Analytical review of methods and tools for assessing crop damage caused by elephants: implications of new information technologies

Abstract

The devastation of crops by elephants is increasingly fuelling the anger of farmers in the human-elephant conflict. However, the crop damage attributed to elephants by farmers appears disproportionate. Despite the fact that observed crop damage has an impact on the lives of local populations, the assessment of damage remains a controversial issue. The multitude of evaluation methods used by informants makes it difficult to compare results from different areas and to harmonise and/or transpose management strategies. It is therefore wise to take an interest in evaluation methods, to know their constraints, their advantages, and their connection points. This is the purpose of this study, which offers a bibliographic synthesis of the subject based on documentary research and a synthetic analysis of articles and documents. Two types of damage assessment emerge: quantitative and qualitative. Each type of assessment requires different assessment methods, which can be combined to obtain more accurate results. A qualitative assessment can be carried out through interviews, questionnaires, bibliographic research/review, etc., and a quantitative assessment through a total site visit, a visit to conflict hot and cold spots, or a visit to a random sample of the site. Ratings can be combined because qualitative rating is subjective. Many informants use it because it is easy to carry out and gives an idea of the state of devastation of cultures and sociological constraints. Quantitative assessment requires resources but provides results on the ground. However, combining different types of assessment improves the accuracy, reliability of results, and understanding of the conflict. This bibliographic synthesis also reveals that damage assessment tools are today moving towards new information and communication technologies, because these make the work easier and more practical while improving precision.