Determining baselines for human-elephant conflict: A matter of time

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.

Crop diversity and susceptibility of crop fields to elephant raids in eastern Okavango Panhandle, northern Botswana

Elephants frequently raid crops within their ranges in Africa and Asia. These raids can greatly impact agricultural productivity and food security for farmers. Therefore, there is a need to explore cost‐effective measures that would reduce the susceptibility of crops and agricultural fields to elephant raiding, and further promote sustainable human–elephant coexistence. Previous studies have examined the susceptibility of crop fields to elephant raids using field characteristics such as field size and proximity to water sources. However, there are limited studies investigating how different crop types, individually and in their combinations, influence crop susceptibility to elephant raiding. This study utilized data collected from crop fields raided by the African savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) between 2008 and 2018 in the eastern Okavango Panhandle, northern Botswana. Data on crops grown, number of crop‐raiding incidences for each crop, and elephant raiding incidences were recorded for each field assessed. Incidence risks (IR) and field risk value (RV) were computed using an adaptive epidemiological approach. The results showed that elephant raiding incidents varied significantly amongst crop types over space and time (p < .0001). Cereal crops (millet: Eleusine conaracana, maize: Zea mays) incurred a higher number of crop‐raiding incidents compared with leguminous crops (cowpea: Vigna unguiculata; groundnut: Arachis hypogea). Field RVs significantly varied depending on which crop was present in the field. There was a significant negative correlation between the number of crop types and the susceptibility of the field to raiding (r = −0.680, p < .0001). Our results suggest that the susceptibility of the fields to elephant raids could be minimized by selecting crop types and combinations less susceptible to elephant damage, thus enhancing food security for local subsistence farmers.

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.

Analysis of Landscape Connectivity among the Habitats of Asian Elephants in Keonjhar Forest Division, India

Land development has impacted natural landforms extensively, causing a decline in resources and negative consequences to elephant populations, habitats, and gene flow. Often, elephants seek to fulfill basic needs by wandering into nearby human communities, which leads to human–elephant conflict (HEC), a serious threat to conserving this endangered species. Understanding elephant space use and connectivity among their habitats can offset barriers to ecological flow among fragmented populations. We focused on the Keonjhar Forest Division in Eastern India, where HEC has resulted in the deaths of ~300 people and several hundred elephants, and damaged ~4100 houses and ~12,700 acres of cropland between 2001 and 2018. Our objectives were to (1) analyze elephant space use based on their occupancy; (2) map connectivity by considering the land structure and HEC occurrences; (3) assess the quality of mapped connectivity and identify potential bottlenecks. We found that (1) the study area has the potential to sustain a significant elephant population by providing safe connectivity; (2) variables like forests, precipitation, rural built-up areas, cropland, and transportation networks were responsible for predicting elephant presence (0.407, SE = 0.098); (3) five habitat cores, interconnected by seven corridors were identified, of which three habitat cores were vital for maintaining connectivity; (4) landscape features, such as cropland, rural built-up, mining, and transportation networks created bottlenecks that could funnel elephant movement. Our findings also indicate that overlooking HEC in connectivity assessments could lead to overestimation of functionality. The study outcomes can be utilized as a preliminary tool for decision making and early planning during development projects.

A multispecies assessment of wildlife impacts on local community livelihoods

Conflicts between the interests of agriculture and wildlife conservation are a major threat to biodiversity and human well-being globally. Addressing such conflicts requires a thorough understanding of the impacts associated with living alongside protected wildlife. Despite this, most studies reporting on human-wildlife impacts and the strategies used to mitigate them focus on a single species, thus oversimplifying often complex systems of human-wildlife interactions. We sought to characterize the spatiotemporal patterns of impacts by multiple co-occurring species on agricultural livelihoods in the eastern Okavango Delta Panhandle in northern Botswana through the use of a database of 3264 wildlife-incident reports recorded from 2009 to 2015 by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Eight species (African elephants [Loxodonta africana], hippopotamuses [Hippopotamus amphibious], lions [Panthera leo], cheetah [Acinonyx jubatus], African wild dogs [Lycaon pictus], hyenas [Crocuta crocuta], leopards [Panthera pardus], and crocodiles [Crocodylus niloticus]) appeared on incident reports, of which 56.5% were attributed to elephants. Most species were associated with only 1 type of damage (i.e., either crop damage or livestock loss). Carnivores were primarily implicated in incident reports related to livestock loss, particularly toward the end of the dry season (May-October). In contrast, herbivores were associated with crop-loss incidents during the wet season (November-April). Our results illustrate how local communities can face distinct livelihood challenges from different species at different times of the year. Such a multispecies assessment has important implications for the design of conservation interventions aimed at addressing the costs of living with wildlife and thereby mitigation of the underlying conservation conflict. Our spatiotemporal, multispecies approach is widely applicable to other regions where sustainable and long-term solutions to conservation conflicts are needed for local communities and biodiversity.

The 2020 elephant die-off in Botswana

The cause of deaths of 350 elephants in 2020 in a relatively small unprotected area of northern Botswana is unknown, and may never be known. Media speculations about it ignore ecological realities. Worse, they make conjectures that can be detrimental to wildlife and sometimes discredit conservation incentives. A broader understanding of the ecological and conservation issues speaks to elephant management across the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area that extends across Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Our communication addresses these. Malicious poisoning and poaching are unlikely to have played a role. Other species were unaffected, and elephant carcases had their tusks intact. Restriction of freshwater supplies that force elephants to use pans as a water source possibly polluted by blue-green algae blooms is a possible cause, but as yet not supported by evidence. No other species were involved. A contagious disease is the more probable one. Fences and a deep channel of water confine these elephants’ dispersal. These factors explain the elephants’ relatively high population growth rate despite a spell of increased poaching during 2014–2018. While the deaths represent only ~2% of the area’s elephants, the additive effects of poaching and stress induced by people protecting their crops cause alarm. Confinement and relatively high densities probably explain why the die-off occurred only here. It suggests a re-alignment or removal of fences that restrict elephant movements and limits year-round access to freshwater.

Food preferences determine human–elephant coexistence in African woodlands

Human–elephant coexistence remains a major conservation and livelihood challenge across elephant Loxodonta africana range in Africa. This study investigates the extent of elephant crop damage on 66 farms in the Selous–Niassa corridor (Tanzania), to search for potential management solutions to this problem. We found that the relative abundance of highly preferred crops (area covered by preferred crops divided by the total area of each farm) was by far the most important factor determining crop damage by elephants. Eighteen crop types were ranked according to their preference by elephants. Sweet potatoes, bananas, peanuts, onions, pumpkins and maize were the most preferred crops, with maize the most common crop among those highly preferred. On average elephants damaged 25.7% of the cultivated farmland they entered. A beta regression model suggests that a reduction in the cultivation of preferred crops from 75 to 25% of the farmland area decreases elephant crop damage by 64%. Water availability (distance to the nearest waterhole) and the presence of private investors (mostly hunting tourism companies) were of lower importance in determining elephant crop damage. Thus, damage by elephants increased with shorter distances to waterholes and decreased in areas with private investors. However, further studies are required, particularly of the perceived costs and benefits of elephants to local communities. Farm aggregation and the use of non-preferred crops that also require less water would potentially reduce elephant damage but would be a major lifestyle change for some local communities.

Elephants in the neighborhood: patterns of crop-raiding by Asian elephants within a fragmented landscape of Eastern India

Loss of forest cover, rise in human populations and fragmentation of habitats leads to decline in biodiversity and extinction of large mammals globally. Elephants, being the largest of terrestrial mammals, symbolize global conservation programs and co-occur with humans within multiple-use landscapes of Asia and Africa. Within such shared landscapes, poaching, habitat loss and extent of human-elephant conflicts (HEC) affect survival and conservation of elephants. HEC are severe in South Asia with increasing attacks on humans, crop depredation and property damage. Such incidents reduce societal tolerance towards elephants and increase the risk of retaliation by local communities. We analyzed a 2-year dataset on crop depredation by Asian elephants (N = 380) events in North Bengal (eastern India). We also explored the effect of landscape, anthropogenic factors (area of forest, agriculture, distance to protected area, area of human settlements, riverine patches and human density) on the spatial occurrence of such incidents.Crop depredation showed a distinct nocturnal pattern (22.00-06:00) and majority of the incidents were recorded in the monsoon and post-monsoon seasons. Results of our spatial analysis suggest that crop depredation increased with an increase in the area of forest patches, agriculture, presence of riverine patches and human density. Probability of crop depredation further increased with decreasing distance from protected areas. Villages within 1.5 km of a forest patch were most affected. Crop raiding incidents suggest a deviation from the "high-risk high-gain male biased" foraging behavior and involved proportionately more mixed groups (57%) than lone bulls (43%). Demographic data suggest that mixed groups comprised an average of 23 individuals with adult and sub adult females, bulls and calves. Crop depredation and fatal elephant attacks on humans were spatially clustered with eastern, central and western parts of North Bengal identified as hotspots of HEC. Our results will help to prioritize mitigation measures such as prohibition of alcohol production within villages, improving condition of riverine patches, changing crop composition, fencing agriculture fields, implement early warning systems around protected areas and training local people on how to prevent conflicts.

Panic at the disco: solar-powered strobe light barriers reduce field incursion by African elephants Loxodonta africana in Chobe District, Botswana

Managing interactions between humans and wild elephants is a complex problem that is increasing as a result of agricultural and urban expansion into and alongside protected areas. Mitigating negative interactions requires the development of new tools to reduce competition and promote coexistence. Many studies have tested various mitigation techniques across elephant ranges in Africa and Asia, with varying levels of success. Recently, strobe lights have been suggested as a potential mitigation strategy in deterring African lions Panthera leo from kraals or bomas, but this technique has to date not been tested to reduce negative human–elephant interactions. Over a 2-year period (November 2016–June 2018), we tested the effectiveness of solar-powered strobe light barriers in deterring African elephants Loxodonta africana, in collaboration with 18 farmers in a community adjacent to the Chobe Forest Reserve and Chobe National Park in northern Botswana. Although elephants were more likely to pass by fields with solar-powered strobe light barriers (which was probably a result of selection bias as we focused on fields that had previously been damaged by elephants), they were less likely to enter these treatment fields than control fields without such barriers. Our findings demonstrate the efficacy of light barriers to reduce negative human–elephant interactions in rural communities.

Exploring movement decisions: Can Bayesian movement-state models explain crop consumption behaviour in elephants (Loxodonta africana)?

Animal movements towards goals or targets are based upon either maximization of resource acquisition or risk avoidance, and the way animals move can reveal information about their motivation. We use hidden Markov models (HMMs) fitted in a Bayesian framework and hourly Global Positioning System fixes to distinguish animal movements into distinct states and analyse the influence of environmental variables on being in, and switching to, a particular state. Specifically, we apply our models to understand elephant movement decisions around agricultural fields, and crop consumption. As it is unclear what the role of habitat features are on this complex process, we analyse whether elephants target agricultural crops for consumption, or simply pass through them in search of water. Our HMMs separate elephant movements into two states: exploratory movements that are fast and directional, and encamped movements that are slow and meandering. For each elephant, we ran 16 models with each possible combination of selected habitat features (river, elephant corridor, agricultural field, trees), and repeated these analyses including interaction effects with both season and time of day. We used cross-validation to select the best model. In corridors, exploratory movements are dominant. Elephants mainly showed encamped movements at the river during the dry season, when temporary water sources have dried out and elephants relied on this permanent water source. In fields, males most often exhibited exploratory movements to and from the river, while females showed an increase in the frequency of encamped behaviour during the dry season and at night-the times when most crop consumption and movements through fields occur. Adaptation to risk could explain this behaviour, since foraging in fields is likely less risky under the cover of darkness and during the dry season when farmers are absent. This sex segregation in elephant movement decisions highlights the importance of predation risk in shaping movement patterns, which can result in sex segregation in responses to mitigation methods. The increase in encamped movements in the dry season suggests the importance of agricultural timing, and shows the potential for early ploughing and early-harvest crop types in order to reduce elephant crop consumption. Taking this into account could increase efficiency of elephant crop consumption mitigation.

Seasonal and spatial vulnerability to agricultural damage by elephants in the western Serengeti, Tanzania

In the western Serengeti of Tanzania, African elephant Loxodonta africana populations are increasing, which is rare across the species’ range. Here, conservation objectives come into conflict with competing interests such as agriculture. Elephants regularly damage crops, which threatens livelihoods and undermines local support for conservation. For damage reduction efforts to be successful, limited resources must be used efficiently and strategies for mitigation and prevention should be informed by an understanding of the spatial and temporal distribution of crop damage. We assessed historical records of crop damage by elephants to describe the dynamics and context of damage in the western Serengeti. We used binary data and generalized additive models to predict the probability of crop damage at the village level in relation to landscape features and metrics of human disturbance. During 2012–2014 there were 3,380 reports of crop damage by elephants submitted to authorities in 42 villages. Damage was concentrated in villages adjacent to a reserve boundary and peaked during periods of crop maturity and harvest. The village-level probability of crop damage was negatively associated with distance from a reserve, positively with length of the boundary shared with a reserve, and peaked at moderate levels of indicators of human presence. Spatially aggregated historical records can provide protected area managers and regional government agencies with important insights into the distribution of conflict across the landscape and between seasons, and can guide efforts to optimize resource allocation and future land use planning efforts.

Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation

African elephants (Loxodonta africana) induce considerable crop damage risks, shocks and stresses on subsistence farmers at the wildlife-agriculture interface. In this study, we explored the social dimensions of human-elephant interactions in the wildlife-agrarian landscape. The study aimed at unraveling the associated hazardous conditions and nature of the subsistence farmers’ social vulnerability and practices with respect to elephant crop damage, subsistence farmers’ livelihoods, and elephant conservation. Applying qualitative thematic content analysis, the sustainable livelihood framework (SLF) and additive generalized linear models (GLMs), this study revealed that the status of relational social capital influences human-elephant conflict (HEC) management and subsistence farmers’ responses, regardless of the farmers’ social learning and environmental values about the social-ecological system. The strengthening of multiple local stakeholder participation, institutional governance and access to livelihoods assets are needed for human food security and elephant conservation. Adoption of more effective nuanced crop protection counter-measures against elephants at farm level is urgently needed.