Assessing the Effects of Human-Wildlife Conflict on Crop Yield and Household Food Security: A Case Study of Mambolomoka Ward, Shangombo District

This study, Assessed the Effects of Human-Wildlife Conflict on Crop Yield and Household Food Security in Mambolomoka Ward, Shangombo District,” explored the extent to which human-wildlife conflict (HWC) affects smallholder farmers and their livelihoods in rural Zambia. HWC has become a growing global concern, and in Zambia it is particularly severe in areas adjacent to protected zones where agriculture remains the primary livelihood activity. Despite the existence of the Zambia Wildlife Act No. 14 of 2015, local farming households continue to face repeated destruction of crops by elephants, hippos, and primates, undermining both food security and income stability. While policies and frameworks exist, rural households still experience persistent crop losses without meaningful compensation or adequate support systems, leaving them highly vulnerable. The study aimed to identify the types and frequency of HWC incidents, assess their impacts on crop yield and food security, and evaluate coping mechanisms and policy interventions. Employing a descriptive survey design, data were collected using structured questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions with farmers, community leaders, agricultural officers, and officials from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife. Purposive sampling targeted individuals directly affected by HWC. The findings revealed that 78% of respondents reported elephants as the major source of crop destruction, followed by hippos at 56% and primates at 42%. Maize and vegetable fields were the most affected, with 84% of households indicating they had reduced or abandoned cultivation due to repeated damage. Overall, 72% of households experienced severe food insecurity, with 65% reporting a decline in annual income as a direct result of wildlife incursions. Coping strategies included selling livestock (47%), buying food from markets (62%), borrowing from neighbors (39%), and relying on relief food (28%), although these measures were unsustainable and often increased long-term vulnerability. The study concludes that policy enforcement and compensation mechanisms remain weak, contributing to the persistence of the problem. Recommendations include strengthening community-based wildlife committees, enhancing compensation and insurance schemes, training farmers on sustainable land-use practices and wildlife management, and promoting alternative livelihoods such as poultry rearing, bee-keeping, and small-scale irrigation. Addressing human-wildlife conflict in Mambolomoka requires integrated and participatory approaches that balance biodiversity conservation with improved household resilience and food security.