Community preferences in integrating adaptive capacity for human-elephant conflict management

Strengthening adaptive capacity (AC) has increasingly been recognized as a key approach for managing human–wildlife conflict (HWC) and promoting long-term coexistence between humans and wildlife. This study integrates the Community Capitals Framework (CCF), AC theory, and the Social–Ecological–Infrastructural Systems (SEIS) perspective to investigate community preferences for adaptive human–elephant conflict (HEC) management in the Dong Nai Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam. A choice experiment was employed to evaluate preferences for management interventions related to assets, flexibility, cooperation, learning, and agency and to estimate residents' willingness to contribute labor toward implementation. The results indicate strong overall support for adaptive HEC management, although substantial heterogeneity exists among respondents. Preferred interventions included improved compensation mechanisms, livelihood diversification, early-warning systems based on elephant ecology and movement patterns, strengthened stakeholder cooperation, co-management arrangements, and enhanced conflict-prevention infrastructure. Latent-class analysis identified two community segments with different levels of HEC vulnerability. Households more vulnerable to elephant-related risks exhibited significantly stronger support for adaptive management interventions than their less vulnerable counterparts. Three management scenarios were evaluated, with the Adaptive HEC Management scenario generating the highest welfare benefits. The convergence between attribute-level preferences and scenario outcomes suggests that communities favor integrated adaptation packages over isolated mitigation measures. The findings highlight the importance of combining livelihood support, participatory governance, learning-based interventions, and conflict-prevention infrastructure to strengthen AC and promote long-term human–elephant coexistence. The study demonstrates how community resources, adaptive processes, and social–ecological–infrastructural interactions jointly shape community support for coexistence-oriented conservation strategies.