Perceptions of farmers towards carnivores in an Ethiopian protected area

Abstract

We explored farmers' perceptions of the causes and consequences of human‐carnivore conflict in Maze National Park, Ethiopia. We selected 225 household heads randomly from five villages for interview using survey questionnaires. We identified the five villages randomly from the 16 that border the park. The majority (75.1%) of the respondents had a negative perception towards the park and the carnivores due to livestock depredation. Overall, 1142 livestock depredation were reported over 3 years (2017–2019). Cattle, sheep and goats were reportedly the most depredated animals. The numbers of livestock depredated significantly varied among villages and predators. Farmers perceived lions as the major livestock depredator followed by leopards and spotted hyaenas and they perceived that proximity, poor livestock husbandry and low natural prey density were the main causes of livestock depredation. The distance of the household holdings to the park was correlated negatively with the depredation level. Farmers use guarding, cut‐and‐carry systems and dogs to reduce carnivores' predation. Allocating enough spatial differences between the park and the villages and altering the timing and frequency with which livestock grazing overlaps with the diurnal activities of carnivores may lead to a win–win outcome promoting coexistence.

Interviews in ecology and conservation biology: A hidden treasure for the African ecologist

“…While I have highlighted the advantages, as well as the philosophical and scientific strengths, of utilising face‐to‐face interviews in researching the ecology and conservation of African flora and fauna, it is crucial to emphasise the significance of interview data within the context of an international ecology journal, such as AJE . Over the past 2 years, several articles based on face‐to‐face interviews have been published (Aglissi et al., 2023; De Vos & McIntyre, 2023; Dupuis‐Desormeaux et al., 2023; Houehanou et al., 2023; Ibrahim et al., 2022; Kisingo et al., 2023; Oyda et al., 2022; Shibru et al., 2023). Many other submissions have been rejected, primarily due to a lack of true ‘ecological’ focus.…”