Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices

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.

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

“…These include ensuring reliability of the technology (e.g., consistency and accuracy of delivering audio and electrical stimuli, maintaining uninterrupted satellite communication), durability of the device (e.g., weather resistance, long lasting battery life), and resolving uncertainties in elephant’s behavioural responses to electric shocks (e.g., individual variations in responses or potential to show aggressive behaviours, possibility to learn through social facilitation and possibility of habituation to the stimuli) ( Table S5 ). These possible challenges have been identified and discussed in Cabral de Mel et al [ 38 , 64 ] and should be further investigated. Given the general support or lack of widespread opposition towards AGDs, the next step would be designing and developing a wearable, prototype AGD and optimising it by further testing with captive elephants to provide evidence on its efficacy in managing elephant movement with minimum impact on elephant wellbeing.…”

“…For example, collaring wild elephants and planning virtual fences will be a very difficult task ( Table S5 , see also Pastorini et al [ 65 ]). Fitting collars on wild elephants to monitor their movements has been practiced for many years [ 4 , 17 , 28 , 32 , 65 ], but AGDs should preferably be used on selected problem elephants or in HEC scenarios where no other acceptable approach has been effective [ 38 ]. AGDs should not be considered as a replacement for all other existing HEC mitigation approaches.…”

“…To successfully reduce HEC incidents with problem elephants using AGDs, it is important to incorporate both human and elephant needs and ensure connectivity between elephant habitats when planning virtual fences [ 106 , 107 ]. Therefore, conducting baseline studies to understand the land use patterns of humans and elephants and the unique situation of HEC where AGDs are to be implemented are required to design virtual fences appropriately [ 38 ].…”

“…However, these measures have typically proven to be ineffective in reducing HEC and rather intensify it or severely compromise the wellbeing of elephants, sometimes even causing death to the animal [ 27 , 28 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. HEC mitigation approaches readily available to people, such as various physical and biological barrier methods or repellent techniques, have numerous drawbacks or are ineffective in the long-term given that elephants quickly habituate to them [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Electric fences may be the most effective HEC mitigation method, if properly built and maintained [ 39 , 40 , 41 ].…”

“…This approach has also been tested on several wild canid species to minimise human-wildlife conflict or prevent predation, and has been identified as an acceptable alternative to lethal control [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. AGDs could also act as an early warning system which can automatically send a message to mobile phones warning villagers and wildlife managers about the presence of a problem elephant near the village and the potential breaches of virtual fences by those elephants that ignore the audio warnings and electric shocks [ 38 ]. AGDs could, therefore, help reduce conflict incidents with problem causing elephants.…”