Negative human–wildlife interactions are a growing problem, particularly for people living near protected areas and wildlife refuges. In Kenya, African savannah elephants Loxodonta africana threaten food security for subsistence farmers by crop foraging, which can jeopardize conservation efforts if farmers retaliate against elephants. To inform conservation and management, this study had three objectives: (1) to evaluate stakeholder participatory models of human–elephant conflict; (2) to note any novel or underrepresented variables in the models; and (3) to determine if there were indicators for assessing the success of mitigation programmes using a biocultural approach. We conducted participatory modelling sessions in six villages in rural Kenya using fuzzy cognitive mapping (n = 206 participants). Farmers created group visual models with variables related to conflict with elephants. A total of 14 variables were common across all six villages, with the two highest centrality scores (a measure of importance to overall dynamics) associated with income and feelings of security. Most variables fell into two categories: environmental interactions, and policy and management. Multiple variables such as road infrastructure (drivers) and soil compaction (consequences) were identified as aspects of conflicts that are under-reported or absent in scientific literature, as well as potential socio-cultural indicators. The participatory method used is a tool for gaining more refined insights into interactions with elephants, with implications for other complex conservation issues or wildlife interactions. A more holistic view of the impacts of human–elephant interactions as demonstrated here can lead to sustainable, co-developed programmes that benefit both farmer livelihoods and elephant conservation.

Crop foraging by African savannah elephants Loxodonta africana negatively affects farmer livelihoods and support for conservation, yet affordable, sustainable and practical solutions remain elusive. To inform conservation priorities, our goal was to assess the hitherto little explored relationships between farmers’ views on agricultural damage and the socio-economic factors limiting their use of elephant deterrents. We tested our hypotheses associated with the demographic categories of age, education level, years spent farming, gender, exposure to information on deterrent methods, farm size, village and relevant combinations of these factors by surveying 206 respondents across six villages in rural Kenya and analysing the resulting data using an information theoretic approach. Respondents were almost four times more likely to use deterrents if exposed to the relevant information, and almost five times more likely to do so if they had secondary education as opposed to none. Farmers with a higher level of education were five times more likely to have received information on deterrents compared to those with no formal education. Participants who had not received information on deterrents were almost three times more likely to believe that they could implement deterrent methods. Respondents who stated that they could not implement deterrents overwhelmingly cited a lack of financial resources as the reason. Overall, we found that crucial information on reducing elephant crop foraging is not reaching the relevant stakeholders, and socio-economic factors such as education and exposure to information appear to limit uptake of protective measures. These insights are important for developing mitigation strategies and supporting the livelihoods of people affected by negative human–elephant interactions, and thus for effective elephant conservation. Our findings also have broader applications for practitioners seeking to understand barriers stakeholders face in their efforts to mitigate negative interactions with wildlife.

Elephant ranges in Asia overlap with human-use areas, leading to frequent and often negative two-way interactions, a fraction of which result in human fatalities. Minimizing such negative interactions rests on gaining a mechanistic understanding of their patterns and underlying processes. In Chhattisgarh (India), a rewilding population of 250–300 elephants that have recently expanded their range from neighbouring states through dispersal has been causing annual losses of >60 human lives. Using logistic regression models, we examined the influences of eight plausible predictors of the occurrence of elephant-related human fatality incidents. We found that 70% of incidents occurred in areas with high-intensity habitat use by elephants; the other 30% were in areas of intermediate and sporadic elephant habitat use. The probability of human fatalities was high along the roads connecting settlements and in areas with frequent house break-ins by elephants, and this probability was also affected by the spatial geometry of forest patches. Immediate practical options to minimize fatal interactions include community-based early-warning systems and the use of portable barriers around settlements. Judicious landscape-level land-use planning aimed at maintaining the resilience of remnant intact elephant habitats will be critical to preventing the dispersal of elephants into suboptimal habitats, which can create complex conflict situations.

Many protected areas worldwide have been established to protect the last natural refuges of flagship animal species. However, long-established protected areas do not always match the current distributions of target species under changing environmental conditions. Here we present a case study of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus in Xishuangbanna, south-west China, to evaluate whether the established protected areas match the species’ current distribution and to identify key habitat patches for Asian elephant conservation. Our results show that currently only 24.5% of the predicted Asian elephant distribution in Xishuangbanna is located within Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserve, which was established for elephant conservation. Based on the predicted Asian elephant distribution, we identified the most important habitat patches for elephant conservation in Xishuangbanna. The three most important patches were outside Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserve and together they contained 43.3% of the estimated food resources for Asian elephants in all patches in Xishuangbanna. Thus, we identified a spatial mismatch between immobile protected areas and mobile animals. We recommend the inclusion of the three identified key habitat patches in a new national park currently being planned by the Chinese authorities for the conservation of the Asian elephant.

Human–elephant coexistence remains a major conservation and livelihood challenge across elephant Loxodonta africana range in Africa. This study investigates the extent of elephant crop damage on 66 farms in the Selous–Niassa corridor (Tanzania), to search for potential management solutions to this problem. We found that the relative abundance of highly preferred crops (area covered by preferred crops divided by the total area of each farm) was by far the most important factor determining crop damage by elephants. Eighteen crop types were ranked according to their preference by elephants. Sweet potatoes, bananas, peanuts, onions, pumpkins and maize were the most preferred crops, with maize the most common crop among those highly preferred. On average elephants damaged 25.7% of the cultivated farmland they entered. A beta regression model suggests that a reduction in the cultivation of preferred crops from 75 to 25% of the farmland area decreases elephant crop damage by 64%. Water availability (distance to the nearest waterhole) and the presence of private investors (mostly hunting tourism companies) were of lower importance in determining elephant crop damage. Thus, damage by elephants increased with shorter distances to waterholes and decreased in areas with private investors. However, further studies are required, particularly of the perceived costs and benefits of elephants to local communities. Farm aggregation and the use of non-preferred crops that also require less water would potentially reduce elephant damage but would be a major lifestyle change for some local communities.

Managing interactions between humans and wild elephants is a complex problem that is increasing as a result of agricultural and urban expansion into and alongside protected areas. Mitigating negative interactions requires the development of new tools to reduce competition and promote coexistence. Many studies have tested various mitigation techniques across elephant ranges in Africa and Asia, with varying levels of success. Recently, strobe lights have been suggested as a potential mitigation strategy in deterring African lions Panthera leo from kraals or bomas, but this technique has to date not been tested to reduce negative human–elephant interactions. Over a 2-year period (November 2016–June 2018), we tested the effectiveness of solar-powered strobe light barriers in deterring African elephants Loxodonta africana, in collaboration with 18 farmers in a community adjacent to the Chobe Forest Reserve and Chobe National Park in northern Botswana. Although elephants were more likely to pass by fields with solar-powered strobe light barriers (which was probably a result of selection bias as we focused on fields that had previously been damaged by elephants), they were less likely to enter these treatment fields than control fields without such barriers. Our findings demonstrate the efficacy of light barriers to reduce negative human–elephant interactions in rural communities.

Crop loss to foraging elephants is one of the most significant causes of conflict between people and elephants in areas where wild elephants share resources with people. Effective solutions to reduce the effects of human–elephant conflict on local livelihoods are thus essential to foster coexistence between elephants and people. We assessed the effectiveness of chilli-briquettes (bricks made of dry chilli, elephant dung and water) in altering elephants use of space in the eastern Okavango Panhandle, Botswana. We burned > 600 briquettes during the night over a 2-month period to test five treatments: frequent burning of (1) chilli and (2) chilli-free briquettes, occasional burning of (3) chilli and (4) chilli-free briquettes, and (5) a control treatment. Using camera traps and footprint surveys we assessed the number of elephants that used experimental sites, and the times at which they did so. We found elephants changed their movement behaviour from predominantly nocturnal to diurnal in areas where chilli-briquettes were burned throughout the night; however, there was no difference in the mean numbers of individuals between treatments with and without chillies. In other words, chilli-briquettes had a repellent but not a deterrent effect on elephants, keeping them away only at times when chilli-briquettes were smouldering. Based on these findings we recommend the use of chilli-briquettes as a method to deter elephants in the short term. In the long term, chilli-briquettes should be applied in combination with other larger-scale mitigation approaches, such as land management and cooperative community-based tools.

Protected areas across the range of the African savannah elephant Loxodonta africana are increasingly being surrounded and isolated by agriculture and human settlements. Conflicts between people and crop-raiding elephants regularly lead to direct reprisals and diminish community support for conservation. We report on field trials in northern Tanzania that employed a new, humane way for wildlife managers to move elephants away from conflict zones, from distances of > 100 m, thereby enhancing the safety of wildlife managers, farmers and elephants. We deployed 10 unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) piloted by five trained teams of wildlife managers in the Tarangire–Manyara and Serengeti ecosystems. Game Scouts deployed the drones opportunistically during crop-raiding events at the peak of the maize ripening period in 2015 and 2016. In 100% of trials (n = 51) elephants responded to the presence of a drone by departing rapidly from crop fields (n = 38) and settlements (n = 13). The cost of five teams responsible for 617 km2 in Tarangire–Manyara was estimated to be USD 15,520 for 1 year, and all drones remained operational for the duration of the study. The initial success of this tool warrants further testing of the utility of small unmanned aerial vehicles as part of the toolbox for wildlife managers and communities dealing with high levels of conflict with wildlife.

A ratio-based logistic model developed to assess elephant harvest rates, based on a study at Nagarhole Tiger Reserve in India, was recommended as a management tool to control human–elephant conflict through culling. Considering this reserve among others violates an assumption of the logistic model: isolation. Nevertheless, assuming this violation was irrelevant, we re-evaluated the model, with minor modifications, for the neighbouring Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, where we used data from 13 elephant Elephas maximus population surveys to derive bootstrapped sets of population ratios, and mortality records. We generated arrays of harvest regimes and examined which ratio outputs were closest to the bootstrapped ratios. Our results indicated that (1) model outputs corresponded best with the Mudumalai population structure when harvest regimes were extreme and unlikely, (2) there were significant differences in population structure and harvest regimes between Nagarhole and Mudumalai, and (3) only 49% of adult male deaths predicted by model outputs were recorded in official governmental records. The model provides significantly different results among reserves, which invalidates it as a tool to predict change across the entire elephant population. Variability in survey data and inaccuracies in transition probabilities are sufficiently large to warrant caution when using them as a basis for deterministic modelling. Official mortality databases provide a weak means of validation because poaching incidents are poorly recorded. We conclude that the model should be based on validated transition probabilities and encompass the entire regional population.

Finding ways for people and wildlife to coexist requires affording both parties access to critical resources and space, but also a behavioural change by both to avoid conflict. We investigated pathway use in a population of free-ranging African elephants Loxodonta africana in the Okavango Panhandle, Botswana that share their range with humans in a multi-use, heterogeneous landscape. We used detailed ground surveys to identify and map elephant movement pathways, and mixed-effect models to explore factors influencing elephant numbers and movement behaviour on and around these pathways. We found deviation in pathway use among the elephant population, suggesting behavioural adaptations to avoid human-associated risk: avoiding pathways near settlements, particularly near larger settlements; avoiding pathways close to cultivated land; and adopting a safety-in-numbers strategy when moving through areas of human use. Our findings suggest there is opportunity to capitalize on risk avoidance by elephant populations, to minimize resource-use overlap and reduce conflict between humans and elephants. We discuss a strategy that involves ensuring appropriate protection of elephant pathways in land-use planning, using development-free buffer zones, combined with mitigation techniques along the interface with agricultural lands to increase risk levels and reinforce human–elephant interface boundaries. We recommend further examination of the use of landscape-level mitigation techniques that encourage elephants to use pathways away from human activity and help define spatial boundaries for management of human–elephant conflict in multi-use landscapes.

Human–elephant conflict is one of the main threats to the long-term survival of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus. We studied the nature and extent of human–elephant interactions in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Nepal, through household questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews, site observations, and analysis of the reported cases of damage during January 2008–December 2012. During this 5-year period 290 incidents of damage by elephants were reported, with a high concentration of incidents in a few locations. Property damage (53%) was the most common type of damage reported. Crop damage was reported less often but household surveys revealed it to be the most frequent form of conflict. There were also human casualties, including 21 deaths and four serious injuries. More than 90% of the human casualties occurred during 2010–2012. More than two thirds of the respondents (70%) perceived that human–elephant conflict had increased substantially during the previous 5 years. Despite the increase in incidents of human–elephant conflict in the area, 37% of respondents had positive attitudes towards elephant conservation. Our findings suggest that public awareness and compensation for losses could reduce conflict and contribute to ensuring coexistence of people and elephants in this human-dominated landscape.

We attempted to deter crop-raiding elephants Elephas maximus by using playbacks of threatening vocalizations such as felid growls and human shouts. For this purpose, we tested two sound-playback systems in southern India: a wireless, active infrared beam-triggered system to explore the effects of night-time uncertainty in elephants' assessment of predatory threats, and a passive infrared motion detector-triggered system for closer-range playbacks. Using the first system, we deterred 90% of crop-raiding attempts using tiger Panthera tigris growls, 72.7% using leopard Panthera pardus growls, and 57.1% using human shouts, with no statistically significant difference among the three sounds. Using the second system, playbacks of tiger and lion Panthera leo growls deterred 100 and 83.3% of crop-raiding attempts, respectively, with no statistically reliable difference between the two, although video evidence indicated that elephants were more fearful of tiger growls. Our results indicate that playbacks of threatening sounds can be effective in mitigating human–elephant conflict, particularly in bolstering existing deterrent methods.

Elephants are threatened globally by habitat loss, poaching and accelerating levels of human–elephant conflict. In the state of Odisha, east India, electrocution by domestic electric power lines is causing mortality of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus. We collated data on elephant mortality from such electrocution in the villages surrounding elephant habitat for a period of 12 years (2001–2012). During this period 118 elephants were killed in 91 incidences. Most deaths (73.68%) were a result of accidental contact with electric power lines whilst elephants were moving into agricultural areas for crop raiding. The increasing human population, poor electrical infrastructure and ivory poaching pose serious threats to the continued survival of these elephants. To reduce elephant mortality from electrocution and to ensure the long-term survival of this population of elephants we recommend strengthening of the electrical infrastructure, minimizing habitat destruction, increasing public awareness of the problem, and stronger law enforcement.

Short-range elephant Loxodonta africana movements were examined in a heterogeneous landscape mosaic of settlements, crop fields and remnant forest in the Caprivi Strip, Namibia. We explored the penetration of the landscape through the use of permanent pathways and determined the impact of pathway use on crop-raiding location. Pathways were linear, devoid of vegetation and maintained by repeated movement. Functional connectivity of pathways was not species-specific, and pathways were used by various species. Elephants travelled in single file at night and we recorded selective pathway use: females selected pathways away from settlements to access water, whereas males used pathways among settlements to launch crop raids. Proximity of raided fields to the nearest pathway was the only significant spatial variable explaining crop-raiding location. Bulls were responsible for all crop-raiding incidents. We conclude that (1) pathways were the most significant spatial variable influencing which fields were raided, (2) crop-raiding from pathways may maximize foraging efficiency by reducing time spent and distance travelled while foraging, (3) pathways may facilitate penetration of the matrix by connecting predictable resources (crops) with preferred shelter areas, crossing points at roads and preferred drinking spots, and (4) access to the Kwandu River is restricted by settlements, predictably resulting in human–elephant conflict. By highlighting the relevance of pathways for movement of elephants we show that an understanding of the use of pathways is important for land-use planning in conservation landscapes, specifically with regard to human–elephant conflict. We also argue for the need to more fully explore pathway occurrence and use at larger spatial scales.

Large-scale forest encroachment in Assam, India, has led to increasing levels of human–elephant conflict. Conflict mitigation is a priority for the survival of Asian elephants Elephas maximus throughout Asia. We analysed a 3-year dataset of elephant occurrence and related instances of human–elephant conflict, from two sites in Assam, and explored the relationships between the various effects of elephants on human communities and factors influencing the spatial and temporal occurrence of these effects (proximity to water, refuge areas and villages, and human and crop density). The landscapes at both study sites have been transformed by forest loss, with large areas converted to agriculture. Remaining forest patches, which are mostly small, disconnected and degraded, as well as tea plantations, provide refuge areas for elephants as they move through the region. We found that crop depredation and property damage caused by elephants showed well-defined seasonal trends. They also showed a clear diurnal pattern, mostly occurring between 18.00 and 22.00. Small communities within 700 m of a refuge were most affected. In the management of human–elephant conflict in Assam we need to consider the refuge patches used by elephants as they move through the region, the peripheries of which are likely to be conflict hotspots. Small villages on the edges of refuges should be a priority for conflict mitigation assistance, with strategies taking into account seasonal and diurnal variation in elephant behaviour, as well as the socio-economic and cultural composition of communities.

Human–elephant conflict is a significant problem in Africa, undermining biodiversity conservation and development efforts. Early warning of crop raiding and a coordinated response from landholders and wildlife authorities are important for effective management of this conflict. Mobile phones have spread rapidly in rural Africa and could potentially be used to improve communication and increase the effectiveness of responses to crop raids by elephants. We analyse changes in patterns of communication around human–elephant conflict incidents before and after the arrival of mobile phone technology in Laikipia County in north-central Kenya, and the performance of mobile phone communication in a trial at three sites. We show that mobile phones can improve communication and reduce human–elephant conflict where there is good mobile coverage and widespread adoption. Conservation projects have much to gain from engaging with mobile phone technology.

Human–elephant conflict in India, driven by habitat loss and an expanding human population, is a complex challenge for biodiversity conservation. Determining if, how and why this conflict has changed over time will be an important step towards managing landscapes where people and elephants Elephas maximus coexist. This study combines social surveys and remote sensing data to analyse patterns in human–elephant conflict and land-use change over time. The reported experience of conflict increased dramatically in the early 1980s, with 85% of those surveyed indicating that conflict began after 1980. The expansion of conflict showed a significant southward trend and was associated with forest cover dropping below 30–40%. Based on our results we propose that a critical habitat threshold for human–elephant conflict may exist at 30–40% forest cover. Below this level, conflict expanded across the landscape. The existence of such a deforestation threshold may have important implications for landscape management in elephant range states that seek to avoid or mitigate further conflict. Maintenance of remaining forest areas, reforestation, and the creation of habitat corridors are strategies that could help prevent further expansion of conflict.

Elephants are threatened globally by habitat loss, poaching and accelerating levels of human–elephant conflict. For Elephas maximus in Cambodia, crop raiding underlies this conflict. Understanding the timing of raids and selection of crops can help design locally appropriate mitigation and management strategies. This study, using a 4-year database of events, investigated the most frequently raided crops and patterns of raids, over time and seasons and by location. Damage frequency varied significantly by crop, with rice, banana, cassava, sugar cane and papaya most frequently raided. Considering raid events per unit crop area, banana, sugar cane and pineapple were raided more than would be expected based on their availability. There were differences in both crop-raiding events and crop-damage frequencies over study years and there was a peak raiding season in October–December. Nationally, significant differences were found among provinces but not between years. Rates of damage decreased after mitigation strategies such as observation towers, deterrents and fences were implemented. We suggest further mechanisms to improve human–elephant conflict monitoring in relation to crop choice and availability.

Despite its small size and high human population Sri Lanka is home to c. 4,400 wild Asian elephants Elephas maximus. Human–elephant conflict around agriculture is severe, with > 100 elephants and c. 50 people killed annually. Elephants appear to be able to time their raiding of paddy-fields in Sri Lanka with the harvesting of the rice, as if they are responding to an olfactory trigger. It is the elephant’s sophisticated chemosensory system that may hold the key to resolving human–elephant conflict. Research is required to determine the odours associated with the various development stages of rice, using gas chromatography, and to find a suitable substance that could be used to mask the specific odour of ripening rice. The use of chemosensory-based methods, if feasible, will not be a universal panacea for the mitigation of human–elephant conflict but, in combination with other methods, could reduce conflict and make it easier for farmers to harvest their crops in safety. Such a combination of methods could be useful across the range of both Asian and African elephants.