Human-wildlife conflict and its impacts on livelihoods, health, and the environment in Chebera Churchura National Park, Southwest Ethiopia: a phenomenological study using a One Health approach with an urgent call for action

Abstract

Background

Chebera Churchura National Park (CCNP), located in Southwest Ethiopia, was established to conserve biodiversity. However, its contribution to the livelihood and wellbeing of the proximal communities remains limited. Local people derive few tangible benefits from conservation while facing significant costs through crop losses, livestock predation, and restricted access to natural resources factors that intensify human-wildlife conflict (HWC). Previous studies have addressed HWCs focused mainly from ecological and socio-economic aspects with limited attention to the linkage between health dimensions of human, animal and the environment and implications. This study aims to fill this gap by (i) examining the extent and effect of HWCs on livelihoods in CCNP, (ii) exploring community perceptions of wildlife and conservation, and ii) identifying participatory strategies for conflict mitigation through a One Health approach.

Methods

A phenomenological qualitative design was used to capture the lived experiences of communities and institutional stakeholders across five kebeles (Ethiopia’s smallest administrative unit) including Chebera, Delba, Koyisha (near the Koysha dam area), Chevera, and Seri-shewa bordering CCNP. Data were collected through in total, 40 in-depth and key informant interviews, systematic field observations, and document reviews. Participants included community members, park staff, local administrators, and professionals from the human health, veterinary, and environmental sectors. Data quality was checked by the research team and cross-checked against recorded information and field notes in the course of analysis. Data were triangulated by participants and analyzed thematically to identify cross-cutting One Health themes.

Results

Conflicts involving elephants with humans, monkeys with humans, and buffaloes with humans were identified as major threats to community livelihoods, human health, and environmental integrity. These conflicts primarily arose from competition for space, grazing, and water resources. Which often forced humans, livestock, and wildlife to share limited spaces such as water points and agricultural fields. Such competition opens up for interface between human, wildlife and domestic animals with the potential for zoonotic. Participants reported that the place being highland, malaria persistent episode with poor response to antimalarial treatment. They also described that cattle died despite being treated with veterinary drugs for unexplained febrile diseases, highlighting shared vulnerabilities at the human-animal-environment interface. Limited coordination among human, animal, and environmental health sectors hindered disease prevention and response, while poor infrastructure, insufficient veterinary services, and minimal community participation in park governance further compounded these challenges.

Conclusion

Human-wildlife conflicts in CCNP threaten livelihoods, health, and ecosystem integrity, driven by competition for land, water, and grazing. Recurrent malaria outbreaks with limited efficacy of antimalarial drugs and livestock deaths illustrate shared vulnerabilities at the human-animal-environment interface. Limited coordination among health, veterinary, and environmental sectors, coupled with inadequate infrastructure and low community participation in governance, exacerbate these challenges. Implementing integrated One Health approaches, enhancing community engagement, and strengthening cross-sectoral collaboration are essential to promote sustainable coexistence between people, wildlife, and ecosystems. Future research should focus on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and zoonotic pathogens such as Toxoplasma to better address emerging health risks at the human-animal-environment interface.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42522-025-00188-y.

Background

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) refers to adverse interactions between humans and wildlife that harm both human livelihoods and wildlife populations [1, 2]. These conflicts are bidirectional, when wildlife encroach upon human settlements and farmlands in search of their food and water, and when humans expand agricultural and settlement activities into wildlife habitats [3, 4]. HWC is a global concern, it is more pronounced in developing countries due to rapid population growth, poverty, subsistence agriculture, and weak land use planning, all of which increase competition for space and resources [5]. HWC persists, as wildlife may damage crops, prey on livestock, or pose risks to people impacts that often arise where human expansion overlaps with natural habitats creating tension between protected-area managers and the communities living nearby [6]. Such interactions often lead to exacerbating social tension and fueling mistrust towards conservation authorities [3]. Perspectives on HWC and its implications for livelihoods and conservation vary significantly between park staff and local communities defined here as households and residents living in kebeles adjacent to CCNP, whose livelihoods are directly affected by wildlife incursions [7], Community members often experience direct negative impacts, such as crop and livestock damage, leading to resentment towards wildlife and undermining conservation efforts [8, 9]. In contrast, park staff may emphasize the importance of coexistence and the ethical responsibilities of communities toward wildlife, advocating for community-led conservation strategies that foster stewardship and mitigate conflict [10]. In Ethiopia, the establishment of protected areas (PAs) without adequate community participation in planning and boundary design has further strained community-park relations [11]. Stakeholder perspectives on HWC differ: while community members emphasize the immediate economic damage, park staff and local administrators stress conservation goals and advocate for coexistence. This divergence in priorities complicates conflict mitigation and highlights the need for inclusive, multisectoral approaches [7].

As human populations grow, the demand for resources increases, leading to habitat loss, fragmentation, and resource exploitation by wildlife. These changes have intensified HWCs globally, manifesting as crop raiding, livestock depredation, human attacks, and property damage [12, 13]. Among these, crop raiding is the most common, directly affecting food security in rural communities [14]. Similarly, livestock depredation by predators such as African lions (Panthera leo) and hyenas (spotted Crocuta crocuta and brown Parabruena hyenae) results in significant economic losses, deepening poverty and food insecurity [15, 16]. Zoonotic diseases are infectious diseases that capable of transmitted between animals and humans [17], and make up most of the emerging and re-emerging infections affecting people [18]. Their relevance here stems from the close interfaces between communities, livestock, and wildlife. Early detection of zoonotic pathogens in animals can therefore provide an important warning of potential human exposure [19] in settings where these interactions are common. In Ethiopia, where agriculture dominates livelihoods, losses from crop damage, livestock predation, and restricted resource access amplify tensions between humans and wildlife, often leading to retaliatory killings of wildlife species and jeopardizing biodiversity conservation efforts [20, 21]. Ethiopia also faces widespread zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial drug resistance [22].

The establishment of CCNP, like many PAs in Ethiopia, has been characterized by limited community involvement, resource access restrictions, and inadequate management systems [15, 23, 24]. Such exclusionary policies have fostered negative community attitudes toward wildlife conservation, undermining the park’s sustainability [25]. Furthermore, the growing trend of human encroachment into CCNP for agriculture and grazing has fragmented habitats, increasing interactions between humans and wildlife and escalating conflicts [26]. While HWC is well-documented, globally, studies in Ethiopia, particularly in CCNP, remain sparse and fail to address root causes or incorporate local perspectives [3, 27].

Understanding community perceptions and the underlying drivers of human-wildlife conflict is essential for designing effective mitigation strategies. Increased interaction between people, livestock, and wildlife through shared water sources, crop fields, and grazing areas heightens the risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission. Consequently, addressing HWC is not only critical for livelihoods and conservation but also for reducing the potential spillover of zoonotic diseases within the human–animal–environment interface [28].

This study aims to fill this gap by (i) examining the extent and effect of HWCs on livelihoods in CCNP, (ii) exploring community perceptions of wildlife and conservation, and ii) identifying participatory strategies for conflict mitigation through a One Health approach in CCNP, Southwest Ethiopia. One Health is an “integrated and unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. It emphasizes the collaborative efforts of multiple disciplines to address complex challenges at the interface of humans, animals, and environment. We hypothesized that socio-economic factors and the type of human-wildlife interactions, such as crop raiding, livestock predation, human injuries, and competition over natural resources, significantly shape community attitudes toward conservation. By integrating perspectives from community members and park staff, this study aims to contribute to sustainable wildlife management and improved human-wildlife coexistence in CCNP.

Methods

Study settings

The study was conducted at CCNP, which is located in the Konta and Dawro Zones of the Southwest regional state of Ethiopia. The CCNP is located between Dawro Zone and Konta Special Woreda, about 427 km and 475 km southwest of Hawassa and Addis Ababa, respectively. It covers an area of 1410 km² and lies between the coordinates 36° 27’00”- 36° 57’14"E and 6°56’05”-7° 08’02"N, bordered by Konta Special Woreda to the north, the Omo River to the south, the Dawro Zone to the east and southeast, and the Agare High Mountains and Ouma River to the west. The location of the CCNP is illustrated below (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Location of Chebera Churchura National Park

Study design, population and sampling strategy

A phenomenological qualitative study design was employed. The study populations included CCNP managers, experts, scouts, community leaders, religious leaders, women representatives, elderly, influential individuals, health extension workers, and animal health professionals. A purposive sampling technique was used to select study kebeles (the lowest local administrative units in Ethiopia) based on criteria such as biodiversity significance, level of human-wildlife conflict, and level of community engagement. As a result, five kebeles were selected: Chebera, Delba, Koyisha (near the Koysha dam area), Chevera, and Seri-shewa.

From each kebele, six participants were purposively recruited, representing diverse community stakeholder groups, resulting in 30 community participants in total. In addition, 10 participants were recruited from the park administration, bringing the total to 40 participants. Participants were selected based on residence duration, knowledge of wildlife resources, socio-economic background, professional experience, education, religion, and gender balance. This number was sufficient to achieve data saturation and capture a wide range of perspectives relevant to human–wildlife conflict in CCNP, consistent with recommendations for phenomenological studies involving 20–30 participants [29, 30].Participants were selected based on several factors, including their duration of residence in the villages near a park, knowledge of wildlife resources, socio-economic backgrounds, community and professional experience, educational qualifications, religious beliefs, and gender equity.

For the purpose of this study, ‘community’ refers to households and residents living within and around the boundary kebeles of Chebera Churchura National Park (CCNP), whose livelihoods are directly affected by wildlife incursions. Additionally, for this study, ‘community members’ are defined as local residents of the five kebeles bordering CCNP, including farmers, elders, religious leaders, women representatives, and other influential residents. Park staff, scouts, and other CCNP employees are considered separately as park stakeholders.

Data collection tools and procedures

Different data collection methods were employed to ensure a holistic understanding of the situation. Data were gathered through key informant interviews (KIIs) and field observations within the protected areas and bordering kebeles, focusing on wildlife populations, the condition of the park, and the interactions of the human, animal, and environment.

A semi-structured interview guide was developed following initial consultations with One Health and conservation experts. The guide included open-ended questions designed to explore participant’s experiences, challenges, and enabling factors related to human-wildlife conflict as well as health-related concerns (including zoonotic disease risks); livelihoods; environmental impacts, the perceived needs of park stakeholders. Interviews were conducted in participant’s preferred language, audio recorded with consent, and supplemented by detailed field notes. The majority of interviews did not require an interpreter.

In addition, systematic field observations were conducted within the park and adjacent villages to assess wildlife behavior, habitat conditions, and the nature of interactions at the human-animal-environment interface. The full interview guide is provided in Appendix 1.

Data collection involved both group and individual key informant interviews (KIIs). Group interviews were conducted with park staff, including the park manager and senior personnel, to explore shared institutional perspectives. Individual interviews were conducted with community members to capture personal experiences, perceptions of human-wildlife interactions, and conservation. Interviews were taken ranging from 15 to 45 minutes, depending on participant availability and depth of discussion. All interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide, audio-recorded with participant consent, and supplemented by detailed field notes. These procedures followed established qualitative research standards for credibility, depth, and triangulation. A ‘positivistic attitude’ was operationally defined as expressions of satisfaction, support, or appreciation for the park’s services, aesthetics, or management during the interviews.

Data quality control

Different techniques were employed to maintain the quality of data. At the outset, the interview guide was carefully tested in order to ensure that it was reliable and valid. Training was provided for data collectors and supervisors on qualitative interviewing techniques, ethical considerations, and note-taking procedures. Orientation was also given to local guides and scouts on the objectives of the study, their roles during fieldwork, and protocols for navigating the park safely and respectfully.

To ensure the credibility of the peer debriefing process, it was done by research teams. Audio recordings were reviewed against the transcripts by the research teams. The validity and reliability of the theme development were evaluated using feedback from participants and other stakeholders and using secondary coders. This generated useful feedback, which in turn aided thematic analysis. Secondary coding was undertaken by other research teams, neither of whom were interviewed. In addition, other research teams read and coded transcripts independently to identify emergent themes relating to the experience and perceptions of communities and park staff, including park managers. Then the research team compared and discussed their coding to reach consensus around the final key themes. A summary of the key points and some confusing ideas was presented to check the interpretations, critiques, and confirmation. Data saturation was achieved by all the coders.

Data management and analysis

All the interviews were audio-recorded with consent from the study participants. The audio data were transcribed once they were obtained from the study participants. The transcription was done verbatim. Transcription involves converting recorded audio, typically in a spoken local language, into a written format to analyze a specific occurrence.

Field notes of observation were also reviewed by research teams. As data were collected, thematic analysis was undertaken in an iterative process where the research teams searched for commonly expressed behaviours, feelings, or words. From this initial inductive analysis, themes emerged. Summaries and initial themes of the KII and field observations and discussions of all interviews were shared with participants for their feedback. Participants were asked to comment on the initial findings, and particularly on any areas that they felt had been misunderstood. They were also encouraged to make further comments. The data were deciphered, analyzed, and checked against sound-tapped information and field notes before delivering the last report. Key informants involved in the study, including selected community representatives, park staff, local health workers, and veterinary officers were asked to review and provide feedback on the preliminary findings to enhance the credibility and contextual accuracy of the analysis. The findings of this study were considered and checked by experienced people in the subjective study. The validity, steadfastness, adaptability, and conformability of the investigation were safeguarded by various strategies. Three qualitative research experts with backgrounds in public health, environmental health, and ecology were involved in organizing and conducting preliminary analysis of the interview transcripts and field notes. Their role was to assist in coding, identifying emerging themes, and ensuring analytical rigor. The corresponding author also summarized key findings at the end of each interview to support iterative data refinement.

To assist thematic analysis, all transcribed interviews and field notes were imported into ATLAS.ti version 16. Initial open coding was conducted inductively by the primary investigator, followed by axial coding to group similar codes. Codes were reviewed, compared, and organized into broader categories, leading to the development of core themes that captured patterns across participant narratives. Themes were refined through iterative discussions among the research team to ensure credibility and contextual accuracy. Finally, the results were presented in narrative form and supported by illustrative participant quotations.

Results

A total of 40 participants took part in the study, including 30 community members (6 participants from each of the five kebeles: one kebele administrator, one religious leader, one influential community member, one healthcare professional, and one veterinary professional) and 10 park staff members (park manager and scouts). This distribution ensured perspectives from a broad spectrum of stakeholders with direct relevance to human-wildlife-environment interactions and zoonotic disease concerns (Table 1).

Table 1.

Profile of key informant interview (KII) participants

Participant Category	Number per Kebele	Total Participants	Interview Format
Kebele administrators	1	5	Individual interviews
Religious leaders	1	5	Individual interviews
Influential community members	1	5	Individual interviews
Women representatives	1	5	Individual interviews
Healthcare professionals	1	5	Individual interviews
Veterinary professionals	1	5	Individual interviews
Park manager and staff (scouts)	Not applicable	10	Group interview

Findings from in-depth, key informant interviews, field observations, and document reviews were triangulated and analyzed thematically. The major themes reflect cross-cutting insights derived from all data sources. These themes include human-wildlife conflict and community perceptions of park security and protection, opportunities and challenges in park community relations, stakeholder collaboration and governance, resource constraints, zoonotic disease risks and safety concerns, and knowledge gaps in research and capacity building. A summary of these themes is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of emergent themes from triangulated data sources, 2024

Theme	Brief description
Human-wildlife conflict and community responses	Types of wildlife involved, conflict patterns, and local mitigation strategies
Perceptions of park security and protection across stakeholder groups	Community views on scout involvement, patrol effectiveness, and law enforcement
Opportunities and challenges in park relations	Response, collaboration, community benefits, and social tensions
Stakeholder collaboration, community participation and governance	Coordination among park, authorities, communities; gaps in health and veterinary sectors
Community concerns related to zoonotic Diseases, health, and safety	Exposure risks from shared water sources, lack of disease surveillance, and safety issues
Knowledge gaps in research and capacity building	Limited ecological monitoring, veterinary expertise, and research-informed decision-making

Participants’ experiences provide insight into the interconnectedness of human livelihoods, health, and environmental conditions, forming the basis for a One Health perspective in the analysis.

Human-wildlife conflicts and responses

Both park staff and community members acknowledged that Chebera Churchura Park is heavily affected by human-wildlife conflict, particularly involving elephants (Loxodonta africana africana).that frequently cross park boundaries and damage crops. This conflicts was significant impacts on human health, livelihoods, animals, and environmental health (Fig. 2) Community participants primarily emphasized economic, health, livelihood, and food security consequences, while park staff focused on managing wildlife movement and maintaining conservation mandates.

Fig. 2.

Wild animals crossing the park boundary and damaging crops in CCNP, Southwest Ethiopia

However, perspectives diverged: community participants primarily emphasized the economic, health, livelihood, food security consequences, while park staff focused on the challenges of managing wildlife movement and maintaining conservation mandates. This divergence has contributed to strained relationships between the two groups.

Most participants reported that, despite the benefits provided by the park, conflicts between humans and wild animals continue to be a challenge, and human-wildlife-environment interactions remain a persistent source of conflict. They emphasized the need for improved management strategies to maximize economic gains while minimizing these conflicts. As one kebele administrator stated, “Despite the benefits, the coexistence of wildlife and humans has led to occasional conflicts. Wildlife, particularly elephants, pigs, monkeys, and buffaloes, frequently damaged crops and endangered lives, health, environmental health leading to significant tension between communities and park authorities.” (43-year-old male Kebele administrator).

Local communities shared experiences of crop destruction, livestock depredation, and sleepless nights.

One farmer said, “We try everything to protect our maize, but the elephants always come back.” (40 years old male influencer participant).

Others spoke of stress, fear, and hunger when crops were lost. Participants described how these conflicts affect their ability to feed their families, care for livestock, and live safely. Crop destruction by elephants and other wildlife reduces household food availability and dietary diversity, which in turn undermines nutrition and immunity, increasing vulnerability to disease. In addition, the constant fear of wildlife attacks and sleepless nights spent guarding crops contribute to chronic stress and fatigue, further compromising physical and mental health.

Importantly, more than two-thirds of participants expressed frustration over the park’s delayed response to wildlife-related damage. One community member described, “The park responds quickly when there are problems caused by the community, such as unauthorized entry, illegal honey harvesting, or grazing livestock inside the park but when wildlife damages our crops and injures humans, the response is slow or absent.” (30-year-old female, Seri Shewa Kebele).

Additionally, all park staff shared that human-wildlife conflict, particularly elephant incursions, strains relations between park authorities and local communities (Fig. 2). As one park staff member said, “The animals leave the park to provoke conflict with nearby communities, worsening the issue” (Park staff). The park manager noted that “Elephants are highly aware of their ancestral routes, often crossing the boundaries of the park in search of crops”. He explained that “These movements are seasonal and frequently coincide with harvest periods, creating tension between wildlife and human settlements”. (Park manager).

These observations reflect interconnected impacts on human, animal, and environmental health, illustrating the human-animal-environment interface central to the One Health approach.

Perceptions of park security and protection across stakeholders

Almost 93% of participants reported favorable perceptions of park security, particularly regarding the role of community scouts. Participants, consistently, highlighted how scouts promoted safety and a shared sense of responsibility. One community member stated, “Scouts engage with local communities as they are part of our communities.” (38-year-old community member, Koysha Kebele).

Despite improvements over the past 20 years, participants acknowledged challenges from resource shortages and inadequate infrastructure. One respondent noted: “The number of scouts is insufficient compared to the park’s size, and there is a lack of a research team.” (Park staff).

Despite improvements over the past 20 years, participants acknowledged challenges from resource shortages and inadequate infrastructure. One participant stated, “There are still challenges regarding road infrastructure… There are few scouts found compared to the vast occupied geographic size of the park.” (40-year-old male, community member, Seri Shewa kebele).

Perceptions of park security illustrate how governance and management practices influence human safety and environmental protection, aligning with the One Health framework.

Opportunities and challenges in park-community relations

Participating community members noted that communities were actively participating in park protection by reporting illegal activities, and the sense of ownership over the park is crucial for its sustainability. As one member stated, “Those villagers near the park help the scouts by informing them of any illegal activities.” (39-year-old male community member, Delba Genet Kebele). This demonstrates a strong sense of community ownership, which is crucial for long-term park sustainability.

Most participants acknowledged that the implementation of stricter enforcement measures has contributed to a noticeable decline in illegal activities, including unauthorized honey production within the park. For instance, a 48-year-old religious leader stated, “Currently, there are very few instances of honey production without permission in the park; however, honey production does occur with the formal recognition and oversight of the park administration, allowing community members to engage in sustainable use of this resource.”

The majority of community participants and park staff reported that the park provides economic opportunities for local communities through job creation, resource harvesting (honey, medicinal plants, ginger), and collaboration with external partners. One park staff member explained, “The communities have significantly benefited from the park by harvesting honey, medicinal plants, ginger, and other resources.” (Park staff member).

Additionally, most participants indicated that local community members are actively involved in park security as scouts and security personnel. The park manager expressed, “There are about 73 security personnel working in the park, providing security services from various locations. These personnel are hired from nearby kebeles of the park.” (Park manager and community members).

One Scout also noted, “While actively involved in park security, scouts face challenges due to inadequate personal protective equipment, limited resources, and poor infrastructure within the park.” (Scout member).

The majority of the respondents noted that there was effective collaboration with park management during emergencies, such as fire outbreaks. One participant discussed, “The local communities collaborate in extinguishing fires during outbreaks in the park.” (43-year-old male, Seri Shewa kebele).

The balance of economic opportunities and social tensions highlights how community livelihoods, resource access, and conservation outcomes are interlinked, emphasizing the need for integrated strategies that consider human, animal, and environmental well-being.

Challenges in park community relations

Participants highlighted several opportunities and challenges in park local community interactions that influence trust, ownership, and sustainable resource management. While some positive engagement exists, such as participation in park protection and resource harvesting, community exclusion from decision-making processes emerged as a persistent challenge.

Participants expressed dissatisfaction with the park’s limited economic opportunities and inadequate job creation. One Participant said that ‘The only tangible benefit we get is honey; even job opportunities for our children are inadequate.’” (30-year-old male, Seri Shewa Kebele).

Some participants noted that weak legal enforcement undermines conservation efforts by allowing repeated violations to go unpunished. For example, while illegal honey harvesting is sometimes overlooked, even more serious offenses such as killing endangered animals are met with minimal consequences. “Those individuals who kill endangered animals are released from jail after just a few months,” (40 years old, Male, Seri Shewa Kebele). All community participants expressed that there were significant concerns that persisted regarding ongoing land ownership and boundary disputes, creating tension with park authorities. These issues have created tension between the park authorities and local community. As one religious leader stated, “Everyone in the community believes that our ancestral farmland was occupied by the park, and the administrators have not listened to our concerns regarding this issue.” (Religious leader).

Linked to these, community members voiced dissatisfaction regarding their exclusion from decisions related to park boundaries and resource use. As one participant expressed, “The villagers are not part of the decision-making on the park issues. It reflects a broader concern among residents about their exclusion from discussions that directly affect their lives and the management of their local environment” (39-year-old man, Delba Genet kebele).

Such gaps not only weaken community trust, ownership and potentially threatening the sustainability of conservation efforts but also limit opportunities for participatory management of health, environmental, and livelihood issues, further complicating efforts to promote sustainable coexistence between people, livestock, and wildlife.

Almost all participants highlighted the park’s inadequate human resources and infrastructure, which hindered effective patrols and conservation efforts. Inadequate human resources (insufficient scouts) and infrastructure hinder effective patrols and conservation efforts. One respondent noted, “The number of scouts is insufficient compared to the park’s size, and there is a lack of a research team” (Park staff).

All park security personnel stated that they face operational challenges due to a lack of resources and equipment, including personal protective equipment, communication tools, and access to roads. One scout participant remarked, “Security personnel rarely provide personal protective equipment like safety shoes, clothes, raincoats, etc. There are also concerns regarding communication tools like radios and the inaccessibility of roads.” (Scout member).

Stakeholder collaboration, community participation, and governance

Building on the challenges identified in community participation and decision-making, the findings reveal a complex picture of stakeholder collaboration and governance. While participants reported some coordination between park management and local authorities particularly in addressing security-related illegal activities this collaboration is limited in scope and lacks a formal legal framework to ensure accountability and sustained cooperation.

This collaboration appears to be limited in scope and not fully supported by a formal legal or institutional framework, as several participants remarked the absence of clear guidelines or accountability mechanisms to sustain cooperation between sectors. For instance, one community member noted, “There is collaboration between different sectors, such as the local kebele, scouts, militia, police officers, and park management.” (38-year-old woman community member). highlighting coordination among security actors. However, the absence of a legal framework to institutionalize such collaboration raises questions about its long-term effectiveness and accountability.

However, significant gaps exist in collaboration across multiple sectors beyond security, particularly in health, veterinary, and environmental services, which are critical for managing zoonotic diseases, livestock health, and sustainable environmental management. One participant remarked, “There is no collaboration between the health facility, the veterinary clinic, and the community” (38 year old woman, community member). These gaps demonstrate systemic barriers that limit comprehensive governance and integrated problem-solving, highlighting the need for a One Health approach to strengthen cross-sectoral coordination.

Beyond security-related collaboration, the data reveal significant shortcomings in coordination among health, environmental, and veterinary sectors when addressing zoonotic diseases and livestock health. This finding extends the theme of limited collaboration, showing that existing partnerships focus primarily on law enforcement while neglecting integrated health and environmental management. As one participant explained, “There is no collaboration between the health sectors, the veterinary clinic, and the community.” (38-year-old woman community member). This fragmented approach highlights systemic barriers that hinder comprehensive governance and limit the practical implementation of a One Health approach within the park and surrounding communities.

Gaps in collaboration across health, veterinary, and environmental sectors underscore the importance of multisectoral approaches to managing risks at the human-animal-environment interface, central to the One Health concept.

Community concerns over water, zoonotic diseases, and health and safety

The study identified several interrelated concerns from community members and park staff that can be categorized under health, livelihood, and environmental themes, reflecting the complexity of park-community interactions.

A predominant concern among participants was the risk of zoonotic disease transmission, primarily associated with the shared use of water sources by humans, domestic animals, and wildlife, highlighting how overlapping resource use can create pathways for disease spread. Community members expressed significant apprehension regarding the safety of these water sources, particularly for vulnerable groups such as women and children (Fig. 3). As one female resident noted, “There is no evidence of the safety of this water concerning zoonotic disease transmission, and most of the time we females and children are exposed to these diseases” (39-year-old female resident).

Fig. 3.

Wild animals, domestic animals, and local residents sharing water sources in Chebera Churchura National Park (CCNP), Southwest Ethiopia

Participants reported that malaria outbreaks in the area and treatments were often ineffective, and some livestock continued to die despite veterinary interventions.

One male participant stated, “Malaria came like an epidemic in our village, and even when we used the drugs, they did not help much. At the same time, many of our cattle died from another disease we could not identify” (45-year-old male resident).

While these observations suggest potential challenges in disease management, they do not provide direct evidence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Instead, they highlight perceived gaps in healthcare and veterinary services, as well as potential emerging health risks at the human-animal-environment interface.

Livestock health, a critical component of community livelihoods, was reported to be severely impacted by interactions with wildlife. Specifically, the transmission of Trypanosomiasis from wild animals to domestic livestock was described as a major challenge, resulting in significant animal morbidity and mortality. A healthcare worker underscored this concern: “Our animals have become sick and lost because of this park; the wild animals are a major source of Trypanosomiasis infection” (30-year-old female healthcare worker, Delba Genet kebele). This disease burden threatens the economic stability and food security of pastoralist and agro-pastoralist households, thereby creating a tension point between conservation goals and community welfare.

While explicit environmental concerns were less articulated by participants, the health and livelihood challenges described inherently reflect broader ecological dynamics at the wildlife-human-livestock interface. Shared water resources and the close proximity of domestic animals to wildlife habitats illustrate systemic challenges in managing the park environment to balance conservation with community needs. Field observations also revealed reddish-brown coloration in several water bodies used by both humans and animals, indicating high iron concentrations (Fig. 4). Such water quality issues not only pose potential health risks but also underscore the interconnectedness of environmental, animal, and human health within the park ecosystem.

Fig. 4.

Reddish-brown coloration indicating high iron concentration in water sources shared by humans, domestic animals, and wildlife in CCNP, Southwest Ethiopia

Furthermore, park security personnel and scouts highlighted the lack of adequate healthcare support, which exacerbates occupational health risks. The absence of a veterinarian within the park management system was also emphasized, undermining effective wildlife health management and increasing zoonotic transmission risks. One participant pointed out,

“There is no mechanism to provide healthcare for the scouts and security personnel in the park.” (Scouts). The absence of veterinary services compromises both animal health and the health safety of human workers involved in park protection.

Shared water sources, malaria outbreaks, and livestock diseases demonstrate direct intersections of human, animal, and environmental health, providing strong evidence for the relevance of One Health-informed interventions.

Knowledge gaps in research and capacity building

There were a few research engagements in the park, particularly concerning zoonotic diseases and other health risks posed by the interaction of humans and wild animals. As the park manager noted, “The research engagement of the park is very limited, but we are happy to work collaboratively with researchers and other stakeholders.” (Park manager).

The majority of the key informants said that there is an urgent need for capacity-building training, particularly regarding animal health, the environment, and biodiversity and disease management. The absence of veterinarians and training on handling wildlife health issues creates significant risks for humans, wildlife, and biodiversity management within the park. As noted by the park manager, “Scheduled capacity-building training is not common, especially on how to manage sick animals and handle the carcasses of dead animals.” (Park manager).

Limited research, veterinary services, and training reflect systemic barriers to integrated management of human, animal, and ecosystem health, highlighting opportunities to operationalize One Health strategies in CCNP.

Discussion

This study aimed to fill a critical gap by (i) examining the extent and impact of HWCs on livelihoods in CCNP, (ii) exploring community perceptions of wildlife and conservation, and (iii) identifying participatory strategies for conflict mitigation through a One Health approach. Using in-depth interviews, document review, and field observations, the thematic analysis revealed emergent insights into park community relations, including human-wildlife conflict, governance and decision-making challenges, resource limitations, zoonotic health risks, and gaps in research and capacity building. These findings highlight the interconnectedness of livelihoods, human and animal health, and environmental factors, emphasizing the importance of integrated, inclusive, and sustainable conservation strategies that benefit both communities and ecosystems.

One of the key findings of our study is the persistence of human-wildlife conflict, particularly involving elephants (Loxodonta africana africana), monkeys, and buffaloes. A unique characteristic of the CCNP compared to other parks is the frequency with which wildlife crosses park boundaries, resulting in crop destruction, threats to human life and damage to community water sources-issues that deeply strain park community relations [31]. This finding has the same echoes in other sub-Saharan African countries, where encroachment and proximity between wildlife and human settlements exacerbate conflict, disease transmission, and livelihood insecurity [32–36]. While community members and park staff acknowledged how serious this problem was their perspectives diverged. Community members emphasized crop loss, threats to safety, and exposure to different communicable and water-related diseases such as malaria, whereas, park staff focused on wildlife management challenges. This divergence showed the need for integrated strategies that balance conservation priorities with local development, including health infrastructures and disease prevention efforts.

Moreover, the study explored a shared sense of frustration among residents due to delayed responses to damage, safety threats, and water hygiene and safety. Although both parties acknowledged the human-wildlife conflict differing interpretations fueled mistrust. Community members feel their concerns are often neglected unless they are perceived as violators. This mismatch highlights the need for participatory and transparent conflict mitigation strategies, including wildlife compensation mechanisms (financial or in kind payments to communities for crop or livestock losses caused by wildlife) and community-based wildlife monitoring systems which have shown success in other African contexts. Such approaches can help restore trust, support coexistence, and address human, animal, and environmental health challenges in line with a One Health perspective [37, 38].

Our findings also revealed that while participants generally had positive views on recent park’s security improvements, largely credited to the involvement of community scouts and local participation in park security, these gains are threatened by logistic constraints. Challenges included too few scouts, limited infrastructure, and a lack of protective equipment. However, these efforts are often hampered by the park’s capacity for long-term protection and public health prevention, reflecting similar bottlenecks documented in other sub-Saharan conservation settings [39–41].

A dual narrative emerged regarding community participation. On the one hand, communities actively contributed to conservation by reporting illegal activities and engaging in sustainable practices such as honey and spice production. On the other hand, unmet expectations regarding job creation and income generation, particularly among youth, led to dissatisfaction. The minimal benefits, perceived to be inequitably, distributed reinforce feelings of exclusion. Park authorities and partners must revisit benefit-sharing frameworks to ensure equity, as recommended in successful co-management models in Namibia and Kenya [42, 43].

This study explored deep-seated grievances tied to land ownership disputes. All community participants unanimously expressed concern that ancestral lands have been absorbed into the park without adequate discussion or compensation. Combined with weak enforcement mechanisms and insufficient penalties for illegal activities such as poaching, this has eroded trust and compliance. These findings align with different global studies indicating that exclusionary conservation practices undermine both conservation and community relations [44, 45]. From a One Health perspective, restoring trust necessitates transparent land-use negotiations, robust legal enforcement, and effective mechanisms for addressing community grievances. Particular attention is required for issues arising at the human-wildlife interface such as contamination of water sources, livestock predation, and crop raiding which collectively influence ecosystem integrity, human health, and animal welfare [46, 47].Stakeholder collaboration and governance also emerged as significant issues. Although some coordination exists between park management, local leaders, and law enforcement, the absence of a formal legal framework weakens accountability. Crucially, multisectoral collaborations, particularly between health and veterinary services, are largely missing. A fragmented governance approach hampers effective responses to emerging threats, such as zoonotic and water-related diseases. These findings support the growing consensus that integrated governance frameworks, anchored in One Health principles, are essential for balancing ecological and human well-being goals [48–51].

Zoonotic disease risks and associated safety concerns emerged as recurrent themes during thematic analysis of interviews with both local communities and park staffs. A critical factor contributing to these risks is the use of shared water sources by humans, livestock, and wildlife, which significantly increase the potential for zoonotic disease transmission. This issue is further exacerbated by the general scarcity of clean water, the presence of small rodents, and widespread environmental contamination. The lack of access to safe and uncontaminated water disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly women and children, who are often more exposed due to their roles in water collection and household caregiving. The absence of healthcare services and wild-animal veterinary expertise within the park further compromises public and animal health. These challenges support global calls for One Health approaches that recognize the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health in conservation areas [52, 53].

Finally, the study identified a significant missed opportunity for research and capacity building. There is currently minimal research engagement on critical issues such as zoonotic and water-related diseases, including Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs), the impact of shared grazing, biodiversity monitoring, and conflict mitigation.

Additionally, the absence of training programs for park staff and community members, particularly on wild animal health and disease surveillance, exacerbates the risks. Encouragingly, park staff expressed openness to collaborative research, presenting a valuable entry point for academic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and government agencies to engage more meaningfully [54].

The implications of this study are high and emphasize the need for urgent policy and programmatic action. First, conservation policies must include governance structures that give communities a real voice in decision-making. In addition, resource allocation should be revisited to address critical shortages in park security, healthcare, and infrastructure. Moreover, mechanisms for conflict resolution and benefit sharing should be institutionalized to reduce resentment and build long-term cooperation between government and communities. Adopting a multisectoral One Health approach should also be adopted in place to tackle interconnected health risks and livelihoods. Finally, empowering local actors while supporting the park’s ecological integrity will be key to sustainable success.

The study has several limitations that should be considered. Since we used a qualitative study approach involving 40 purposively selected participants from specific local communities and park stakeholders in CCNP, the findings represent in-depth perspectives rather than broad generalizations, and may not fully captured the view of all other communities or other protected areas in Ethiopia or many others parks in Africa. In addition, while our in-depth interviews, document review, and field observations enabled rich contextual understanding, we relied on self-reported data that may be subject to recall and social desirability bias. Finally, this study did not include direct ecological or epidemiological assessments to objectively verify claims regarding zoonotic or waterborne disease risks. Despite these limitations, our study offers important insight into the complex socio-ecological dynamics shaping park community relations and, by integrating a One Health approach, provides a valuable foundation for future mixed-methods or longitudinal research.

Conclusion

This study offers critical insights into the socio ecological dynamics that shape community relations in CCNP. This study identified key challenges that include persistent human-wildlife conflict, governance gaps, limited resources, zoonotic and water-related health risks, recurrent malaria epidemics with poor drug efficacy, and livestock deaths from unidentified diseases. Divergent perspectives between communities and park staff highlight the need for inclusive, participatory, and context-sensitive conservation approaches. To enhance sustainability, integrated governance structures that incorporate local community voices in decision-making, strengthened health and park infrastructure, institutionalized benefit-sharing mechanisms, and operationalized multisectoral One Health approaches addressing human health (livelihoods, nutrition, disease prevention), animal health (veterinary care, wildlife monitoring), and ecosystem health (habitat preservation, sustainable resource management) are recommended. Furthermore, fostering collaborative research with universities and research institutes, alongside capacity building for park staff and communities, will support both ecological sustainability and community resilience. Future studies are needed to investigate potential AMR and zoonotic pathogens such as Toxoplasma, to better understand emerging health risks at the human-animal-environment interface suggested by community and park stakeholder observations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Abbreviations

CCNP

Chebera Churchura-National Park

HWC

Human Wildlife Conflict

KIIs

Key Informant Interview

PA

Protective area

Author contributions

T.G, A.B, T.S, A.T, K.T, A.A.A, B.A, B.D, M.G, A.S, A.A, M.A, W.Y, Y.T, H.L, K.T, S.M, S.T, M.K wrote the main manuscript text and A.B reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Capacitating One Health in Eastern and Southern Africa (COHESA) project. COHESA is supported by the Research and Innovation Programme of the Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS), with financial support from the European Union (Grant/Award Number: FED/2021/428-198).

Data availability

All data were included in the article, and further data will be made available on request.

Declarations

Ethical approval

The ethical approval was obtained from the Jimma University Ethical Review Board (Ref No: JUIH/IRB/285/24). We obtained permission from park authorities and local administrative offices to conduct the research. Additionally, verbal informed consent was obtained from respondents before administering the survey. The purpose, objective, and procedure of the study were explained to each study participant. All participants participated voluntarily. Anonymity was ensured using secret identification numbers or codes for each study participant.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.