Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants

Abstract Many Asian elephant populations inhabit fragmented human‐dominated landscapes. Human–elephant conflict (HEC) has intensified in such regions, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people and elephants each year. Controversy between stakeholders then arises as people debate the merits of HEC mitigation approaches, stifling progress. We conducted a survey to evaluate the opinions of experts, farmers and others who have and have not experienced HEC ( n = 611), on the causes of HEC, the importance of, conservation of and co‐existence with elephants, and on the acceptability and effectiveness of potential HEC mitigation methods. Analysis of variance and the Potential for Conflict Index showed that all groups agreed with nine of the 10 causes of HEC assessed, on average. All respondent groups had mostly positive attitudes towards the importance and conservation of elephants. However, farmers exposed to HEC disagreed that people should co‐exist with elephants and supported the view that elephants should be removed from human habitats. All groups agreed on the acceptability and effectiveness of electric fencing, early warning systems with infrasonic call detectors, Global Positioning System collars and geophones. However, there was disparity in views between the experts and other stakeholder groups on the acceptability and effectiveness of restricting elephants to protected areas, and translocation of problem elephants to protected areas away from their capture site or to wild elephant holding grounds. While similar views between stakeholders on many subjects are encouraging for elephant conservation, the disparities identified should be given greater attention when planning HEC management programs to minimize conflict between stakeholders.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Science and Practice
Published
2024-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13238
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.92

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants

Devaka K. Weerakoon, Rachel King, Saman Seneweera, Surendranie J. Cabral de Mel et al.
2 citations
Conservation Science and Practice
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
0.92
article

Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants

Devaka K. Weerakoon, Rachel King, Saman Seneweera, Surendranie J. Cabral de Mel, Ashoka Dangolla, Tek Maraseni, Benjamin L. Allen
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Many Asian elephant populations inhabit fragmented human‐dominated landscapes. Human–elephant conflict (HEC) has intensified in such regions, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people and elephants each year. Controversy between stakeholders then arises as people debate the merits of HEC mitigation approaches, stifling progress. We conducted a survey to evaluate the opinions of experts, farmers and others who have and have not experienced HEC ( n = 611), on the causes of HEC, the importance of, conservation of and co‐existence with elephants, and on the acceptability and effectiveness of potential HEC mitigation methods. Analysis of variance and the Potential for Conflict Index showed that all groups agreed with nine of the 10 causes of HEC assessed, on average. All respondent groups had mostly positive attitudes towards the importance and conservation of elephants. However, farmers exposed to HEC disagreed that people should co‐exist with elephants and supported the view that elephants should be removed from human habitats. All groups agreed on the acceptability and effectiveness of electric fencing, early warning systems with infrasonic call detectors, Global Positioning System collars and geophones. However, there was disparity in views between the experts and other stakeholder groups on the acceptability and effectiveness of restricting elephants to protected areas, and translocation of problem elephants to protected areas away from their capture site or to wild elephant holding grounds. While similar views between stakeholders on many subjects are encouraging for elephant conservation, the disparities identified should be given greater attention when planning HEC management programs to minimize conflict between stakeholders.

Conservation Science and PracticeVol. 6(11)
University of Peradeniya (LK), University of Ruhuna (LK), The University of Melbourne (AU), University of Southern Queensland (AU), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN), National Institute of Fundamental Studies (LK), Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources (CN), Ecosystem Sciences (AU), University of Colombo (LK), Nelson Mandela University (ZA)
National Research Council Sri Lanka, University of Southern Queensland, National Institute of Fundamental Studies
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
0.92
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.