A systematic map of research on the conflict between humans and African savannah elephants

Globally, human population growth and unequal resource use are driving land use change, exacerbating resource competition between wildlife and people. Managing wide-ranging species with large dietary requirements including the African savannah elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) is especially challenging, with conflict over space and resources threatening conservation and human well-being. We systematically mapped peer-reviewed and grey literature to describe the evidence on conflict between people and African savannah elephants, identifying 136 eligible studies from 14,239 potential records. We determined temporal and spatial patterns in research effort, characterised the literature and described the conflict management interventions evaluated. Research effort was geographically uneven, with no studies identified in 13 of 24 range countries. Kenya and Tanzania accounted for 58% of the research, a frequency not explained by proportion of elephant range or elephant population density of either country, suggesting research effort may be influenced by other factors. Most studies focused on impacts of conflict on humans (89%), particularly crop damage (79%). Twenty-one different metrics for measuring conflict were recorded, most common was conflict event frequency (61%). Management interventions were evaluated in 55 studies across nine countries. Technical strategies (89%), including barriers and guarding, were the most commonly evaluated, followed by social strategies (20%) including promoting human behaviour change. The systematic map shows a growing body of human-elephant conflict literature that is uneven in geographic scope and the management interventions evaluated. Priorities for future research include broadening geographical coverage, applying socio-ecological systems frameworks, adopting standardised metrics for measuring conflict, and critically appraising management interventions. • Overview of literature on conflict between humans and the African savannah elephant • Current research is geographically uneven across Africa • Need for a standardised continent-wide human-elephant conflict metric • More research is required on the efficacy of non-technical management interventions • We offer a resource to guide future research and synthesis

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biological Conservation
Published
2026-04-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111853
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

A systematic map of research on the conflict between humans and African savannah elephants

Graeme Shannon, Simon Willcock, Freya A. V. St. John, Penny Downes et al.
Biological Conservation
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
article

A systematic map of research on the conflict between humans and African savannah elephants

Graeme Shannon, Simon Willcock, Freya A. V. St. John, Penny Downes, K.E. Evans
article en

Abstract

Globally, human population growth and unequal resource use are driving land use change, exacerbating resource competition between wildlife and people. Managing wide-ranging species with large dietary requirements including the African savannah elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) is especially challenging, with conflict over space and resources threatening conservation and human well-being. We systematically mapped peer-reviewed and grey literature to describe the evidence on conflict between people and African savannah elephants, identifying 136 eligible studies from 14,239 potential records. We determined temporal and spatial patterns in research effort, characterised the literature and described the conflict management interventions evaluated. Research effort was geographically uneven, with no studies identified in 13 of 24 range countries. Kenya and Tanzania accounted for 58% of the research, a frequency not explained by proportion of elephant range or elephant population density of either country, suggesting research effort may be influenced by other factors. Most studies focused on impacts of conflict on humans (89%), particularly crop damage (79%). Twenty-one different metrics for measuring conflict were recorded, most common was conflict event frequency (61%). Management interventions were evaluated in 55 studies across nine countries. Technical strategies (89%), including barriers and guarding, were the most commonly evaluated, followed by social strategies (20%) including promoting human behaviour change. The systematic map shows a growing body of human-elephant conflict literature that is uneven in geographic scope and the management interventions evaluated. Priorities for future research include broadening geographical coverage, applying socio-ecological systems frameworks, adopting standardised metrics for measuring conflict, and critically appraising management interventions. • Overview of literature on conflict between humans and the African savannah elephant • Current research is geographically uneven across Africa • Need for a standardised continent-wide human-elephant conflict metric • More research is required on the efficacy of non-technical management interventions • We offer a resource to guide future research and synthesis

Biological ConservationVol. 319
Bangor University (GB), Save the Elephants (KE), UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Natural Environment Research Council, European Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
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.