Search

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.