ABSTRACT
Human activities that affect wildlife and their habitats are pervasive and increasing. Understanding the effects of humans on wildlife populations, as well as devising strategies to ameliorate these effects, is an increasing challenge for resource managers. Commitment of local communities to protected areas is also essential for conserving biodiversity, but little is known about local people attitudes toward biodiversity conservation. Therefore, this paper provides an empirical assessment of local people activities and their attitudes that affect wildlife and their habitats around Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia from 2012 to 2014. Nine villages around the park were selected for this study. A total of 354 households were selected randomly for interview. A semi-structured questionnaire survey, focus group discussions and direct field observations were carried out in the nine selected villages. Among the various human activities recorded, firewood collection, bushfires setting fire, hunting, livestock grazing and farming were having great impacts on biodiversity conservation in the Park. Among the respondents, 51.2% reportedly used the park for livestock grazing, 50.2% for firewood and fodder collection, 15.6% for wild honey and spices collection, 23.1% for timber, 2.6% for wild meat and 2% for farming in and along the boundaries of the Park. Most respondents had positive attitudes towards the conservation of wildlife. A combined strategy aimed at improving local participation in wildlife conservation initiatives, initiation of public education and awareness campaigns and provision of alternative sources of income for the local people will reduce the threat, and contribute to improve conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park.
Key words: Human activities, resource use, wildlife conservation.
Throughout history, human factors have been major drivers of biodiversity loss (Hackel, 1999). Ninety-nine percent of the IUCN Red List species are threatened by these factors (IUCN, 2003). Biodiversity loss is more pronounced in developing countries, which are more dependent on natural resources as their primary source of income (Wilfred, 2010). In developing countries, pressure on natural resources is growing in tandem with rapidly growing human populations (Oladeji et al., 2012). Wildlife species, which are important to humans, decline or disappear as wildlife habitat is cleared for anthropogenic activities (Oladeji et al., 2012). Habitat loss and fragmentation affect the survival of wildlife in various ways including influencing the behavior, abundance, distribution of animals, as well as reducing the extent of usable habitats and degrading habitat quality (Masanja, 2014). In developing nations, firewood remains the major source of energy for cooking, heating and lighting. Until 2010, around 2.8 billion people mainly in developing nations relied on traditional use of biomass for cooking and heating (Bonjour et al., 2013). The over utilization of wood products by rural human communities aggravates the degradation of the habitats of wildlife, and is the major threat to protected areas in developing countries today (Masanja, 2014). Wildfire is a common phenomenon across the African continent (Archibald et al., 2012). Humans are regarded as the main source of wildfire globally, accounting for 59 to 95% of ignitions (FAO, 2007). Studies from east, west, and southern Africa reported that burning protected areas was mostly for livelihood-related, notably range management, thatch production, predator-cover reduction, gathering, hunting and agricultural production (Gandiwa et al., 2014). Agriculture remains a predominant livelihood activity in most parts of Africa (Coad, 2007;
Gundogdu, 2011). In Ethiopia, expansion of agricultural practices, settlement and increasing pressure of human and livestock populations are major threats in several protected areas (Tadesse and Kotler, 2013). Local communities' perceptions of protected areas influence the kinds of interactions people have with them, and thereby conservation effectiveness (Ramakrishnan, 2007). Their perceptions of protected areas management play also an important role in their attitudes toward them (Anthony, 2007). Therefore, understanding residents' perceptions about conservation is the key to improve the protected areas-people relationship if protected areas are to achieve their goals (Weladji et al., 2003). Many factors influence the perceptions of the protected areas held by residents living in their periphery. These include the history of park management, the degree of awareness of protected areas existence, the education level, the reference to future generation (Bauer, 2003) and the gender and ethnicity (Mehta and Heinen, 2001). The understanding of all these factors is important to improve the relationship between local residents and protected areas and will improve people awareness about biodiversity conservation within these areas. Therefore, collecting baseline information on various human activities and their attitudes is a vital step in managing the impact of human activities on biodiversity conservation. Chebera Churchura National Park (CCNP) in Ethiopia is a conservation area where the impact of human activities on conservation of wildlife has not been studied as is the case in many other parts of Ethiopia. Effective conservation measures cannot be achieved successfully without clear information about the impact of human activities on conservation of wildlife. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the potential impact of various human activities and their attitudes on conservation of wildlife in the CCNP, and to obtain useful information to enable recommendations to be made regarding better management of the Park.
Study area
Chebera Churchura National Park (6°39′-7°09′N and 36°27′-36°57′ E) is located 580 km south- west of Addis Ababa (Figure 1). It covers an area of 1,215 km2, and lies within the western side of the Central Omo Gibe Basin. The mean annual rainfall of the area is 2,154 mm. There are two main seasons, the dry season from December to February and the wet season from March to November. Four main rivers and their tributaries drain the area. The area is rich in floral and faunal biodiversity, consisting of 37 species of large mammals, 18 species of small mammals and 137 bird species (Demeke and Afework, 2013).
Methods
The present study was carried out through a questionnaire survey and focus group discussions (Newmark et al., 1994; Maddox, 2003), to collect primary data among the households in the study area. The questionnaire had both open and close ended questions to get information about anthropogenic activities in the study area. It was also supplemented with field observations of various aspects of resource use, benefits from wildlife and the associated costs. A preliminary survey was conducted in August, 2012 prior to the actual data collection period. This helped to (i) identify the boundaries of the park, (ii) decide the number of villages/sites based on purposive sampling method and (iii) have a general understanding of the overall situations like anthropogenic activities and problems related to crop damage and livestock loss in CCNP. The questionnaire was pre-tested on randomly selected 62 individuals of varying age, sex and social economic activities among the local communities. These individuals were not included in the main sample group. This helped to identify the various anthropogenic activities in the area and to modify the questionnaire accordingly. Nine villages from 25 Peasant Associations were selected based on the information gathered using the preliminary survey: (i) the distance from the Park, (ii) problems related to crop damage and livestock loss, (iii) dependence of local people on the Park and (iv) encroachment within the Park area. A total of 354 households were selected randomly for the interview. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 72 years. The questionnaire was administered to all households, of which 230 (65%) were males and 124 (35%) were females. Interview questions were written in English, but all interviews were translated and conducted in Dawuro local language to reduce misunderstandings during the interviews, due to cultural and language differences, through back-translation of the interview script (Müller, 2007). Eighteen local people, consisting of two residents in each of the 9 study village were recruited and trained to administer the questionnaires.
To ensure accuracy, the same translators were used and the same interview questions. The questionnaire was administered to farmers within their area of farming and/or residence (Hill, 2000), at a random manner based on first come, first-serve basis (Newmark et al., 1994), and alternating male and female respondents as much as possible and different age groups. In some households, the head was interviewed and other people present in a house usually helped in the recall. Respondents answered each attitudes statement according to their strength of agreement by the following attitudes level scores: 1= for strongly agree, 2=agree, 3= neutral, 4= disagree, and 5= strongly disagree (Likert, 1974). The villages covered were Chebera, Serri, Dalba, Yore, Shita, Churchura, Chewda, Gudumu and Adabachew, ranging from 0 to 5 km apart from the boundary of the Park. The questionnaire consisted of a series of semi-structured questions focusing on two main areas of interest. These include: (i) demographic data and (ii) various anthropogenic activities (grazing, wildfire setting, hunting, firewood gathering, agricultural activities and other socio- economic activities, which could have negative impacts on wildlife in the area). Data were collected using a semi-structured survey design, following a similar format used by Maddox (2003). Data were analyzed using SPSS computer software version 20 (SPSS Inc, IL, U-S-A). Appropriate statistical methods such descriptive statistics and frequency were used to analyse the data. To test for the mean differences in attitude toward conservation of biodiversity among age groups and gender of the respondents, a non parametric test was conducted on all the test variables. Spearman rho was used to evaluate the correlation among the attitudes of the respondents toward the conservation area.
Focus group discussion
Focus group discussions method was used to reinforce the data collected through the questionnaire. Group discussions were organized to obtain direct first-hand information through spontaneous responses from the respondent, and the discussions solicited information about local community attitudes of biodiversity conservation. Two focus group discussions sessions were conducted in each of the study village, and the group size in each discussion site varied from 15 to 21. The participants were invited to discuss issues according to their convenience. Park staffs, village leaders, local elders, primary school teacher in the village, other government employers and students have participated to discuss their experience concerned with conservation and to gather their information on wildlife in the area. During such group discussions, the researcher initiated the discussion by stating some of the observations and responses from people interviewed and from questionnaires. Information collected from group discussions were collated and summarized using text analysis method, and presented in a narrative fashion. Thus, the information acquired was triangulated through questionnaire interviews, focus group discussions and field observations.
Socio-demographic characteristics
The socio-demographic characteristics (sex, age-groups, religious groups, occupation and educational background) of the respondents living in the communities surrounding CCNP are presented in Table 1. Out of the 354 respondents, 65% were males and 35.02% females. The youngest respondent was 18 years old, and the oldest 72 years. Majority (68.9%) of the respondents were between 29-49 years old, while 8.1 and 7.9% of the respondents were less than 20 years and older than 59 years old, respectively. Most of the respondents (80.8%) were married, 5.6% were single, 10.5% divorced and 3.1% were widowed. Most of the respondents (54.8%) were illiterate, 10.2% had informal education, 27.1% had primary education, 7.9% had secondary education and none had gone beyond secondary level education. There were significant differences in the educational status among the respondents (χ2 = 98.16, df =3, P<0.05). The majority of respondents (55.4%) had positive attitudes towards the conservation area, while 38.6% had negative attitudes. Most of the better-educated groups (65.8%) had positive attitudes than less-educated respondents (45%), the difference were significant (χ2= 27.5, df =3, P<0.05). Most (60%) of the respondents had 4 to 6 family members. On the other hand, 36.8, 2.3 and 0.9% of the respondents had 1 to 3, 7 to 10 and > 10 family members, respectively (Table 1). Respondents with large family size had more negative attitudes towards the conservation area than those with small family size. Mixed farming (crop cultivation and livestock rearing) was the main means of livelihood of most of the respondents (76.8%) in CCNP, and only 12.7% depend on crop farming. Among the respondents, 10.4% claimed to have been involved in one or more secondary occupations. The majority of respondents (51.1%) had a positive attitude towards the conservation area, but on an average 40.5% had negative attitude. The major livestock reared by the local communities are cattle (44.7%), goat (17.1%), sheep (16.4%) and pack animals including donkeys (17.1%), mules (7.6%) and horses (6.9%) in nine villages surrounding the park.
Resource utilization
Local communities are dependent on a number of natural resources in the Park for their livelihoods (Table 2). Majority of the respondents acknowledged getting benefits from the Park, 51.2% using the conservation area for livestock grazing, 50.2% for firewood and fodder collection, 15.6% for wild honey and spices collection, 23.1% for timber collection and 2% for farming along the boundaries of the Park.
Livestock grazing
Majority of the livestock of the respondents (82.3%) grazed inside and around the Park, 39.0% inside the Park and 43.3% in the buffer zone of the Park. Only 17.6% of the local people have own grazing land. The villages differed significantly (χ2 = 48.34, df =8, P<0.05) regarding livestock grazing in the study area (Table 3).
Firewood and timber extraction
The main source of energy for the people around CCNP was firewood. Among the respondents, 35.9% collected firewood and construction materials from the interior of the park, 54.4% from the buffer zone, and 9.6% from other sources like the farm area (Figure 2).
Illegal hunting
Majority of the respondents (80.43%) indicated that it was easy to obtain wild meat in the locality, while the remaining 19.57% stated that it was not easy. The difference was significant (χ2 = 49.85, df =1, P<0.05). Most respondents across the nine study villages reported that illegal hunters commonly used wire snaring (54.8%) and firearms (45.5%). The least reported illegal hunting methods were poisoning (1.24%), hunting with dogs (0.17%) and fire (0.12%) (Table 4). Poisoning, mostly using herbicides and pesticides, was used in retaliate against large carnivores such as spotted hyena and lion as a way to reduce livestock–carnivore conflicts. Wildfire was used to drive animals towards snares and to make hunting by dogs easier. A total of 22 wildlife species, including large herbivores and carnivores were reported to be illegally killed in the CCNP ecosystem. Most of the respondents reported that African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) (71%), African elephant (Loxodonta africana) (45%), common warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) (33%), waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) (25%) and bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) (21%) were the most abundant, preferred and commonly hunted animals.
In addition, Anubis baboon (Papio anubis) (34%), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) (11%), leopard (Panthera pardus) (10%), lion (Panthera leo) (8%) and black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) (2%) were also illegally killed in the CCNP ecosystem (Figure 3). The respondents highlighted five reasons for illegal hunting of wild animals: (i) source of protein for domestic consumption (40.4%), (ii) reduction of crop damage and livestock predation (47.9%), (iii) sale to enhance income (25.5%), (iv) reduction of threats to humans (21.7%), (v) use for traditional/cultural ceremonies (2.0%). The difference were significant (χ2= 59.98, df =8, P<0.05). Across the nine study villages, the differences in perceptions of respondents concerning illegal hunting in the CCNP ecosystem during 2012 to 2014 were significant (χ2= 51.23, df =8, P<0.05). Of the respondents, 61.6% thought illegal hunting activities had decreased, 20.8% indicate that it had increased, and only 17.5% thought there had been no change. The main reasons given for the perceived decline of illegal hunting in the CCNP ecosystem were: (i) fear of arrest and imprisonment (73.1%), (ii) strengthened law enforcement operations (40.3%), (iii) fear of Park Rangers (22.2%), and (iv) lack of firearms to use in illegal hunting (17.9%).
Wildfire
Most of the respondents (97.9%) stated that wildfires were of anthropogenic origin, 88.7% of the fires being deliberately set by the local people, largely hunters (83.5%) or farmers (16.5%) to clearing vegetation for cultivation.
Accidental wildfires resulted from collection of wild honey (76.6%) and cooking on farms (23.2%). Most of the farmer-respondents set fires once a year, usually during the dry season (December to February).
Illegal farming
The local communities surrounding the CCNP had been using the Park area for agricultural purposes even before the establishment of the Park, especially the communities of Chebera, Sirri, Shita, Yora and Churchura villages. Crops farmed included maize (Zea mays), teff (Eragrostis tef), banana (Musa acuminata), mango (Mangifera indica), avocado (Persea americana), ginger (Zingiber officinale) and ‘Enset’ (Enset ventricosum).
Focus group discussion
The discussants have revealed that activities such as illegal hunting, livestock grazing, wildfire, fuel wood gathering, illegal farming practice, wild honey and green chilli collection were performed by the local people. Most participants agreed that the local communities benefited from the Park resources. Most of them described the shortage of private grazing land and decreased farmland holding due to the Park around them. This could have increased pressure on the Park area resources for livestock grazing and agricultural expansion. They also emphasized additional farmland should be provided as compensation and sharing of resource should be allowed. Some of the discussants noted that previously they used to hunt different wild animals and minimize their threat. However, at present, the negative effects of the animals are on the increase. As a result, some of the discussants were dissatisfied with the existence of CCNP. They considered the Park as a limiting factor in improving their livelihood. Some of them also stated that CCNP has been responsible for their restricted access to resources in the area and further calmed forced relocation. Few discussants considered the Park as useless. They also felt that Park staff members do not like communities around the Park boundaries. But most discussants had positive attitude towards wildlife for its importance to attract tourists, hunting opportunities during drought, enjoyment derived from viewing wildlife and its value for future generation.
Socio-demographic variables
Many factors such as different economic, legal, social and ecological concerns affect the attitude of local people on conservation issues (Adams and Hulme, 2001). Among the socio-demographic factors examined in the study area, education and age were important predictors of the relationship between local communities and the protected area. Education is one of important factor in understanding the role of protected areas in conservation, and hence influences the attitudes of local people towards conservation (Mishra et al., 2003). Findings of this investigation also indicated that respondents who were educated had more positive attitude towards conservation than those with less or no education. In the study area, the younger residents tended to have higher educational levels than the older respondents, and this influenced the level of understanding of the importance of wildlife conservation among the educated people (Anthony, 2007; de Boer et al., 2013). Level of education is a major factor in obtaining better employment opportunities and subsequently alternative livelihoods. Local people with higher educational levels participated in agricultural activities as well as other activities like anti-poaching crusades, tour guiding and working in local government organizations. Such activities tended to reduce their dependence on resources from the protected area.
The above are consistent with the assertion by Akama et al. (1995) that the level of education varied inversely with the level of negative attitudes towards the reserve and conservation activities. A low level of awareness regarding conservation issues and protected area management practices with the lack of involvement of the local community in decision making processes might also be an important determinant of negative attitudes of the local people towards the present study area. As a factor, age has a significant influence on the attitudes of local people towards conservation. Younger people have tended to show positive attitudes toward conservation than the elderly, probably due to the fact that younger respondents were more educated than adults. Older respondents felt that the Park would threaten their livelihoods by reducing opportunities farm expansion as well as access to pasture land, fuel-wood and extraction of forest products. Similar results were reported for older residents in around five protected areas in Tanzania (Newmark et al., 1993). Occupations of the respondents also had some effect on their attitudes. Livestock holding was an important predictor of the relationship between local communities and the protected area. Those with higher numbers of livestock tend to have negative attitudes towards the protected area than those with fewer numbers of livestock. People with more cattle are more likely to interact with the protected area through restrictive, prohibitive and punitive laws. They are likely to be arrested and fined if found with livestock in the protected area.
Livestock grazing
Most of the local people around CCNP were dependent on subsistence agriculture and livestock rearing for their livelihoods. Livestock usually intensely compete with wild animals for the same habitat resources, including forage and water, and this might have strong impacts on wildlife (Masanja, 2014). Cleaveland et al. (2002) indicated that interactions between livestock and wildlife populations are a key issue in livestock economies worldwide, particularly in east and southern Africa, where many communities live in close contact with wildlife. Most of the respondents considered the Park as their communal pasture area and they did not agree that livestock should be banned from accessing the Park. It was observed that livestock encroached up to 5–10 km inside the Park to graze and access surface water during the dry seasons and this might affect wildlife management practices. Extensive livestock encroachment in the predominantly wildlife grazing zone might lead to their direct or indirect interactions with enhancing chances of disease transmission (Rinderpest, Bovine TB and foot and mouth disease) and competition for forage resources, as well influence wildlife habitat use. For example, the mineral spring water locally known as ‘hora’, which was used by wildlife, especially African buffaloes and elephants, is largely encroached by expanding livestock. As a result, wild animals avoid use of ‘hora’ during the day time. The negative impact of livestock activity on range quality of wildlife might reduce the potential for ecotourism by reducing the feasibility of wildlife viewing as indicated by Oladeji et al. (2012). The increase in livestock numbers in the Park also resulted in increases in livestock depredation by large carnivores and created conflict between local people with wildlife and the Park managements.
Firewood extraction
Firewood was the main source of energy for domestic purposes in the study area. Firewood extraction might have a negative impact on wildlife because trees provide a habitat for a wide range of wildlife (Bonjour et al., 2013). It might reduce feeding grounds and mating sites of wildlife in the Park. Alternative fuel sources such as cattle dung, farm trees and agricultural residue were also used by the local people, and this might help reduce pressure on firewood extraction from the Park. It was observed that in some villages, people travel long distances (about 3 km) and spent more than two hours to collect firewood. The problems of firewood extraction were more acute in the wet season of the year. They also use thatch as roofing material, timber for house construction and furniture and tree fodder as livestock feeds. This dependence on trees in the Park might increase conflict between local people and Park officials and further affect wildlife management practices in the study area.
Illegal hunting
Illegal hunting is a serious threat to the conservation status of many wildlife species in Africa (Coad, 2007). The CCNP, like many of Africa’s protected areas, is also under increasing pressure from hunting. This study has revealed that illegal hunting was fueled by various factors, including the need for wild meat for household consumption and commercial trade in wild animal products due to few alternative livelihood options and retaliate killings. The local people believed that hunting of destructive wildlife is a good way to scare off crop raiding animals and reduce depredation of their livestock. The link between illegal hunting and human–wildlife conflict reported in this study is consistent with earlier reports from elsewhere in Africa (Coad et al., 2010). For example, in eastern and southern Africa, demand for more land for crop and livestock production has increased antagonism between humans and wildlife, leading to illegal hunting (Wilfred, 2010). A large percentage of respondents admitted hunting crop-raiding animals and expressed great dissatisfaction with the Park authorities for not doing anything to prevent crop raiding and predation of livestock. Focus group discussions also indicated that farmers around CCNP regarded hunting as one of the effective methods to protect crops and livestock from wildlife. Respondents who admitted hunting in the Park had farms located near the Park edge and are therefore more likely to be affected economically by crop raiding and depredation of livestock. Focus group discussions also revealed that animal products commercially traded included ivory from African elephant (Loxodonta africana), skins from species such as leopard (Panthera pardus), lion (Panthera leo) and Colobus monkey. The mane of lions and leopard skin were used to make helmets for male dancers during cultural ceremonies. Skin of large antelopes (e.g. bush- buck (Tragelaphus sciptus) and African buffaloes (Syncerus caffer) were used to make traditional beds for adults and mats for drying grains, and for making traditional bags for storage and carrying grains. Ivory was also used to make traditional dancing rings worn during the cultural ceremonies.
Results of the present study suggest that illegal hunting is strongly linked to distance of village from the Park boundary. This relationship has also been reported in studies from other part of Africa (Coad et al., 2010), with higher levels of poaching by people living nearer the protected areas than those living father away. Most of the study villages adjacent to CCNP were within 1 to 3 km of the reserve boundary, and these were the most problematic villages as far as poaching was concerned. Being closer to the reserve might be advantageous because of easy or cost-effective access to wildlife resources. Greater distances mean increased time, effort and costs for hunters to find wildlife and transport meat or other wildlife products to homes or selling points. During the study period, it was observed that large numbers of African elephants were found close to the Park headquarters, possibly for security reasons as reported by Balakrishnan and Ndhlovn (1992). Focus group discussions indicated that wild honey collecting is one cause of illegal hunting. Wild honey collection provided legal reasons for entering the reserve, but managers and rangers complained that the majority of people use this as a pretext for indulging in illegal activities, like hunting, once inside the Park. Illegal hunters preferred a range of animal species with different body sizes. African buffaloes (Syncerus caffer), African elephants (Loxodonta africana), waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), bush pig (Potamocherus larvatus), common warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), leopard (Panthera pardus) and lions (Panthera leo) were among the most targeted and preferred species. A variety of illegal hunting methods were used in the CCNP. Common hunting methods included snares, firearms, poisoning and hunting with dogs. Snares were the most commonly reported hunting method in CCNP, probably because they are, easy to use and versatile. Respondents were suggested that with increased law enforcement efforts in the area, illegal hunters were likely to switch to less detectable methods such as snaring, which is a particularly undesirable hunting technique from a conservation perspective. Snare were difficult to locate, making trapping challenging to control, as well as killing non-target species (Lindsey et al., 2012; Martin, et al., 2012). Firearms were most commonly used to hunt large mammals such as African elephants, buffaloes and common warthogs. In this study, crop and livestock losses might derive illegal hunting at a higher level. Poverty might also be a reason for hunting wild animals in the area. As indicated by the respondents, wild meat is the cheapest source of protein, representing an important source of meat for the poorest households around the CCNP. Lindsey et al. (2011) reported in south-eastern Zimbabwe that key drivers of the wild meat trade included poverty and food shortages, failure to provide benefits to communities, inadequate investment in anti-poaching in some areas under wildlife management and weak penalty systems that do not provide sufficient deterrent to illegal wild meat hunters. The results of this study are consistent with studies in the Serengeti national park of Tanzania, which indicated that most local people considered wild meat and wildlife body parts as sources of protein and means of generating income (Nielsen et al., 2013). Most of the respondents indicated that illegal hunting activities in CCNP between the years 2012 to 2014 due to strengthened law enforcement in the Park.
Wildfire
This study indicated that incidence of natural wildlife (e.g. lightning) wildfires were lower than anthropogenically-caused wildfires. Activities such as wild honey extraction, land clearing for shifting cultivation, obtaining good quality pasture for livestock, controlling harmful wildlife such as snakes and creation of fire-killed wood at the boundaries of the Park increased the occurrence of fire during the dry seasons. Honey collectors used many areas of the Park for traditional bee-hive hanging; a practice frowned upon by Park management because of its potential to cause fire outbreaks that might ravage the Park and degrade the habitat quality of wildlife. According to the respondents, they set fires to protect themselves and their livestock from predator attacks. Fires were also set along roads in the Park to clear footpaths for ease of walking and visibility. Human encroachment near protected areas contributed to increase in fire occurrences in Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe (Gandiwa et al., 2013). Field observations also indicated that during the dry season the study area was left as a fire mosaic, with different areas burnt at different times. Regular burning has significant ecological effects on the wildlife living in the affected ecosystems. Some of the direct effects of fire on fauna in ecosystems include direct and indirect of smaller mammalian species and reptiles (Klop and van Goethem, 2008). In CCNP, some animals like baboons, bush pigs (Potamocherus larvatus) and snakes have been recorded to have died as a result of wildfires.
Illegal farming
Illegal farming is another source of anthropogenic pressure in CCNP. Focus group discussions revealed that historically, encroachment of wildlife habitats for agricultural activities and illegal hunting have occurred in the Park. The local communities had encroached into the Park area for shifting cultivation over a long period of time before the establishment of the Park. Human population growth around the Park and poverty might be the main reasons for clearing of land for agriculture as away of increasing crop output because of limited alternative survival strategies which increasingly causing destruction and outright loss of some important habitats in the Park ecosystem. Field observations in CCNP indicate that the growth rate of cultivated areas was high at the periphery of protected areas. This might also be the cause of human–wildlife conflict around the Park area. Chebera Churchura National Park harbors many large mammal, birds and other wild animal species. Therefore, it can serve as an important area for conservation of the country's wildlife and tourist attraction in the future. There is a need to improve understanding of the ecological, social and cultural dimensions of conflict situations in the area, to mitigate anthropogenic impacts in CCNP. The findings further suggest the need to initiate long-term monitoring to analyze trends in the incidences of human impacts on wildlife resources. A combined strategy aimed at improving local participation in wildlife conservation initiatives, initiation of public education and awareness campaigns and provision of alternative sources of income for the local people will reduce the threat, and contribute to improve conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park.
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
Authors thank Addis Ababa and Wolaita Sodo Universities for providing financial assistance. The help provided by local people around CCNP during the field work is appreciated. We are also thankful to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve this manuscript considerably.
REFERENCES
|
Adams WM, Hulme D (2001). If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35:193-200.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
Akama JS, Lant CL, Burnett GW (1995). Conflicting attitudes toward state wildlife conservation programs in Kenya. Soc . Nat. Res. 8:133-144.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony B (2007). The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighboring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environ. Conserv. 34:236-245.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Archibald S, Staver AC, Levin SA (2012). Evolution of human-driven fire regimes in Africa. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 109:847-852.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Balakrishnan M, Ndhlovu DE (1992). Wildlife utilization and local people: a case study of upper Lupande Game Management Area, Zambia. Environ. Conserv. 19:135-144.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Bauer H (2003). Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environ. Conserv. 30:175-181.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Bonjour S, Adair-Rohani H, Wolf J, Bruce NG, Mehta S, Prüss-Ustün A, Lahiff M, Rehfuess EA, Mishra V, Smith KR (2013). Solid fuel use for household cooking: country and regional estimates for 1980-2010. Environ. Health Persp. 121:784-790.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Cleaveland S, Hess GR, Dobson A, Laurenson MK, McCallum HI, Roberts M, Woodroffe R (2002). The role of pathogens in biological conservation. In: The ecology of wildlife diseases (eds. Hudson PJ, Rizzoli A, Grenfell BT, Heesterbeek H & Dobson AP), Oxford University Press, London. pp. 139-150.
|
|
|
|
|
Coad L (2007). Bushmeat Hunting in Gabon: Socio-Economics and Hunter Behaviour. PhD. Dissertation, Imperial College, London.
|
|
|
|
|
Coad L, Abernethy K, Balmford A, Manic AA, Airey L, Milner-Gulland EJ (2010). Distribution and use of income from bush meat in a rural village, Central Gabon. Conserv. Biol. 24:1510-1518.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
de Boer WF, Langevelde FV, Prins HHT, de Ruiter PC, Blanc J, Vis MJP, Gaston KJ. Hamilton ID. (2013). Understanding spatial differences in African elephant densities and occurrence, a continent-wide analysis. Biol. Conserv. 159:468-476.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Demeke D, Afework B (2013). Species composition and abundance of small mammals in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. J. Ecol. Nat. Envir.5:95-102.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
FAO (2007). Fire Management-Global Assessment 2006. FAO Forestry Paper 151, FAO, Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
Gandiwa E, Heitkönig IMA, Lokhorst AM, Prins HHT, Leeuwis C (2013). Illegal hunting and law enforcement during a period of economic decline in Zimbabwe: a case study of northern Gonarezhou National Park and adjacent areas. J. Nat. Conserv. 21:133-142.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Gandiwa P, Gandiwa E, Matokwe TB, Gwazani R, Mashapa C, Mubok N, Mudangwe S (2014). Preliminary assessment of vegetation fires and their impact in Nyanga National Park, Zimbabwe. Green. J. Biol. Sci. 4:9-17.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Gundogdu E (2011). Population size, structure and behaviours of wild goat in Cehennemdere Wildlife Improvement Area. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 6:555-563.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Hackel JD (1999). Community conservation and the future of Africa's wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 13:726-734.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Hill CM (2000). Conflict of interest between people and baboons: Crop raiding in Uganda. Int. J. Primatol. 21:299-315.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
IUCN (2003). World Parks Congress Press Release. Available at: http://worldparkscongress.org/drupal/news/media-releases.
|
|
|
|
|
Klop E, van Goethem J (2008). Savanna fires govern community structure of ungulates in Bénoué National Park, Cameroon. J. Trop. Ecol. 24:39-47.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Likert R (1974). A method of constructing an attitudes scale. In: Scaling: A Sourcebook for Behavioral Scientists. pp. 233–243, (Maranell GM. ed.). Chicago University, Chicago.
|
|
|
|
|
Lindsey PA, Romanach SS, Matema S, Matema C, Mupamhadzi I, Muvengwi J (2011). Dynamics and underlying causes of illegal bushmeat trade in Zimbabwe. Oryx 45:84-95.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Lindsey PA, Bento C (2012). Illegal Hunting and the Bush¬meat Trade in Central Mozambique. A Case-study from Coutada 9, Manica Province. Zimbabwe, Harare.
|
|
|
|
|
Maddox TM (2003). The Ecology of Cheetahs and Other Large Carnivores in Pastoralist- Dominated Buffer Zone. PhD. Dissertation, Lord University College, London.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin TG, Nally S, Burbidge AA, Arnall S, Garnett ST, Hayward MW, Lumsden LF, Menkhorst P, McDonald-Madden E, Possingham HP (2012). Acting fast helps avoid extinction. Conserv. Let. 5: 274-280.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Masanja FG (2014). Human population growth and wildlife extinction in Ugalla Ecosystem, Western Tanzania. J. Sust. Dev. Stud. 5:192-217.
|
|
|
|
|
Mehta JN, Heinen JT (2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Envir. Manag. 28:165-177.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Mishra C, Allen P, McCarthy T, Madhusadan M, Bayarjargal A (2003). The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard. Conserv. Biol. 17:1512-1520.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Müller M (2007). What's in a word? Problematizing translation between languages. Area 39:206-213.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Newmark WD, Leonard NL, Sariko HI, Gamassa DG (1993). Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 63:177-183.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Newmark WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa DG, Sariko HI (1994). The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: human density as a predictor. Conserv. Biol. 8:249-255.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Nielsen MR, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2013). Factors determining the choice of hunting and trading bushmeat in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Conserv. Biol. 45:1-10.
|
|
|
|
|
Oladeji SO, Agbelusi EA, Trevelyan R (2012). Anthropogenic activities threatening the management of ecotourism resources in Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud. Manag. 5:100-110.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Ramakrishnan PS (2007). Traditional forest knowledge and sustainable forestry: a north-east India perspective. For. Ecol. Manag. 249:91-99.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Tadesse S, Kotler BP (2013). The impacts of humans and livestock encroachments on the habitats of mountain nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni) in Munessa, Ethiopia. Int. J. Biodiv. Conserv. 5:572-583.
|
|
|
|
|
Weladji R, Moe S, Vedeld P (2003). Stakeholder attitudes wildlife policy and Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Environ. Conserv. 30:334-343.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Wilfred P (2010). Towards sustainable wildlife management areas in Tanzania. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 3:103-116.
Crossref
|
|
