Conservation Challenges and Causes of Wildlife Habitat Change in Kafta Sheraro National Park, Northwestern Tigray, Ethiopia

Asian Journal of Environment & Ecology

12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918 ISSN: 2456-690X

Selemawi Abrehe1*, Yikunoamlak Gebrewahid2 and Gebrehiwot Gebreab3

1Tigray Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), Mekelle Soil Research Center (MSRC), P.O. Box 1070, Mekelle, Ethiopia. 2Tigray Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), Mekelle Agricultural Research Center (MARC), P.O. Box 258, Mekelle, Ethiopia. 3Tigray Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), Humera Agricultural Research Center (HuARC), P.O. Box 62, Humera, Ethiopia.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. Author SA designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Authors YG and GG managed the analyses of the study and managed the literature searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/AJEE/2020/v12i330161 Editor(s): (1) Dr. Ravi Kant Chaturvedi, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P. R. China. Reviewers: (1) Egbe B. Besong, University of Buea, Cameroon. (2) Martin Potgieter, University of Limpopo, South Africa. Complete Peer review History: http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/54918

Received 12 February 2020 Accepted 18 April 2020 Original Research Article Published 09 May 2020

ABSTRACT

Aims: Assess the major conservation challenges and causes of wildlife habitat changes in Kafta Sheraro National Park. Study Design: This study was investigated based on a questionnaire survey, focus group discussion, and field observation. Place and Duration of Study: Kafta Sheraro National Park, Northwest Ethiopia (from October 2016 to March 2017). Methodology: The collected data were analyzed using SPSS, descriptive statistics analysis such as Frequency, percentages, Chi-square (χ²) test and P- values were used. Eleven villages were selected based on proximity to the national park. A total of 460 household heads were interviewed. ______

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]; #ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3085-1765

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

Results: The result of the study indicated 385 (83.7%) of respondents were mixed farming, while 57 (12.6%) livestock rearing and 17 (3.7%) other business activities were engaged. Agricultural expansion 131 (28.5%), livestock grazing 113 (24.6%), deforestation 68 (14.8%), forest fire 57 (12.4%), illegal gold mining 26 (5.7%) and hunting 24 (5.2%) were the major problems of the park. Among the respondents, lack of community awareness 161 (35.0%), followed by lack of patrolling and monitoring 120(26.1%), lack of law enforcement, 95 (20.7%), issue of a boundary 30 (6.5%), and lack of security 13 (2.8%) were the main causes for properly wildlife conservation and management. Conclusions: The human, livestock and wildlife interactions will continue to destroy the park. Unless urgent management action is taken to solve the problems through full participation from the local people. Therefore, stakeholders should work together and displace agricultural activities out of wildlife habitat through commitment and introduce community-based conservation approaches.

Keywords: Causes of wildlife habitat changes; challenges; wildlife conservation; Kafta Sheraro National Park.

1. INTRODUCTION reserves, 3 wildlife sanctuaries, 17 controlled and 7 open hunting areas and 3 community Protected areas, such as national parks, game conserved areas [13]. reserves, and sanctuaries, play a vital role in biodiversity throughout the world [1-4] and it also Today, there are about 73 wildlife protected contributes towards human wellbeing and areas in the country under six management sustainable development [5]. Protected areas categories [14]: 27 national parks, 2 wildlife cover almost 13% of the Earth’s land [6]. It is one sanctuaries, 6 wildlife reserves, 25 controlled of the best methods to realize wildlife habitat hunting areas, 5 biosphere reserves, and 8 conservation [7]. However, developing countries community conservation areas. However, the are more vulnerable than in developed counties protected areas system of the country had [2]. not been designed with scientific concepts to ensure the role in biodiversity conservation [12, In many parts of Africa, particularly within East 15]. Africa, the number of protected areas is high compared to many other countries [8]. Currently, As a result, many protected areas are under a according to the World Database on Protected severe threat of degradation by the Areas, there are 1,776 nationally designated anthropogenic factor and becoming isolated [3, protected areas in East Africa covering more 16]. Human livelihood activities are highly than 27% of its terrestrial area [5]. Protected influenced the natural ecosystems and wildlife areas continue to be expanded, established or habitat across different regions [17,18]. The upgraded through the region. However, most tendency to agricultural activities and establish protected areas in the region were established human settlements in previously wildlife areas without considering conservation planning are becoming common [19] due to a shortage of techniques to optimize reserves based on land for forage and farmimg, which has resulted particular criteria [9]. As a consequence, many in protected areas’ wildlife being threatened [20]. protected areas are under threat [2]. Besides, livestock grazing can have strong impacts on native wildlife, habitat transformation, Ethiopia is one of the world's rich biodiversity and and overall ecosystem function and structure unique physical features [10,11]. It contains [21]. Moreover, almost all protected areas in various wildlife and wildlife habitats ranging from Ethiopia are constrained by limited personnel, highest is Ras Dejen in the Simien Mountains funding, and training in wildlife conservation and massif rising to about 4533 m above sea level to management [22]. Hence, protected areas must Dallol 110 m below sea level at kobar sink on be well managed to provide wildlife habitat Afar depressions [12]. It has a long history of quality and to decrease neighborhood effects wildlife conservation [12]. For example, the such as deforestation, habitat fragmentation, country had only two protected areas before settlements, pollution and hunting [23]. 1970, and then 52 protected areas cover about Therefore, it requires an understanding of major 15 % of the total land of the country (Fig. 1). factors that affect wildlife conservation and the These include 20 national parks, 2 wildlife causes of wildlife habitat changes [7].

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

Fig. 1. Protected areas of Ethiopia [11]

Kafta Sheraro National Park (KSNP) is the only 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS national park found in the Tigray region. It has a huge potential in conserving biodiversity. 2.1 Study Area However, it is one of the highly threatening parks of the country due to increasing pressure from a The study was conducted at KSNP found within rapidly growing human population. Human - the western and northwest zones of Tigray. It is livestock - wildlife interactions have increased in located between 1350' and 1423' North and around the park [24,25]. The local people in latitudes; and 3631' and 3729' East longitudes the study area are linked to the local biodiversity in the Tigray National Regional State of and the resources that exist in and around the Northwest Ethiopia (Fig. 2). The study area park. People who have settled inside the park covers about 2,176 Km2. It is surrounded by (around Tekeze bridge) or on the borders of the villages namely, Hilet-coca, Adabay, Freselam, park make heavy use of the park’s resources. As Wuhdet, Mayweyni, Kunama Adigoshu, Hbaesh such, they can affect the biodiversity because of Adigoshu, Maykeyh, Adiaser, Aditstser, and their direct dependence on the natural resources Mykuhli. According to the CSA report, the total for different purposes such as agricultural population of these villages was 63,556, of whom expansion, fuelwood, house construction 34,210 men and 29,346 women CSA [26]. materials, sale of wood products, hunting, and free-range livestock grazing. Most of KSNP Based on preliminary studies were conducted by ecosystems are coming under increasing EWCA [27] during 2007, the park has 42 species pressure and it needs better manage the of mammals, 163 species of birds, 9 species of resource base. In order to assist wildlife reptiles, 37 species of plants and several conservation efforts together with sustainable unidentified fish, reptiles, and amphibian livelihood measures for surrounding species.Some mammal species are African communities, the aim of this study was to elephant (Loxodonta africana), Greater kudu investigate the wildlife conservation challenges (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Eland (Tragelaphus and main causes of wildlife habitat changes in oryx), Klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus), the park, where the surrounding farmers are Thomason’s Gazelle (Gazella rufricanus), Oribi predominantly dependent on subsistence farming (Ourebia ourebi), Olive Baboon (Papio Anubis), and livestock rearing. Vervet Monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops),

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

Fig. 2. Location of the Kafta Sheraro National Park

Serval cat (Flis serval), Leopard (Panthera geographical location of villages and to have a pardus), Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), Common general understanding of the overall situations of Bushbuck (Traglaphus scriptus), and Common human-wildlife interaction. Eleven villages were warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) are common selected based on their proximity to the national inside the park [28]. park, eight villages from Kafta Humera and three villages from Tahtay Adiyabo. Four major types of vegetation were identified by EWCA [27] in the study area. These are 2.2.2 Questionnaire survey and focus group Combretum-Terminalia, Acacia-Commiphora, discussion Dry-evergreen montanes, and riparian vegetation. The study area is categorized as a The semi-structured questionnaire was used to semi-arid agro-climatic zone [29,30]. The altitude interview household heads through a random the study area ranges between 566 m and 1163 sampling technique. Based on Yamane [31], the m above sea level. The maximum temperature sample size of the respondents to be involved in ranges between 33C to 42C [30]. There is the interview was determined according to the temperature variability between dry and wet following formula. seasons. April to May is the warmest period N while July to October is the coldest. The plain n = areas of the western and northwest are warm. 1 + N (e) The mean annual rainfall ranges between 450 mm and 1100 mm and a unimodal distribution Where, with high peak rainfall appears between June and September [30]. N is a sample size, N is Total population, and e is Confidence level (95%) 2.2 Data Collection Hence, according to the formula, sample size 2.2.1 Preliminary survey determined at 5% precision and 95% confidence level 460 households were interviewed from the A preliminary field survey was carried out in and two districts within eleven villages based on around the park. This helped us to identify proximity to the national park and its boundary of the park, to know the number and accessibility. Out of the total respondents 307

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

from Kafta Humera and 153 from Tahtay groups had a positive attitude and compete Adiyabo, from October 2016 to March 2017 for against the challenges of the park than adult and the interviews. Focus Group Discussion was non-educated groups. conducted with relevant key-informants from the eleven villages. It was used as a complementary Mixed farming was the main means of livelihood for the household questionnaire survey. Fourteen by the respondents (83.7%) followed by livestock participants were invited from community elders, rearing 12.6%. The major economic activity with new settlers, indigenous peoples, community crop-livestock mixed farming as the cultivation leaders, and concerned stakeholders towards the crops extensively such as sesame and sorghum park. In total 142 people were discussed about the major cultivated crop types. The large their attitudes towards the main wildlife livestock numbers have within and around the conservation challenges and causes through the park, mainly encompass of cattle, sheep, and open questionnaire checklist. goats. The only few respondents 3.7% were also engaged in other economic activities such as 2.3 Data Analysis gum union, shop, restaurant, firewood (wood and charcoal) selling activities and civil servants. The quantitative data obtained from the There is significant difference in the livelihood questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive category of respondents (χ2 = 851.078, df = 5, P statistical methods such as percentages. The < .001). However, most respondents reflect that qualitative data obtained through interviews were no received any financial benefits from the park analyzed using SPSS, descriptive statistics as an incentive or the limited livelihood analysis such as Frequency, Percentages, Chi- opportunities to enhance their income. square (χ²) test, and P value were used. Chi- square test of SPSS 23.0 version software was The size of farmlands owned by sampled used to test significant variation between groups. households ranged by < 2 ha 14.6%, 2 - 5 ha A chi-square test was used for analyzing the 60.7%, 5 - 10 ha 15.0%, 10 - 20 ha 1.7%, >20 ha relationship and level of significance of the 1.7%, and no land 6.3%. Out of the total different data categories. Besides, the field respondents, about 93.5% were landowners and observations were analyzed in the form of 6.3% landless. It has also showed significant narrations. difference in respondents (χ2 = 688.018, df = 5, P< .001). Still, there is an increasing demand for Respondent comparison was analyzed for the land for farming and forage as well as both major wildlife conservation challenges using the factors are the main challenges affecting the rank analysis method. For multiple comparisons, wildlife habitat in the study area. Bonferroni Post Hoc Test (at α/n) was used. The home distance of the respondents is Where α = 0.05, n = number of tests you’re resident inside the park 5.7%, 45.2% (0 - 5 km), running. 31.1% (5 - 8 km), 11.3% (8 - 10 km), and 6.7% (>10 km) far from the park. Almost all of the 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION respondents are found outside the park, except the two villages found around the Tekeze bridge 3.1 Biographical Information are found inside the park. And southern edges adjacent to the villages are near to the boundary Out of the 460 respondents, 73.3% and 26.7% of the park. Proximity to park areas has been were males and females, respectively (Table 1). perceived to be the major cause of wildlife There was no significant difference in the number habitat destruction. Near distance of the park of male and female respondents (χ2 = 5.222, df from villages increased the frequency of time for = 2, P> .05). The male household heads better grazing and firewood collection inside the park. understood the challenges of wildlife habitat in The near/inside distance settlement to the park the park. The age of respondents was has been affecting and disturb the habitat of categorized by an adult (18 - 34), middle-aged wildlife than the far outside the park. (35 - 44), and elder (> 45 years). There is significant difference in the age category of Regarding how long have respondents lived, the respondents (χ2 = 99.557, df = 1, P< .001). The majority of the respondents 45.7% were lived in educational level of the respondents has showed the range of 10 - 20 years. This indicated that significant variation (χ2 = 222.017, df = 5, P< within these two decades, the population of these .001). Comparatively, elder and better-educated villages has shown tremendous growth or they

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

Table 1. Description of demographic and socio-economic characteristics of household respondents

Factor Response Kafta Humera Tahtay Adiyabo Overall χ2 statistics P-value Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent Sex Male 225 73.3 112 73.2 337 73.3 5.222 0.073 Female 82 26.7 41 26.8 123 26.7 Age Adult (18 – 34) 93 30.3 40 26.1 133 28.9 99.557 < .001 Middle (35 – 44) 110 35.8 63 41.2 173 37.6 Elder (> 45) 104 33.9 50 32.7 154 33.5 Educational background Illiterate 68 22.1 57 37.3 125 27.2 222.017 < .001 Read/ write 25 8.1 23 15.0 48 10.4 1 – 4th 105 34.2 38 24.8 143 31.1 5 – 8th 86 28.0 29 19.0 115 25.0 Secondary and above 23 7.5 6 4.0 29 6.4 Income source Livestock rearing 45 14.6 13 8.5 57 12.6 851.078 < .001 Mixed farming 247 80.5 138 90.2 385 83.7 Other business activities 15 4.9 2 1.3 17 3.7 Total land size (ha) < 2 ha 26 8.5 41 26.8 67 14.6 688.609 < .001 2 – 5 ha 199 64.8 80 52.3 279 60.7 5 – 10 ha 43 14.0 26 17.0 69 15.0 10 – 20 ha 7 2.3 1 0.7 8 1.7 > 20 ha 8 2.6 0 0.0 8 1.7 Landless 24 7.8 5 3.3 29 6.3 Home distance Inside park 9 2.9 17 11.1 26 5.7 158.13 < .001 0 - 5 km 197 64.2 11 7.2 208 45.2 5 – 8 km 101 32.9 42 27.5 143 31.1 8 - 10 km 0 0.0 52 34.0 52 11.3 Above 10 Km 0 0.0 31 20.3 31 6.7 How long have you lived 5 – 10 years 27 8.8 11 7.2 38 8.3 688.609 < .001 10 – 20 years 161 52.4 49 32.0 210 45.7 20 - 30 years 64 20.8 33 21.5 97 21.1 30 - 40 years 37 12.1 42 27.5 79 17.2 >40 years 18 5.9 18 11.8 36 7.8 Source: Estimated from questionnaire survey data; 2016

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

are settled after 2003 the resettlement program. conservation efforts within the Park. Therefore, They are responsible for destroying the habitat of this impact can minimize through shift the wildlife next to the outsiders. For more detailed agricultural land outside the park. information on landholding sizes, home distance, and how long household lived see table Another key challenge reported by 24.6% of (Table 1). respondents was livestock grazing as the second major challenge for wildlife habitat. During the 3.2 Wildlife Conservation Challenges field most commonly was observed domestic animals inside the study area mainly cows, oxen, According to respondents’ results, wildlife donkey, and sheep (Fig. 4). This is showed how conservation challenges have happened 91.1%, livestock a serious pressure from the villages not happened at 2.4%, and whereas about 6.5% surrounding the park and from other districts. no know-how (Table 2). Agricultural expansion Seasonal encroachments from neighboring such was reported as a major serious threat to the as Eritrea, northwest, and central parts of the existence of wildlife in the study area by 28.5% of region. Pastoralists periodically encroach inside respondents (Table 2). In both districts, the park with several thousand heads of respondents revealed agriculture as being livestock. Shoshani and Yirmed [34] already among the top six major threats to biological reported that livestock and agriculture have resources in the park. Especially, during the past increasingly become a severe challenge for the decades ago the lowland of western Tigray is future existence of wildlife conservation in KSNP. among the resettlement’s areas for farmers from The livestock numbers have increased overpopulated areas such northwestern, central, dramatically within the park since its and eastern zones of Tigray for subsistence and establishment [24,25]. It has been creating large-scale agricultural expansions. Expansion of competition of resources between wild and agriculture land and subsequent loss of forest domestic animals for food such competitions covers on woodlands, shrubs and bush species, negatively affect wildlife habitat in the park. As a particularly affect the habitat of wildlife. The result of the competition of resources, particularly vegetation cover has been cleared mainly for for herbivores such as elephants are highly sesame, sorghum, and other cereal crops affected. production as well as horticulture crops (mainly banana and vegetables) along Tekeze River. Besides, the habitat disturbance in the park was This is due to the increasing human population also confirmed in 2015 by Zegeye [35] high and expanding settlements, resulting in farmland numbers of livestock crossing the park boundary. encroachment into the wildlife area, which These findings are also in line with other studies creates pressure on the wildlife population. This [21,36-38] that have been done on other parts of pressure reduces of core habitat for wild animals Ethiopia. For example, in the Semien Mountain and the removal of corridors for migration. As a National Park was increased the livestock result, the park is surrounded by agricultural land grazing as main threats. Most studies have and increasing immediate contact between the revealed that grazing harms the ecological wildlife species and the people. stability of the grazing area, at varying levels [38]. As grazing should be outside the park have Therefore, habitat encroachment for agriculture been reduced by the ranching system, livestock was confirmed by Berihun et al. [24] as the major are putting greater pressure on the park, causing threats to wild animals in the park ecosystem. damage to habitat preferences competition with According to field observations we have also native wildlife. realized illegal expansion of crop farming through rain-fed and irrigated land (along Tekeze River) Respondents (14.8%) revealed that deforestation is a common practice in and around the park was the third challenge such as cutting of trees (Fig. 3). This is in agreement with other similar as source wood for construction, fuelwood, and studies in Bale Mountains National Park is charcoal production (Table 2). Among the increasing the expansion of agricultural land the respondents, 54.4% collected firewood and main threats of wildlife [32]. As a result, human- construction materials from the inside of the park, wildlife conflict occurs such as crop-raiding by 35.9% from the buffer zone, and 9.6% from other wildlife. When the majority of the local people sources like the farm area. The chi-square test depend on agriculture that causes and habitat indicated there is higher deforestation in Kafta disturbance is a serious effect of human-wildlife Humera than the Tahtay Adiyabo. This means conﬂict [33]. Hence, there was an urgent need for there has been a significant difference in the

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

deforestation of the respondents (χ2 = 387.683, the high demand for wood especially for df = 2, P < .001). Forests are the primary source fuelwood, charcoal production and house of energy for cooking and heating as well as construction which ultimately direct house construction in and around the park. This consequences on sustainable wildlife has been observed during the field survey management. Charcoal production within the fuelwood and charcoal production sites that are park is a seasonal challenge which results in established by those illegal woodcutters inside deforestation and habitat loss of the wildlife. the park. Those who lived closer to the park collected firewood more frequently than those Forest fire 12.4% was reported to wildlife who lived far from the Park. Especially, illegal conservation challenge by the respondents. Most wood collectors are from Adebay, Rawyan, of the farmer-respondents the fire set is usually Humera town, Adigoshu, and other surrounding during the dry season (October to February) rural areas and who use the forest as an every year affecting the biodiversity at the park. additional livelihood source for marketing the The local people use the fire as a means for charcoal and other goods. open access to honey production, clearing the shrublands to get farmland, and for increase This findings in line with the study of Berihun et fresh pasture in the extent of grassland habitat. al. [24] local people make extensive use to Besides, people set fire to get access while satisfy their needs such as fuelwood, charcoal traveling in the gold mining and for the expansion and construction material from the park. of new farmland. The causes of forest fire in the Generally, in Ethiopia, 75% of deforestation and park were stated by Zegeye [35] include arable habitat loss was caused by local people for land grabbing 64.6% followed by illegal charcoal fuelwood collection purpose [26]. Nowadays, making 15.4%, smoke to harvest honey 10.8% in charcoal production is causing a threat to the the wild and 9.2% tracking enemies and rebel conservation and management of national parks groups. Hence, this is a common phenomenon in Ethiopia [24]. Similar results were also noticed occurring in the park. In recent years, the forest in the study conducted in the Guassa area: fire is under heavy pressure from these two peasant associations closer to the area used districts and that was severely affected. firewood more frequently than those living further Uncontrolled fire has contributed to highly away [39]. Therefore, it can be concluded that damaging wildlife habitats inside the park.

Fig. 3. Expansion of illegal agricultural land inside the park during the field observation, 2017

Fig. 4. Encroachment of grazing land to forest areas inside the park during the field observation, 2017

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

The wildfire in the park was studied by Zegeye activity in many developing countries particularly [35] and destroying thousands of hectares of the in rural sub-Saharan Africa [43]. Individuals from park was burned, particularly affect wildlife communities that involve in illegal gold mining habitats each year. These findings are also in should be stopped and the government should line with other studies in Bale Mountain National be put alternative ways of employed to improve Park the causes of fire are anthropogenic in the life of communities. which farmer’s set fire for various activities: honey collection, agricultural land preparation, Out of the total respondents, 5.2% reported that improved forage quality, and reduce suspected poaching is also another problem towards the livestock predators [37,40]. Moreover, the illegal wildlife habitat and population size in the park. fire has effects on biological diversities and The level of hunting showed a significant ecosystem function by damaging habitats [41]. In variation among districts (χ2 = 265.11, d = 2, P< the existing potential forest areas should be .001). The chi-square test indicated there is applied the fire control measures such as road higher hunting in Kafta Humera than the Tahtay lines. Therefore, it is important to increase the Adiyabo. Such heavy losses also have a level of awareness of the local people about the negative on wildlife conservation and provisions of laws and punishment regarding management. The local interviewees indicated forest fire intentionally. During the fire dry season that the majority of wild animals leave their should be strong mobilization to control for fire habitat and migrate from Ethiopia to the edge of sites and the local people cooperating in the Tekeze River and Eritrea. Of the extinguishing fires should be rewarded properly. respondents, 61.6% thought illegal hunting activities had decreased, 20.8% indicate that it Among the total respondents, 5.7% reported that had increased, and only 17.5% thought there had traditional gold mining activities have been been no change. Local people have hunted significantly degraded land and increased wildlife mammals in the park mainly such as elephants habitat fragmentation of natural habitats for for ivory and Greater Kudu for wildlife meat. wildlife. A large number of jobless youths inside There is still evidence of subsistence hunting in the park and they consider this activity as an seek of bushmeat, ivory and other wild animal alternative way of livelihood. Illegal gold miners products by the surrounding resident. This was use a motor, donkey, cart, and while digging the also confirmed by local people during focus ground up to 35 m depth was observed. group discussions. Strengthening an anti- Especially, gold mining within the park poaching patrol unit to stop any wildlife dominantly at Adebay Tebeko sites. It has a illegal activities within the park. Also, wildlife significant effect on vegetation communities such laws should be reviewed and training should as trees, shrubs and slightly affects herbaceous give all wildlife scouts and both species. During the field was observed high risk districts. of losing the woody species. Besides, sound disturbance could be a challenge for the wild The result indicates the major challenges animals like African elephants. Destruction of affecting biodiversity conservation in KSNP wildlife habitats has continued the leading threat which were ranked by the respondents in both to biodiversity. districts as follows. The result has been revealed that agricultural expansion 83(28.3%), These findings in line with the study of this illegal overgrazing 73(24.9%), forest fire 75(25.6%), activity in the park was confirmed environmental deforestation 75(25.6%), poaching 70(23.9%), degradation and loss of biodiversity [42]. traditional gold mining 77(26.3%) were ranked as Similarly, anthropogenic threats to five wildlife first, second, third, fourth, fifth and six by the protected areas in Ethiopia; Omo, Mago, respondents in Humera, respectively. In contrast, Chebera Churchura, KSNP, and Babile Elephant the result has been shown that agricultural Sanctuary, was studied by Mekbeb E. Tessema, expansion 63(50%), overgrazing 59(46.8%), Kumara [14]; gold mining in the KSNP was deforestation 55(43.7%), forest fire 59(46.80%), ranked fourth as compare. These problems are poaching 64(50.8%), traditional gold mining risky for the movement wildlife population within 67(53.2%) were ranked as first, second, third, the park and it creates disturbance against the fourth, fifth and six by the respondents in Tahtay wildlife and their habitat. Generally, these illegal Adiyabo, respectively. (Table 3). Therefore, there mining are highly affecting the status of wildlife is a high forest fire damages, illegal gold mining, conservation as main threats in the park. This and hunting in Kafta Humera than Tahtay activity was confirmed as a major economic Adiyabo.

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

120 KHaufmta eHraum era 100 y c

n 80 Tahtay e

u 60 Adiyabo q e

r 40 F 20 0 Agricultural Overgrazing Deforestation Forest fire Illegal gold Hunting expansion mining

Major wildlife habitat challenges

Fig. 5. Major wildlife conservation challenges Source: Estimated from questionnaire survey data; 2016

3.3 Main Causes of Wild Life environmental, social and economic importance Conservation Challenges of these areas before and after their establishment [44]. However, the national parks An analysis result showed that the highest cause in Ethiopia are facing problems due to the reason for wildlife habitat change was lack of ownership that the society settled around the parks have and community awareness followed by lack of low awareness [36]. Amare [7] concluded that patrolling and monitoring, lack of law conservation education centers at the national enforcement, issue of boundary and lack of park will help in raising awareness to the security, respectively (Table 4). community through collaboration with universities, research institutes, and community The majority of the respondents’ reported that services. Local communities should be involved lack of community awareness and ownership in any decision-making process to develop a 35.0% were the main causes of wildlife sense of ownership [16]. conservation of the total respondents, about 91.9% Kafta Humera and 83.7% of Tahtay Lack of law enforcement (27.4%) was reported Adiyabo had no awareness. The local people as the main reason for wildlife conservation have the wrong perception towards the wildlife challenges by the respondents. Out of the total because they do not consider the future respondents, 83.3% reported that conflict existence of wildlife and believe priority should happened between local communities and be given to human beings. The respondents conservationists such as wildlife warden and highlighted that the poor attention from both the wildlife experts, while 13.5% and 3.3% of the federal government and park staff as the major respondents not happened and no know-how, problem. As a result, the awareness of local respectively. These conflicts were managed by people about the importance of conserving and punished park office 47.6%, 36.1% district court, managing national park is poor. Therefore, it is 13.3% bylaws, 3.0% no idea. There was a important to raise the awareness of the local significant variation among districts (χ2 = people regarding fauna, flora and to protect the 170.271, df = 4, P< .001). The zonal, district environment in both districts through mass management officials and decision-makers had contacts, meetings, multimedia programmes. not taken immediate action to prevent such Since it is difficult to protect the park resource activities. Lack of well-organized law without cooperation with the local people. enforcement rules to punish people who violate the park rules and regulations. However, the These findings are also in line with Berihun et al. majority of the respondents believed that [24] reported that most of the community believe conservation bylaws are the best mechanisms to that the national park is the property of the preserve park resources. This was confirmed by government and only a few perceived the park Zegeye [35], Lack of law enforcement by belongs to the community. So, awareness government bodies, lack of appropriate creation should be the first achievement for any integrated land use plan policies and/or poor protected area conservation [32]. That means the implementation are among the key political local communities should be aware of the factors for the intensive and extensive

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

biodiversity degradation in Ethiopia’s protected of the park was increased, while 15.8%, 3.5%, areas [45]. Therefore, strengthening law 0.7% of respondents replied there was shrinking, enforcement is the best way to prevent further no change, and not clearly known, respectively. biodiversity and wildlife laws should be reviewed There was significant difference among district with park office, zonal courts, and full residents (χ2 = 816.188, df = 3, P< .001). participation from the local people. The local However, many of the authors stated that community should be made aware about the previously the park coverage was about 5000 provisions of law and punishment about Lack of Km2 and currently shrinking to 2176 km2 due to patrolling and monitoring (23.1%) was also government resettlement programs [13].This is in reported as the main cause of wildlife agreement with other similar studies in other conservation by the respondents. The attitude of Ethiopia parts Lack of a well-defined and respondents towards conservationists was mutually agreed upon border is among the reported by 14.3% as good, 18.7% medium, challenges that affect the conservation and 25.4% poor, 29.5% very poor, and 12.1% no management of national parks in Ethiopia [47] idea. There is significance difference among the Besides, lack of security (2.8%) as a cause for districts (χ2 = 141.876, d = 5, P< .001). the good conservation of wildlife. It is located on According to Mamo et al. [25] management of the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the KSNP is poor due to many problems because of the conflict between these countries, associated such as people with deforestation by it was not possible to monitor wellbeing and to different mechanisms like burning, cutting of study the fauna and flora of this natural forests, agricultural plots inside the park, and phenomenon along the whole park boundary. death of wildlife due to unknown reasons. The There are many other causes mentioned by the gap between the park staff and local people was respondents that are responsible for the because of opposing views on the park. And the intensification of the threats such as inadequate main cause of conflict between the local participation of communities, socioeconomic community and the park staff was the demand to factors, and the absence of direct incentives use free grazing and farmland from the park. provided for communities are the major ones. Conflict between park managers (scouts and The perception of communities towards benefit staffs) and communities which conscious in and gained from the park resources indicated, around national parks [46]. the negative response of communities. Similarly, they have not received financial benefits from Discussants from stakeholder’s management the park as an incentive or the limited problems of affecting biodiversity conservation in livelihood opportunities to enhance their KSNP were mentioned by protection staff income. indicated that poor salary, lack of equipment, poor infrastructure and others due to a shortage The major causes of wildlife habitat threats of budgets for patrolling and monitoring. The stated by respondents from Humera revealed, wildlife scouts did not access regularly on the lack awareness and ownership in the park resources. Because the park is 2176 km2 conservation of resources ranked as the first wide it needs a sufficient budget and financial factor of the threats responded by constraints little or no conservation activities had communities 115(39.2%) followed by patrolling taken place except for one limited survey. ad monitoring factor 110(37.5%), lack law Therefore, the government should be allocated enforcement was the third factor 98(33.4%), enough budget and more assessment of the issue of the boundary was the fourth factor biodiversity and regular patrolling of the park 109(37.2%) whereas lack of security of the should be continued. Strengthening and training park was the fifth 105(35.8%). Respondents local park staff monitoring the official boundaries from Tahtay Adiyabo have ranked lack for any law violators who encroach this protected awareness and ownership 65(51.6%), patrolling area for agricultural and/or any illegal activities. ad monitoring 63(50.0%), lack law enforcement Such a capacity-building program need to be 58(46.0%), issue of boundary 59(46.8%), strengthened and continued to focus on how to lack of security 61(48.4%) were ranked as first, prevent illegal entrants and dealing with adjacent second, third, fourth and fifth, respectively communities. (Table 5).

The other cause is the issue of park boundary During the focus group discussion, many serious (6.5%) was reported that the park’s inside and wildlife habitat conservation challenges are outside limits were not clearly delineated. Among facing from local communities and outsiders the total respondents, 80% replied that the size including the Eritrean pastoralists such as

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

Table 2. Respondents result on the existence of wildlife conservation challenges in the park

Are there wildlife conservation challenges in the park Kafta Humera Tahtay Adiyabo Overall χ2 P-value Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent statistics Yes 293 95.4 126 82.4 419 91.1 691.622 < .001 No 3 1.0 8 5.2 11 2.4 No know how 11 3.6 19 12.4 30 6.5 If yes, what are the major reasons in park conservation Kafta Humera Tahtay Adiyabo Overall χ2 P-value challenges Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent statistics Agricultural expansion 98 31.9 33 21.6 131 28.5 140.260 < .001 Overgrazing 82 26.7 31 20.3 113 24.6 Deforestation 42 13.7 26 17.0 68 14.8 Forest fire 33 10.7 24 15.7 57 12.4 Illegal gold mining 24 7.8 10 6.5 26 5.7 Hunting 14 4.6 2 1.3 24 5.2 Source: Estimated from questionnaire survey data; 2016

Table 3. Comparison of respondents results on the major wildlife conservation challenges

Major wildlife Humera Rank Index Tahtay Adiyabo Rank Index conservation 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th challenges Agricultural Count 83 56 40 39 37 38 63 19 12 11 10 11 expansion % within challenges 28.30% 19.10% 13.70% 13.30% 12.60% 13.00% 50.00% 15.10% 9.50% 8.70% 7.90% 8.70% Adjusted Residual 5.9 1.2 -1.5 -1.7 -2 -1.9 11 -0.5 -2.4 -2.6 -2.9 -2.6 P value 0.000 0.218 0.129 0.091 0.042 0.063 0.000 0.601 0.018 0.009 0.004 0.009 Forest fire Count 44 41 75 39 52 42 11 12 18 59 15 11 % within challenges 15.00% 14.00% 25.60% 13.30% 17.70% 14.30% 8.70% 9.50% 14.30% 46.80% 11.90% 8.70% Adjusted Residual -0.8 -1.3 4.5 -1.7 0.5 -1.2 -2.6 -2.4 -0.8 10 -1.6 -2.6 P value 0.407 0.179 0.000 0.091 0.587 0.241 0.009 0.018 0.432 0.000 0.116 0.009 Deforestation Count 39 41 44 75 43 51 15 14 55 18 14 10 % within challenges 13.30% 14.00% 15.00% 25.60% 14.70% 17.40% 11.90% 11.10% 43.70% 14.30% 11.10% 7.90% Adjusted Residual -1.7 -1.3 -0.8 4.5 -1 0.4 -1.6 -1.8 8.9 -0.8 -1.8 -2.9 P value 0.091 0.179 0.407 0.000 0.317 0.710 0.116 0.067 0.000 0.432 0.067 0.004 Illegal gold Count 37 39 42 49 49 77 9 12 12 15 11 67 mining % within challenges 12.60% 13.30% 14.30% 16.70% 16.70% 26.30% 7.10% 9.50% 9.50% 11.90% 8.70% 53.20% Adjusted Residual -2 -1.7 -1.2 0 0 4.8 -3.1 -2.4 -2.4 -1.6 -2.6 12

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

Major wildlife Humera Rank Index Tahtay Adiyabo Rank Index conservation 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th challenges P value 0.042 0.091 0.241 0.977 0.977 0.000 0.002 0.018 0.018 0.116 0.009 0.000 Poaching Count 44 43 38 54 70 44 12 10 14 12 64 14 % within challenges 15.00% 14.70% 13.00% 18.40% 23.90% 15.00% 9.50% 7.90% 11.10% 9.50% 50.80% 11.10% Adjusted Residual -0.8 -1 -1.9 0.9 3.6 -0.8 -2.4 -2.9 -1.8 -2.4 11.3 -1.8 P value 0.407 0.317 0.063 0.375 0.000 0.407 0.018 0.004 0.067 0.018 0.000 0.067 Overgrazing Count 46 73 54 37 42 41 16 59 15 11 12 13 % within challenges 15.70% 24.90% 18.40% 12.60% 14.30% 14.00% 12.70% 46.80% 11.90% 8.70% 9.50% 10.30% Adjusted Residual -0.5 4.1 0.9 -2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3 10 -1.6 -2.6 -2.4 -2.1 P value 0.627 0.000 0.375 0.042 0.241 0.179 0.190 0.000 0.116 0.009 0.018 0.036 Total Count 293 293 293 293 293 293 126 126 126 126 126 126 % within challenges 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70%

Table 4. Respondents’ result on major causes of wildlife conservation challenges

What are the major reasons in park conservation Kafta Humera Tahtay Adiyabo Overall χ2 statistics P-value challenges Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent Lack of ownership and community awareness 116 37.8 45 29.4 161 35.0 182.611 < .001 Lack of law enforcement 84 27.4 36 23.5 120 26.1 Lack of patrolling and monitoring 71 23.1 24 15.7 95 20.7 Lack of security 14 4.6 16 10.5 30 6.5 Issues of boundary 8 2.6 5 3.3 13 2.8 Source: Estimated from questionnaire survey data; 2016

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

Table 5. Comparison of respondents results on the main causes of wildlife habitat change

Major causes of wildlife Humera Rank Index Tahtay Adiyabo Rank Index habitat encroachments 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Lack of ownership and Count 115 48 47 41 42 65 17 16 15 13 community awareness % within cause 39.20% 16.40% 16.00% 14.00% 14.30% 51.60% 13.50% 12.70% 11.90% 10.30% Adjusted Residual 9.2 -1.7 -1.9 -2.9 -2.7 9.9 -2.0 -2.3 -2.5 -3.0 P value 0.000 0.084 0.058 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.041 0.022 0.011 0.002 Issues of boundary Count 46 40 46 109 52 13 14 18 59 22 demarcation % within cause 15.70% 13.70% 15.70% 37.20% 17.70% 10.3% 11.1% 14.3% 46.8% 17.5% Adjusted Residual -2.1 -3 -2.1 8.2 -1.1 -3.0 -2.8 -1.8 8.4 -.8 P value 0.040 0.002 0.040 0.000 0.281 0.002 0.005 0.073 0.000 0.426 Lack of law enforcement Count 43 52 98 49 51 15 18 58 19 16 % within cause 14.70% 17.70% 33.40% 16.70% 17.40% 11.9% 14.3% 46.0% 15.1% 12.7% Adjusted Residual -2.5 -1.1 6.4 -1.6 -1.2 -2.5 -1.8 8.2 -1.5 -2.3 P value 0.011 0.281 0.000 0.117 0.215 0.011 0.073 0.000 0.123 0.022 Lack of patrolling and Count 40 110 56 44 43 18 63 15 16 14 monitoring % within cause 13.70% 37.50% 19.10% 15.00% 14.70% 14.3% 50.0% 11.9% 12.7% 11.1% Adjusted Residual -3 8.4 -0.4 -2.4 -2.5 -1.8 9.4 -2.5 -2.3 -2.8 P value 0.002 0.000 0.671 0.017 0.011 0.073 0.000 0.011 0.022 0.005 Lack of security Count 49 43 46 50 105 15 14 19 17 61 % within cause 16.70% 14.70% 15.70% 17.10% 35.80% 11.9% 11.1% 15.1% 13.5% 48.4% Adjusted Residual -1.6 -2.5 -2.1 -1.4 7.6 -2.5 -2.8 -1.5 -2.0 8.9 P value 0.117 0.011 0.040 0.160 0.000 0.011 0.005 0.123 0.041 0.000 Total Count 293 293 293 293 293 126 126 126 126 126 % within cause 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Table 6. Shows that respondents’ result on the responsibility for wildlife conservation challenges

Who are these farmers/ responsible Kafta Humera Tahtay Adiyabo Overall χ2 statistics P-value Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Wefrezemet 146 49.8 78 61.9 224 53.5 New settler 94 32.1 37 29.4 131 31.3 252.104 < .001 Indigenous settler 53 18.1 11 8.7 64 15.3 Source: Estimated from questionnaire survey data; 2016

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

population growth, agriculture expansion, Respondents have ranked outsiders or settlements expanding, overgrazing, deforesta- “Wefrezemet” 224(53.5%), new settlers tion, fire, gold extraction, and hunting. They said 131(31.3%) and indigenous people 64(15.3%) as that “before ten years ago local communities first, second and third responsible for biological were participated in several wildlife conservation resources threat in the park, respectively (Table activities in the park, especially in fire protection, 6). Also, during the field survey, a large number wildlife, forest protection, and providing of “Wefrezemet” that affect biological resources information to the park about any illegal activities inside the park was observed. There was a observed. But today did not exercise this kind of significant difference in the attitude towards activity from the communities. Especially, the wildlife conservation among district residents (χ2 new settlers considered the park as a limiting = 252.104, df = 4, P< .001). factor not to improve their livelihood and they need mainly for free grazing and farmland 4. CONCLUSION accesses are a major issue raised by the Understanding the conservation challenges and participants. In contrast, the indigenous people causes of wildlife habitat changes are critically and community elders who did not have farmland important for future effective conservation inside or adjacent to the national park feel good strategies. Agriculture expansion, overgrazing for the existence of wildlife in the park. deforestation, forest fire, gold mining, and

The causes of wildlife habitat threats mentioned hunting were the major challenges to the habitat by respondents revealed, issues of the park of wildlife conservation in the park. On the other boundary, lack of awareness, lack of law hand, there are many other factors are enforcement, lack of security, monitoring and highlighted by the respondents such as the patrolling. Besides, they said that a “high number rapidly growing human populations and of people during the summer season moved to expanding settlements have also a significant the park to be involved in the illegal gold mining, impact on wildlife habitat loss. The outsiders and sesame production as an alternative way of local communities were directly affecting the livelihood”. Discussants from most of the study wildlife habitat by introducing domestic species, sites describe their feeling as follows; the park manipulating wild animal habitats, burning trees, resources mainly degraded and utilized a means and carrying out illegal agricultural practices in of income-generating by “Wefrezemet” (non-local many parts of the park. Lack of ownership and resident) every year. This indicated that the community awareness, lack of law enforcement, support of local communities to protect the park lack of patrolling and monitoring, issues of the conservation is very low. As a result, human and park boundary, and lack of security were the wildlife conflict events are widespread in the park main causes for reduced wildlife habitat. mainly due to its crop raider and livestock attack The gap between the sustainable wildlife habitat problems. conservation and local people were because of opposing views on the protected area. Most of The issue of the park boundary was raised as the the community believes that the park resource is main causes of wildlife habitat change in the the property of the government. The local park. The new settlers who lived inside or community has a high demand for illegal use for adjacent to the national park has raised the issue free grazing and farmland from the park of the park boundary, they said that “there is a resource. On another hand, they have no misunderstanding between the conservationists received any financial benefits from the park as and community in the issue of the park boundary an incentive or the limited livelihood opportunities demarcation during 2010, communities did not to enhance their income. Even the local involve with the park planning and management community in and around the park are not decisions. The reason was raised water points, involved in off-farming activities such as tour cultivated land, and grazing land were restricted guiding, transport rental service and selling to some villages’’, especially in Aditsetser handicraft trade besides cultivation and rearing of (lijimariam) from Tahtay Adiyabo and Adebay, animals. Adigoshu, Hiletcoca, and Freselam from Kafta Humera districts. This indicated that there is The human, livestock and wildlife interactions will increasing competition for resources and space continue a negative effect on the park. There is a in the park. A similar result was confirmed by real threat to the future existence of wildlife in the Birhanu Berihun et al. [24] perception of local park. Even so, the park has still a wealth of people towards wildlife conservation and the park diverse ecosystems; almost all of the villages are were negative. found outside the park except the Tekeze bridge

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

and southern edges adjacent to the villages, connectivity: Shortfalls in global targets which is undisturbed nature. Hence the and country-level priorities. Biological opportunity still exists for proactive intervention conservation. 2018;219:53-67. such as conservation-based practices must be Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2 established through all methods of securing 017.12.020 livelihoods. The international dimension of the 2. Riggio J, Jacobson AP, Hijmans RJ, Caro current nature and community-based ecotourism T. How effective are the protected areas of industry is highly encouraging. East Africa? Global ecology and conservation. 2019;17:e00573. Therefore, urgent management action is required Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2 to control the existing illegal resource use and 017.12.020 destruction through full participation from the 3. Hansilo DD, Tiki L. Challenges of human local people. Action from federal, regional settlement on wildlife in Bale Mountains government and wildlife authority should work in National Park, Southeast Ethiopia. strong mobilization by effective management International Journal of Biodiversity and programmes such as to introduce community- Conservation. 2017;9(4):107-14. based conservation approaches through creating Available:https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2015 good relationships and public awareness with the .1056 local community, promoting community 4. IUCN U-Wa. Protected Planet Report involvement, and linking conservation activity 2018. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS:. with livelihood improvement. Particularly to Cambridge UK; Gland, Switzerland; and KSNP should have a clear strategy about Washington, DC, USA; 2018. community participation and ecotourism 5. Jenkins CN, Joppa L. Expansion of the development. Moreover, stakeholders should global terrestrial protected area system. work together and relocate agricultural Biological conservation. 2009;142(10): activities out of wildlife habitat through 2166-74. commitment and full participation from the local Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2 people. 009.04.016 CONSENT 6. Bertzky B, Corrigan C, Kemsey J, Kenney S, Ravilious C, Besançon C, et al. As per international standard informed and Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking written participant consent has been collected progress towards global targets for and preserved by the authors. protected areas. IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK; 2012. The authors thank Tigray Agricultural Research 7. Amare A. Conservation Challenges of Gibe Institute (TARI), Humera Agricultural Research Sheleko National Park, Southwestern Center for the help provided financial and logistic Ethiopia. Natural Resources. 2015;6(4): support. The Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation 286. Authority and Kafta Sheraro National park office Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/nr.2015. was highly appreciated for offering us to 64025 undertake our research work in the park. Thank 8. UNEP-WCMC I. Protected planet report you, all the scouts of the park, to ensure the 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: safety of the team and experts for their Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland. cooperation and support during the fieldwork. 2016;78-95. Moreover, we wish to express our appreciation to 9. Venter O, Fuller RA, Segan DB, our staff researchers, drivers and our friends who Carwardine J, Brooks T, Butchart SH, et contributed invaluable help during all phases of al. Targeting global protected area the study. expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS COMPETING INTERESTS Biology. 2014;12(6). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001891 Authors have declared that no competing 10. Yalden D, Largen M. The endemic interests exist. mammals of Ethiopia. Mammal Review. REFERENCES 1992;22(3‐4):115-50. Available:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 1. Saura S, Bertzky B, Bastin L, Battistella L, 2907.1992.tb00128.x Mandrici A, Dubois G. Protected area

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

11. Abunie L. The challenges of conserving Available:https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1053 Ethiopian wildlife: overview. Walia. 2000; 1-012-0239-9 (21):56-62. 20. Newmark WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa 12. Vreugdenhil D, Vreugdenhil A, Tilahun T, DGM, Sariko HI. The conflict between Shimelis A, Tefera Z. Gap analysis of the wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas system of Ethiopia. World protected areas in Tanzania: human Institute for Conservation and density as a predictor. Conservation Environment, USA; 2012. Biology. 1994;8(1):249-55. 13. EWCA. Protected wildlife areas of Ethiopia Available:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523- with their size; 2012. 1739.1994.08010249.x Available:http://www.ewca.gov.et/en/node/ 21. Mamo Y, Bekele A. Human and livestock 27 encroachments into the habitat of 14. Mekbeb E. Tessema, Kumara Wa, Addisu Mountain Nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni) in A. Threats and their relative severity and the Bale Mountains National Park, driving forces in the African Elephant range Ethiopia. Tropical Ecology. 2011;52(3): wildlife protected areas of Ethiopia. 265-73. International Journal of Biodiversity and 22. Malede B, Girma G. Review on problems, Conservation 2019;11(7):187-98. prospects and economic contribution of Available:https://doi.org/10.5897/ijbc2019.1 wildlife management and ecotourism in 298 Ethiopia. Journal of Veterinary Science 15. Mehring M, Stoll-Kleemann S. How and Technology. 2015;6(5). effective is the buffer zone? Linking 23. Payés ACLM, Pavão T, dos Santos RF. institutional processes with satellite images The conservation success over time: from a case study in the Lore Lindu Forest Evaluating the land use and cover change Biosphere Reserve, Indonesia. Ecology in a protected area under a long re- and Society. 2011;16(4). categorization process. Land Use Policy. Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES- 2013;30(1):177-85. 04349-160403 24. Berihun A, Yirga G, Tesfay G. Human- 16. Tilahun B, Abie K, Feyisa A, Amare A. wildlife conflict in Kafta-Sheraro National Attitude and perceptions of local Park, Northern Ethiopia. World Journal of communities towards the conservation Zoology. 2016;11(3):154-9. value of gibe Sheleko national park, 25. Mamo D, Bouer H, Tesfay Y. Crop damage Southwestern Ethiopia. Agricultural and by African elephants assessment in Resource Economics: International kaftasheraro national park, Ethiopia. Scientific E-Journal. 2017;3(2):65-77. African Journal of Ecology. 2014;52(2): Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.eco 138-43. n.260667 26. Central Statistic Agency(CSA).Population 17. Abebe FB, Bekele SE. Challenges to of Ethiopia. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia; 2014. national park conservation and 27. EWCA(Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation management in Ethiopia. Journal of Authority). Elephant conservation plan. Agricultural Science. 2018;10(5):52. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Unpublished Available:https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v10n5 Report; 2007. p52 28. KSNPCL (Kafta Sheraro National Park 18. Stephens PA, d'Sa CA, Sillero-Zubiri C, Check List). Censes of wildlife in Kafta- Leader-Williams N. Impact of livestock and Sheraro national park, Tigray Region, settlement on the large mammalian wildlife Ethiopia; 2016. of Bale Mountains National Park, southern 29. Eshete A, Sterck F, Bongers F. Diversity Ethiopia. Biological Conservation. 2001; and production of Ethiopian dry woodlands 100(3):307-22. explained by climate-and soil-stress Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006- gradients. Forest Ecology and 3207(01)00035-0 Management. 2011;261(9):1499-509. 19. Ogutu JO, Owen-Smith N, Piepho H-P, Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2 Kuloba B, Edebe J. Dynamics of ungulates 011.01.021 in relation to climatic and land use changes 30. Zewdie W, Csaplovics E, Inostroza L. in an insularized African savanna Monitoring ecosystem dynamics in ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation. northwestern Ethiopia using NDVI and 2012;21(4):1033-53. climate variables to assess long term

Abrehe et al.; AJEE, 12(3): 38-55, 2020; Article no.AJEE.54918

trends in dryland vegetation 4 0 . V ial F. Conservation science for common variability. Applied geography. 2017;79: ground: developing the necessary tools to 167-78. manage livestock grazing pressure in Bale 31. Yamane T. Statistics, An Introductory Mountains National Park, Ethiopia: Analysis: 2nd ed., New York: Harper and University of Glasgow; 2010. Row; 1967. 41. Brito M. Coservation Biology for All. Oxford 32. Gashaw T. Threats of bale mountains press lnc., New York2003. National Park and solutions, Ethiopia. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554232.0 Journal of Physical Science and 01.0001 Environmental Studies. 2015;1(2):10-6. 42. Gebru T. Impact of traditional gold mining 33. Fentaw T, Duba J. Human–Wildlife conflict activity on composition and diversity of the among the pastoral communities of vegetation and perception of the southern rangelands of Ethiopia: The case community in Kafta-Sheraro National Park, of Yabello Protected Area. Journal of North Western Tigray, Ethiopia: Master International Wildlife Law & Policy. 2017; Thessis, Haramay University, Ethiopia; 20(2):198-206. Unpublished Report; 2017. 34. Shoshani Ja, Yirmed D. Report on the 43. Andriamasinoro F, Angel JM. Artisanal and Kafta Sheraro National Park. Tigray small-scale gold mining in Burkina Faso: Region, Ethiopia: Unpublished Report; suggestion of multi-agent methodology as 2008. a complementary support in elaborating a 35. Zegeye DM. Causes of wild fire policy. Resources Policy. 2012;37(3):385- assessment in Kafta Sheraro National 96. park, Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Natural 44. Kebede AG, Bekele M, Woldeamanuel T. Sciences Research. 2015;5:147-51. Natural resource use conflict in Bale 36. Chanie S, Tesfaye D. Threats of Mountains National Park, Southeast biodiversity conservation and ecotourism Ethiopia. International Journal of activities in Nechsar National Park, Biodiversity and Conservation. 2014;6(12): Ethiopia. International Journal of 814-22. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2015;7(3): 45. Tessema ME, Ashenafi ZT, Lilieholm RJ, 1309. Leader-Williams N, editors. Community Available:https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2014 attitudes towards wildlife conservation in .0752 Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 2007 George 37. Alers M, Bovarnick A, Boyle T, Mackinnon Wright Society Conference, Assessing K, Sobrevila C. Reducing threats to Public Attitudes and Experiences; 2007: protected areas: lessons from the field. Citeseer. Washington, DC: United Nations 46. Asmamaw D, Verma A. Ecotourism for Development Program/The World Bank; environmental conservation and 2007. community livelihoods, the case of the 38. Wangchuk S. Grazing management in Bale Mountain National Park, Ethiopia. national parks and protected areas: Journal of Environmental Science and Science, socio-economics and legislation Water Resources. 2013;2(8):250-9. (tenure); 2002. 47. Petros I. Threats, Opportunities and 39. Tefera Z. Common property resource Community perception of Biological management of an afro-alpine habitat: resource conservation in Bale Mountains Supporting a population of a critically National Park, a case of Dinsho District, endangered Ethiopian wolf (Canis Ethiopia Journal of Biological Sciences. simensis). Canis Simensis; 2001. 2016;5(4):6-13. ______© 2020 Abrehe et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history: The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/54918