Conflict with elephants and subsequent economic losses negatively affect residents’ tolerance towards wild elephants.  It is important to understand people’s attitude towards wildlife, especially Asian Elephants with an endangered status.  A questionnaire survey was undertaken with 510 forest fringe residents of Nilambur North and South Forest Divisions, Kerala, to understand residents’ attitudes towards elephant conservation and Human-Elephant conflict.  The majority of the villagers experienced psychological stress and fear associated with movement restriction and chances of encounters with elephants.  Crop damage was perceived as the most serious issue, followed by injury or death by encounters with elephants.  Elephants show a higher preference for raiding Jackfruit and Plantain than other crops.  The conflict was caused more frequently by solitary elephants than by elephant herds.  Elephants were mainly found near farm areas during late night (22:00–02:00 hr) and early night (20:00–22:00 hr).  More than half of the residents were in favour of forest conservation owing to its ecological value.  One-fourth of the respondents favoured forest conservation due to its extraction benefits such as collection of fuel wood and cattle grazing.  Almost equal proportions of people have positive and negative attitudes towards elephants.  In such instances, the possibility for a drastic shift towards negative attitudes following spontaneous elephant conflict events can be expected.  Ecological awareness, interaction among stakeholders, and participatory maintenance of mitigation methods will possibly reduce conflict and contribute towards the coexistence of people and elephants in this human-dominated landscape.

SummaryAim The aim of this research was to examine patterns of human-wildlife conflict and assess community perception towards compensation program implemented to ameliorate human-wildlife co-existence.Location North and South Forest Divisions, Nilambur, South India. Material and Methods Key findingsCrop damage was the most common type of conflict, followed by property damage, injury and death by wildlife attack. Crop damage was contributed mainly by elephant (Elephas maximus) (59%) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) (32%). The other wildlife species involved in conflict were bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) (3.8%), leopard (Panthera pardus) (3.3%), Malabar giant squirrel (Ratufa indica) (0.47%), porcupine (Hystrix indica) (0.29%), Guar (Bos gaurus) (0.95%) and Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor)(0.29 %). On average, people took 13 days to claim compensation, which received decisions in 90 days. The majority of respondents (67%) were not satisfied with the compensation schemes. The main causes of such dissatisfaction were (a) allocation of insufficient money for the compensation (46.6%), (b) prolonged and difficult administrative procedures to make claims (20%), (c) people's convictions that compensation scheme does not eradicate the conflict (20%) and (d) disbelief on the officials involved in compensation program (6.6%). Conservation implications Our results suggest that compensationprogram has not gained acceptance among local community as an effective strategy to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Although it may reduce hostile attitude towards wildlife, alternative approaches are urgently needed that avoid conflicts.

Elephant conservation carries cost in the form of human-elephant conflict and affects the wellbeing of people living near ecologically important areas.  Conflicts impart serious challenges towards the survival of Asian Elephants, which are categorized as Endangered in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  Issues of wildlife conservation are least addressed in areas with less restricted categories of protection.  Hence an attempt was made to evaluate the intensity of elephant conflict and factors associated with its occurrence in villages with forest fringes of North and South Forest Divisions of Nilambur, Kerala, southern India.  It was hypothesized that variables such as number of houses, area of village, livestock population, forest frontage, and presence of water source along the forest boundary abutting the village to be the underlying correlates of conflict.  Field studies were conducted fortnightly from June 2014 to May 2015, by visiting farms and households of 17 selected forest fringe villages.  Observational methods, questionnaire surveys and secondary data collection were employed for this purpose.  A total of 277 incidents of crop depredation, 12 incidents of property damage, three human injuries, and one human death due to conflict were recorded during this period.  Crop raiding was highest during post monsoon season and it was low during pre-monsoon and monsoon seasons.  Multiple linear regression results suggest that forest frontage and livestock population were significant predictors of conflict incidence.  Information regarding the prime causes of conflict will be helpful for planning strategies for the establishment of appropriate mitigation methods.  The present study serves as baseline information which will be helpful for formulating prospective management plans.

Mitigation measures are one of the best strategies for the management of human-elephant conflict.  An assessment of the effectiveness of existing crop protection methods in 17 forest fringe villages of Karulai and Vazhikadavu ranges of Nilambur South and North Forest Divisions was carried out during June 2015 to May 2016.  Mitigation methods found in the study area include electric fences (EF), combined electric fence and trench (EPT+EF), and elephant-proof stone wall (EPSW).  Barriers were surveyed by foot and mapped with the help of global positioning systems (GPS).  Number of elephant crossing points per kilometre along the length of the barrier was highest for EPT+EF and least for EF.  About 86% of the barrier surveyed was located at an average distance of 14.47m from the villages and 13.63% of the barrier located at an average distance of 55.33m from the village.  Damage caused by elephants to EF was primarily due to lack of maintenance of the fences.  In EPT+EF, natural weak spots and gateways created for the passage of people and cattle were the main locations of elephant crossing points.  Damage to the EPSW was caused by elephants by breaking the top portion of the wall.  Areas outside damaged spots primarily contained agricultural land, water bodies and forests, with human habitations being least likely.  Crossing points were located primarily in moderate vegetation zones.  Encouraging local communities to take a primary role in the maintenance of barriers is essential in this context.  Information on the current status of mitigation measures will help to improve the efficiency of barriers and facilitate better management of human-elephant conflicts.