Rethinking assessment of success of mitigation strategies for elephant-induced crop damage

The importance of equity in payments to encourage coexistence with large mammals

Large mammals often impose significant costs such as livestock depredation or crop foraging on rural communities, and this can lead to the retaliatory killing of threatened wildlife populations. One conservation approach-payments to encourage coexistence (PEC)-aims to reduce these costs through financial mechanisms, such as compensation, insurance, revenue sharing, and conservation performance payments. Little is known about the equitability of PEC, however, despite its moral and instrumental importance, prevalence as a conservation approach, and the fact that other financial tools for conservation are often inequitable. We used examples from the literature to examine the capability of PEC-as currently perceived and implemented-to be inequitable. We recommend improving the equitability of current and future schemes through the cooperative design of schemes that promote compensatory equity and greater consideration of conservation performance payments and by changing the international model for funding PEC to reduce global coexistence inequalities. New and existing programs must address issues of equitability across scales to ensure that conservation efforts are not undermined by diminished social legitimacy.

Testing the Effectiveness of the "Smelly" Elephant Repellent in Controlled Experiments in Semi-Captive Asian and African Savanna Elephants

Crop-raiding by elephants is one of the most prevalent forms of human-elephant conflict and is increasing with the spread of agriculture into wildlife range areas. As the magnitude of conflicts between people and elephants increases across Africa and Asia, mitigating and reducing the impacts of elephant crop-raiding has become a major focus of conservation intervention. In this study, we tested the responses of semi-captive elephants to the "smelly" elephant repellent, a novel olfactory crop-raiding mitigation method. At two trial sites, in Zambia and Thailand, African elephants (Loxodonta africana) and Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) were exposed to the repellent, in order to test whether or not they entered an area protected by the repellent and whether they ate the food provided. The repellent elicited clear reactions from both study groups of elephants compared to control conditions. Generalised linear models revealed that the elephants were more alert, sniffed more, and vocalised more when they encountered the repellent. Although the repellent triggered a response, it did not prevent elephants from entering plots protected by the repellent or from eating crops, unlike in trials conducted with wild elephants. Personality played a role in responses towards the repellent, as the elephants that entered the experimental plots were bolder and more curious individuals. We conclude that, although captive environments provide controlled settings for experimental testing, the ecological validity of testing human-elephant conflict mitigation methods with captive wildlife should be strongly considered. This study also shows that understanding animal behaviour is essential for improving human-elephant coexistence and for designing deterrence mechanisms. Appreciating personality traits in elephants, especially amongst "problem" elephants who have a greater propensity to crop raid, could lead to the design of new mitigation methods designed to target these individuals.

Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

Aversive geofencing devices (AGDs) or animal-borne satellite-linked shock collars might become a useful tool to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC). AGDs have the potential to condition problem elephants to avoid human-dominated landscapes by associating mild electric shocks with preceding audio warnings given as they approach virtual boundaries. We assessed the opinions of different stakeholders (experts, farmers, and others who have and have not experienced HEC; n = 611) on the potential use of AGDs on Asian elephants. Most respondents expressed positive opinions on the potential effectiveness of AGDs in managing elephant movement (62.2%). About 62.8% respondents also provided positive responses for the acceptability of AGDs if pilot studies with captive elephants have been successful in managing their movements. Some respondents perceived AGDs to be unacceptable because they are unethical or harmful and would be unsuccessful given wild elephants may respond differently to AGDs than captive elephants. Respondents identified acceptability, support and awareness of stakeholders, safety and wellbeing of elephants, logistical difficulties, durability and reliable functionality of AGDs, and uncertainties in elephants' responses to AGDs as potential challenges for implementing AGDs. These issues need attention when developing AGDs to increase support from stakeholders and to effectively reduce HEC incidents in the future.

Trenches reduce crop foraging by elephants: Lessons from Kibale National Park, Uganda for elephant conservation in densely settled rural landscapes

Crop loss to wildlife, particularly elephants, threatens livelihoods and support for conservation around many protected areas in Africa and Asia. Low-cost elephant barriers have been successfully deployed in savannas but seldom tested around isolated forest parks where the stakes are high for local farmers and isolated elephant populations. We measured the effectiveness of a series of ≥3 m deep trenches dug by farmers neighboring Kibale National Park, Uganda. We monitored trench quality and crop loss to elephants weekly for a year across 47 transects in four park-adjacent communities, and conducted controlled, before-and-after comparisons of verified damage. Elephants damaged or destroyed >4 ha of crops during 48 independent foraging events, the majority <220m from the forest boundary. The frequency of damage varied significantly between and within communities. The majority of trenches were not breached by elephants but five suffered ≥4 breaches. Elephant-breached trenches and their neighboring trenches were lower quality than those not breached in the same week (Wilcoxon test: p<0.001). Trenches were also more likely to be breached where people had planted more crops favored by elephants (Wilcoxon test: p = 0.014). Thus, trench quality and the draw of palatable crops both appeared to influence elephant damage. Although trenches may deter elephants, challenges include heavy labor and difficulties of digging in rocky and swampy areas. Trenches alone will not prevent conflict but this strategy holds promise for hot-spots of conflict at forest edges. Given the stakes for farmers and biodiversity, we call for systematic assessment of crop losses and offer recommendations on monitoring and analysis. Such data will allow for stronger inference about effectiveness before investment of effort and resources in interventions.

Insights into the coexistence of birds and humans in cropland through meta-analyses of bird exclosure studies, crop loss mitigation experiments, and social surveys

Birds share lands with humans at a substantial scale and affect crops. Yet, at a global scale, systematic evaluations of human-bird coexistence in croplands are scarce. Here, we compiled and used meta-analysis approaches to synthesize multiple global datasets of ecological and social dimensions to understand this complex coexistence system. Our result shows that birds usually increase woody, but not herbaceous, crop production, implying that crop loss mitigation efforts are critical for a better coexistence. We reveal that many nonlethal technical measures are more effective in reducing crop loss, e.g., using scaring devices and changing sow practices, than other available methods. Besides, we find that stakeholders from low-income countries are more likely to perceive the crop losses caused by birds and are less positive toward birds than those from high-income ones. Based on our evidence, we identified potential regional clusters, particularly in tropical areas, for implementing win-win coexistence strategies. Overall, we provide an evidence-based knowledge flow and solutions for stakeholders to integrate the conservation and management of birds in croplands.

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.

Evaluation of a combined and portable light-ultrasound device with which to deter red deer

Human–wildlife conflicts are a growing problem in Northern Hemisphere where wild ungulates are one of the taxonomic groups most frequently involved. To mitigate these conflicts, it is essential to develop preventive actions able to avoid encounters between wildlife and human (activities). We here employed photo-trapping to evaluate the behaviour of red deer (Cervus elaphus) when confronted with dissuasive portable deterrents that function on the basis of changing patterns of light and ultrasound. This was done by following a before/after experimental design, with two phases: (i) a test phase, with active deterrents, and (ii) a control phase, without deterrents. When deterrents were activated they achieved a 48.96% reduction in the frequency of use by red deer (up to 66.64% when it was assessed on a thinner Sect. 10 m wide from the line of deterrents) and produced a reduction of 67.71% in the frequency of deterrent-line crossings. However, a habituation effect was detected since the use by red deer of the treatment area increased as time since treatment. These results indicate that these portable devices are effective as regards dissuading deer, mainly on short time scales. The deterrents tested here could be suitable for use at focal points for short periods or in combination with other methods to improve their effectiveness in vulnerability points. This device could potentially be used to mitigate conflicts caused by wildlife species and in response to relevant and timely situations, such as vehicle collisions and damage to crops, among others.

Let Us Give Voice to Local Farmers: Preferences for Farm-Based Strategies to Enhance Human–Elephant Coexistence in Africa

Simple Summary

Local communities living on the edge of protected areas often experience negative impacts on their livelihoods due to wildlife. These situations threaten support for long-term conservation of wildlife and wild habitats so a key for conservation sustainability should be based on implementing socially accepted and economically sustainable mitigation practices. For successful design and implementation of mitigation strategies, it is vital to engage local communities and understand their preferences and previous experiences. In this study, we present a choice experiment as a tool to analyze local farmer preferences for the most common farm-based solutions to reduce African elephant crop damage. Results show that there are significant differences among responses triggered by farmers’ previous experience with elephants and socioeconomic situation, with a marked spatial distribution among respondents. This methodology, based on a choice modeling approach considering the differential availability of resources and previous experience with elephants or other wildlife, is highly applicable, with small changes in other areas where wildlife competes with local communities for resources. This approach also represents a suitable instrument for identifying stakeholders’ preferences in each specific context.

Abstract

Local communities surrounding wildlife corridors and natural reserves often face challenges related to human–wildlife coexistence. To mitigate the challenges and ensure the long-term conservation of wildlife, it is important to engage local communities in the design of conservation strategies. By conducting 480 face-to-face interviews in 30 villages along and adjacent to the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor (Tanzania), we quantified farmers’ preferences for farm-based measures to mitigate African elephant damage using choice experiments. Results show that farmers considered no action the least preferred option, revealing that they are open to trying different measures. The most preferred management strategy matched with the preferences of wildlife rangers in the area, suggesting low concern about the potential conflicts between stakeholders. However, a latent class model suggests that there are significant differences among responses triggered by farmers’ previous experience with elephants, the intensity of the elephant damage, and the socioeconomic situation of the farmer. Results show a marked spatial distribution among respondents, highlighting the benefits of zone management as conflicts were found to be highly context dependent. Understanding the human dimension of conservation is essential for the successful planification and implementation of conservation strategies. Therefore, the development and broad utilization of methodologies to gather specific context information should be encouraged.

The efficacy of interventions to protect crops from raiding elephants

Both African elephants (Loxodonta spp.) and the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) across their range come into conflict with people because of their crop-raiding behavior, which presents profound impediments to farmer livelihoods. In response, a series of interventions, designed to reduce elephant crop raiding have been applied. Based on an extensive review of elephant crop-raiding studies published over a 31-year period, we identified four primary categories of interventions including: (i) detection efforts; (ii) preemptive measures; (iii) fencing and trenches; and (iv) deterrent techniques. The interventions reported to be most effective involved chili peppers (i.e., fences, spray, and briquettes) and crop guarding coupled with deterrents. The extent to which these interventions can be applied more widely is unclear as only two studies examined efficacy across sites in more than one country. Thus, future inquiry should evaluate the ability of effective interventions, or indeed a combination of interventions, to be applied across the range of elephants to reduce crop raiding at scale.

Rethinking the study of human-wildlife coexistence

Although coexistence with wildlife is a key goal of conservation, little is known about it or how to study it. By coexistence we mean a sustainable though dynamic state in which humans and wildlife coadapt to sharing landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are effectively governed to ensure wildlife populations persist in socially legitimate ways that ensure tolerable risk levels. Problems that arise from current conflict-oriented framing of human-wildlife interactions include reinforcing a human-nature dichotomy as fundamentally oppositional, suggesting coexistence requires the absence of conflict, and skewing research and management toward direct negative impacts over indirect impacts and positive aspects of living with wildlife. Human behavior toward wildlife is framed as rational calculus of costs and benefits, sidelining emotional and cultural dimensions of these interactions. Coexistence is less studied due to unfamiliarity with relevant methodologies, including qualitative methods, self-reflexivity and ethical rigor, and constraints on funding and time. These challenges are illustrated with examples from fieldwork in India and Africa. We recommend a basic approach to case studies aimed at expanding the scope of inquiries into human-wildlife relations beyond studies of rational behavior and quantification of costs and benefits of wildlife to humans.

Human-wildlife coexistence in a changing world

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a key topic in conservation and agricultural research. Decision makers need evidence-based information to design sustainable management plans and policy instruments. However, providing objective decision support can be challenging because realities and perceptions of human-wildlife interactions vary widely between and within rural, urban, and peri-urban areas. Land users who incur costs through wildlife argue that wildlife-related losses should be compensated and that prevention should be subsidized. Supporters of human-wildlife coexistence policies, such as urban-dwelling people, may not face threats to their livelihoods from wildlife. Such spatial heterogeneity in the cost and benefits of living with wildlife is germane in most contemporary societies. This Special Section features contributions on wildlife-induced damages that range from human perspectives (land use, psychology, governance, local attitudes and perceptions, costs and benefits, and HWC and coexistence theory) to ecological perspectives (animal behavior). Building on current literature and articles in this section, we developed a conceptual model to help frame HWC and coexistence dimensions. The framework can be used to determine damage prevention implementation levels and approaches to HWC resolution. Our synthesis revealed that inter- and transdisciplinary approaches and multilevel governance approaches can help stakeholders and institutions implement sustainable management strategies that promote human-wildlife coexistence.