Countering elephant raiding with Short Message Service: Challenges of deploying public participation‐based systems in a setting with sparse Information Communication Technologies resources

Abstract

Key MessagesThis paper explores whether traditional crisis mapping systems can be used to tackle the perennial livelihood problem of elephant raiding around Kibale National Park, Uganda.The goal of the system described in this paper is to streamline the process of reporting elephant raiding to forest officials so that park services can be effectively deployed.The challenges and considerations of deploying such a system in an environment where ICT resources are sparse are described.Dwindling animal habitat and burgeoning human settlements have made managing human-animal conflict a critical problem in conservation of protected areas, particularly in the biodiversity-rich tropics. In this paper, we present a system aimed at leveraging public participation from affected communities to help effectively manage the conflict in both the short and long term. However, deploying a system that depends on volunteered information has its challenges in the unique settings of a national park where Information Communication Technologies infrastructure is sparse. The specific requirements of the system being easy to use and having automatic geocoding, coupled with the lack of internet access, made it impossible to deploy traditional crisis mapping software such as Ushahidi. We highlight the unique challenges of deploying a system that relies on volunteered information for managing human-animal conflict in a technology resource sparse environment and how the challenges were surpassed. Our system aims at streamlining the process of reporting cases of elephant raiding to the forest officials so as to elicit quick support. The long-term aim is to use the data collected through the system for spatio-temporal analysis to better understand elephant raiding patterns so that the parks services can be effectively deployed.

Retracted: The sensory ecology of fear: African elephants show aversion to olfactory predator signals

“…Logistically, a solution to reducing human-elephant conflict is unlikely to be found in expensive or maintenance-intensive projects, like the erection of bee fences, or the digging of trenches. While communities living amongst elephants may be acutely aware of the risk posed by elephants to their lives and livelihoods, expensive and labor-intensive methods like bee fencing, or trench digging, tend not to be successful in the long term, as continued maintenance stagnates, or funds run dry (Sarkar et al, 2016). Ideally, elephant-deterrence would F I G U R E 2 Deterrent effect of lion dung, control stimuli, and synthetic mixtures mimicing lion dung y axis-amount of time (s) it took for the elephants to walk 5 m and step over the pipe emitting odor cues for each treatment.…”

Evaluating a Union between Health Care and Conservation: a Mobile Clinic Improves Park-People Relations, Yet Poaching Increases

“…It also allowed staff to more fully understand the local situation and develop appropriate measures to help the communities. For example, UWA developed a simple SMS phone messaging system that permitted community members to easily communicate elephant crop raiding and for UWA to respond more rapidly to such elephant raids (Sarkar et al 2016). By facilitating more effective communication and making community members feel more understood and appreciated, the mobile clinic may increase the communities' cooperation with conservation efforts, but this remains to be tested.…”

Exploring multiple dimensions of conservation success: Long‐term wildlife trends, anti‐poaching efforts and revenue sharing in Kibale National Park, Uganda

“…Animals often raid crops in neighboring farms, creating conflict with local people (Naughton‐Treves, 1999; Mackenzie & Ahabyona, 2012; Mackenzie, 2012a; Sarkar et al . 2016). The boundary between the park and community own land is now well demarcated, though historically was a major point of contention.…”

“…Snares primarily target bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), red duiker (Cephalophus harveyi), blue duiker (Cephalophus moniticola), bushpig (Potamochoerus larvatus) and other small game, but can seriously injure other species, including chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and elephants (forest elephants -Loxodonta cyclotis, savanna elephants -Loxodonta africana and their hybrids) (Wrangham & Mugume, 2000;Krief et al 2013). Animals often raid crops in neighboring farms, creating conflict with local people (Naughton-Treves, 1999;Mackenzie & Ahabyona, 2012;Mackenzie, 2012a;Sarkar et al 2016). The boundary between the park and community own land is now well demarcated, though historically was a major point of contention.…”

“…A comparison of PAs in Uganda using community-based approaches to those that did not, documented no difference in threat reduction (Mugisha & Jacobson 2004), though likely the situation improved for the community around the park. Similarly, the establishment of a research field stations which increased community engagement in conservation activities, as well as provide health services through a clinic and mobile clinic for people living next to the park led to people viewing the park more positively (Chapman et al 2015;Sarkar et al 2016;Kirumira et al 2019;Sarkar et al 2019a;Sarkar et al 2019b). However, the improvement in park-people relations, the livelihood of people, and access to healthcare did not correspond to a decrease in illegal activities (Songorwa, Bührs & Hughey 2000;Dickman, Macdonald & Macdonald 2011;Kirumira et al 2019).…”