Costs of coexistence: understanding the drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh

Effects of climate, land use, and human population change on human-elephant conflict risk in Africa and Asia

Human-wildlife conflict is an important factor in the modern biodiversity crisis and has negative effects on both humans and wildlife (such as property destruction, injury, or death) that can impede conservation efforts for threatened species. Effectively addressing conflict requires an understanding of where it is likely to occur, particularly as climate change shifts wildlife ranges and human activities globally. Here, we examine how projected shifts in cropland density, human population density, and climatic suitability-three key drivers of human-elephant conflict-will shift conflict pressures for endangered Asian and African elephants to inform conflict management in a changing climate. We find that conflict risk (cropland density and/or human population density moving into the 90th percentile based on current-day values) increases in 2050, with a larger increase under the high-emissions "regional rivalry" SSP3 - RCP 7.0 scenario than the low-emissions "sustainability" SSP1 - RCP 2.6 scenario. We also find a net decrease in climatic suitability for both species along their extended range boundaries, with decreasing suitability most often overlapping increasing conflict risk when both suitability and conflict risk are changing. Our findings suggest that as climate changes, the risk of conflict with Asian and African elephants may shift and increase and managers should proactively mitigate that conflict to preserve these charismatic animals.

Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices

Simple Summary

Conflict between humans and Asian elephants is a major conservation issue. Here we discuss common tools used to manage human-elephant conflict (HEC) in Asia and the potential of animal-borne satellite-linked shock collars or Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) for managing problem elephants. Most current HEC mitigation tools lack the ability to be modified to accommodate needs of elephants and therefore are sometimes unsuccessful. AGDs currently used to manage livestock movement can be adapted to mitigate HEC to overcome this problem. AGDs can constantly monitor animal movements and be programmed to deliver sound warnings followed by electric shock whenever animals attempt to move across virtual boundaries demarcated by managers. Elephants fitted with AGDs are expected to learn to avoid the electric shock by associating it with the warning sound and move away from specified areas. Based on the potential shown by studies conducted using AGDs on other wild species, we suggest that experiments should be conducted with captive elephants to determine the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs on elephants. Further, assessing public opinion on using AGDs on elephants will also be important. If elephants can learn to avoid virtual boundaries set by AGDs, it could help to significantly reduce HEC incidents.

Abstract

Asian elephants are a principal cause of human-wildlife conflict. This results in the death/injury of elephants and humans and large-scale crop and property damage. Most current human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation tools lack the flexibility to accommodate the ecological needs of elephants and are ineffective at reducing HEC in the long-term. Here we review common HEC mitigation tools used in Asia and the potential of Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) to manage problem elephants. AGDs can be configured to monitor animal movements in real-time and deliver auditory warnings followed by electric stimuli whenever animals attempt to move across user-specified virtual boundaries. Thus, AGDs are expected to condition elephants to avoid receiving shocks and keep them away from virtually fenced areas, while providing alternative routes that can be modified if required. Studies conducted using AGDs with other species provide an overview of their potential in conditioning wild animals. We recommend that the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs be evaluated using captive elephants along with public perception of using AGDs on elephants as a means of addressing the inherent deficiencies of common HEC mitigation tools. If elephants could be successfully conditioned to avoid virtual fences, then AGDs could resolve many HEC incidents throughout Asia.

Impact of Location on Predator Control Preference Patterns

In recent decades, interactions with carnivores have increased in suburban and urban areas. However, it is unknown how predator control preferences of urban, suburban, and rural residents compare. We sought to characterize predator control preferences regarding interactions with bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans), and compare these preferences among people living in urban, suburban, and rural areas. We also sought to determine the factors that predicted the likelihood of respondents changing their predator control preference. We conducted cross-sectional surveys of adult residents of the United States and the state of Ohio and embedded randomly assigned carnivore interaction scenarios in which respondents were asked to choose their preferred predator control in response to each scenario. We found that when both scenarios took place in an agricultural location, respondents became significantly more sensitive to changes in the severity (i.e., they were more likely to switch their preferred method of predator control). Subjects overwhelmingly indicated a preference for non-lethal forms of predator control. Specifically, 71.8% of respondents preferred non-lethal in response to both scenarios, 18.5% gave mixed responses (i.e., preferred lethal in response to one of the scenarios but non-lethal in response to the other scenario), and only 9.7% preferred lethal predator control in response to both scenarios. The tendency to prefer only non-lethal methods decreased along the urban-rural gradient such that 78.5% of urban respondents expressed a consistent preference for non-lethal forms of control, compared with 72.8% of suburban respondents, and 51.3% rural respondents. This suggests that most urban and suburban residents view lethal predator control methods as simply inappropriate—at least for the scenarios described. In practice, the management of human-carnivore interactions in urban and suburban areas is complicated by a variety of factors (e.g., the presence and density of humans and their pets) which reduce the flexibility of wildlife managers in these areas. Additionally, management options may be further restricted by the preferences of residents, especially given that management is likely to be more visible in these areas. Strong preferences against lethal control in urban and suburban settings may incentivize the development of novel methods for controlling human-carnivore conflicts in the future.

Mahakal Blessed My Crop: Community Dynamics and Religious Beliefs Influence Efficacy of a Wildlife Compensation Program

Conservation conflicts or human-wildlife conflicts present one of the foremost challenges to wildlife conservation globally. The challenges of reconciling human safety and food security with the conservation of large-bodied wildlife are further compounded in the developing nations with a high spatial overlap of wildlife with people. Therefore, conservation models are required to offset losses faced by affected communities while at the same time ensuring the long-term conservation of wildlife species in shared spaces. Ex-gratia payment is one such widely used conflict mitigation instrument that aims to reduce losses and increase tolerance toward damage-causing wildlife species. However, the efficacy of such programs is rarely investigated and the complex interplay of local beliefs, traditions, and community dynamics are rarely incorporated in the compensation programs. This paper aimed to study an ex-gratia payment program for crop losses in India using ecological, economic, and social lenses. In this study, we used 119 interview surveys across 30 villages. Linear models and thematic analysis were used to understand the sources of crop losses, the propensity to claim ex-gratia payments, and the reasons for claiming or not claiming. We find that even though wildlife is the major cause of crop loss in the region, especially to elephants, the majority of the respondents (53%) did not claim compensation for the losses. The reasons varied from procedural failures to a negative evaluation of the process or the agency involved but the most recurrent reason for not claiming was a deep religious belief in certain communities on the elephant God, “Mahakal.” Our work indicates that the cultural reverence toward the species is enabling the acceptance of losses. We propose that such complex cultural beliefs and local traditions should be considered when designing schemes that aim to garner conservation support toward damage-causing wildlife species.

Marginal farmers carry the burden of damage caused by Asian elephants Elephas maximus in Bardiya National Park, Nepal

In areas where farmland borders protected areas, wildlife may be attracted to crops and cause substantial financial damage for farmers. Elephants, in particular, can destroy a year's harvest in a single night, and can also cause damage to buildings and other farm structures. Few studies have examined whether damage caused by wild elephants increases social inequalities in farmer communities. We interviewed settlement leaders and subsistence rice farmers living in the buffer zone of Bardiya National Park, Nepal, to examine (1) the variation and spatial distribution of wealth within the farmer community, (2) the severity and spatio-temporal distribution of damage inflicted by Asian elephants Elephas maximus, and (3) the willingness to insure against such damage. We investigated whether particular societal strata are disproportionally affected by negative interactions with elephants. We found that farmers near the boundary between agricultural and wilderness areas were significantly poorer and had smaller landholdings than those further into the cultivated lands. Concomitantly, damage to crops and houses was more frequent nearer the wilderness–agriculture boundary than further away from it. Hence, in the buffer zone of Bardiya National Park, farmers near the wilderness–cultivation boundary, with small landholdings, had a relatively higher cost of elephant damage, yet were less willing to pay for an insurance scheme. We infer that in areas where both social inequality and damage caused by wildlife are spatially structured, conservation success may cause economic hardship for the local community, particularly for the poorer class. We discuss causes of the current lack of communal mitigation measures against the damage caused by elephants in the Park, and potential solutions.

Scars of human–elephant conflict: patterns inferred from field observations of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka

Abstract ContextHuman–elephant conflict (HEC) is a major threat to Asian elephants as humans and elephants are forced to share common resources. In Sri Lanka, human-dominated landscapes adjacent to protected areas promote high rates of HEC, especially in the form of crop-foraging by elephants. Crop-foraging can be dangerous to both elephants and humans involved in the conflict. Gunfire is a common way for human communities to deter crop-foraging elephants, and gunshot wounds are commonly described in this elephant population on necropsy. AimsWe sought to quantify and describe unique scar patterns among Asian elephants in a protected area, Wasgamuwa National Park, attributed to HEC. MethodsWe identified 38 adult female and 64 adult male elephants and recorded the age class and body condition of each with established standards. Using photographs, we counted the number, position, and relative size of all scars on each animal. Key resultsMale elephants had significantly more scars than did females, and for males, the number of scars increased progressively with age. Additionally, male elephants with higher body conditions had more scars. Finally, males tended to have more scars towards the head, especially at older ages. ConclusionsDifferences in total scar counts between the sexes in this population imply that male elephants in this area more frequently engage in HEC than do females, following observations previously described in the literature. Furthermore, the fact that male elephants acquired progressively more scars as they aged, and that fatter elephants had more scars, indicates that previous exposure to HEC may not have been a deterrent for future events among these males, and potentially, crops served as valuable food sources for these animals. Finally, the changing body locations of these scars with age in males possibly shows plastic behavioural responses during crop-foraging or lower tolerance by farmers towards habitual crop foragers. ImplicationsThese results emphasise the need for animal-based approaches to HEC mitigation. Similarly, conservation managers in Sri Lanka and other elephant range countries should investigate similar methods that estimate patterns of HEC to develop effective management strategies directly targeting animals most likely to engage in conflict.

Spatiotemporal Distribution of Human–Elephant Conflict in Eastern Thailand: A Model-Based Assessment Using News Reports and Remotely Sensed Data

In Thailand, crop depredation by wild elephants intensified, impacting the quality of life of local communities and long-term conservation of wild elephant populations. Yet, fewer studies explore the landscape-scale spatiotemporal distribution of human–elephant conflict (HEC). In this study, we modeled the potential HEC distribution in ten provinces adjacent to protected areas in Eastern Thailand from 2009 to 2018. We applied the time-calibrated maximum entropy method and modeled the relative probability of HEC in varying scenarios of resource suitability and direct human pressure in wet and dry seasons. The environmental dynamic over the 10-year period was represented by remotely sensed vegetation, meteorological drought, topographical, and human-pressure data. Results were categorized in HEC zones using the proposed two-dimensional conflict matrix. Logistic regression was applied to determine the relevant contribution of each scenario. The results showed that although HEC probability varied across seasons, overall HEC-prone areas expanded in all provinces from 2009 to 2018. The largest HEC areas were estimated during dry seasons with Chantaburi, Chonburi, Nakhon Ratchasima, and Rayong provinces being the HEC hotspots.However, the HEC potential was reduced during severe and prolonged droughts caused by El Nino events. Direct human pressure caused a more gradual increase of HEC probability around protected areas. On the other hand, resource suitability showed large variation across seasons. We recommend zone-dependent management actions towards a fine-balance between human development and the conservation of wild elephants.