| dc.description.abstract | Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is becoming a critical threat to people‘s lives and livelihoods
and wildlife, in particular large mammals such as lions, elephants, baboons, monkeys among
others. Numerous case studies of HWC around the globe suggest the need for an in-depth
evaluation of the problem and the design of locally driven solutions. In Uganda, HWC has
been noted to deepen local community retaliation by killing and poisoning wildlife. As a
result, the government through Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), designed several
interventions to cub the conflict. However, recent studies show further increases in the
conflict, suggesting that the government guidelines were not effective HWC interventions.
This study was carried out in a community around Kyambura Wildlife Reserve (KWR) in
Rubirizi district. The study assessed locally-driven means through which HWC can be
managed, working in line with government guidelines. Specifically, the study assessed (i)
community exposures and responses to human-wildlife conflicts, (ii) community attitudes
toward KWR, and (iii) levels of local participation in HWC management around KWR. The
study used three methods of data collection including household interviews, Focus Group
Discussions, and Key Informant Interviews in order to obtain adequate and triangulated
information about the topic of study. Data obtained from the field was analysed to reveal the
levels of exposure to wildlife attacks in space and time, responses to wildlife attacks by
community members, the attitude of the community towards KWR, levels of participation in
HWC management, and the motivating factors for participation. From the results, all
respondents revealed that they have been experiencing wildlife attacks on people and
property. Elephants (93%), baboons (67%), and wild pigs (53%) were the most reported
animals that attacked communities, often regularly. Most community members revealed that
they responded by guarding their crop gardens, lighting fire, drumming among others. Key
informants added that some community members responded by trapping, killing, or
poisoning the animals. The majority of the respondents (78%) revealed that they valued the
park as a source of firewood, grass, among others. In HWC management, 75% of the
respondents revealed that they were involved by UWA, 27% by their initiative, and 13% by
conservation NGOs. They indicated that they participated in digging trenches, planting bee
hives, clearing land, guarding, participating in meetings to design strategies for managing
HWC. Communities‘ participation in HWC management was driven by the need to secure
livelihoods, to protect their gardens from animal attacks, and the incentives such as firewood,
grass given to participants majorly by UWA. The study has noted wildlife attacks are a big
problem to communities, household attitudes of KWR are majorly influenced by the tangible
benefits they get from the reserve and not the original reason for which it was created.
Residents participate in HWC management through household/community self-initiatives to
protect the crops, property, and life from being affected by animals, joint initiatives with park
authority and other agencies, and engage in conservation enterprises. The study recommends
pursuance of an integrated, actionable, and community-based conflict management approach
with reference to elements such as policy, prevention, mitigation, understanding the conflict,
response, and monitoring. | en_US |
