Perceptions and realities of elephant crop raiding and mitigation methods

• Main Authors: Christian Kiffner, Isabel Schaal, Leah Cass, Kiri Peirce, Olivia Sussman, Ashley Grueser, Ellie Wachtel, Hayley Adams, Krissie Clark, Hannes J. König, John Kioko
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2021-03-01
• Series: Conservation Science and Practice
• Subjects: crop‐raiding; human–elephant conflict; human–wildlife coexistence; human–wildlife interactions; mitigation techniques
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.372

Abstract Crop raiding by African elephants (Loxodonta africana) jeopardizes human livelihoods and undermines conservation efforts. Addressing this issue is particularly important in subsistence farms adjacent to protected areas and requires assessing the perceived and actual scale of the problem and the benefits, limitations and adoption potential of mitigation techniques. To achieve these objectives, we assessed the effectiveness of chili and beehive fences relative to control plots, using a daily farm monitoring protocol implemented on 20 farms bordering the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania). Prior to the field study, we interviewed 65 farmers about human–elephant interactions and contrasted interview findings with those of daily farm monitoring. Farmer perception of crop raiding frequency declined with increasing distance from the protected area and was, on average, eight times greater than daily farm monitoring data indicated. The majority of interviewees expressed a willingness to try chili or beehive fences, though chili fences were preferred. Generalized‐linear‐mixed models indicated that neither elephant farm intrusions nor damages were significantly reduced by either chili or beehive fences relative to the control sites. Losses per month and hectare did not differ significantly by fence type. However, farm plots with chili fences did not experience massive damages which occasionally occurred in beehive or control plots. This partial effectiveness of chili fences was further confirmed by contrasting crop losses from a subset of farms that were subject to a cross‐over experimental design. Our multidimensional case study suggests that chili fences have greater adoption potential than beehive fences. Nevertheless, additional efforts are required to increase effectiveness and to realize adoption potential. By providing insights into the context and circumstances that presented challenges to the effectiveness, sustainability and scalability of beehive and chili fences, this study can serve as reference for areas where crop raiding by elephants is a key conservation conflict.