Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) includes how people perceive risks associated with negative interactions
with wildlife. Risk perceptions are important for conservationists to understand because perceptions can
influence human behaviors in response to HWC, such as tolerance or poaching specific species. Our study
site, the Zambezi region of Namibia, is renowned for diverse wildlife that come into conflict with humans
and are vulnerable to poaching. Our study objectives were: (1) quantify local perceptions of risk associated
with species-specific HWC and poaching, (2) examine the relationship between species-specific
HWC and poaching risks, and (3) characterize economic costs, benefits and perceptions of the ecological
values (e.g., disease vector) of the top four species implicated in HWCs and poaching. The species that
were perceived to be at greatest risk from poaching were characterized as posing high ecological risks
(e.g., disease vectors) and livelihood risks (e.g., crop damage) and were economically valuable for local
subsistence and trade. Species perceived to pose high risk to livelihoods were moderately correlated with
increasing perceived poaching vulnerability (r = 0.53, p = 0.04, df = 14). All but one of the top four species
most vulnerable generated greater average annual revenue from legal hunting than average annual
damage to crops. However, a majority of participants stated that conservancy benefits were not equitably
distributed. Quantifying and characterizing how stakeholders perceive poaching-related risks can complement
risk assessment data and result in more robust conservation planning. These findings have
implications for risk communication, distribution of wildlife-related risks and benefits and more nuanced
management of the most vulnerable species.