@ BioRisk BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025) DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 Research Article Human-wildlife conflict and local community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in Konta Special District, southwest Ethiopia Zelalem Temesgen™®, Yihew Biru2®, Amare Gibru'?®,Kebebew Hundie’ 1 Animal Biodiversity Research, Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, RO. Box 30726, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2 Gullele Botanic Garden, P.O. Box 153/1029, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Department of Ecology and Anthropology, Institute of Biology, University of Szczecin, Waska 13, PL-71-412, Szczecin, Poland Corresponding author: Zelalem Temesgen (zelalemt9369@gmail.com) OPEN Qaceess Academic editor: Josef Settele Received: 24 June 2025 Accepted: 18 August 2025 Published: 5 September 2025 Citation: Temesgen Z, Biru Y, Gibru A, Hundie K (2025) Human-wildlife conflict and local community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in Konta Special District, southwest Ethiopia. BioRisk 23: 63-77. https://doi. org/10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 Copyright: © Zelalem Temesgen et al. This is an open access article distributed under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0). Abstract Understanding local communities’ attitudes towards wildlife conservation is important for policymakers and conservationists in implementing sustainable wildlife conservation strategies. The present study was undertaken to assess local communities’ attitudes to- wards wildlife conservation and the types of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in the Konta Special District (KSD). A total of 95 household respondents were randomly selected for questionnaire interviews from two study kebeles. In addition, focus group discussions (FGD) and personal observations were used to collect qualitative data. Descriptive sta- tistics and the chi-square test were applied to analyze the data. Overall, 51.6% of the respondents reported both crop damage and livestock depredation as the main types of HWC. The respondents ranked baboons (95.8%) and monkeys (65.5%) as the principal wildlife responsible for property damage. Habitat loss (75.6%) was reported as the main threat to wildlife existence. A total of 91.6% of the respondents expressed a positive at- titude towards wildlife conservation, and there was no statistically significant difference between study kebeles, sex, or education level of respondents. Guarding (75.8%) was identified as the dominant traditional method used to reduce damage. Development activities should not compromise wildlife conservation goals. Employing effective pro- tection methods and providing alternative livelihoods such as ecotourism, beekeeping, and livestock fattening were recommended to ensure coexistence between humans and wildlife and to promote sustainable development in the KSD. Key words: Attitude, human-wildlife conflict, Konta Special District, wildlife conservation Introduction Nowadays, wildlife is in danger of extinction globally due to anthropogenic fac- tors (Gebresenbet et al. 2017), and mutual coexistence between humans and wildlife has become increasingly challenging. Due to the fast population growth in developing countries like Ethiopia and the fact that the majority of people rely on subsistence farming for their livelihood, there is a need for land for settle- ment, agriculture, and livestock grazing (Alemkere 2018). These factors have led to the conversion of land for human needs and resulted in loss, degradation, and fragmentation of wildlife habitat (Woldegiorgis and Mekonnen 2021), 63 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict which incites competition for resources and causes scarcity for wild animals’ survival and reproduction (Temesgen et al. 2022). Many research findings have reported that the active participation of local communities in decision-making processes and the receipt of benefits from conservation efforts enhance favorable effects on local communities’ attitudes towards wildlife conservation. Younger and literate people have shown greater appreciation of conservation objectives (Megaze et al. 2017; Hariohay et al. 2018; Dar et al. 2022; Matusal et al. 2023). For instance, more than 76% of the educated respondents expressed a positive attitude towards the conservation of chimpanzees in Cameroon (Njukang et al. 2019). However, misunderstand- ings about conservation objectives (Guzman et al. 2020), costs associated with crop and property damage, predation (Matusal et al. 2023), attacks by wild animals on humans, restricted access to resources, penalties for illegal graz- ing, lack of compensation, and displacement due to conservation programs (Tilahun et al. 2017; Alemkere 2018; Temesgen et al. 2022) could negatively in- fluence local communities’ attitudes. Livestock depredation and crop damage by wild animals cause significant economic losses for households that depend mainly on subsistence farming. This, in turn, has resulted in retaliatory killing and destruction of wild animals’ habitats unless compensation was provided for their losses due to wild animals damage (Deneke et al. 2022). Moreover, the religion and culture of local people, as well as past experienc- es and relationships, may significantly influence individual behavior and shape positive or negative attitudes towards wildlife conservation (Amoo et al. 2023). For example, people living near Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Churches do not disturb or kill wild animals because they believe killing is a sin (Teklay et al. 2015). On the contrary, people often have negative attitudes towards snake species, believing they are symbols of evil spirits and bad luck, and also out of fear (Babalola et al. 2020). Although communities bear most of the costs of conservation (Kebede et al. 2014), the process of designating several protected areas in developing coun- tries has often excluded local people from decision-making. This exclusion leads to a loss of sense of ownership and antagonism towards conservation objectives (Abebe and Bekele 2018). In addition, proximity and competition for resources create frequent encounters between humans and wildlife. These en- counters lead to HWC and cause local people to develop unfavorable attitudes towards wildlife conservation. The majority of the world’s biological diversity exists either outside protected areas or in landscapes shared with indigenous peoples. Thus, there must be a high level of interaction between indigenous people and wild animals. As a result, conservation success is unlikely in the absence of local community empower- ment and involvement (Armitage et al. 2020). Hence, understanding the attitudes of local people is important for identifying the factors that influence community perceptions and for developing and implementing approaches that attract both stakeholders and the general public to support conservation (Njukang et al. 2019). In recent decades, the original habitats of wildlife have been dramatically lost due to anthropogenic factors, climate change, pollution, and the expansion of invasive species in Ethiopia. At the same time, local people’s dependence on natural resources has greatly increased (Tilahun et al. 2017). This is also true in the KSD, where subsistence agriculture is the major livelihood of local people BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 64 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict and where road and hydropower development, human-induced fires for the ex- pansion of agriculture and settlement, and illegal hunting are considered major threats to wildlife and its habitats. Therefore, the present study was designed to assess the types of HWC, to identify the main problematic wild animals, to examine the possible solutions used by the local community to mitigate con- flicts, to identify the main threats to wildlife conservation, and to assess local community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in the KSD. Materials and methods Description of the study area KSD is located between 1,200 and 1,640 m a.s.|. and lies at 6°30'N-7°25'N and 36°15'E-36°55'E (Fig. 1). The area has a unimodal rainfall distribution, with the highest rainfall occurring from July to September. The mean annual rainfall and temperature of the KSD were 1,374.1 mm and 22.98°C, respectively. Com- bretum-Terminalia woodland, savanna grassland, and dry evergreen montane forest are the predominant vegetation types of the district (Bekalo et al. 2009; O15 O'Es 36°27 0"E-S6's90'E Seo 0"E. Si SOE Sr 1S O'R 37°27 0'E S739 OE Seater N Legend | | Konta Special District 6°33'0"N 6°43'30"N 6°54'0"N 7°4'30"N 7°15'0"N G. 12-25 Z fo) © oOo) = oO | Zz ) fo) ° i rd S oO ° i 2 fo) Se [op) +t fe) ico} z S oO) oO ° ico} 2 =) ro) (oe) N ° oO S6"1S'0"E 36°27: 0°E. S6°39'O"E* 36°S1U'E 3FS0CE Ss 1s0"E 37° 270"E- 37° 390'E* 37° St Or Figure 1. Map of the study area (SNNPRS: Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People Regional State). BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 65 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict Abera and Tesema 2019). Large predators such as lions, spotted hyenas, and leopards, and herbivores such as African elephants, buffalo, greater kudu, vari- ous antelope species, and primates (including the endemic and vulnerable sub- species of blue monkey) contribute to the district's faunal diversity (Biru et al. 2022). A total of 115,898 people inhabit the district, of whom more than 51% are female, and 84.8% live in rural areas (Abera and Tesema 2019). Konta is the dom- inant ethnic group (86.19%), and 85.14% of the population speaks Konta as a first language. Subsistence mixed farming is the main livelihood in the district. Goats, sheep, donkeys, mules, and chickens are the most commonly reared livestock. Fruits, teff, maize, sorghum, and spices are the main crops cultivated by local people, while forest coffee and wild honey are also harvested as supplementary sources of income (Bekalo et al. 2009; Abera and Tesema 2019). Methods of data collection Site selection and survey techniques The study was conducted among local people from February to March 2021. Prior to the interviews, a preliminary survey was conducted to assess the clar- ity of the questions and to select study kebeles (lowest administrative units) based on accessibility and the prevalence of HWC. This was done in collabora- tion with local agricultural experts and traditional leaders. Based on this, Konta Koysha and Oshka Dech kebeles were purposefully selected for the study. A systematic random sampling method was used to select sample house- holds for the questionnaire interviews. First, the initial household was randomly selected by a lottery system from the list of registered households at the Ke- bele Agricultural Facilitation Centers. Subsequently, every third household was selected by skipping two households until the total sample size was reached. In cases where a selected household respondent was unwilling to participate or absent, the neighboring household was interviewed instead. Interviews were held in respondents’ homes with individuals aged 18 years or older (Mekuyie 2014; Temesgen et al. 2022), regardless of sex. According to the population and housing census of Ethiopia (CSA 2007), Konta Koysha and Oshka Dech kebeles have a total of 1,311 and 576 households, respectively. From these, a total of 95 sample households (5% of the total households) were selected for questionnaire interviews. Before the interviews, respondents were thoroughly briefed on the research objectives, and oral consent was obtained to ensure confidentiality of their responses. A pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire was developed, translated into the local language “Konta,” and administered by well-trained inter- viewers whose mother tongue is Konta. The responses were subsequently translated back into English. The questionnaire addressed the demograph- ic backgrounds of respondents, the importance of wildlife conservation, trends of wildlife populations, major wildlife threats, HWC, and mitigation measures. To assess local people's attitudes towards wildlife conservation, respondents were asked, “Do you think that wildlife is important for the local people?” A “yes” response was Classified as a positive attitude, whereas a “no” response was Classified as a negative attitude. BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 66 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict Four FGDs (two from each kebele) were conducted, with group sizes ranging from seven to twelve participants. Participants included women, religious lead- ers, elders, and youths. Local agricultural experts attended the FGDs to facili- tate and interpret the discussions, which were conducted in the local language, Konta. The experts also selected convenient sites for the FGDs. Data gathered from FGDs were used to support the information collected through the ques- tionnaire interviews. A chi-square test and descriptive statistical analysis were conducted using SPSS version 25 software. Results Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents A total of 95 respondents from two kebeles [Konta Koysha (69.5%, n = 66) and Oshka Dech (30.5%, n = 29)] were involved in the survey. Of these, 35 (36.8%) were female participants. Farming was the predominant activity, reported by 93 (97.9%) households. The majority of respondents (36.8%) were aged be- tween 46 and 60 years, followed by those aged 31-45 years (31.6%). A total of 78.9% of respondents had lived in the area for more than 30 years. Most re- spondents (73.7%) were uneducated, while 24.2% had attended primary school and 2.1% secondary school (Table 1). Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of surveyed respondents and their attitudes towards wildlife conservation (N = 95). Variables Sex Age Educational status Job Years of residence Study Kebeles Respondents attitude towards wildlife conservation (Do you think that wildlife conservation is Category Frequency | Percentages important?) Yes (positive) No (negative) Female 35 36.8 30 5 Male 60 63.2 57 3 18-30 21 22.1 21 0 31-45 30 31.6 29 1 46-60 35 36.8 30 5 Above 60 9 9:5 d 2 Illiterate 70 Fae 64 6 Primary school 23 24.2 21 2 Secondary school 2 2.1 Zz 0 Farmer 93 97.9 85 8 Employees = - Trade = : 3 : Student - - ; - Others (Religious leader) 2 2.1 2 0 <10 4 4.2 4 0 10-20 3 giz 3 0 Z1=30 13 13:7 13 0 >30 75 78.9 67 8 Konta Koyesha 66 69.5 60 6 Oshka Dech 29 30.5 27 2 BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 67 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict The majority of respondents (91.6%) expressed a positive attitude towards wildlife conservation in the study area (Table 1). There was no statistically sig- nificant difference in attitude across kebeles (x? = 0.126, df = 1, p > 0.05), sex (x? = 2.472, df = 1, p > 0.05), or educational background (2 = 0.188, df = 2, p > 0.05). Types of HWC More than half of the respondents, 49 (51.6%), mentioned both crop damage and livestock predation as the main types of conflict encountered with wild animals, while only 2 (2.1%) reported human attack as a cause of conflict in the study area (Table 2). The types of conflict experienced by the community showed no statis- tically significant difference across the study kebeles (x? = 2.141, df = 3, p > 0.05). Table 2. Types of conflict the community encountered with wild animals. Types of conflict Study Kebeles | Crop damage Livestock Both crop damage and | ; : : Human attack only depredation only | Livestock depredation Konta Koyesha 16 15 33 2 Oshka Dech 9 4 16 Total 20 19 49 2 The olive baboon was ranked as the principal wild animal by 95.8% of re- spondents, while 65.3% ranked the vervet monkey as a secondary wild animal responsible for damage to human properties in the study area (Table 3). Table 3. Major wild animals that cause damage to human lives and properties as ranked by surveyed respondents. Wild animals bate 6) 1st au ae 4tn ay 6" Olive Baboon 95.8 Zl Vervet monkey - 65.3 221 bel Porcupine : 2.1 49.5 2.1 7 29.5 Wild pig 2.1 30.5 4.2 1.1 30.5 Hyena - - 29.5 1.1 A Python - - 2.1 - - 2.1 Lion - - 9.5 29.5 Others 2 Others: buffalo, jackal, cheetah, warthog, bushbuck, colobus monkey, kudu, blue monkey. Threats to wildlife conservation The majority of respondents, 72 (75.6%), reported habitat loss as the main threat to wildlife, while 17 (17.9%) and 6 (6.3%) households reported illegal hunting and HWC, respectively, as threats in the study area (Table 4). There was no significant difference in the types of threats among the study kebeles (x? = 0.662, df = 2, p > 0.05). BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 68 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict Table 4. Major threats to the survival of wild animals in the present study area (N = 95). Threats of wildlife survival Study Kebeles Habitat loss Illegal hunting HWC Konta Koyesha 49 12 | 5 Oshka Dech 23 5 1 Total vied 17 6 Mitigation strategies The majority of respondents, 72 (75.8%), reported that guarding day and night was used to protect crops and livestock from depredation. In contrast, 7 (7.4%) respondents reported that killing problematic wild animals was also used as a mitigation strategy (Table 5). The methods used to mitigate wild animal dam- age showed no significant differences between the study kebeles (x? = 3.221, df = 2, p > 0.05). Table 5. HWC mitigation strategies used by local communities in the study area. HWC mitigation strategies (N = 95) Study kebeles Guarding day | Scarecrow (smoking, and night plastic and clothes) egal hunting Konta Koyesha 48 14 | 4 Oshka Dech 24 2 Total 72 16 ri Trends of wild animal populations in KSD A total of 61.1% of surveyed respondents reported that wild animal populations in the study area are increasing, while 38.9% perceived that populations in their vicinity are decreasing (Table 6). Responses from interviewees about the popu- lation trends of wild animals revealed no significant variation among the study kebeles (x? = 0.607, df = 1, p > 0.05). Table 6. Perceived trends in wild animal populations by surveyed respondents (N = 95). : . ; ; Responses of respondents Trends of wild animals’ populations Frequency Percentages Increasing 58 61.1 Decreasing 37 38.9 | don't know Total 95 100 Discussion We found that local communities experienced both crop raiding and livestock predation, and occasionally human attacks, in the KSD. The olive baboon, ver- vet monkey, wild pigs, porcupines, and hyenas were reported as the major crop pests and livestock predators. To some extent, lions, pythons, buffalo, jackals, BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 69 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict cheetahs, warthogs, bushbucks, colobus monkeys, kudu, and blue monkeys were also reported as problematic wild animals present in the study area. Olive baboons and vervet monkeys were by far the most common crop pests and have been reported in different parts of Ethiopia and elsewhere in the world (Mc Guinness and Taylor 2014; Kifle and Beehner 2022; Thakur et al. 2022; Yazezew 2022; Ibrahim et al. 2023; Jaleta and Tekalign 2023). Focus group participants also reported that because baboons and monkeys are sophisticated social an- imals that do not fear humans, they are particularly difficult pests for females and children to drive away from crops. Older males were consequently com- pelled to tend croplands. In addition to crop-raiding behaviors, baboons prey on sheep and goats. As a result, the local community asserted that baboons and monkeys were the main source of conflict in the current study. In line with the present study, baboons were reported as the main predators of sheep and goats elsewhere in Ethiopia (Kifle 2021; Sebsibe 2022). The focus group dis- cussants also highlighted that the conflict between humans and wildlife in the KSD has worsened over time. It is expected that wildlife habitats that have been actively destroyed by human activities will no longer be able to support the wild animals that inhabit them. As a result, wild animals frequently move to agricul- tural areas and human settlements in search of food and space to breed, which substantially increases HWC. Similar findings have reported that the continu- ous increase in human pressure on wildlife habitat affects habitat availability and quality, which results in HWC (Megaze et al. 2022; Kidane et al. 2024). Wild pigs and porcupines were also rated as secondary and tertiary crop pests by 30.5% and 49.5% of respondents, respectively. In line with the current findings, studies conducted in Awi Zone, Ethiopia (Derebe et al. 2022), and in the Kailash Sacred Landscape of India (Hussain et al. 2018) identified wild pigs and porcupines as crop pests. Farmers in Central Italy also considered porcu- pines as major crop pests (Franchini et al. 2024). Livestock predation was another cause of conflict between humans and wild animals in the present study. Hyenas, jackals, pythons, cheetahs, and baboons were involved. Hyenas were reported as the most nuisance predator in the area compared with other predators listed. This could be due to hyenas’ flexible for- aging behaviors and their ability to kill all types of livestock during both day and night (Temesgen et al. 2022; Matindike et al. 2023; Portas and Krofel 2024). Only a few respondents blamed lions as livestock predators in the present study. The possible reason might be that lions mostly prefer to kill livestock when wild prey is absent in their vicinity (Sebsibe 2022; Wakoli et al. 2023). Matindike et al. (2023) also reported that low prey abundance in the Sengwa Wildlife Research Area contributed to high livestock depredation in Zimbabwe. In addition, local people's opinions regarding lion conservation are greatly in- fluenced by cultural norms. For instance, local people living around Kafa Bio- sphere Reserve showed a positive attitude towards lion conservation due to cultural values (Gebresenbet et al. 2018). This was also observed in the present study area. However, the present findings contrast with those of Shibru et al. (2023), who reported that lions were the major livestock predators, followed by hyenas and leopards, in Maze National Park, Ethiopia. Two of the surveyed respondents reported human attack as a cause of HWC, and some (7.4%) of the household heads also acknowledged retaliatory killing BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 70 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict as a mitigation method in the study area. Occasional attacks and threats to humans have been reported in areas inhabited by large carnivores, often re- sulting in retaliatory killing, as observed by Felix et al. (2022) in the Tarangire— Manyara Ecosystem, Tanzania, and Gebresenbet et al. (2018) in and around Gambella National Park, Ethiopia. Local communities used guarding, scarecrows, and killing problematic wild animals to protect their properties from damage. The majority of respondents reported guarding as the primary and most effective method, which included the use of guarding dogs, shouting at animals, and burning fires around crop- lands. This is consistent with the findings of other studies (Wiafe 2019; Kumar et al. 2022). Shibru et al. (2023) also reported that guarding was the most effec- tive method used by local communities to prevent livestock predation in Maze National Park, Ethiopia. Most respondents indicated that there had been an increase in the number of wild animals, especially monkeys and baboons. However, during our field visits, we observed that wildlife habitats were being destroyed by anthropo- genic activities, bringing humans and wild animals into more frequent contact (Fig. 2). This led to overlapping resource use, competition between humans and wild animals, and conflicts. This proximity could explain why the majority of surveyed respondents believed that wild animal populations were increasing in their locality (Temesgen et al. 2022). The majority of respondents (91.6%) had favorable perceptions towards wild- life conservation in their locality despite the destruction caused by wild animals. In justification, respondents and focus group discussants noted that wild ani- mals were sources of tourist attractions, and some wild animal species and their Figure 2. A group of olive baboons around human settlements while searching for food. BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 7 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict products were also used for traditional medicine, while their habitats provided wild honey, wild coffee, and spices for local people. Furthermore, participants believed that wildlife conservation is important because it restricts the move- ments of wild animals, minimizes the frequency of human-wildlife contact, and reduces the damage caused by wild animals. Similarly, 90% of the local commu- nity living adjacent to the southwest of Mole National Park in Ghana expressed willingness to coexist with monkeys for different reasons despite their destruc- tive behavior (Wiafe 2019). Molaliegn et al. (2018) and Biru et al. (2022) also re- ported that local communities may have positive attitudes towards wild animals as a result of using wild animals and their products as sources of food, tradition- al medicines, and cultural and spiritual values. In contrast, Erena et al. (2019) re- ported that local communities in Jorgo-Wato Protected Forest, western Ethiopia, had negative attitudes towards wild vermin animals that caused damage. In the current research area, habitat loss, illegal hunting, and HWC were identified as the main threats to wildlife. Habitat destruction was the princi- pal threat, driven by human activities. During our fieldwork, we observed active fires in wildlife habitats, induced by local people to clear land for agriculture and settlements, as well as to collect firewood and wild honey. In addition, many development activities were taking place in the area, such as the construction of a hydropower dam and roads, which ultimately destroyed wildlife habitats (Fig. 3). Studies in different parts of Ethiopia also reported the destruction of wildlife habitats for anthropogenic purposes, such as agriculture, settlement, Figure 3. Major wildlife threats identified during the field survey in Konta Special District: A. Human-induced fire; B. Hydropower development; and C. Road construction. BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 7h) Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict and charcoal production, as a major threat to wildlife (Gibru and Temesgen 2021; Woldegiorgis and Mekonnen 2021). Among the five major threats listed by the IUCN on the status and threats to species, habitat destruction is considered a principal driver of extinction, even if it differs across taxa, ecosystems, and locations (Bellard et al. 2022; Hogue and Breon 2022). Conclusion and recommendations The findings of this study reported the existence of HWC manifested through crop damage, livestock depredation, and, to some extent, human attacks and retaliatory killing of wild animals. Baboons and hyenas were identified as the most problematic wild animals in the study area. Habitat destruction due to hydropower development and road construction, human-induced fire for land clearance for agriculture and settlement, and the collection of firewood and wild honey were identified as major threats to wildlife. Surprisingly, the ma- jority of respondents showed positive attitudes towards wildlife conservation despite the destruction caused by wild animals, which is promising for future conservation in the KSD. Therefore, developing compensation schemes and providing regular awareness training for local communities about conflict miti- gation strategies and the effects of uncontrolled fires on biodiversity are crucial to minimizing negative impacts for both parties and sustaining positive atti- tudes towards wildlife conservation and coexistence. Development activities in the study area should not compromise biodiversity conservation goals. More- over, field observations confirmed that the area is endowed with unique wildlife resources of national and international conservation relevance; however, these resources are under severe threat, calling for urgent conservation measures. Acknowledgements Our gratitude extends to the survey respondents for their kind cooperation and for sharing their knowledge. We are thankful to the local agricultural experts for their invaluable assistance in data collection, language translation services, and arranging convenient places for focus group discussions. We also sincere- ly thank the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute for providing logistical support. Additional information Conflict of interest The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Ethical statement No ethical statement was reported. Use of Al No use of Al was reported. Funding No funding was reported. BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 73 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict Author contributions Conceptualization: ZT, YB, AG. Data curation: YB, ZT, AG. Formal analysis: ZT. Investigation: ZT. Methodology: KH, ZT, YB, AG. Software: ZT. Supervision: YB. Writing — original draft: ZT. Writing — review and editing: AG, KH, YB. Author ORCIDs Zelalem Temesgen © hitps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1284-2147 Yihew Biru © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9944-4485 Amare Gibru © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9289-3798 Data availability All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text. References Abebe FB, Bekele SE (2018) Challenges to National Park Conservation and Manage- ment in Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science 10(5). https://doi.org/10.5539/jas. v10n5p52 Abera N, Tesema D (2019) Perceptions and practices of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies among farmers in the Konta Special District, Ethiopia. Environmental & Socio-economic Studies 7(4): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.2478/envi- ron-2019-0019 Alemkere A (2018) Perception, attitude and impacts of local communities on Senkele Swayne’s Hartebeest Sanctuary, Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodeversity and Conservation 10(8): 337-347. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2017.1173 Amoo GO, Tunde-Ajayi OA, Yusuf AO (2023) Attitude and Involvement of Local Com- munities in Nature Conservation around Idanre Forest Reserve, Ondo State, Nige- ria. Journal of Applied Science & Environmental Management 27(11): 2445-2452. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v27i11.12 Armitage D, Mbatha P Muhl EK, Rice W, Sowman M (2020) Governance principles for community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Science and Practice 2: e160. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.160 Babalola OJ, Jegede HO, Ogundro BN (2020) Perceptions, attitudes, and outcomes of human-snake encounters: Aretrospective study of an online discussion community in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Ethnobiology 3: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjeth- nobiol/y030101 Bekalo TH, Woodmatas SD, Woldemariam ZA (2009) An ethnobotanical study of medic- inal plants used by local people in the lowlands of Konta Special Woreda, southern nations, nationalities and peoples regional state, Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 5: 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1 746-4269-5-26 Bellard C, Marino C, Courchamp F (2022) Ranking threats to biodiversity and why it doesnt matter. Nature Communications 13: 2616. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 022-30339-y Biru Y, Gibru A, Temesgen Z, Hunde K, Fekensa T (2022) Zootherapeutic animals used by Awi, Gamo, and Konta communities in Amhara and southern regions of Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Ethnobiology 5(2): 84-91. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjethnobi- ol/y050202 CSA [Central Statistical Agency] (2007) The 2007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 74 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict Dar MA, Rather TA, Islam MA, Tariq S (2022) Human-Wildlife Conflict and Attitude of Lo- cal People to Wildlife Conservation around Dachigam National Park, Kashmir (India). International Journal of Environment and Climate Change 12(12): 57-68. https://doi. org/10.9734/ijecc/2022/v1 21121438 Deneke Y, Megaze A, Tekalegn W, Dobamo T, Leirs H (2022) Population estimation and livestock loss by spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) in Damota community managed forest, Southern Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation 34: e02037. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02037 Derebe B, Derebe Y, Tsegaye B (2022) Human-Wild animal conflict in Banja Woreda, Awi Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Forestry Research 2022: 1-14. https://doi. org/10.1155/2022/4973392 Erena MG, Debella HJ, Bekele A (2019) Local People’s View Towards Wildlife Conserva- tion and the Misuse of Natural Resources in Jorgo-Wato Protected Forest, Western Ethiopia. World Applied Sciences Journal 37(1): 70-78. Felix N, Kissui BM, Munishi L, Treydte AC (2022) Retaliatory killing negatively af- fects African lion (Panthera leo) male coalitions in the Tarangire Manyara Eco- system, Tanzania. PLOS ONE 17(8): e0272272. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0272272 Franchini M, Frangini L, Viviano A, Filacorda S, Stokel G, Mori E (2024) Get out from my field! The role of agricultural crops in shaping the habitat selection by and suitability for the crested porcupine in Central Italy. Mammal Research 69: 411-421. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13364-024-00744-3 Gebresenbet F, Baraki B, Yirga G, Sillero-Zubiri C, Bauer H (2017) A culture of tolerance: Coexisting with large carnivores in the Kafa Highlands, Ethiopia. Oryx 52(4): 751- 760. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001356 Gebresenbet F, Bauer H, Vadjunec JM, Papes M (2018) Beyond the numbers: Human attitudes and conflict with lions (Panthera leo) in and around Gambella National Park, Ethiopia. PLOS ONE 13(9): e0204320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204320 Gibru A, Temesgen Z (2021) Diversity and threats of avifauna in Cheleleka Wetland, cen- tral Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Restoration Ecology 2(4): 53-60. https://doi.org/10.30564/ re.v2i4.2621 Guzman A, Heinen JT, Sah JP (2020) Evaluating the conservation attitudes, awareness and knowledge of residents towards Vieques National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Conservation & Society 18(1): 13-24. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_46 Hariohay KM, Fyumagwa RD, Kideghesho JR, Réskaft E (2018) Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23(6): 503-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 0871209.2018.1494866 Hogue AS, Breon K (2022) The greatest threats to species. Conservation Science and Practice 4(5): e12670. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12670 Hussain A, Rawat GS, Kumar SS, Adhikar BS (2018) People perception of human- Wild- life conflict in a part of Kailash sacred landscape. Indian Forester 144(10): 996-999. Ibrahim H, Bekele A, Yazezew D, Mekonnen A (2023) Assessment of crop foraging by hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas) in and around Borena-Sayint National Park, northern Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation 44: e02498. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02498 Jaleta M, Tekalign W (2023) Crop loss and damage by primate species in south- west Ethiopia. International Journal of Ecology 2023: 1-9. https://doi. org/10.1155/2023/8332493 BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 75 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict Kebede AG, Bekele M, Woldeamanuel T (2014) Natural resource use conflict in Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodeversity and Conservation 6(12): 814-822. http://www.academicjournals.org/IJBC Kidane EE, Kiros S, Berhe A, Girma Z (2024) Human-wildlife conflict and community perceptions towards wildlife conservation in and around a biodiverse National Park, Northern Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation 54: e03072. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03072 Kifle Z (2021) Human-olive baboon (Papio anubis) conflict in the human-modified land- scape, Wollo, Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation 31: e01820. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01820 Kifle Z, Beehner JC (2022) Distribution and diversity of primates and threats to their survival in the Awi Zone, northwestern Ethiopia. Primates 63(6): 637-645. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10329-022-01010-3 Kumar V, Sharief A, Dutta R, Mukherjee T, Joshi BD, Thakur M, Chandra K, Adhikari BS, Sharma LK (2022) Living with a large predator: Assessing the root causes of Human- brown bear conflict and their spatial patterns in Lahaul valley, Himachal Pradesh. Ecology and Evolution 12: e9120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9120 Matindike S, Chibememe G, Mahakata | (2023) Livestock Losses and Predation Crisis in Communal Areas around Sengwa Wildlife Research Area (SWRA), Zimbabwe. OAlib 10(04): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1110000 Matusal M,MegazeA, DobamoT (2023) Population Density of Wild Animals and Their Con- flict in Konasa_Pulasa Community Conserved Forest, Omo Valley, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Ecology 2023: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8437073 Mc Guinness S, Taylor D (2014) Farmers’ perceptions and actions to decrease crop raid- ing by Forest-Dwelling primates around a Rwandan forest fragment. Human Dimen- sions of Wildlife 19(2): 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2014.853330 Megaze A, Balakrishnan M, Belay G (2017) Human-wildlife conflict and attitude of local people towards conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. African Zoology 52(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15627020.2016.1254063 Megaze A, Kebede Y, Feleke G (2022) Assessment of human-wildlife conflict in the Cen- tral Omo River Basin, Ethiopia. Journal of Science and Inclusive Development 4(1). https://doi.org/10.20372/jsid/2022-126 Mekuyie M (2014) Human-wildlife conflicts: Case study in Wondo Genet district, southern Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 3(5): 352-362. https://doi. org/10.11648/j.aff.20140305.14 Molaliegn WM, Kassie A, Tesfahunegny W, Hailay G (2018) Wild Animal Status and their Threats in Echefa Forest and Wetland (Proposed In-situ Conservation Site), Southern Nations Nationalities and People’s Regional States, Ethiopia. Journal of Biodiversity and Endangered Species 6(3). Njukang AP, Akwanjoh SR, Angwafor TE, Chuo MD, Amin NT (2019) Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of the local people towards the conservation of the Nigeria-Camer- oon Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) in the Tofala Hill Wildlife Sanctuary (THWS), South West Region, Cameroon. IJREH 3(1): 2456-8678. https://doi.org/10.22161/ ijreh.3.1.5 Portas R, Krofel M (2024) Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) predation on passerine birds in Namibia. Food Webs 38: e00340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2024.e00340 Sebsibe | (2022) Humans-livestock predators conflict in the Central and Eastern Part of Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. BMC Ecology and Evolution 22(1). https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12862-022-02065-y BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 76 Zelalem Temesgen et al.: Human-wildlife conflict Shibru S, Tolcha A, Melese M, Ayechew B, Tsegaye G, Gatew S (2023) Perceptions of farmers towards carnivores in an Ethiopian protected area. African Journal of Ecolo- gy 62(1): €13218. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13218 Teklay G, Zeyede T, Milite M (2015) Knowledge, attitude and practices of peasants to- wards hyraxes in two selected church forests in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodeversity and Conservation 7(5): 299-307. https://doi. org/10.5897/IJBC2014.0793 Temesgen Z, Mengesha G, Endalamaw TB (2022) Human-wildlife conflict in the sur- rounding districts of Alage College, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolu- tion 12: e8591. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8591 Thakur RK, Walia A, Mehta K, Kumar V, Lal H (2022) Economic assessment of crop dam- ages by animal menace in mid hill regions of Himachal Pradesh. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 92(4): 484-491. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v92i4.124173 Tilahun B, Abie K, Feyisa A, Amare A (2017) Attitude and perceptions of local communi- ties towards the conservation value of gibe Sheleko national park, Southwestern Ethi- opia. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal 3(2): 65-77. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2017.03.02.06 Wakoli E, Syallow DM, Sitati E, Webala PW, Ipara H, Finch T (2023) Efficacy of bomas (Kraals) in mitigating livestock depredation in Maasai Mara Conservancies, Kenya. Conservation 3(1): 199-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation3010015 Wiafe ED (2019) Primates crop raiding situation on farmlands adjacent to South-West of Mole National Park, Ghana, Ghana Jnl. Agricultural Sciences 54(2): 58-67. https:// doi.org/10.4314/gjas.v54i2.6 Woldegiorgis YB, Mekonnen AG (2021) Biodiversity loss and conservation challenges in Chimit Kolla, Gozamen District, East Gojam Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. In- ternational Journal of Biodeversity and Conservation 13(4): 214-217. https://doi. org/10.5897/IJBC2021.1493 Yazezew D (2022) Human-wildlife conflict and community perceptions towards wildlife conservation in and around Wof-Washa Natural State Forest, Ethiopia. BMC Zoology 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40850-022-00154-5 BioRisk 23: 63-77 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073 77