DOI: 10.5061/dryad.qbzkh18s1
title: Data from: Effects of human-wildlife conflicts on local people’s livelihoods and wildlife conservation in and around Alitash National Park, Northwest Ethiopia

description: Human-wildlife conflict has become one of the fundamental aspects of
 wildlife management. It threatens both wildlife and human welfare. People
 injured, abused, and killed wildlife in response to perceived and/or
 actual damages from wildlife. Such negative interactions are common
 adjacent protected areas (PAs) where people and wildlife share the same
 resources. However, the local contexts of the conflict around the most
 newly established PAs remain unaddressed. Thus, the aim of this study was
 to assess the effects of human-wildlife conflicts on local people’s
 livelihood and wildlife conservation in and around Alitash National Park,
 Ethiopian. The data were collected by interviewing 198 households from 11
 villages and conducting 3 focus group discussions and 12 key informant
 interviews. The survey questions were designed to understand the
 occurrence of wildlife damage, species involved, losses incurred and local
 people’s perception and reaction.  The results revealed that
 59.6% of the surveyed households encountered at least a single type of
 wildlife caused damage. Crop damage was the most prevalent encountered
 more than half (54%) of the households, of which 34.4 and 19.6% were lost
 at most 25 and 75% of their crop fields, respectively. Common warthog,
 African porcupines and common baboon were the top ranked wildlife species
 involved in crop-raiding. The livestock loss from 2016 to 2020 was 287.89
 tropical livestock units, which were shared by 47.5% of the respondents.
 Human attacks were rare; although 18 attacks by lion, spotted hyena and
 leopard reported by the study participants. The responses of the victims
 were negative and full of resentment to the wildlife. This undermines
 conservation efforts and socio-economic welfare of the local people. Thus,
 providing alternative livelihood opportunities and creating a
 context-based conservation scheme along with continuous conservation
 education would help to reduce the negative effect of human-wildlife
 conflicts on both wildlife and people.
description: Through household interviews, key informants interviews, focus
 group discussions, and field observation.
description: # Effects of human-wildlife conflicts on local people’s livelihoods and
 wildlife conservation in and around Alitash National Park, Northwest
 Ethiopia
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qbzkh18s1](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qbzkh18s1) Socioeconomic characteristics and wildlife-caused damages are an integral part of the data. Species involved in crop damage and livestock predation are also included in the data. ## Description of the data and file structure The data were prepared in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) coding format. THE_DATA.sav - is the only file that you need to open. Load dataset and format data for binary logistic regression model in SPSS. Has code for determining effects of wildlife- caused damages on respondents’ perception towards wildlife.  Use descriptive statistics for summering types and prevalence of wildlife-caused damages, the proportion of respondents who encountered both crop and livestock depredation, rank major wild animals causing crop and livestock damage, and  Perceived trends of wildlife-caused damages. Most of the variables including village distance and age of respondents were analyzed as categorical data. You can find all the information in the data set when you open it with the IBM  statistics data editor.   Thus, any potential user might use the data directly using SPSS version 20. Since the the names, types, levels, and values of each variable are indicated there, you can easily understand all the terminologies too. **Categorical data description:**  village distance: Nearest (&lt;7km) =0; Medium (7-14Km)=1; Far (&gt;14Km) =2 age : 18-35=0,36-50=1,51-71=2 Education: read = 0; write=1; primary = 2; secondary = 3; beyond secondary = 4 Income source: only agriculture =0; agriculture+off farm =1; only off farm =2 Perception to wildlife : Negative =0; positive =1 Conflict history with the Park: No=0; Y Encountered wildlife caused damage: No=0; yes=1 Type of damage encountered: Only crop damage=0; only livestock predation=1; Both=2; No damage =3 Trend of human-wildlife conflict: increase =0;decrease =1; np change =2 Crop damage level by a problem animal : Minor damage  =0, major damage =1 No damage =2 extent of crop damage by wildlife: &lt;10% of the field =0;10-25% of the field=1;(25,50] % of the field=2;&gt;50 % of the field=3;no damage=4 Trend of crop damage : Increase=0, decrease=1, No change =2,  don't know=3 Level of livestock loss by a predator : Minor loss =0, Major loss =1, No loss =2 Trend of wildlife abundance: Increase =0 ,decrease =1 , No change=2 , don't know=3 **Continuous variable description:**   Land size of the respondents: measured in hectare  Livestock holding: measured in total livestock unit Livestock lost by predator: measured in total livestock unit #### Software SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) is used to analyze the data. Specifically, SPSS version 20 is the best fit for the analysis of the data