An experimental test of community‐based strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict around protected areas

Paola S Branco,Lucy King,Jerod A Merkle,Ryan A Long,Robert M Pringle,Marc Stalmans,Tosca Tindall

doi:10.1111/conl.12679

Abstract

AbstractNatural habitats are rapidly being converted to cultivated croplands, and crop‐raiding by wildlife threatens both wildlife conservation and human livelihoods worldwide. We combined movement data from GPS‐collared elephants with camera‐trap data and local reporting systems in a before–after‐control‐impact design to evaluate community‐based strategies for reducing crop raiding outside Mozambique's Gorongosa National Park. All types of experimental fences tested (beehive, chili, beehive and chili combined, and procedural controls) significantly reduced the number of times elephants left the Park to raid crops. However, placing beehive fences at a subset of key crossing locations reduced the odds that elephants would leave the Park by up to 95% relative to unfenced crossings, and was the most effective strategy. Beehive fences also created opportunities for income generation via honey production. Our results provide experimental evidence that working with local communities to modify both animal behavior and human attitudes can mitigate conflict at the human–wildlife interface.

Highlights

The availability of high-quality forage in cultivated croplands attracts wildlife (e.g., Middleton et al, 2017), and crop raiding causes billions of dollars in economic losses every year (Conover, 2002)
Crop raiding by elephants (Loxodonta africana, Elephas maximus) poses an especially severe threat to human livelihoods in agroecosystems of Africa and Asia (Chiyo, Cochrane, Naughton, & Basuta, 2005; O’Connell-Rodwell, Rodwell, Rice, & Hart, 2000; Shaffer, Khadka, Van Den Hoek, & Naithani, 2019) and often occurs along the boundaries of protected areas, where close proximity of dense human and wildlife populations exacerbates human–wildlife conflict (Bruner, Gullison, Rice, & da Fonseca, 2001; Wittemyer, Elsen, Bean, Burton, & Brashares, 2008)
Mean (±95% CI) predicted number of crossings per fenced crossing location was lowest at locations with beehive fences (x = 2.99 ± 2.01 fewer crossings), followed by spicy beehive fences (x = 1.90 ± 1.21 fewer crossings), proceduralcontrol fences (x = 1.67 ± 0.98 fewer crossings), and chili fences (x = 1.61 ± 1.07 fewer crossings; Figure 4; Table S5a, Appendix S5), none of the differences among fence types were statistically significant after controlling for multiple comparisons

Summary

Introduction

The availability of high-quality forage in cultivated croplands attracts wildlife (e.g., Middleton et al, 2017), and crop raiding causes billions of dollars in economic losses every year (Conover, 2002). Crop raiding by elephants (Loxodonta africana, Elephas maximus) poses an especially severe threat to human livelihoods in agroecosystems of Africa and Asia (Chiyo, Cochrane, Naughton, & Basuta, 2005; O’Connell-Rodwell, Rodwell, Rice, & Hart, 2000; Shaffer, Khadka, Van Den Hoek, & Naithani, 2019) and often occurs along the boundaries of protected areas, where close proximity of dense human and wildlife populations exacerbates human–wildlife conflict (Bruner, Gullison, Rice, & da Fonseca, 2001; Wittemyer, Elsen, Bean, Burton, & Brashares, 2008) Working closely with communities that are experiencing conflict to foster relationships and establish rapport, and equipping them to participate directly in the mitigation process, may be an effective means of fostering human– wildlife coexistence through a combination of decreased crop losses and increased tolerance of elephants among community members (Madden, 2004; Shaffer et al, 2019)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion