Human-Elephant Conflict: A Review of Current Management Strategies and Future Directions

Abstract

Human-elephant conflict is a major conservation concern in elephant range countries. A variety of management strategies have been developed and are practiced at different scales for preventing and mitigating human-elephant conflict. However, human-elephant conflict remains pervasive as the majority of existing prevention strategies are driven by site-specific factors that only offer short-term solutions, while mitigation strategies frequently transfer conflict risk from one place to another. Here, we review current human-elephant conflict management strategies and describe an interdisciplinary conceptual approach to manage species coexistence over the long-term. Our proposed model identifies shared resource use between humans and elephants at different spatial and temporal scales for development of long-term solutions. The model also highlights the importance of including anthropological and geographical knowledge to find sustainable solutions to managing human-elephant conflict.

An experimental test of community‐based strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict around protected areas

“…All fence types in our study reduced crop‐raiding excursions by elephants, providing support for our hypothesis (H1) that use of crossing points by elephants would decline in year 2 after fences were constructed. This result suggests that several different mitigation techniques can effectively reduce crop‐raiding; combining multiple techniques may also help to minimize the potential for habituation (Hoare, ; Shaffer et al, ). Prior research has demonstrated that elephants quickly habituate to harmless mitigation methods (O'Connell‐Rodwell et al, ), and we suspect that the effect of procedural‐control fences in particular would quickly attenuate.…”

“…Crop raiding by wildlife undermines the effectiveness of protected areas—which is already tenuous owing to funding shortfalls (Lindsey et al., )—by bringing wildlife into direct conflict with human populations. The future sustainability of many protected areas will depend in part on developing strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict that: (1) are affordable to implement; (2) can be maintained by local communities; (3) incentivize communities by providing avenues of economic gain (e.g., reduced crop losses coupled with revenue from honey production); and (4) help to alter perceptions of wildlife among community members (Shaffer et al, ). Our study experimentally demonstrates the potential effectiveness of one such strategy, and our approach can be further refined, adapted, and scaled up to reduce crop raiding by megaherbivores and other wildlife around protected areas.…”

“…The availability of high‐quality forage in cultivated croplands attracts wildlife (e.g., Middleton et al., ), and crop raiding causes billions of dollars in economic losses every year (Conover, ). Crop raiding by elephants ( Loxodonta africana , Elephas maximus ) poses an especially severe threat to human livelihoods in agroecosystems of Africa and Asia (Chiyo, Cochrane, Naughton, & Basuta, ; O'Connell‐Rodwell, Rodwell, Rice, & Hart, ; Shaffer, Khadka, Van Den Hoek, & Naithani, ) and often occurs along the boundaries of protected areas, where close proximity of dense human and wildlife populations exacerbates human–wildlife conflict (Bruner, Gullison, Rice, & da Fonseca, ; Wittemyer, Elsen, Bean, Burton, & Brashares, ).…”

“…Attitudes toward wildlife and protected areas are influenced not only by crop losses per se, but also by the degree to which individual beliefs and values are included in decision‐making processes (Infield, ; Bennet et al., ). Thus, working closely with communities that are experiencing conflict to foster relationships and establish rapport, and then equipping them to participate directly in the mitigation process, may be an effective means of fostering human–wildlife coexistence through a combination of decreased crop losses and increased tolerance of elephants among community members (Madden, ; Shaffer et al, ).…”

“…Indeed, offsetting economic losses is considered essential to managing human–elephant conflict successfully (Hartter, Solomon, Ryan, Jacobson, & Goldman, ; Snyman, ). Although programs for compensating subsistence farmers for crop losses to elephants have met with difficulties in Africa (Shaffer et al, ), the production of marketable commodities such as honey (King, Lala, Nzumu, Mwambingu, & Douglas‐Hamilton, ), chili products (Hedges & Gunaryadi, ), or other cash crops (Parker & Osborn, ) as a byproduct of deterrence can increase community buy‐in and foster greater tolerance toward elephants (Shaffer et al, ).…”