TY - JOUR

T1 - Human-wildlife conflict in Rwanda

T2 - Linking ecoregion, changing conservation status and the local communities’ perception

AU - Sun, Ping

AU - Bariyanga, Jean D.

AU - Wronski, Torsten

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2025 The Authors

PY - 2025/6

Y1 - 2025/6

N2 - For densely populated and low-income countries, human-wildlife competition (better known as human wildlife conflict; HWC) is an increasing challenge to both biodiversity conservation and local communities’ wellbeing. This study examines HWC (crop raiding and livestock depredation) in Rwanda — one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Specifically, two socio-ecological contexts were compared: i) two agriculturist communities dwelling around the isolated forest fragments of Gishwati and Mukura Forest, i.e., protected, afro-montane rain forest patches in the west of Rwanda, and ii) a savannah dwelling pastoralist community in the Eastern savannah, a semi-arid rangeland in the east. We related results from camera trapping to those obtained from semi-structured interview surveys of local communities to assess wildlife abundance and the reliability of wildlife damage compensation claims. We investigate the predominant nuisance species at each study site, the type and amount of crop/livestock damage caused, the communities’ tolerance towards such damage, and the different levels of response to the impairment. In the Eastern savannah and around Mukura Forest, relative species abundance obtained from interview surveys corresponded to that found using camera traps, but strongly deviated near Gishwati Forest, where farmers reported significantly higher crop losses than near Mukura Forest or in the Eastern savannah. Main nuisance species around Gishwati and Mukura Forest were primates, mainly targeting maize, while in the Eastern savannah rodents and primates caused most damage, mainly on beans. Livestock (chicken) losses in the Eastern savannah region were caused by mongooses, around Gishwati and Mukura Forest by genets. Communities near Gishwati were significantly less tolerant towards wildlife damage than near Mukura Forest or in the Eastern savannah, suggesting that ecoregion or a changing conservation status had no effect on HWC. Accordingly, people around Gishwati used stronger retaliative responses to repel wildlife than near Mukura or in the Eastern savannah.

AB - For densely populated and low-income countries, human-wildlife competition (better known as human wildlife conflict; HWC) is an increasing challenge to both biodiversity conservation and local communities’ wellbeing. This study examines HWC (crop raiding and livestock depredation) in Rwanda — one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Specifically, two socio-ecological contexts were compared: i) two agriculturist communities dwelling around the isolated forest fragments of Gishwati and Mukura Forest, i.e., protected, afro-montane rain forest patches in the west of Rwanda, and ii) a savannah dwelling pastoralist community in the Eastern savannah, a semi-arid rangeland in the east. We related results from camera trapping to those obtained from semi-structured interview surveys of local communities to assess wildlife abundance and the reliability of wildlife damage compensation claims. We investigate the predominant nuisance species at each study site, the type and amount of crop/livestock damage caused, the communities’ tolerance towards such damage, and the different levels of response to the impairment. In the Eastern savannah and around Mukura Forest, relative species abundance obtained from interview surveys corresponded to that found using camera traps, but strongly deviated near Gishwati Forest, where farmers reported significantly higher crop losses than near Mukura Forest or in the Eastern savannah. Main nuisance species around Gishwati and Mukura Forest were primates, mainly targeting maize, while in the Eastern savannah rodents and primates caused most damage, mainly on beans. Livestock (chicken) losses in the Eastern savannah region were caused by mongooses, around Gishwati and Mukura Forest by genets. Communities near Gishwati were significantly less tolerant towards wildlife damage than near Mukura Forest or in the Eastern savannah, suggesting that ecoregion or a changing conservation status had no effect on HWC. Accordingly, people around Gishwati used stronger retaliative responses to repel wildlife than near Mukura or in the Eastern savannah.

KW - Forest/savannah biome

KW - Human-wildlife coexistence

KW - Human-wildlife competition

KW - Local ecological knowledge

KW - Nuisance species

KW - Quantity of damage

KW - Responses to damage

KW - Tolerance of damage

KW - Wildlife damage management

KW - Environmental planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105000316242&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e03550

DO - 10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e03550

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:105000316242

VL - 59

JO - Global Ecology and Conservation

JF - Global Ecology and Conservation

SN - 2351-9894

M1 - e03550

ER -