What is more acceptable for the farmers? Tendencies and influences in acceptance-opposition of different mitigation measures to prevent wildlife damages among farmers in Hurungwe District, Northern Zimbabwe

Abstract

The spread of multiuse landscape worldwide has drastically increased humanwildlife interactions and especially negative impacts of wildlife on human assets. Human-wildlife interactions threaten both biodiversity conservation and farmers’ livelihood, especially in low-income areas where farming practices are their main source of income. In Zimbabwe, wildlife damage to crops and livestock creates tensions and subsequent social conflicts between communities and conservation managers, which is why having a better understanding of farmers’ acceptance of intervention is essential for sustainable coexistence. This is the first study investigating the acceptance of the farmers in the Hurungwe District and could provide valuable insights for the implementation of constructive interventions using the Potential for Conflict Index.

This study focused on farmers’ experiences with wildlife and different interventions in Hurungwe District, northern Zimbabwe. I conducted a survey investigating specifically their acceptance towards a set of interventions to mitigate wildlife damage and their believed effect on their efficiency to protect their livestock or crops. I used the Potential for Conflict Index and ordinal regression models to analyse the results.

Most of the damage reported by the famers was mainly caused by baboons, hyenas, elephants and lions with most of the damage affecting crops rather than livestock. Barbed wire, dogs, patrolling, sounds and boma were the most accepted interventions whereas beehives, livestock or crop selection and Canva boma were the most opposed. Acceptance was strongly connected to the believed effect of the intervention, however, prior use of the intervention, experience of damage and proximity to the Protected Areas’ borders did not seem to have a role in acceptance of the interventions.

Overall, my findings show that believed effect is a prerequisite for acceptance, but it is not sufficient alone for successful implementation of interventions. Indeed, perceptions, experiences, practicality and feasibility of the interventions are essential for their acceptance. Conservation managers and NGOs should consider serious research on farmers’ opinion for relevant management.

Popular Abstract

Living with wildlife in Northern Zimbabwe: What do farmers want?

When people live surrounded by wild animals, the risks of encounter and impacts of the animals on humans’ activities are considerable. Across Africa, farmers living close by protected areas can see their livestock and crops regularly damaged by hyenas, lions, elephants and other species. These losses can put pressure on families depending on farming as their main livelihood and impacts farmers’ perception of wild animals often threatened by extinction. To help both farmers and wildlife conservation, finding solutions to mitigate animals’ impact on farming activities is essential.

In this project, I worked with farmers in Hurungwe District, a rural area bordering national parks and safari areas in northern Zimbabwe. I made a questionnaire that was given to over 150 farmers by enumerators, and I held focus group discussions to learn about their experiences and point of view on different ways to reduce damage. I focused especially on their acceptance of different interventions (e.g. fences, repellents etc.) that prevent wildlife damage and how farmers thought them to be effective. I also investigated how different parameters such as experience of damage, distance and use of the intervention could influence farmers’ acceptance.

The results show that almost all farmers suffered repeated damage and losses, especially among crops owners, mostly impacted by baboons and elephants. Farmers evaluated thirteen different interventions to protect their crops and livestock, some that they already used and some that they never used. Some of these measures were well accepted and believed to be effective, such as patrolling their fields, guarding dogs, using fences or using sounds to scare away the animals. On the contrary, the use of beehives to repel elephants, or changing crops or livestock type were less popular.
A clear pattern showed that farmers were more likely to accept an intervention they believed to be effective. Farmers seemed to have generally positive experiences with the interventions they had tried before, which helps explain why they were quite accepting about them. However, their distance from the protected areas or their experience of damage seemed to matter less regarding their level of acceptance.

These insights are important since they show that knowledge about farmers’ perceptions is crucial for successful implementation of interventions to reduce damage. For interventions to work in practice, people depending on them need to see interventions as useful and realistic to protect their assets. Thus, if conservation managers can support the farmers with interventions they trust, tension can be reduced. This improves human coexistence with wild animals and helps both farmers’ livelihoods and wildlife conservation.

Master’s Degree Project in Conservation Biology, 45 credits, 2025
Advisor: Ola Olsson
Department of Biology, Lund University

• author: Dumont, Adeline
• supervisor: Ola Olsson
• organization: Degree Projects in Biology
• course: BION02 20242
• year: 2025
• type: H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
• subject: Biology and Life Sciences
• language: English
• id: 9215093
• date added to LUP: 2025-11-07 13:19:45
• date last changed: 2025-11-17 11:09:51