, S., &
Gunaryadi, D. (2010).

Reducing human-elephant conflict: Do chillies help deter elephants from entering crop fields? Oryx,
44(1), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605309990093 Hoffmeier-Karimi, R. R., & Schulte, B. A.
(2015). Assessing perceived and documented crop damage in a Tanzanian village impacted by human-
elephant conflict (HEC). Pachyderm, 2015(56), 51–60. Jackson, T. P., Mosojane, S., Ferreira, S. M., &
Van Aarde, R. J. (2008). Solutions for elephant Loxodonta africana crop raiding in northern Botswana:
Moving away from symptomatic approaches. Oryx, 42(1), 83–91.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308001117 Judith Syombua, M. (2013).

25
APPINDECES
: RESEARCH INSTRUMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESIDENTS.
This Questionnaire is meant to collect data from the residents of Dendi district in west shewa, oromia,
Ethiopia. Any information provided in this questionnaire will be used for the purposes of research only
and will not be revealed or availed to unauthorized persons. Tick the correct answer in the boxes pro -
vided against the question where provided. You need not write your name on the questionnaire. Please
answer the questions as accurately as possible.

SECTION A: RESPONDENT’S DEMOGRAPHICS

1. Please indicate your village _________________________

2. Please indicate your sex; Female ( ), Male ( )

3. Please indicate your age groups position by ticking (√ ) in the appropriate; below 16 YRS ( ),
16-30YRS ( ) 31-45 YRS ( ), 46-60 YRS ( ), 61-75YRS ( ), 76-90 YRS ( ), above 90 YRS( )

4. How long have you lived in Dendi Woreda around chillimo forest? Indicate with (√)

Less than 6 YRS 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years over 20 years

5. Level of education. Tick (√) where appropriate Primary level ( ) Secondary level ( )

Tertiary level ( ) University level ( ), none ( )

6. Marital status; Married ( ) Single ( ) Divorced ( ) Widow ( ) Widower ( )

SECTION B: Resource Competition

7. Do you own a land? Yes No If yes, do you have a title deed for your land? Yes No If No, Why?

8. Do you own rights to graze your animals along the park? Yes ( ), No ( )

Explain if your answer is ‘yes’

9. Has animal grazing affected the implementation of Human Wildlife Management? Yes ( ), No ( ),
Explain if your answer is ‘yes’.

10. Has the forest of Chillimo boundary line affected implementation of Human wildlife conflict manage-
ment? Yes ( ), No ( ) Explain

SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

11. Do you know of any Wildlife management strategies in place or on going? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes,
name them

26
16. Has the community initiated any wildlife management program/ project? Yes ( ), No ( ) If No, Why?
If Yes, Name them?

Section D: Compensation
17. Have you ever been a victim of HWC? Yes ( ), No ( )

18. Were you compensated? Yes No Explain

19. Do you know of the process for one to be compensated following HWC related damages? Yes ( ),
No ( ) Explain

20. Will compensation help in HWC management? Yes ( ) No ( ) Explain

Section E: private stakeholders

21. Do Farms and conservancies affect wildlife management? Yes, No, Explain

22. What has private farms and conservancies done to mitigate wildlife conflicts?

23. Apart from private farms and conservancies, what other private stakeholders do you know off
around?

If any, do they affect wildlife management in any way and how?

24. How can Ranches and conservancies do to support wildlife management endeavors?

25. If you have ideas to add more concerning the whole inquires and the title of study add your own idea
and knowledge.

27