Human-Hippopotamus conflicts and socio-ecological tensions in the Ruzizi plain: a one health and political ecology perspective

1 Introduction

Across the world, coexistence between human populations and wildlife is increasingly characterized by tensions driven by growing competition for natural resources ( (Kouely, 2023). Although this phenomenon is not new, it has intensified over recent decades as human activities have expanded into areas formerly dominated by natural ecosystems (Gaudisaubois, 2024; Hubert, 2021; Reding and Del Castillo, 2021). Human-wildlife conflicts emerge when local communities encroach upon wildlife habitats for agriculture, livestock production, or forest exploitation (Mekonen, 2020; Yazezew, 2022). These competing land uses frequently result in direct confrontations, often occurring within contexts marked by inconsistent protected-area management policies and weak institutional frameworks (Daré and Ba, 2023; Nkansah-Dwamena, 2023). Faced with increasing land pressure and the scarcity of arable land, communities are progressively settling in marginal areas that are often essential for the survival of wildlife species (Azam-Ali et al., 2023; Maja and Ayano, 2021).

The consequences of this situation are multifaceted. On the one hand, wild animals such as elephants, hippopotamuses, lions, and crocodiles damage crops, attack livestock, and injure or kill people (Somu and Palanisamy, 2022; Suratissa, 2021). On the other hand, local populations frequently respond through retaliatory actions, developing strategies aimed at eliminating the species responsible for these damages. As highlighted in reports from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), these recurring conflict dynamics have substantial impacts on agricultural production. In some cases, crop losses caused by primates alone may reach up to 25% of annual yields, illustrating the magnitude of the problem across the African continent (FAO, 2017, 2021).

Across Africa, human-wildlife conflicts are deeply rooted in the historical dynamics of land use around protected areas, where competing interests among agricultural, pastoral, forestry, and conservation stakeholders generate persistent tensions (Dhyani, 2023; Mwendwa, 2019; Simasiku et al., 2024; Togoch, 2020). In Burkina Faso, for example, more than half of the cultivated fields located near classified forests have been damaged by wildlife, particularly elephants and hippopotamuses (Dibloni et al., 2020). Although generally discreet, hippopotamuses can become extremely dangerous when threatened or when they move beyond their natural habitats (Efio et al., 2022). Their predominantly nocturnal behavior often leads them to enter agricultural fields at night, causing significant crop destruction and jeopardizing local food security (Compaore et al., 2020; Efio et al., 2022). Consequently, the sustainable management of wildlife has become a critical challenge (Mulu and Ejigu, 2025; Torres-Romero et al., 2024).

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), this issue assumes a particularly alarming dimension in the Ruzizi Plain and along the shores of Lake Tanganyika (Nkangu et al., 2021). In this region, hippopotamuses an iconic yet threatened species are increasingly pressured by the expansion of human activities. Available ecological evidence indicates that hippopotamuses in the Ruzizi landscape are primarily associated with the Ruzizi River, its tributaries, wetlands and the shores of Lake Tanganyika. Mokoso et al. (2022) documented the abundance and spatial distribution of Hippopotamus amphibius along the Ruzizi River between Kamanyola and its outlet into Lake Tanganyika. During two field missions, the authors recorded 145 hippopotamus individuals, together with 412 faeces, 123 footprints and 129 tracks. Hippopotamus activity was particularly concentrated in the Nyangara and Kahorohoro wetlands, indicating the importance of these wetland habitats and riverine areas for resting, movement and access to feeding grounds. The study also identified Katogota among the sites most affected by hippopotamus-related crop damage, confirming its relevance as a conflict hotspot. However, reliable information on seasonal movement patterns, habitat use, population trends and the precise location of conflict hotspots remain limited in the Congolese section of the Ruzizi Plain. Habitat fragmentation has been accelerated by armed conflicts, population displacement, intensive agricultural expansion, and growing urbanization (Mokoso et al., 2022). Despite legislation prohibiting human occupation within 100 meters of riverbanks and lakeshores, settlements remain widespread in these ecologically sensitive zones, reflecting significant shortcomings in environmental governance (Ginny, 2022).Within the study area, local communities frequently report nocturnal hippopotamus incursions into cassava, maize, groundnut and bean fields (Moïse, 2021). Hippopotamuses generally spend daytime hours in rivers, lakes and wetlands and move onto land, often at night, to feed. Where agricultural fields overlap with feeding routes and wetland corridors, this behavior increases the risk of crop damage and dangerous encounters between people and hippopotamuses. The ecological concentration of hippopotamus activity in wetlands and along riverbanks, combined with the expansion of farming and settlement in these areas, creates conditions conducive to recurrent conflict (Ezra et al., 2023).

This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it advances understanding of human-hippopotamus conflicts by combining Political Ecology and One Health approaches within a single analytical framework. Second, it provides empirical evidence on the socio-ecological and governance dimensions of wildlife conflicts in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, a region that remains underrepresented in conservation research. Third, it generates practical and policy relevant recommendations to support participatory conservation, local conflict mitigation and sustainable coexistence between communities and wildlife.

2 Literature review

2.1 Human-wildlife conflict

Human-wildlife conflict refers to interactions in which the needs and activities of people and wildlife generate adverse consequences for one or both. Such conflicts commonly arise where agricultural expansion, settlement, livestock production and resource extraction overlap with wildlife habitats and movement corridors. Their effects include crop and livestock losses, injury or loss of human life, threats to wildlife conservation and growing tensions between local communities and conservation authorities. Human-wildlife conflict is therefore not solely an ecological issue; it is also shaped by livelihood pressures, land use, governance arrangements, conservation policies and unequal exposure to risk.

Political ecology offers a useful perspective for examining these broader dimensions. Rather than treating human-wildlife conflict as the direct outcome of animal behavior or resource competition alone, it conceptualizes such conflict as a socio-political construction rooted in power relations, unequal access to resources and conservation policies (Massé, 2016). This perspective draws attention to how institutions define wildlife problems, determine acceptable responses and distribute the costs and benefits of conservation among different social groups.

2.2 One Health

Recent scholarship has increasingly interpreted human-wildlife interactions and their associated risks through the One Health framework, which recognizes the interdependence of human, animal and environmental health (Mwangi et al., 2016). This framework supports an integrated understanding of health risks at the human–animal–ecosystem interface and emphasizes interdisciplinary and multisectoral collaboration (Mackenzie, 2019). It is particularly relevant where wildlife conservation and human livelihoods intersect, because conflict may simultaneously affect human safety and well-being, animal health and welfare, and environmental quality (Roy et al., 2025). However, scholars have identified important analytical limitations. Degeling et al. (2015) argue that health dynamics cannot be understood independently of their socio-political and institutional contexts, exposing the shortcomings of a purely technical or biomedical perspective. Similarly, Scoones et al. (2018) criticize approaches that frame One Health problems predominantly as technical issues while overlooking power, governance and local knowledge. Social-science contributions further suggest that an apolitical and biomedical orientation may underestimate the historical and economic processes shaping human-animal relations (Hinchliffe et al., 2020). The present study therefore combines One Health with political ecology to interpret human–hippopotamus conflict as an ecological, health-related and profoundly political phenomenon.

2.3 Political ecology perspective

Political ecology provides a complementary analytical perspective for understanding human–wildlife conflict beyond ecological explanations alone. It examines interactions between environmental change and power structures, emphasizing how governance systems, unequal access to natural resources, conservation policies and economic interests shape environmental conflict (Bryant and Bailey, 1997; Robbins and Judge, 2019). By situating human–hippopotamus conflict within broader patterns of social inequality and public policy, this perspective challenges interpretations that attribute conflict solely to animal behavior, habitat overlap or resource competition (Benjaminsen and Svarstad, 2009). It therefore enables the present study to examine how authority, decision-making and environmental governance influence the distribution of conservation benefits, livelihood losses and exposure to risk among actors in the Ruzizi Plain.

In this study, political ecology complements the One Health framework introduced in the preceding subsection. Whereas One Health draws attention to interdependencies among human well-being, animal health and environmental quality, political ecology explains how power relations and institutional arrangements shape access to land and natural resources, participation in wildlife management and the distribution of health risks and protective measures. Their integration thus provides a basis for interpreting human-hippopotamus conflict as simultaneously ecological, health-related and political.

2.4 Research gap

Existing research has documented the ecological distribution of hippopotamuses and the agricultural and socio-economic consequences of human-hippopotamus conflict in the Ruzizi Plain. However, this literature has generally examined ecological, livelihood, health-related and governance dimensions separately. Limited attention has been given to how local communities perceive the connections among shared environmental resources, human and animal well-being, conservation regulation, unequal exposure to risk and exclusion from decision-making. Moreover, the Congolese section of the Ruzizi Plain remains underrepresented in interdisciplinary human-wildlife conflict research, particularly in studies that combine One Health and political ecology.

This study addresses that gap by integrating One Health and political ecology within a single qualitative framework. It examines stakeholders’ perceptions of the ecological, livelihood, health-related and institutional dimensions of human-hippopotamus conflict, while also analyzing how power relations, governance practices and resource access shape vulnerability and local responses. This integrated approach provides context-specific evidence from Katogota and Kamanyola and supports the development of more participatory, equitable and multisectoral strategies for coexistence.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Study area

The study was conducted in the Ruzizi Plain, South Kivu Province, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The plain lies between the Mitumba Mountains to the east and the Congo-Nile Ridge to the west, approximately between 2°42′ and 3°24′ S, with an average elevation of about 800 m above sea level. The area has a semi-arid climate, with a mean annual temperature of approximately 24 °C and annual rainfall ranging from 600 to 1,100 mm. The Ruzizi River and its tributaries traverse agricultural landscapes where crop production, livestock keeping and fishing are important livelihood activities. The landscape comprises alluvial soils, savanna and shrub vegetation, and wetlands that provide habitat for hippopotamuses (Hippopotamus amphibius) (Chuma et al., 2024; Mokoso et al., 2022).

Katogota and Kamanyola were selected purposively because of recurrent hippopotamus presence, the proximity of farms and settlements to rivers and wetlands, and the occurrence of human–hippopotamus conflicts. Previous studies along the Ruzizi River have documented hippopotamus activity and associated impacts on agricultural areas and local communities (Mokoso et al., 2022). These characteristics made the two sites suitable for examining community experiences, environmental conditions and local responses to hippopotamus incursions. Figure 1 Illustrates the geographical location of the study area.

3.2 Research design

This study employed a qualitative case-study design. A qualitative approach was considered appropriate because it allows an in-depth exploration of lived experiences, perceptions, meanings and local interpretation of human–hippopotamus conflict. The study was guided by Political Ecology and One Health as complementary analytical frameworks. Political Ecology facilitated the examination of governance arrangements, resource and power relations shaping the conflict, while One Health provided a conceptual lens (One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) et al., 2022). to explore perceived a conceptual lens to explore perceived interconnections between human well-being, wildlife conservation and environmental condition. This perspective was relevant to human–hippopotamus conflict because interactions between people and wildlife are shaped by livelihood practices, environmental conditions and wildlife management. The study did not include epidemiological investigations, pathogen surveillance, veterinary assessment or environmental quality measurements. Consequently, references to health and environmental risks should be interpreted as stakeholder perceptions and reported concerns rather than empirically verified outcomes. Case-study research is appropriate for investigating contemporary phenomena in their real-life settings, particularly when the phenomenon cannot be separated readily from its context (Creswell and Creswell, 2018; Yin, 2018). The qualitative approach was selected because the study focused on participants’ experiences, perceptions, interpretations and responses rather than on the measurement of predefined variables.

Data were collected between August and October 2025 using individual semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) and non-participant observations. These methods were selected to obtain complementary forms of evidence: individual accounts through interviews, collective perspectives through FGDs, and contextual information through field observations. Their combined use allowed comparison across data sources and supported methodological triangulation (Creswell and Creswell, 2018; Patton, 2015).

3.3 Participants and sampling

3.3.1 Participant groups and sample size

The study involved 87 participants. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 63 participants, comprising 56 farmers, two community leaders and five wildlife or institutional actors. Two FGDs were also conducted, one in Katogota and one in Kamanyola, with 12 participants in each group, giving a total of 24 FGD participants.

The participant groups were selected to reflect the principal stakeholders involved in or affected by human–hippopotamus interactions. Farmers provided first-hand accounts of incursions and their effects on agricultural activities and livelihoods. Community leaders contributed information on local organization and conflict management, while wildlife and institutional actors provided perspectives on conservation, environmental management, agriculture, local administration and public security.

3.3.2 Selection criteria

Participants were recruited through purposive sampling to identify individuals with direct experience of human–hippopotamus conflict, relevant local ecological knowledge, institutional responsibilities, or involvement in conservation and conflict-management initiatives. This approach was appropriate because it enabled the deliberate selection of information-rich participants capable of providing detailed, context-specific accounts of the conflict’s nature, drivers and consequences (Patton, 2015).

Eligibility criteria varied by participant group. Farmers were required to be aged 18 years or older, reside in Katogota or Kamanyola, cultivate land in or near areas affected by hippopotamus activity, and have experienced or witnessed hippopotamus incursions or their consequences. Community leaders were recruited for their knowledge of local land-use practices, community relations and conflict-management mechanisms. Wildlife and institutional actors were selected based on professional responsibilities in wildlife conservation, environmental management, agriculture, local administration or public security. FGD participants were eligible if they resided in the study area, had experience or knowledge of human–hippopotamus conflict, and were willing to participate.

3.4 Research instruments

3.4.1 Semi-strutured interview guide

A semi-structured interview guide was specifically developed after a review of the literature on human-wildlife conflicts, conservation governance and One Health. The guide consisted of four sections: participants profile and livelihood activities; experiences with hippopotamus conflicts; perceived impacts on livelihoods, well-being and environmental conditions, and existing mitigation measures and proposed solutions. Interviews combined open-ended questions with probing questions designed to encourage detailed responses. The guide was reviewed by the team members involved in this study to ensure content validity and clarity. Minor modifications were made following pilot testing conducted with a small number of participants outside the final sample. Semi-structured interviewing provided sufficient consistency across participants while allowing follow-up questions to address issues raised during individual accounts (Kallio et al., 2016).

The instruments were prepared in French and translated into Swahili and Kifuliru to facilitate comprehension and allow participants to communicate in their preferred language. They were reviewed before field implementation for clarity, relevance and cultural appropriateness

3.4.2 Focus group discussions

The FGD guide addressed seven areas: perceptions of human–hippopotamus conflict; socio-economic and environmental impacts; existing mitigation strategies; roles of local authorities and other stakeholders; proposed solutions; perspectives on future climate and environmental changes; and additional concerns or recommendations.

Each FGD lasted approximately 1.5–2 hours. Open-ended questions were used to encourage interaction among participants and to identify areas of agreement, disagreement and differing interpretations. The discussions provided group-level perspectives that complemented the individual accounts obtained through interviews (Morgan, 1997; Patton, 2015).

3.4.3 Non-participant observation

A non-participant observation checklist was used to document physical and environmental characteristics relevant to human–hippopotamus interactions. It covered the proximity of farms and settlements to rivers and wetlands, crop types, signs of hippopotamus presence, visible crop damage, movement corridors, conflict hotspots and measures used locally to protect crops and livelihoods. Observations were conducted without participation in community activities. Field notes were recorded immediately after each visit. These observations provided contextual information for interpreting participants’ accounts and documenting conditions that could not be adequately captured through interviews or FGDs alone (Kawulich, 2005; Patton, 2015).

3.5 Data collection procedures

Data collection followed a sequential procedure. Authorization was first obtained from the relevant local and institutional authorities, who reviewed the research authorization documents, participant information sheets and informed-consent forms. Potential participants were then identified through purposive sampling with the assistance of local leaders and relevant institutions. The recruitment and data-collection procedures were documented in accordance with established recommendations for transparent reporting of qualitative research (O’Brien et al., 2014; Tong et al., 2007).

Before each interview or FGD, participants received information about the study objectives, procedures, expected involvement, voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality arrangements and their right to refuse or withdraw without consequences. Information was provided in French, Swahili or Kifuliru according to participants’ preferences. Written or documented informed consent was obtained before participation and before audio recording. These procedures were consistent with internationally recognized principles concerning informed and voluntary participation in research involving human participants (World Health Organization, 2016).

The 63 interviews and two FGDs were conducted between August and October 2025, alongside non-participant observations at farms, wetlands, riversides and locations identified as hippopotamus conflict hotspots. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and, where necessary, translated into English for analysis. Data were securely stored and access was restricted to members of the research team.

The 63 interviews were conducted face-to-face and lasted approximately 30–60 minutes. With participants’ consent, interviews were audio-recorded. Field notes were also prepared after interviews to document relevant contextual information and issues requiring consideration during subsequent data analysis.

3.6 Data analysis and validation

All interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. The data were analzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six step framework: familiarization with the data; initial coding; themes identification; theme review; theme definition and refinement, and interpretation anf reporting (Dany, 2025).

Coding was performed manually by the research team. Similar codes were grouped into broader categories, which were subsequently organized into major themes related to governance, livelihoods, conservation, health concerns and adaptation strategies.

Several measures were used to enhance trustworthiness. First, source triangulation, by comparing information obtained from different stakeholder groups. Second, methodological triangulation, through interviews, focus groups and observations. Tirth, member checking, whereby key interpretations were discussed with selected participants. Fourth, peer briefing involving discussion among the research team during data analysis. These procedures strengthened the credibility, dependability and confirmability of findings.

Because the study relied on qualitative methods, findings concerning health risks, water quality concerns and potential zoonotic exposure represent stakeholder perceptions and reported experiences. No ecological monitoring, water quality testing, pathogen surveillance or veterinary assessments were conducted. Therefore, findings should be interpreted as perceived risks rather than empirically verified outcomes.

4 Results

A total of 63 individual interviews and two focus group discussions (24 participants) were conducted across Katogota and Kamanyola. Participants included farmers (n=56), community leaders (n=2), and wildlife managers or institutional actors (n=5). Among the 87 total participants, 49 were men and 38 were women, reflecting the gendered distribution of agricultural and decision-making roles in the study area. All participants had direct experience with hippopotamus incursions or their consequences.

Thematic analysis of interview transcripts, focus group discussions and field observations revealed four interconnected themes that reflect stakeholders’ perceptions of human-hippopotamus conflict through a One Health lens: (1) perceived environmental degradation as a driver of shared risks; (2) crop losses, food insecurity and livelihood vulnerability; (3) physical injuries, trauma and perceived zoonotic concerns; and (4) governance failures and institutional mistrust. Each theme is presented below with the frequency of mention, concise explanation, representative quotations and interpretive commentar

4.1 Human-Hippopotamus conflicts, population vulnerability and their impacts

The Ruzizi Plain is characterized by a high density of hippopotamuses within its river systems, creating a situation of conflictive coexistence between local communities and wildlife. These animals, which are protected under Congolese conservation legislation, frequently encounter local populations, resulting in crop destruction (63/63) and in some cases, fatal attacks (51/63). According to key informants, these incidents are not merely random events but rather the outcome of a complex combination of political, legal, social and environmental factors.

Political and institutional constraints further exacerbate local vulnerability. According to community members, the protection afforded to hippopotamuses often appears to take precedence over human safety (43/63), thereby generating a governance paradox. While conservation policies emphasize the protection of wildlife populations, residents perceive that insufficient attention is paid to the risks and losses they experience as a result of living alongside these animals (57/63).

A key informant explained:

The presence of hippopotamuses in our region constitutes a permanent threat to our lives. These animals frequently attack us in the fields, destroy our crops, and create a high level of insecurity, especially at night and in the early morning. After they pass through, the river water that we use often becomes contaminated and causes illness among children and livestock” (Interview conducted in Katogota, 8 August 2024).

Respondents perceived that human-hippopotamus conflicts may generate multidimensional vulnerabilities affecting livelihoods, health and environmental conditions (63/63). Direct attacks on local populations and the destruction of crops are compounded by concerns about water quality and perceived zoonotic risks (63/63). As illustrated by the testimony above, these socio-ecological tensions highlight the need for an integrated approach to human-wildlife conflict management. This paradox is also reflected in local perceptions that the state prioritizes tourism and ecological values over the survival and well-being of local communities (…35./63). Tensions are further intensified by the high concentration of hippopotamuses, particularly in areas adjacent to grazing lands and agricultural fields. Periods of reproduction and maternal care increase the level of danger (52/63):

There are periods when these animals become more dangerous, especially when females are nursing their young. They attack anyone who approaches them, causing damage and loss of human life” (Interview conducted in Kamanyola, 22 October 2024).

This testimony highlights the instinctive and defensive nature of hippopotamus aggression, which becomes particularly pronounced during lactation periods. Female hippopotamuses become highly protective of their offspring and perceive any nearby presence as a direct threat, often triggering aggressive responses. Such behavior is therefore not random but is rooted in biological imperatives related to survival and offspring protection. Consequently, these behavioral patterns intensify the risk of conflictual interactions with local communities, particularly in agricultural areas located near hippopotamus habitats. Human vulnerability is thus reinforced by natural behavioral cycles that are often poorly understood by local populations.

In addition, a legal dimension further constrains the ability of local communities to respond to these threats. Laws prohibiting retaliation against hippopotamus’s place residents in a moral and security dilemma: protecting their crops and lives may expose them to severe criminal sanctions. One respondent explained:

We witness serious attacks, but when we attempt to kill a hippopotamus that threatens us, we are immediately transferred to Bukavu and imprisoned” (Interview conducted in Kamanyola, 24 October 2024).

This account reveals the tension between the survival imperatives of local populations and the strict legal framework governing wildlife conservation. Faced with repeated attacks, residents develop defensive strategies that they consider legitimate for protecting their lives and livelihoods (41/63). However, such actions are criminalized by the authorities, creating a widespread sense of injustice and inequality in the enforcement of conservation laws. This situation illustrates a governance conflict in which the protection of hippopotamuses is perceived as a state priority at the expense of human security. It thereby exposes a significant gap between conservation objectives and the realities experienced by local communities.

Furthermore, socio-cultural factors also contribute to local vulnerability. The restrictions associated with certain conservation policies have fostered a growing dependence on external management mechanisms, thereby reducing communities’ traditional autonomy in regulating conflicts with wildlife. As one participant explained:

In the past, our elders knew how to keep animals away without killing them, notably through night guarding, fires, shouting, or drumming to scare hippopotamuses. Today, we are forbidden to act, yet no effective alternatives are provided. We simply depend on decisions made elsewhere” (Interview conducted in Katogota, 12 August 2024).

This testimony highlights the gradual erosion of local ecological knowledge and community autonomy in managing wildlife conflicts. In the past, local populations relied on non-lethal strategies adapted to their environment to reduce animal incursions. However, these practices are now constrained by restrictive legal frameworks, the marginalization of local knowledge systems, and the intensification of human–wildlife interactions. Moreover, changes in animal behavior, including habituation to traditional deterrence techniques, have reduced the effectiveness of these methods, thereby increasing community dependence on institutional management mechanisms.

This situation is embedded within a broader context of social fragility, where populations must cope with economic losses and threats to their physical security while having little opportunity to negotiate or adapt to these constraints. Another participant expressed this sense of institutional powerlessness:

We suffer from hippopotamus attacks, yet we are not involved in decisions concerning the management of human–wildlife conflicts. Even when we propose solutions, nobody listens to us. We are left alone to face the danger” (Interview conducted in Kamanyola, 18 August 2024).

This account underscores the exclusion of local populations from decision-making processes related to the management of human - wildlife conflicts. In practice, communities are rarely involved in decisions concerning conservation policies, hippopotamus management strategies, land-use planning in agricultural areas, or compensation mechanisms for losses incurred. Such marginalization limits the incorporation of local knowledge and weakens the effectiveness of existing management measures. From a One Health perspective, this lack of participation undermines the implementation of integrated approaches, which are widely recognized as requiring the active involvement of local communities in managing the interconnections between human, animal and environmental health.

Overall, human- hippopotamus conflicts in the Ruzizi Plain emerge as the product of a complex set of interrelated causes involving legislation, conservation policies, animal behavior, and the socio-economic vulnerability of local populations. This combination leaves communities particularly exposed to attacks, reinforces perceptions of injustice, and fosters a climate of persistent tension between humans and wildlife. These dynamics demonstrate that human vulnerability in the region is simultaneously structural, institutional, and environmental, requiring an integrated analytical framework to identify sustainable and equitable solutions.

4.2 Impacts and adaptation strategies in response to Hippopotamus attacks

Hippopotamus attacks in the Ruzizi Plain have profound and multifaceted consequences for local populations, affecting their living conditions, food security, social cohesion, and perceptions of justice. Economically, these attacks regularly result in crop destruction, causing substantial losses for rural households. Beyond their socio-economic impacts, interviews revealed growing concerns regarding health risks in areas where humans, hippopotamuses, and livestock interact closely, particularly around water points (14/63) and flooded agricultural fields (49/63). Local populations often use the same spaces for livestock watering, artisanal fishing, washing, and in some cases, domestic water consumption (27./63). This creates a close interface between human health, animal health, and environmental quality, which lies at the core of the One Health framework. Therefore, communities experience a direct reduction in agricultural income, further exacerbating food insecurity. One respondent explained:

Hippopotamuses feed on maize, groundnuts, and tomatoes cultivated by local populations. We struggle to find safe places for our nighttime activities and to protect our harvests. Moreover, river water, which we use for certain domestic activities, sometimes becomes contaminated, causing infections among our children and health problems for our animals” (Interview conducted in Katogota, 10 September 2024).

This testimony reveals the multidimensional vulnerability experienced by local populations, characterized by insecurity affecting nighttime activities and livelihoods. It also highlights health risks associated with the shared use of water resources by humans, livestock, and wildlife. Participants (55/63) believed that these interactions may create conditions that increase exposure to certain health risks. Furthermore, it illustrates the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health that underpins the One Health approach. From a political ecology perspective, this narrative reflects an unequal distribution of risk, whereby local communities bear the consequences of human–wildlife interactions without receiving adequate protection. These overlapping vulnerabilities stem from governance failures and ecological dynamics that generate both economic and health-related pressures, compelling residents to develop survival strategies ranging from improvised crop-protection measures to the collection of food resources in high-risk areas.

Interventions implemented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and state authorities, such as the construction of protective enclosures and the safeguarding of cultivated areas, are often insufficient in the face of the strength and behavior of hippopotamuses:

NGOs are making efforts by constructing enclosures to protect agricultural fields, but these structures cannot withstand hippopotamuses. Local populations no longer trust the state to support such interventions (Interview conducted in Kamanyola, 7 August 2024).

Respondents (61/63) described substantial psychological and social consequences associated with hippopotamus attacks. Their accounts indicated persistent fear, recurrent bereavement and trauma following deaths, as well as feelings of abandonment by public authorities. Participants further perceived that these experiences undermined individual well-being, strained community relations and increased the isolation of affected families and villages. The following testimony illustrates these perceived effects:

It is impossible to go two years without witnessing deaths caused by hippopotamuses. Our neighbors, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers become victims, and we feel ignored by the authorities (Interview conducted in Katogota, 14 August 2025).

In this context, consideration of the well-being of local populations, the stress experienced by wildlife subjected to harassment or persecution and the integrity of ecosystems emerges as an essential condition for developing sustainable responses. An expanded One Health perspective incorporating the principles of One Welfare therefore encourages an integrated approach that simultaneously addresses the reduction of physical risks, the prevention of perceived zoonotic risks, the protection of livelihoods and the provision of psychosocial support for communities exposed to wildlife conflicts.

To mitigate these impacts, local populations and authorities have implemented several adaptation strategies. These include the restoration of public electricity services, the construction of more resistant enclosures, and the provision of food resources for hippopotamuses to reduce incursions into agricultural fields. However, these strategies face considerable institutional and technical limitations. One key informant stated:

“To reduce destruction, electricity should be restored and enclosures capable of withstanding the weight of hippopotamuses should be constructed. The state should provide financial support to institutions responsible for hippopotamus conservation and strengthen management systems in order to prevent nocturnal incursions and associated health risks ‘‘ (Interview conducted in Kamanyola, 7 August 2025).

These persistent threats and only partially effective responses underscore the need for an integrated approach that balances human safety, wildlife conservation and sustainable development. The findings suggest that the long-term effectiveness of adaptation measures depends on meaningful community participation supported by sustained institutional commitment, adequate funding and technical capacity. In the Ruzizi Plain, this approach could include community-based monitoring committees comprising health workers, veterinarians, customary authorities and conservation officers; targeted training on zoonotic risks, injury prevention and the management of hippopotamus-related trauma; and participatory land-use planning to increase the separation between farms and settlements and areas of intense hippopotamus activity.

Overall, respondents perceived that the effects of hippopotamus attacks on communities in Katogota extended well beyond material losses. In their accounts, these attacks undermined human security, weakened social cohesion and reduced communities’ capacity to manage risks autonomously. Participants therefore considered holistic, context-specific and participatory conflict-management strategies essential for reducing human–wildlife conflict and strengthening the resilience of communities living alongside potentially dangerous wildlife.

5 Discussion

Findings suggest the existence of perceived vulnerability affecting livelihoods, health and environmental conditions that can be interpreted through a One Health lens. These conflicts arise as agricultural expansion increasingly encroaches on hippopotamus habitats, intensifying competition over essential resources, particularly shared water sources (Ezra et al., 2023). Respondents perceived that these human-animal-environment interactions posed not only risks of crop destruction and physical harm, but also possible health threats, including wound infections, fecal contamination of irrigation water and zoonotic transmission linked to the daily sharing of water resources by people, livestock and wildlife. These reported concerns are consistent with risks discussed in the literature (Jacob, 2025; Provost, 1980) but were not confirmed through epidemiological or environmental testing in this study.

Respondents perceived that agricultural losses in the Ruzizi Plain were accompanied by three interconnected dimensions of One Health vulnerability: economic and food-security pressures resulting from the destruction of crops such as maize and groundnuts; direct traumatic risks associated with attacks and injuries; and concerns that riverbank degradation compromised the quality of water resources shared by livestock keepers, artisanal fishers and wildlife. These reported concerns are broadly consistent with findings from the Abaya Chamo Lake region of Ethiopia, where Assefa et al. (2020) linked human-animal-environment interfaces to a higher prevalence of skin and diarrheal diseases among riparian populations. Although the present study did not verify these health or environmental outcomes, participants believed that close spatial coexistence intensified livelihood and health vulnerabilities. They also expressed resentment toward conservation authorities, whom they perceived as prioritizing wildlife protection without adequately addressing these interconnected risks.

Respondents perceived institutional constraints-particularly the absence of legal compensation mechanisms for affected households-as evidence of a fragmented governance system that did not adequately recognize the interdependence of human, animal and ecosystem health. This perception reflects broader governance concerns discussed by Nkangu et al. (2021). From a One Health perspective, participants believed that regulations prohibiting retaliatory action against wildlife, when not accompanied by effective protection or viable alternatives, left communities exposed to concerns about contaminated water sources, untreated injuries and persistent insecurity. These reported risks represent participants’ experiences and interpretations and were not independently verified through clinical or environmental assessments in the present study.

Local adaptation measures such as protective enclosures, electricity restoration, and the use of baiting techniques resemble strategies implemented elsewhere in Africa, including trenches and community patrols. However, these interventions remain partial and largely technocentric, as they rarely incorporate integrated monitoring of human and animal injuries, surveillance of shared water quality, or sustained community dialogue mechanisms (Bettié and Toumodi, 2024). The proximity of agricultural fields to water points often less than one kilometer apart constitutes a documented One Health hotspot at the global level, intensifying post-traumatic infections and cross-contamination risks (Besombes, 2024; Narat, 2025).

By integrating food security, multidimensional health considerations, and biodiversity conservation, these governance arrangements can contribute to rebuilding institutional trust and reducing conflict (Mildret et al., 2025). Overall, the findings suggest that human- hippopotamus conflicts in the Ruzizi Plain are not merely ecological or agricultural problems but manifestations of broader socio-political, health and environmental challenges. Addressing these conflicts therefore requires integrated governance frameworks capable of simultaneously enhancing human security, safeguarding ecosystem integrity, promoting public health, and supporting the conservation of vulnerable wildlife populations.

6 Conclusion

This study demonstrates that human-hippopotamus conflicts in the Ruzizi Plain extend beyond competition for agricultural land and reflect the interaction of ecological, social, institutional and health-related processes. Combining political ecology and the One Health framework provides a comprehensive understanding of these conflicts by linking environmental change, governance arrangements and shared health risks at the human-animal environment interface.

The findings show that conservation policies, land-use dynamics and unequal access to resources shape local exposure to risks associated with hippopotamus presence. Crop losses, physical injuries, concerns regarding water quality and psychosocial distress emerged from narratives as interconnected dimensions of vulnerability. The findings reflect local perception and experiences rather than direct measurements of environmental or health outcomes.

7 Limitations and recommendations

A limitation of this study is that it relied primarily on qualitative data derived from stakeholder experiences and perceptions. The study did not collect ecological, epidemiological, veterinary or environmental monitoring data. Therefore, references to zoonotic risks, water contamination and health impacts should be understood as perceived or reported risks rather than empirically confirmed outcomes. Future research should integrate environmental sampling, disease surveillance and quantitative assessments of agricultural and economic losses to provide a more comprehensive One Health evaluation.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Edson Gandiwa, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Zimbabwe

Reviewed by: Rashila Deshar, Tribhuvan University Kirtipur, Nepal

Daycho Khaenamkhaew, Nakhon Si Thammarat Rajabhat University, Thailand