Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants
Article
Article Title | Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants |
---|---|
ERA Journal ID | 212157 |
Article Category | Article |
Authors | Cabral de Mel, Surendranie J., Seneweera, Saman, Dangolla, Ashoka, Weerakoon, Devaka K., King, Rachel, Maraseni, Tek and Allen, Benjamin L. |
Journal Title | Conservation Science and Practice |
Journal Citation | 6 (11) |
Article Number | e13238 |
Number of Pages | 27 |
Year | 2024 |
Publisher | John Wiley & Sons |
Place of Publication | United States |
ISSN | 2578-4854 |
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13238 |
Web Address (URL) | https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13238 |
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. |
Keywords | Co-existence; conservation; lephas maximus; expert opinion; human–wildlife conflict; public opinion; wildlife management |
Related Output | |
Is part of | Efficacy and welfare of aversive geofencing devices for managing the movements of Asian elephants |
Contains Sensitive Content | Does not contain sensitive content |
ANZSRC Field of Research 2020 | 410407. Wildlife and habitat management |
Public Notes | This article is part of a UniSQ Thesis by publication. See Related Output. |
Byline Affiliations | Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment |
National Institute of Fundamental Studies, Sri Lanka | |
University of Melbourne | |
University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka | |
University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka | |
University of Colombo, Sri Lanka | |
School of Mathematics, Physics and Computing | |
Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment | |
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China | |
Nelson Mandela University, South Africa |
https://research.usq.edu.au/item/z9zw9/attitudes-towards-causes-of-and-solutions-to-conflict-between-humans-and-asian-elephants
Download files
Published Version
Conservat Sci and Prac - 2024 - Cabral de Mel - Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and.pdf | ||
License: CC BY 4.0 | ||
File access level: Anyone |
171
total views24
total downloads1
views this month3
downloads this month