Living with wildlife and associated conflicts in areas adjacent to protected areas, Northern Zimbabwe

Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are a worldwide problem, especially around protected areas where human and wildlife needs overlap. This study focused on the Chundu communal area and the Nyamakate resettlement area in Northern Zimbabwe, with three primary objectives: (i) to identify problematic wildlife species frequently involved in HWC in these areas; (ii) to examine the temporal variations of HWC cases; and (iii) to assess the effectiveness of current and suggested mitigation measures for managing these conflicts. Data were collected in November 2019 and February 2020, periods identified as peak times for HWC in these areas. A comprehensive three‐stage sampling design was used to collect data for this study. Data were collected through household questionnaires from 16 villages (64 households) in the Nyamakate resettlement area and nine villages (36 households) from the Chundu communal area. The study identified the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) as the most problematic animal in livestock predation, followed by the African lion (Panthera leo) and leopard (Panthera pardus). There were no significant differences in HWC between the dry season (M = 315, SD = 417.79) and the wet season (M = 383, SD = 540.19; t[4] = −0.43, p > 0.05). The study concluded that HWC occurred throughout the year in both communities, unaffected by seasonal variations. It was determined that current mitigation measures are inadequate for managing HWC in both areas. In light of these findings, the study recommends the use of nonlethal methods in HWC management, reserving lethal means as a last resort.

throughout the year, unaffected by seasonal variations.Local communities employ several methods to manage HWC and also suggest other ways to address problem animals.HWC management and mitigation are complex, requiring a mixture of approaches.These include the establishment of wildlife barriers, property protection, traditional methods and removal of the specific problem species.The study recommends the adoption of nonlethal approaches in HWC management, only turning to lethal means as a last resort.

| INTRODUCTION
Globally, human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs) have been widely documented in both protected and nonprotected areas (Abrahms, 2021), impacting social and economic aspects of human life.These conflicts are often characterised by their detrimental effects, such as limiting social interaction due to fear of attacks and loss of livestock and property (Abrahms, 2021;Chakuya & Gondo, 2018;Chomba et al., 2012;Gusset et al., 2009).Instances of HWC vary across regions: in the northern United States, bears (Ursus arctos arctos) are known to raid dustbins in national parks and urban fringes, disturbing residents and causing disruption, while white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) often collide with automobiles, posing significant safety risks (García Márquez et al., 2017).In Europe, several wildlife species cause substantial damage to both crops and livestock.Predators such as leopards are regularly responsible for attacks on sheep (Ovis aries) and cattle (Bos taurus) (Górecki et al., 2012).In Africa, lions (Panthera leo), leopards (Panthera pardus) and cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) have been reported to be the major predators of livestock across the continent (Treves et al., 2006), often leading to significant losses for pastoralists.This issue is exemplified in the Maasai steppe landscape of Tanzania, where carnivores pose a constant threat to pastoral livelihoods (Kissui, 2008), and in Botswana, where they are a concern for both livestock safety and human well-being (Gusset et al., 2009;Schiess-Meier et al., 2007).Generally, notable threats from wildlife on human lives, crops and livestock are most prevalent in areas adjacent to protected zones (Gandiwa et al., 2012;Mhuriro-Mashapa et al., 2018;Zisadza-Gandiwa et al., 2016).The primary drivers of HWC are human encroachment into protected areas due to human and wildlife population growth, coupled with the expansion of wildlife territories into human settlement areas (Gandiwa et al., 2013;Kupika et al., 2019).
HWC occurs in different forms.Human injury and fatalities can result from direct attacks by wild animals, including biting, clawing and other aggressive behaviours (Chakuya & Gondo, 2018;Mekonen, 2020).Human fatalities can also be the result of accidental collisions between animals and automobiles, trains, planes and boats (García Márquez et al., 2017;Long et al., 2020).Wildlife can be a source of zoonotic diseases and parasites, affecting both human health and livestock production (Karanth et al., 2012;Nyhus, 2016).Crop raiding is particularly prevalent in marginal agricultural areas adjacent to protected zones, with species such as velvet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus), African elephants (Loxodonta africana), common hippopotamuses (Hippopotamus amphibius), common elands (Taurotragus oryx) and African buffalos (Syncerus caffer) being the main culprits (Long et al., 2020).Livestock depredation, primarily by African rock pythons (Python sebae), Nile crocodiles (Crocodylus niloticus) and other carnivores (lions, leopards, spotted hyenas), is a serious concern for communal farmers (Mekonen, 2020).Furthermore, property damage is common in urban, bush camp and communal areas, with African elephants often vandalising property such as fences, houses, sewage and water infrastructure and security walls (Long et al., 2020;Mekonen, 2020).In response to these conflicts, Retaliatory actions are common in communal areas where locals use snares, poisons and traps to kill problem animals (Patterson et al., 2004).
The increase in human population and related economic activities such as urbanisation, mining and farming significantly alter ecosystems, leading Practitioner points to competition for resources and habitat degradation (Nyhus, 2016).This degradation includes the destruction of forests, grasslands, aquatic systems and wetlands, which exacerbates HWC.Land fragmentation and wildlife corridor blockage also contribute to the intensification of these conflicts (Nyhus, 2016;Patterson et al., 2004).Climate change plays a further role in aggravating HWC.Alterations in food and water availability due to severe droughts, temperature changes and flooding force wildlife to migrate in search of more suitable habitats.These migrations and changes in wildlife routes can lead to increased instances of HWC in both urban and communal areas (García Márquez et al., 2017;Mfunda & Røskaft, 2011).Inadequate management of HWC may result in reduced community cooperation in wildlife conservation efforts and potentially escalate poaching and retaliatory killings of animals perceived as problematic (Chakuya et al., 2023;Zisadza-Gandiwa et al., 2016).
Managing HWC involves a range of methods, though some are criticised for their inappropriateness from a conservation standpoint (Chakuya & Gondo, 2018;Long et al., 2020).Lethal approaches, including the use of firearms, poisons and traps like neck snares and rotating-jaw traps, are common but controversial (Mekonen, 2020;Nyhus, 2016).Nonlethal deterrent techniques, categorised based on sensory effects such as hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch, offer alternative strategies (García Márquez et al., 2017).For instance, acoustic deterrents like firecrackers produce loud, unexpected noises to frighten wildlife, while scarecrows leverage visual stimuli (Mekonen, 2020).Olfactory deterrents use the smells caused by specific chemical compounds to deter wildlife, while chillies and other unpalatable substances are used to prevent wildlife from eating a targeted food source.Capture and translocation of problem animals to less conflict-prone areas is another widely used method (Baral et al., 2021;Massei et al., 2010).This approach is regarded as more humane than lethal methods, though it involves high costs and sometimes species find their way back to their original territories.Physical barriers and exclusion techniques are also used to deter wildlife (Mfunda & Røskaft, 2011).Fences, hedges and barricade walls may restrict certain species from accessing threatened crops or livestock.Additionally, community-focused strategies are gaining traction.For example, in Namibia, awareness campaigns and compensation policies are being increasingly adopted to enhance HWC management.(Mekonen, 2020;Treves et al., 2006).
In Zimbabwe, HWCs present significant challenges, posing serious threats to human lives, crops and livestock production.This issue is particularly acute in Nyamakate and Chundu communal areas of the Hurungwe district, where frequent interactions between local communities and wildlife lead to considerable conflicts.The study aimed to address three key objectives: (i) to identify problematic wildlife species frequently involved in HWC in these areas, (ii) to examine the temporal variations of HWC cases, and (iii) to assess the effectiveness of current and suggested mitigation measures for managing these conflicts.

| Study area
The study was conducted in two distinct areas within the Hurungwe District of Mashonaland West Province in Zimbabwe: Nyamakate, a resettlement area, and Chundu, a communal area.These areas are located in northern Zimbabwe and share boundaries with the Mana Pools National Park, Hurungwe Safari Area and Charara Safari Area.A game fence demarcates the boundary between these protected areas and the local communities.However, over time, this fence has been vandalised, leading to its deterioration.Despite the absence of a physical barrier, the local communities are well aware of the boundary's location (Kupika et al., 2019).The protected areas nearby are endowed with both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species, which include African elephants, African buffalos, common hippopotamuses, crocodiles, lions, leopards and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), among others (Chakuya et al., 2022).The vegetation is miombo woodland, characterised by a high dominance of Miombo (Brachystegia) species and Bushwillows (Combretum) species (Figure 1).
The study area experiences high temperatures, with mean maximum and minimum temperatures ranging between 22.5°C and 30°C in July and October, respectively (Chakuya et al., 2022).The annual rainfall ranges between 500 and 750 mm, often marked by dry spells.The soil composition in these areas is predominantly ferralitic, interspersed with pockets of lithosol soils which are ideal for cultivating maize (Zea mays), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), sugar beans (Phaseolous vulgaris), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea) (Chakuya et al., 2022).The agricultural practices in the two areas are primarily subsistencebased, with some elements of commercial farming.Livestock production is a significant part of the local economy and includes cattle, goats (Capra hircus) and chickens (Gallus gullus domesticus) (Table 1).

| Data collection and analysis
Before initiating the study, ethical clearance was obtained from the Zimbabwe Institute of Wildlife Conservation (Ethics Committee).After obtaining clearance, Hurungwe Rural District Council (HRDC) was informed of the planned research survey.The HRDC helped inform the Chiefs, Headmen and their respective communities about the planned research.Throughout data collection, respondents' consent was sought before each interview, and they were given the option to withdraw if they felt uncomfortable.A three-stage design was employed for sampling, which included village and ward selection (random sampling) and household selection (systematic sampling).Villages within a 15 km radius of the protected area were selected and sampled (Matseketsa et al., 2019).The first household was chosen randomly, and subsequent households were chosen systematically, with every fourth household selected.Survey questions covered topics including demographic information, agricultural activities, the specific wildlife species involved in HWC and respondents' perceptions and attitudes towards HWC.Questionnaires were distributed as follows: Nyamakate resettlement area 16 villages (64 households) and Chundu communal area nine villages (36 households).The household heads were targeted as respondents; in case of their absence, their wives or other permanent adult residents (≥18 years) were considered.In addition to household surveys, six key | 15 informant interviews were held with the chiefs, ward councillors and village heads in the two areas.A structured interview guide with open-ended questions was used, allowing key informants to share their experiences and perspectives on HWCs.Data collection was strategically timed to coincide with the peak of HWC, specifically in November 2019 and February 2020.For data analysis, descriptive statistics were used to summarise data on different aspects of HWC, such as the species involved, the nature of conflicts and currently suggested HWC management methods, among others.To identify any significant differences in HWC between communities and seasonal variations, a sample t-test was conducted using the SPSS 20 software package (IBM).
In the spirit of self-reflexivity, the authors acknowledge their backgrounds as ecologists and conservationists who were formerly employed by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.Two authors have direct experience observing HWC and working closely with communities affected by them.The other author serves in a directorial position and possesses the authority to influence significant decisions on conservation practices.It is recognised that these positionalities had the potential to influence this study to some extent (Beck et al., 2021).To mitigate any potential bias, a similar questionnaire was used across all study villages and notes were taken on all preconceptions that arose during data collection and analysis.
This study was based on the reductionist conceptual framework.This approach operates on the principle that complex systems, such as the interactions between humans and wildlife, can be understood by breaking them down into smaller, more manageable components.This reductionist framework posits that by analysing these smaller elements and their interactions, we can gain a clearer understanding of the whole system (Papineau, 1989).Human-wildlife interactions are inherently complex and characterised by a mix of positive and negative effects.In some cases, the direct and indirect effects of HWC can be difficult to discern because of their multifaceted nature (Papineau, 1989).By employing the reductionist approach, this study aimed to identify the causes of HWC and examine its direct and indirect consequences on both humans and wildlife.This approach facilitated a detailed assessment of the background behind HWC, enabling connections to be drawn between causes and their effects.It also aided in the establishment of the causal chain of these conflicts and the development of solutions for the challenges identified.

| Problematic wildlife species involved in HWC
The results show that the spotted hyena was identified as the most problematic animal contributing to HWC in the two communities (Figure 2).In the Nyamakate resettlement area, spotted hyenas accounted for 24.8% (n = 31) of the reported HWC cases, while in Chundu, they were responsible for 11.2% (n = 14) of incidents.Lions were the second most problematic wildlife species, with 12.8% (n = 16) of HWC cases reported in Nyamatake.Crop raiding activities were caused by elands (6.4%, n = 8) and African elephants 1.6% (n = 2).Interestingly, elandrelated incidents were recorded exclusively in the Nyamakate resettlement area.Chacma baboons 12% (n = 15) and monkeys 6.4 (n = 8) were reported to F I G U R E 2 Frequencies of wildlife species involved in human-wildlife conflicts in the Chundu communal area and Nyamakate resettlement area.
cause problems related to crop and infrastructure damage.The presence of both diurnal and nocturnal species contributed to increased strain on communities in dealing with HWC.A significant difference was observed in the frequency of HWC between the Chundu communal area (M = 2.9, SD = 4.2) and the Nyamakate resettlement area (M = 6, SD = 8.3; t[13] = −1.95,p < 0.05).The Nyamakate resettlement area experienced a higher incidence of HWC, with 67.2% (n = 84) of the reported cases, while the Chundu communal area had 32.8% (n = 41).
In addressing HWC, the study identified two primary mitigation measures suggested by the communities.The most advocated strategy was fencing of game areas, with 29.2% (n = 40) of respondents highlighting this as a crucial measure.The second suggestion was compensation payment for losses incurred due to wildlife, which was supported by 24.8% (n = 34) of the participants (Table 2).Fewer community members viewed active engagement in decision-making as a viable solution, with only 1.5% (n = 2) suggesting this approach.A small percentage (2.9%,n = 4) believed that equitable sharing of benefits derived from conservation efforts would help to mitigate HWC.

| Temporal variations in HWC
The wet season saw more crop raids, particularly in the Nyamakate resettlement, accounting for 52.66% (n = 961) of cases of HWC.Conversely, the dry season experienced higher levels of livestock predation, with 43.22% (n = 660) of HWC cases in Nyamakate (Table 3).Despite these trends, statistical analysis indicated no significant overall differences in HWC frequency between the dry season (M = 315, SD = 417.79)and the wet season (M = 383, SD = 540.19;t[4] = −0.43,p > 0.05).

| The current and suggested mitigation measures in managing HWC
In both communities, using dogs for guarding was a very popular strategy, with 22% (n = 24) of respondents employing this method (Table 4).Dogs were used to guard fields, gardens and kraals both day and night.Very few people (1.8%, n = 2) used the scarecrow method to manage HWC in either community.Covering kraals with wire fences or thorns was a popular method (83.3%, n = 15) and was mostly used in the Nyamakate resettlement area.It is important to note that 27.5% (n = 30) of participants did not use any mitigation strategy to manage HWC.

| Problematic wildlife species in HWC
Carnivores, antelopes and primates were the major problem animals involved in HWC within the Chundu communal area and Nyamakate resettlement area.Spotted hyenas were the top predators of livestock, followed by lions and leopards.Most livestock depredation occurred during the night or early morning, often inside kraals or in open fields in communal areas.Incidents of livestock, especially cattle and donkeys, being preyed upon after they strayed into adjacent protected areas were also noted.Zimbabwe's sizeable carnivore population, found mainly within protected areas, often leads to conflicts with nearby communities (Gandiwa et al., 2013;Treves et al., 2006).These communities are mostly affected by HWC involving lions and spotted hyenas (Matseketsa et al., 2019;Zisadza-Gandiwa et al., 2016).A study by Zisadza-Gandiwa et al. (2016) revealed that spotted hyenas, lions and leopards were the primary species involved in HWC within the Maramani community in southern Zimbabwe.Additionally, crop production and property are significantly impacted by chacma baboons, velvet monkeys, common elands and African elephants.These species not only cause damage to crops and property but also pose threats to human safety.African elephants, in particular, are known for causing many HWCs involving crop raids, property destruction and human fatalities (Buchholtz et al., 2020;García Márquez et al., 2017).In Zambia and Ghana, for instance, they were estimated to be responsible for 80% of crop | 17 damage caused by wildlife (Chomba et al., 2012;Osborn, 2004).

| Temporal variations in HWC cases
The study revealed distinct seasonal patterns in HWC: high livestock predation during the dry season and increased crop raids during the wet season.In the dry season, carnivores often expand their home ranges and territories in search of water and prey (Kupika et al., 2019;Long et al., 2020).In communal areas adjacent to Hurungwe Safari Area, the presence of dams and perennial rivers attracts carnivores, which may hunt domestic animals and establish territories.In the dry season, livestock are left to roam freely and sometimes stray into protected areas, becoming vulnerable to attacks or being followed by carnivores to their kraals in communal areas.The absence of secure kraals in some cases exacerbates this risk, as cattle tied near homes are easy targets.Crop raids peak during the wet season, coinciding with the cultivation of cereal crops in communal areas (Fungo, 2011).These crops, being highly nutritive, often act as the caloric diet for many crop-raiding wildlife species (Mukeka et al., 2019).Wildlife species that feed on such nutritive and energy-rich crops are likely to become habituated and turn into perennial raiders (Osborn, 2004).Such raids not only result in the direct consumption of crops but also in trampling, causing significant economic losses to farmers.To mitigate these raids, farmers could be encouraged to plant early-maturing varieties and to synchronise their planting and harvesting schedules to avoid habituated wildlife crop raiders.

| Current and suggested mitigation measures for managing HWC
The communities in the study areas employed a variety of methods to manage HWC, with a common emphasis on nonlethal methods (e.g., capture and translocation, guarding and scaring) in compliance with legal restrictions on harming wildlife.The most prevalent method across all communities was the use of guard dogs.The survey revealed that most households had dogs to help guard against and scare away problem animals.In addition to dogs, some community members resorted to throwing stones to deter problem animals.However, it is important to note that this method poses significant risks, particularly when used against potentially dangerous animals like lions and African elephants (Matseketsa et al., 2019).Scarecrows, another traditional method, tend to be less effective since most animals (spotted hyenas, lions and African elephants) are unlikely to be deterred by such tactics.As a result, they are used less frequently.Farmers in the study areas adopted several measures to deter wildlife from damaging crops and livestock.These included the use of fences and thorns, creating fires and building barns.Barriers, such as fences, play a crucial role in limiting wildlife movement, thereby restricting the spread of invasive species, pests and diseases (Nyhus, 2016).However, most communities faced financial constraints due to the high cost of wire for fencing and the construction of durable barriers, leading them to use more affordable alternatives like thorns and hedges.Some households did not use any specific measures to manage problem animals.The major reason for this was the fear of encountering dangerous wildlife species like African elephants, lions and leopards.
Effectively handling encounters with these animals often requires technical expertise, typically provided by rangers and professional hunters, which may not be readily accessible to all community members (Matseketsa et al., 2019).
To address HWC, fencing of game areas and compensation payments to the affected households were the major suggested mitigation measures.In Zimbabwe, most protected areas were originally fenced to separate wildlife from local communities and prevent domestic animals from mixing with wildlife (Gandiwa et al., 2013).However, most of these perimeter fences are now either vandalised or poorly maintained.A study by Goodier (2017) revealed that bee fences are effective in managing human-elephant conflicts.Support of communities to establish bee fences in the form of apiaries on game area boundaries can help to manage HWC and, at the same time, empower communities with improved livelihoods.Fences are expensive methods and require continuous maintenance to ensure sustainability.Compensation schemes, another popular suggestion, typically cover specific losses such as human death, crop damage or livestock predation (Karanth et al., 2012;Rohini et al., 2016).Frequently funded by conservation organisations or the government, these schemes aim to (Karanth et al., 2012) mitigate losses, foster community tolerance and discourage retaliatory actions against wildlife (Karanth et al., 2012;Rohini et al., 2016).However, in places like Botswana, compensation programmes have faced administrative and accountability challenges (Schiess-Meier et al., 2007).For effective implementation of a compensation policy, a clear framework is essential, outlining funding sources, reporting and evaluation processes and measures to manage corruption.Currently, Zimbabwe's Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 (revised) does not include provisions for direct wildlife damage compensation, indicating a policy gap that needs addressing.
HWC in regions neighbouring protected areas are complex.Employing a reductionist approach, this study has identified several potential underlying causes of these conflicts, including human encroachment, population growth of both humans and wildlife, poor land use planning and governance, climate change and funding constraints, among others.While direct causes and effects of HWC can be somewhat ascertained, unravelling the indirect causes and impacts remains complex.Future research in these areas should aim to develop species-specific methods to control and manage HWC more effectively and efficiently.In addition, there is a need for studies aimed at creating models that ensure community benefits, inclusivity and empowerment for those living adjacent to protected areas.Such research would contribute significantly to developing sustainable and community-centric wildlife conservation strategies.

| CONCLUSION
Additionally, This study reveals that carnivores, especially spotted hyenas, lions and leopards, were the key animals involved in livestock predation in the Chundu communal area and Nyamakate resettlement area.common elands, African elephants, Chacma baboons and velvet monkeys significantly impacted local livelihoods through crop raiding.The most common conflicts experienced between humans and wildlife were in the form of livestock predation, crop raids, property damage and threats to human safety.A key conclusion from this study was that HWC persisted throughout the year in both communities, with no significant seasonal variations.A spike in livestock predation was noted in the dry season and increased crop raids in the wet season.The study established that existing mitigation measures were not fully effective in managing HWC in these communities.Consequently, it is recommended to employ a combination of strategies, including the establishment of wildlife barriers, property protection, traditional methods and targeted removal of specific problem animals, prioritising nonlethal management approaches and considering lethal means only as a last resort.This multifaceted approach is essential for effectively addressing the complex challenges of HWC management and ensuring sustainable coexistence between humans and wildlife.
Mutonhori T. and Tiba L. for their support in this study.The manuscript benefited from extensive reviews made by three independent anonymous reviewers.The authors received no direct funding for this research.

F
I G U R E 1 Location of Nyamakate resettlement and Chundu communal areas in northern Zimbabwe.TA B L E 1 Livestock kept by Chundu communal area and Nyamakate resettlement area farmers.Number of livestock kept by sampled householdsSource: Author's fieldwork (2020).CHAKUYA ET AL.
TA B L E 2 Suggested HWC mitigation measures in the Chundu communal area and Nyamakate resettlement area.
TA B L E 3 Temporal variations of HWC in the Chundu Communal Area and Nyamakate Resettlement Area.Current HWC mitigation measures in the Chundu communal area and Nyamakate resettlement area.