Demographic Characteristics and Socioeconomic profile of the Respondents
A total of 143 individuals participated for questionnaire survey (Table 1). The majority of respondents 59.4% (n = 85) were males, while 40.6% (n = 58) were females. There was no significant difference in the proportion of genders interviewed among villages (χ2 = 6.74, df = 5, p = 0.24). Most of the respondents 81.1% (n = 116) were married. Regarding educational level, most 83.9% (n = 120) were literate, and the rest 16.1% (n = 23) were uneducated. The family sizes of the respondents ranged from 1 to 11 with a mean of 4.82 ± 2.13. From the total respondent, 52.4% (n = 75) possess family size of 4 to 6 individuals. There was significant difference in family size among villages (χ2 = 21.82, df = 10, p = 0.016). Among the households, 53.1% (n = 75) possess 0.5-1 ha of farmland while few 17.5% (n = 25) possess > 1 ha of farmland. There was significant difference among villages regarding farmland size (χ2 = 19.52, df = 10, p = 0.034). The majority of respondents 84.6% (n = 121) lack neither private nor communal grazing land and leave their cattle in the forest while only 11.9% (n = 17) possess private grazing land. There was significant difference in the proportion of households owning grazing land (One sample T test: t = 59.6, df = 142, p = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of households owning grazing land among villages (χ2 = 11.98, df = 10, p = 0.29). The livelihoods of all respondents were subsistence farming where they reared livestock and cultivated different crops like barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), bean (Vicia faba L.), maize (Zea mays), pea (Pisum sativum L.), and lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus).
Table 1
Demographic characteristics and socioeconomic profile of respondents around Wof-Washa Natural State Forest
characteristics
|
Category
|
N (frequency)
|
% (percent)
|
Age
|
18−30
|
41
|
28.7
|
|
31−43
|
48
|
33.6
|
|
44−56
|
31
|
21.7
|
|
> 57
|
23
|
16.1
|
Sex
|
Male
|
85
|
59.4
|
|
Female
|
58
|
40.6
|
Marital Status
|
Married
|
116
|
81.1
|
|
Single
|
27
|
18.9
|
Education
|
Uneducated
|
23
|
16.1
|
|
informal education
|
48
|
33.6
|
|
primary
|
50
|
35.0
|
|
secondary
|
22
|
15.4
|
Family size
|
1−3
|
36
|
25.2
|
|
4 − 6
|
75
|
52.4
|
|
> 7
|
32
|
22.4
|
Source of livelihood
|
Crop cultivation
|
5
|
3.5
|
|
Crop & livestock
|
138
|
96.5
|
Farmland size
|
< 0.5 ha
|
42
|
29.4
|
|
0.5−1ha
|
76
|
53.1
|
|
> 1 ha
|
25
|
17.5
|
Number of livestock
|
0−5
|
25
|
17.5
|
|
5−10
|
78
|
54.5
|
|
15−Nov
|
36
|
25.2
|
|
> 15
|
4
|
2.8
|
Grazing land
|
No, in barn
|
5
|
3.5
|
|
Yes, private
|
17
|
11.9
|
|
No, in the forest
|
121
|
84.6
|
Human-grivet monkey conflict
Based on the questionnaire survey, the common crop raiders in WWNSF in their ranking order were grivet monkeys (47.6%), bushbuck (37.8%), gelada (5.6%), porcupine (4.2%), rabbit (2.8%) and duiker (2.1%), where grivet monkeys were the most intensive. Accordingly, the majority of respondents from both gender (male = 67.1%; female = 74.1%) were not supporting grivet monkey conservation indicating that they have negative attitude to the monkey. More male (32.9%) respondents were interested to the conservation of grivet monkey as compared with females (20.7%). Pearson’s Chi-Square test showed that there was significant difference between genders regarding their interest to grivet monkey conservation (χ2 = 6.49, df = 2, P = 0.04) (Table 2). There were no statistical difference in respondents’ perceptions to grivet monkey conservation based on their marital status, education status and family size. Village of households and their cropland distance from the forest had significant impact on their perception of respondents towards supporting grivet monkey conservation. Majority of respondents (77.8%) having farmland 401m away from the forest supported the importance of grivet monkey conservation while those nearer to the forest argued against the issue. There was significant difference in respondents perceptions towards grivet monkey conservation based on distance of farmland from the forest (χ2 = 12.7, df = 4, P = 0.013) (Table 2). Respondents who argued grivet monkey conservation claimed several problems like damage to field crops, gardens, theft of backyard resources, children absenteeism from schooling, and extra workload of crop guarding which interrupt other socioeconomic activities. On the other hand, respondents those supported grivet monkey conservation stated that the monkeys are source of happiness, tourist attraction, heritage to the country and the generations to come.
Table 2
Community perceptions towards grivet monkey conservation around WWNSF
|
|
Is conserving grivet monkey important?
|
variables
|
Categories
|
Important (%)
|
Not important (%)
|
I do not know (%)
|
χ2
|
df
|
p value
|
sex
|
male
|
32.9
|
67.1
|
0.0
|
6.49
|
2
|
0.04
|
|
female
|
20.7
|
74.1
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
age
|
18–30
|
24.4
|
75.6
|
0.0
|
13.23
|
6
|
0.04
|
|
31–43
|
25.0
|
75.0
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
44–56
|
35.5
|
54.8
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
|
> 56
|
30.4
|
69.6
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
Marital status
|
married
|
25.9
|
71.6
|
2.6
|
1.91
|
2
|
0.39
|
|
single
|
37.0
|
63.0
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
Educational status
|
Uneducated
|
21.7
|
73.9
|
4.3
|
3.53
|
6
|
0.74
|
|
informal education
|
25.0
|
75.0
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
primary
|
32.0
|
66.0
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
|
secondary
|
31.8
|
63.6
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
Distance from forest (m)
|
< 200
|
24.5
|
72.6
|
2.8
|
12.7
|
4
|
0.013
|
|
201–400
|
25
|
75
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
> 401
|
77.8
|
22.2
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
Family size
|
1–3
|
36.1
|
63.9
|
0.0
|
7
|
4
|
0.13
|
|
4–6
|
20.0
|
76.0
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
|
> 7
|
37.5
|
62.5
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
Village
|
Chachahudad
|
41.2
|
58.8
|
0.0
|
22
|
10
|
0..013
|
|
Giderach-Lankuso
|
13.6
|
86.4
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
Ayer
|
8.0
|
92.0
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
Silasie Gedam
|
38.7
|
58.1
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
|
Mebreka`mba
|
42.1
|
47.4
|
10.5
|
|
|
|
|
Gifte
|
27.6
|
72.4
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
Among the various techniques (guarding by dog, guarding and scare away by humans, scarecrow and killing by trap) (Plate 1a-d) used to prevent crop raiding by grivet monkeys, 51.3% ± SD 15.2 (n = 74) of respondents used to scare away grivets by human (Table 3). Although, killing was the least (7.2 ± SD 2.5) used technique, it has been used to kill animals for two reasons : 1) reduce the number 2) to chase away troops of grivet monkey and discourage further crop raiding by using the dead animals as scarecrow (Plate 1d). There was no significant difference in the techniques used by villagers to alleviate crop raiding by grivet monkeys (χ2 = 14.73, df = 15, P = 0.47) (Table 3). Guarding using dog was the second effective technique where farmers either accompanied dogs with them or tied dogs at the periphery of farmland to be used as warning to grivet monkeys and as alarm for farmers (Plate 1a). Guarding and scare away by humans includes taking watch in the farmland field, chasing grivet monkey back to the forest, shouting and scaring and slingshots to scare the animals. Females and children are the most responsible family members to guard crop fields against crop raiders.
Table 3
Techniques used by respondents to prevent crop damage by grivet monkey around WWNSF
|
method of crop protection
|
village
|
guarding by dog
|
Guarding & scare away by humans
|
Scarecrow
|
killing by trap
|
Chachahudad
|
17.6
|
58.8
|
17.6
|
5.9
|
Giderach-Lankuso
|
31.8
|
36.4
|
22.7
|
9.1
|
Ayer
|
44.0
|
28.0
|
20.0
|
8.0
|
Silasie Gedam
|
22.6
|
64.5
|
6.5
|
6.5
|
Mebrekamba
|
15.8
|
57.9
|
15.8
|
10.5
|
Gifte
|
24.1
|
62.1
|
10.3
|
3.4
|
Mean
|
26.0
|
51.3
|
15.5
|
7.2
|
Standard Deviation (SD)
|
10.5
|
15.2
|
6.1
|
2.5
|
The respondents have expected stakeholders including government bodies to design alternative crop damage prevention methods and compensation of damage to loosen the uptight HGMC. The households revealed that they would be delighted if government took measures like compensation strategies, reduction of the number of grivet monkeys and relocation options. Majority of respondents (56.3% ± SD 23) claimed eradication/relocation of grivet monkeys followed by financial compensation (16.2 ± SD 7.7) including exception of farmland taxation (Fig. 2). There was significant difference in respondents view on the mitigation measures to be taken by government (χ2 = 40.01, df = 15, P = 0.000).
Respondents claimed that habitat degradation, proximity of crop land to forest, preferences of grivet monkey to crops, and degradation of food plants of grivet monkeys were the main causes of crop damage. On average 42.5 ± SD 8.68 of respondents in all villages elucidated that the causes of crop damage by grivet monkey is triggered by habitat degradations (Table 4). Proximity of crop land to the forest was rated as the second reason for crop damage by grivet monkeys and associated conflict. There was no significant difference in respondents view on the causes of crop damage by grivet monkeys among villages (χ2 = 6, df = 15, P = 0.98).
Table 4
Respondents’ perception on the causes of crop damage by grivet monkeys around WWNSF
Village
|
Habitat degradation
|
preferences to crop
|
proximity of farmland to forest
|
food plants degradation
|
Chachahudad
|
58.8
|
5.9
|
11.8
|
23.5
|
Giderach-Lankuso
|
36.4
|
4.5
|
31.8
|
27.3
|
Ayer
|
44.0
|
12.0
|
24.0
|
20.0
|
Silasie Gedam
|
35.5
|
6.5
|
35.5
|
22.6
|
Mebrekamba
|
42.1
|
5.3
|
31.6
|
21.1
|
Gifte
|
37.9
|
10.3
|
31.0
|
20.7
|
Mean
|
42.5
|
7.4
|
27.6
|
22.5
|
SD
|
8.68
|
3.02
|
8.62
|
2.66
|
Grivet monkeys have been impacted with ruthlessness human persecution as a consequence of crop raiding. Respondents chase, shot and trapped grivet monkeys as a revenge of their crop loss (Plate 2). Deforestation, livestock grazing, wood collection for firewood and sale, and agricultural encroachments are becoming common and widespread practices in the study area. Residents around WWNF usually cut trees such as Hagenia abyssinica, Prunus Africana, Olea europaea cuspidata, Olinia rochetiana, Ficus sur, Dombeya torrid, Myrica salcifolia, Allophylus abyssinicus, Ekebergia capensis, Podocarpus falcatus, Juniperus procera, Maesa lanceolata, Ilex mitis, Celtis Africana and others for purposes like house construction, firewood, timbering, animal fodder, fencing and household and farming utensils (Table 5), most of which used as food sources for grivet monkeys. Such overlapping of human goals with the needs of grivet further escalates the conflict and endangers grivet monkey conservation in the study area.
Table 5. Tree species logged by local communities around WWNF for different purpose
|
|
Forest product utilization
|
Local name
|
tree species
|
timbering for house & utensil construction
|
fuel wood
|
animal fodder
|
Fencing
|
Zigba
|
Podocarpus falcatus
|
√
|
√
|
|
|
Tsid
|
Juniperus procera
|
√
|
|
|
√
|
Zingerowonber
|
Polyscias fulva
|
√
|
|
|
|
Misargenfo
|
Ilex mitis
|
|
|
√
|
|
Weira
|
Olea europaea
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
Kelewa
|
Maesa lanceolata
|
|
√
|
|
√
|
Weyel
|
Pittasporum viridiflorum
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
Kosso
|
Hygenia abyssinica
|
√
|
|
√
|
|
Tifie
|
Olinia rochetiana
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
Ameja
|
Hypericum revolutum
|
|
√
|
√
|
|
Shola
|
Ficus Sur
|
|
|
|
|
Wulkifa
|
Dombeya torrida
|
|
|
√
|
|
Azamir
|
Bersama abyssinica
|
|
√
|
|
|
Kewot
|
Celtis Africana
|
|
√
|
|
|
Lanquso
|
Urera hypselodendron
|
|
|
|
|
totakula
|
Galiniera saxifraga
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
Embus
|
Allophylus abyssinica
|
|
√
|
|
|
Kechemo
|
Myrsine africana
|
|
|
√
|
√
|