Ci a ion: Mon e o Bo ey, M.; Soliño,
M.; Pe ea, R.; Ma ínez-Jau egui, M.
Le Us Gi e Voice o Local Fa me s:
P e e ences o Fa m-Based S a egies
o Enhance Human–Elephan
Coexis ence in A ica. Animals 2022,
12, 1867. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/
ani12141867
Academic Edi o s: B uce Alexande
Schul e and Chase LaDue
Recei ed: 28 June 2022
Accep ed: 19 July 2022
Published: 21 July 2022
Publishe ’s No e: MDPI s ays neu al
wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in
published maps and ins i u ional a il-
ia ions.
Copy igh : © 2022 by he au ho s.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/
4.0/).
animals
A icle
Le Us Gi e Voice o Local Fa me s: P e e ences o Fa m-Based
S a egies o Enhance Human–Elephan Coexis ence in A ica
Ma ía Mon e o Bo ey 1,* , Ma io Soliño 2,3 , Ramón Pe ea 1and Ma ía Ma ínez-Jau egui 4,5
1Depa amen o de Sis emas y Recu sos Na u ales, Uni e sidad Poli écnica de Mad id, A da. Mo e as s/n E,
28040 Mad id, Spain; [email p o ec ed]
2Ins i u e o Ma ine Resea ch—CSIC, C/ Edua do Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo, Spain; [email p o ec ed]
3Complu ense Ins i u e o In e na ional S udies (ICEI), Finca Mas Fe é, Edi . A. Campus de Somosaguas,
28223 Pozuelo de Ala cón, Spain
4Fo es Resea ch Cen e (INIA-CSIC), C a. de La Co uña km. 7.5, 28040 Mad id, Spain;
[email p o ec ed]
5Sus ainable Fo es Managemen Resea ch Ins i u e, Uni e si y o Valladolid and INIA, A da. de Mad id 57,
34004 Palencia, Spain
*Co espondence: ma ia.mon e [email p o ec ed]; Tel.: +34-910671701
Simple Summa y:
Local communi ies li ing on he edge o p o ec ed a eas o en expe ience nega-
i e impac s on hei li elihoods due o wildli e. These si ua ions h ea en suppo o long- e m
conse a ion o wildli e and wild habi a s so a key o conse a ion sus ainabili y should be based on
implemen ing socially accep ed and economically sus ainable mi iga ion p ac ices. Fo success ul
design and implemen a ion o mi iga ion s a egies, i is i al o engage local communi ies and
unde s and hei p e e ences and p e ious expe iences. In his s udy, we p esen a choice expe imen
as a ool o analyze local a me p e e ences o he mos common a m-based solu ions o educe
A ican elephan c op damage. Resul s show ha he e a e signi ican di e ences among esponses
igge ed by a me s’ p e ious expe ience wi h elephan s and socioeconomic si ua ion, wi h a ma ked
spa ial dis ibu ion among esponden s. This me hodology, based on a choice modeling app oach
conside ing he di e en ial a ailabili y o esou ces and p e ious expe ience wi h elephan s o o he
wildli e, is highly applicable, wi h small changes in o he a eas whe e wildli e compe es wi h local
communi ies o esou ces. This app oach also ep esen s a sui able ins umen o iden i ying
s akeholde s’ p e e ences in each speci ic con ex .
Abs ac :
Local communi ies su ounding wildli e co ido s and na u al ese es o en ace chal-
lenges ela ed o human–wildli e coexis ence. To mi iga e he challenges and ensu e he long- e m
conse a ion o wildli e, i is impo an o engage local communi ies in he design o conse a ion
s a egies. By conduc ing 480 ace- o- ace in e iews in 30 illages along and adjacen o he Selous-
Niassa Wildli e Co ido (Tanzania), we quan i ied a me s’ p e e ences o a m-based measu es o
mi iga e A ican elephan damage using choice expe imen s. Resul s show ha a me s conside ed
no ac ion he leas p e e ed op ion, e ealing ha hey a e open o ying di e en measu es. The
mos p e e ed managemen s a egy ma ched wi h he p e e ences o wildli e ange s in he a ea,
sugges ing low conce n abou he po en ial con lic s be ween s akeholde s. Howe e , a la en class
model sugges s ha he e a e signi ican di e ences among esponses igge ed by a me s’ p e ious
expe ience wi h elephan s, he in ensi y o he elephan damage, and he socioeconomic si ua ion o
he a me . Resul s show a ma ked spa ial dis ibu ion among esponden s, highligh ing he bene i s
o zone managemen as con lic s we e ound o be highly con ex dependen . Unde s anding he
human dimension o conse a ion is essen ial o he success ul plani ica ion and implemen a ion o
conse a ion s a egies. The e o e, he de elopmen and b oad u iliza ion o me hodologies o ga he
speci ic con ex in o ma ion should be encou aged.
Keywo ds:
mi iga ion measu es; choice expe imen ; human–wildli e con lic ; Loxodon a a icana;
willingness o pay; beehi es; chili-oil ences
Animals 2022,12, 1867. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ani12141867 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/animals
Animals 2022,12, 1867 2 o 18
1. In oduc ion
Coexis ence be ween people and wildli e has been long ecognized as a global conse -
a ion challenge [
1
,
2
]. In some cases, coexis ence wi h la ge-sized wildli e implies impac s
on he sa e y o li elihood o local people. As a esul , socio-economic con lic s may a ise,
con on ing local communi ies nega i ely a ec ed by he p esence o ce ain species and
hose who wan o p omo e o p o ec hose species [
3
]. Al hough people and wildli e ha e
co-exis ed o millennia, wildli e- ela ed con lic s ha e become mo e in ense and equen
in ecen yea s due o habi a loss and deg ada ion, mainly caused by he expansion and
in ensi ica ion o human ac i i ies [
4
,
5
]. A ica is a pa adigma ic example o inc eased
con lic s ela ed o wildli e due o he cha isma ic and h ea ened species in ol ed, he
ecen g ow h o i s human popula ion [
6
], and he s ong economic ulne abili y o u al
a eas [7].
Compensa ion policies, whe e he go e nmen o conse a ionis s pay o he dam-
ages occu ed due o wildli e, may seem a good s a egy o add ess human–wildli e
con lic s [
8
–
10
]. Howe e , he conse a ion o wildli e in A ica is gene ally encou aged by
go e nmen s o o ganiza ions ha a e hea ily dependen on ou side sou ces o unding.
Compensa ion policies a e no ad ised in a eas wi h limi ed unds o de icien adminis-
a i e con ols due o possible audulen claims and damage o he mo i a ion o local
communi ies o p o ec hei p ope ies om wildli e damage [11,12].
P e ious esea ch has shown ha managemen ools o p omo e human–wildli e coex-
is ence should conside no only he esea ch on echnical solu ions bu he de elopmen o
sha ed solu ions, whe e con lic ing pa ies a e engaged and coope a e [
13
]. This highligh s
he impo ance o co-managemen in add essing human con lic s wi h wildli e in A ica,
whe e engagemen o local communi ies is necessa y o he implemen a ion o success ul
and economically sus ainable mi iga ion s a egies in he long e m [14,15].
Empowe ing a me s o implemen simple a m-based bu cos -e ec i e measu es [
16
]
could be a pa icula ly success ul al e na i e o mi iga e con lic s in A ican wildli e co i-
do s. In hese a eas, conse a ion p og ams a e necessa y o he main enance o wildli e
me a-popula ion p ocesses [
17
] and connec i i y [
18
]; howe e , wildli e sha es land and
esou ces wi h u al communi ies, igge ing impo an social cos s [
19
]. Al hough go e n-
men and p i a e inancial suppo is equen ly sca ce, i is al eady known ha a ec ed
a me s a e mo e willing o accep changes hey ha e chosen hemsel es [
20
,
21
]. Simila ly,
he con ex and expe iences a me s ha e accumula ed du ing hei li es ha e been iden i-
ied as key ac o s o engaging a me s in mi iga ion p ac ices in Asia [
22
,
23
]. The e o e,
he inco po a ion o a me s’ p e e ences o di e en a m-based measu es and hei e-
la ionship wi h a me s’ p e ious expe iences is u gen ly needed o he success ul and
con ex -dependen design o wildli e conse a ion p og ams.
In his s udy, we used ools om en i onmen al economics o add ess p e e ences among
a me s in he Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido (Tanzania) ela ed o: (i) he speci ic a m-
based measu es hey conside e ec i e in p e en ing A ican elephan (
Loxodon a a icana
Blumenbach 1797) damage and hei willingness o apply hem, (ii) he impo ance o e-
cei ing echnical ad ice (conduc ed by NGOs o he Go e nmen ) in he implemen a ion o
he measu es, and (iii) he desi able le el o coope a ion in hei communi y o his imple-
men a ion (which was p o en o be a key ac o in he success o ailu e o human–elephan
con lic mi iga ion p og ams in o he a eas, e.g., [
16
]). To a oid alse expec a ions being
aised in he local communi ies, all p oposed s a egies a e suppo ed by science, ela i ely
inexpensi e, and applicable by he a me s on hei own. In addi ion, wildli e ange s we e
in o med abou hese s a egies and hei p e e ences we e p e iously analyzed [
24
], which
will allow us o shed some ligh on he po en ial con lic s be ween ange s and a me s
when choosing, planning, and implemen ing he p oposed mi iga ion measu es. Con lic s
be ween ange s and a me s ega ding he implemen a ion o mi iga ion measu es in-
luence he success o he measu es as wildli e ange s hold a key ole in he communi y
awa eness and p o ec ion o people’s li elihoods om wildli e [
25
,
26
]. These con lic s can
also unde mine us and coope a ion be ween he pa ies, in luencing he implemen a ion
Animals 2022,12, 1867 3 o 18
and success o o he conse a ion ac i i ies [
27
], as ange s a e, in many cases, he mos
isible ac o s in conse a ion o local communi ies [28].
Finally, and o a be e unde s anding o he local communi ies’ p e e ences, including
an analysis o he he e ogeneous p e e ences among esponden s [
29
] and i s possible
causes, we explo ed whe he he e a e di e ences among esponses igge ed by a me s’
pe sonal p e ious expe ience wi h elephan s, ei he on hei own a ms o h ough amily,
iends’, o neighbo s’ expe iences (con agious e ec o isk pe cep ion, [
30
]). Mo eo e ,
we also explo ed whe he he ac ual socioeconomic si ua ion o he esponden s (measu ed
by he sel - epo ed ood insecu i y le el) in luences hei p e e ences o he p oposed
measu es. This explo a ion is impo an o iden i y ac o s ha can in luence p e e ences in
o he con ex s.
2. Ma e ials and Me hods
2.1. Fa ming and Elephan Conse a ion in he Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido
The Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido (Figu e 1) is pa o he wo ld’s la ges Miombo
woodland ecosys ems (Selous-Niassa ecosys em) and links Julius Nye e e Na ional Pa k
(es ablished in No embe 2019 bu p e iously known as Selous Game Rese e) in Tanzania
wi h Niassa Na ional Rese e in Mozambique. The co ido lies wi hin he Tundu u and
Nam umbo dis ic s in Ru uma Region (sou he n Tanzania), co e s adi ional elephan
mo emen ou es [
31
], and ha bo s a popula ion o 602
±
258 elephan s [
32
]. I is loca ed
en i ely on he land owned by 30 illages. Local people mos ly base hei economy on
subsis ence a ming, al hough his is mo e p onounced in he no h pa o he co ido .
The s aple c ops g own a e maize, ice, and cassa a while common cash c ops a e obacco,
sun lowe , cashew nu , sesame, e c. [33,34].
Fo local communi ies all a ound A ica, cohabi a ion wi h elephan s commonly
implies c op losses, damages o in as uc u es and wa e supplies, and, in ew cases,
inju ies o human dea hs due o elephan s cha ging a humans [
35
–
40
]. These si ua ions
dis up he psychological and physical wellbeing o local communi ies [
41
–
43
] and in ol e
many challenges o elephan conse a ion [
44
,
45
], ueling bo h legal and illegal e alia ion
killings o elephan s [
39
,
46
,
47
] and h ea ening he main enance o p o ec ed a eas in he
long e m due o inc eased esis ance o conse a ion [
39
,
48
]. In addi ion, damages ha e
inc eased in he las cen u y due o he apid g ow h o he human popula ion and he
coloniza ion o na u al a eas o i s con e sion in o ag icul u e land [
49
,
50
], sp eading all
o e he A ican elephan ange [51,52].
The cu en dec ease in he elephan popula ions in he Selous-Niassa ecosys em [
53
]
and he ise in impac s on humans li es due o equen human–elephan in e ac ion [
54
]
make he a ea a unique place o add ess la ge-scale human–elephan coexis ence challenges
and es ablish sus ainable local ini ia i es o he mi iga ion o con lic s ela ed o a ming
and wildli e conse a ion. Addi ionally, Tanzania is an example whe e he go e nmen
and local communi ies a e willing o engage in mi iga ing hese ypes o challenges. This is
p o ed by he “Na ional Human-Wildli e Con lic Managemen S a egy 2020–2024” [
54
]
and he ac ha ange s commonly wo k on chasing away elephan s om a ms and
a e also in ol ed in ci izen science [
24
]. In addi ion, some a me s a e al eady applying
some a m-based mi iga ion measu es, such as chili ences, encou aged and suppo ed
in he co ido by PAMS (P o ec ed A eas Managemen Solu ion) Founda ion and WWF
(Wo ld Wild Fund o Na u e). Howe e , in he Selous-Niassa Wildli e co ido , he mos
common elephan mi iga ion measu es applied by a me s a e gua ding he c ops a nigh
and making noises o chase hem away (d umming, clapping, shou ing, e c.), which a e
adi ional me hods ha hey ha e b oad knowledge o and do no ep esen an added cos
o hei al eady ulne able and limi ed amilia economy.
Animals 2022,12, 1867 4 o 18
Animals 2022, 12, 1867 4 o 18
Figu e 1. Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido map and loca ion o illages whe e in e iews we e con-
duc ed.
2.2. Da a Collec ion
Da a was collec ed by conduc ing 480 ace- o- ace in e iews in 30 illages along and
adjacen o he Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido (Figu e 1). The sampling uni was he
household. Households we e chosen andomly, and in e iews we e es ic ed o one e-
sponden (abo e 18 yea s old) pe household. In each illage, 16 locals we e in e iewed,
8 men and 8 women, in equal p opo ions be ween people in e iewed in he illage cen-
e and in u he a ms inside he illage land. All in e iews we e conduc ed be ween
June and Sep embe 2019 in Swahili by i e p e iously ained Tanzanians om he a ea.
The su ey was p e- es ed in Ap il 2019 on 25 a me s om 3 illages wi h di e en in-
ensi ies o elephan damage o ensu e cla i y be o e use and imp o e he design o he
inal s udy. The ques ionnai e (Supplemen a y File A) was designed o ga he ou ca e-
go ies o in o ma ion: (1) pe sonal da a (gende , occupa ions, ood sho age in hei house-
hold, e c.), (2) p e ious expe ience wi h elephan s and elephan c op damage, (3) pe cep-
ion o he e ec i i y o a m-based elephan mi iga ion measu es using Like scales
( om 1 o 4, whe e 1 ep esen ed s ongly disag ee, 2 disag ee, 3 ag ee, and 4 s ongly
ag ee; don’ know was always a ailable o he esponden ), and (4) p e e ences o mi i-
ga ion ools and hei implemen a ion using a disc e e choice expe imen [55].
Figu e 1.
Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido map and loca ion o illages whe e in e iews we e conduc ed.
2.2. Da a Collec ion
Da a was collec ed by conduc ing 480 ace- o- ace in e iews in 30 illages along and
adjacen o he Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido (Figu e 1). The sampling uni was he
household. Households we e chosen andomly, and in e iews we e es ic ed o one
esponden (abo e 18 yea s old) pe household. In each illage, 16 locals we e in e iewed,
8 men and 8 women, in equal p opo ions be ween people in e iewed in he illage cen e
and in u he a ms inside he illage land. All in e iews we e conduc ed be ween June
and Sep embe 2019 in Swahili by i e p e iously ained Tanzanians om he a ea. The
su ey was p e- es ed in Ap il 2019 on 25 a me s om 3 illages wi h di e en in ensi-
ies o elephan damage o ensu e cla i y be o e use and imp o e he design o he inal
s udy. The ques ionnai e (Supplemen a y File A) was designed o ga he ou ca ego ies
o in o ma ion: (1) pe sonal da a (gende , occupa ions, ood sho age in hei household,
e c.), (2) p e ious expe ience wi h elephan s and elephan c op damage, (3) pe cep ion o
he e ec i i y o a m-based elephan mi iga ion measu es using Like scales ( om 1 o
4, whe e 1 ep esen ed s ongly disag ee, 2 disag ee, 3 ag ee, and 4 s ongly ag ee; don’
know was always a ailable o he esponden ), and (4) p e e ences o mi iga ion ools
and hei implemen a ion using a disc e e choice expe imen [55].
Animals 2022,12, 1867 5 o 18
2.3. Choice Modeling
To analyze he local communi ies’ p e e ences ega ding a m-based managemen
p og ams, we designed a disc e e choice expe imen (DCE) composed o ou a ibu es.
The DCE is a s a ed p e e ences me hod ha in ol es p esen ing esponden s wi h a ious
choice ca ds comp ising wo o mo e al e na i es (ac ions, p og ams, scena ios, e c.) ha
a e desc ibed by a se o a ibu es and di e en le els. This me hod is commonly used o
ob ain compa able measu es o p e e ences ac oss ac o s and a ibu es [56,57].
The a ibu es we e equal o hose employed in he ange s’ p e e ence explo a ion
in he same s udy a ea [
24
]. They a e: (1) speci ic a m-based measu es ha a me s can
apply o educe elephan damage o humans and human means, which include six di e en
scien i ically p o en e ec i e s a egies: (a) chili-oil ences [
58
–
60
]; (b) noisemake s [
61
,
62
];
(c) beehi e ences [
63
]; (d) su eillance [
61
,
64
]; (e) c op selec ion [
34
,
65
–
67
]; and ( ) c op
eloca ion [68]; (2) he le el o coope a ion in he implemen a ion o di e en ools, which
has been de ined as an impo an key o he success o mi iga ion measu es [
16
], de ined
in a quali a i e manne : (a) indi idual, (b) small g oups o neighbo s (2–3 households, as
ep esen ed in Figu e 2), and (c) la ge g oups (>10 households, as illus a ed in Figu e 2) and
communi y le els) [
69
,
70
]; (3) he in ol emen o echnical suppo gi en by NGOs o he
go e nmen in he p ocess [
71
] conside ing (a) yes, i is p esen , and (b) no, i is no , which
p o ides impo an in o ma ion abou how much a me s us hose ins i u ions; and (4) a
mone a y a ibu e o es ima e he willingness o pay pe household and commonly used o
quan i y p e e ences. In his case, we also conside ed he mone a y cos ha a me s should
assume when implemen ing he elephan c op damage mi iga ion p og am, which was no
conside ed in he ange s’ s udy pe o med by Mon e o-Bo ey e al. [
24
]. The mone a y
a ibu e had ou le els om 10,000 TZS (~5$) o 40,000 TZS (~20$) and ep esen ed he
mone a y cos pe yea o a a me o apply he measu e selec ed in one ac e. The le els o
cos we e es ablished a e a discussion in a ocus g oup wi h membe s o he communi y
o de e mine he ange o cos ha a me s would be willing o in es and could a o d as
he majo i y a e subsis ence a me s. I was also es ed in he pilo ques ionnai e. A mo e
ex ensi e desc ip ion o he i s wo a ibu es is a ailable in Figu e 2.
Based on he esul s ob ained by he pilo s udy o 25 a me s in he s udy a ea, a
D-e iciency c i e ion o gene a e e icien designs was conside ed o iden i y he lowe
D-e o ha minimizes he a iances and co a iances o he pa ame e es ima es [
72
]. We
used he Ngene
®
1.2. so wa e [
73
] o ou expe imen al design and 48 choice ca ds we e
gene a ed. In o de o make a easible choice ask, and no o e whelm he esponden s wi h
oo many choices, a blocking s a egy was conside ed, and wel e choice ca ds we e shown
o each indi idual. Each choice ca d comp ised ou al e na i e p og ams and an op -ou
op ion ha ep esen ed a no-in e en ion al e na i e o a oid o cing ac i i y choices [
74
]
(Figu e 3).
The inal da a o a me s’ choice was analyzed in wo s eps. Fi s , o compa i-
son wi h he wildli e ange s’ p e e ences epo ed in Mon e o-Bo ey e al. [
24
], we es-
ima ed a andom pa ame e s logi model using he Nlogi
®
e sion 6 so wa e. We
assumed ha all he a ibu es a e andom pa ame e s ha a e no mally dis ibu ed and
he willingness o pay (WTP) o each a ibu e le el was es ima ed (see he o mula ion in
Supplemen a y File B).
Secondly, we es ima ed a la en class model (LCM) wi h andom pa ame e s [
75
,
76
] using
he La en GOLD
®
e sion 5.1 so wa e [
77
] (see he o mula ion in
Supplemen a y File B
).
This modeling app oach is use ul o he in-dep h analysis o he e ogeneous p e e ences
among esponden s [
29
], possibly associa ed wi h p e ious expe ience wi h elephan s [
78
]
and he possible social con agion o isk pe cep ion [
79
]. Fo his pu pose, we c ea ed an
a i icial a iable classi ying he a me s di ec ly a ec ed by elephan c op damage; a me s
no di ec ly a ec ed by elephan c op damage bu whose amily, iends, o neighbo s
ha e been a ec ed; and a me s no a ec ed wi hou ela i es o neighbo s a ec ed by
c op damage. Based on he esul s om he la en class model, we ca ied ou a pos -hoc
desc ip i e analysis o show he spa ial dis ibu ion o he classes as zoning managemen
Animals 2022,12, 1867 6 o 18
could imp o e he achie emen o conse a ion goals [
80
]. We also explo ed he ela ionship
o hose classes wi h ood sho age and elephan p esence as indica o s o ulne abili y [
30
].
Animals 2022, 12, 1867 6 o 18
a pos -hoc desc ip i e analysis o show he spa ial dis ibu ion o he classes as zoning
managemen could imp o e he achie emen o conse a ion goals [80]. We also explo ed
he ela ionship o hose classes wi h ood sho age and elephan p esence as indica o s o
ulne abili y [30].
Figu e 2. Examples o explana o y ca ds showed o he in e iewees o de ine he speci ic a m-
based measu es ha a me s can apply o educe elephan damage and he le el o coope a ion in
he implemen a ion o hose measu es.
Figu e 2.
Examples o explana o y ca ds showed o he in e iewees o de ine he speci ic a m-based
measu es ha a me s can apply o educe elephan damage and he le el o coope a ion in he
implemen a ion o hose measu es.
Animals 2022,12, 1867 7 o 18
Animals 2022, 12, 1867 7 o 18
Figu e 3. Example o a choice ca d used in he DCE.
3. Resul s
A o al o 241 men and 239 women we e in e iewed: 95% o hem ocused on ag i-
cul u e as hei main occupa ion and 78% we e o iginally om he illage whe e hey
we e in e iewed. Elephan s we e conside ed he mos con lic i e wildli e species in he
a ea by 76% o he esponden s (see mo e in o ma ion in Table S1). Rega ding hei pe -
sonal expe ience wi h elephan s, 75% had seen an elephan , 4 people epo ed o ha e
been di ec ly cha ged by elephan s, 9% ha amily membe s o iends we e cha ged, and
13% ha he closes pe son cha ged hey know abou was someone om hei illage.
Rega ding elephan c op damage, 55% o hem epo ed ha hey had been di ec ly
a ec ed (a e age o 4 imes in hei li e ime), 12% ha no hem bu hei amily o iends
had been a ec ed, and 8.5% ha he closes pe son a ec ed hey knew abou was someone
om he illage hey li e in. Conce ning he pe cei ed e ec i i y o measu es o educe
c op damage (Figu e 4), noisemake s we e conside ed e ec i e by 52% o esponden s
(2.48 ± 0.05 in he same Like scale, om 1 o 4), c op selec ion by 48% (2.6 ± 0.04), chili-
oil ences by 47% (2.57 ± 0.05), gua ding c ops a nigh by 38% (2.18 ± 0.05), bee-hi e ences
by 31% (2.53 ± 0.05), and c op ansloca ion by 28% (2.27 ± 0.04). Technical ad ice was
conside ed e ec i e by 67% (2.93 ± 0.04). Impo an ly, 34% did no know abou he bees
as a mi iga ion measu e and 17% and 18% we e no su e abou he e ec i i y o c op se-
lec ion and c op ansloca ion, espec i ely.
Choice expe imen esul s showed ha a me s in he Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co i-
do gene ally ag eed wi h a a m-based managemen p og am o mi iga e elephan c op
damage. Howe e , 2.5% did no choose any op ion due o budge a y es ic ions ( ue
ze os) and 4.6% (p o es esponses) e used o choose op ions in he choice expe imen
due o o he easons such as, o example, ha he mi iga ion measu es should be imple-
men ed and paid o by he go e nmen and/o he lack o elephan s in hei a ea. Fo he
es o he esponden s ha made any choice (93%), he op ion “no ac ion” was chosen in
11.5% o he obse a ions. Fo he analysis o p e e ences, we excluded he p o es e-
sponses (4.6%), and he inal sample was composed o 27,420 obse a ions o 457 indi id-
uals. Resul s showed ha he al e na i e speci ic cons an (ASC) was s a is ically signi i-
can (Table 1 and Table S2).
Figu e 3. Example o a choice ca d used in he DCE.
3. Resul s
A o al o 241 men and 239 women we e in e iewed: 95% o hem ocused on
ag icul u e as hei main occupa ion and 78% we e o iginally om he illage whe e hey
we e in e iewed. Elephan s we e conside ed he mos con lic i e wildli e species in
he a ea by 76% o he esponden s (see mo e in o ma ion in Table S1). Rega ding hei
pe sonal expe ience wi h elephan s, 75% had seen an elephan , 4 people epo ed o ha e
been di ec ly cha ged by elephan s, 9% ha amily membe s o iends we e cha ged, and
13% ha he closes pe son cha ged hey know abou was someone om hei illage.
Rega ding elephan c op damage, 55% o hem epo ed ha hey had been di ec ly
a ec ed (a e age o 4 imes in hei li e ime), 12% ha no hem bu hei amily o iends
had been a ec ed, and 8.5% ha he closes pe son a ec ed hey knew abou was someone
om he illage hey li e in. Conce ning he pe cei ed e ec i i y o measu es o educe
c op damage (Figu e 4), noisemake s we e conside ed e ec i e by 52% o esponden s
(
2.48 ±0.05
in he same Like scale, om 1 o 4), c op selec ion by 48% (2.6
±
0.04), chili-oil
ences by 47% (2.57
±
0.05), gua ding c ops a nigh by 38% (2.18
±
0.05), bee-hi e ences
by 31% (2.53
±
0.05), and c op ansloca ion by 28% (2.27
±
0.04). Technical ad ice was
conside ed e ec i e by 67% (2.93
±
0.04). Impo an ly, 34% did no know abou he bees as
a mi iga ion measu e and 17% and 18% we e no su e abou he e ec i i y o c op selec ion
and c op ansloca ion, espec i ely.
Choice expe imen esul s showed ha a me s in he Selous-Niassa Wildli e Co ido
gene ally ag eed wi h a a m-based managemen p og am o mi iga e elephan c op dam-
age. Howe e , 2.5% did no choose any op ion due o budge a y es ic ions ( ue ze os)
and 4.6% (p o es esponses) e used o choose op ions in he choice expe imen due o
o he easons such as, o example, ha he mi iga ion measu es should be implemen ed
and paid o by he go e nmen and/o he lack o elephan s in hei a ea. Fo he es o he
esponden s ha made any choice (93%), he op ion “no ac ion” was chosen in 11.5% o he
obse a ions. Fo he analysis o p e e ences, we excluded he p o es esponses (4.6%), and
he inal sample was composed o 27,420 obse a ions o 457 indi iduals. Resul s showed
ha he al e na i e speci ic cons an (ASC) was s a is ically signi ican (Tables 1and S2).
Animals 2022,12, 1867 8 o 18
Animals 2022, 12, 1867 10 o 18
Figu e 4. Fa me s´ pe cep ion abou he e ec i i y o a m-based mi iga ion measu es o educe
c op damage by elephan s.
Figu e 5. Desc ip ion o he classes ega ding he pe cen age o esponden s ha had seen an ele-
phan (blue ba ) and he pe cen age o esponden s ha had su e ed a ood sho age in hei house-
holds (g ey ba ). The line shows he a e age du a ion o he ood sho age pe iod (in mon hs). Class
1: A ec ed and coope a i e; Class 2: No a ec ed and coope a ion in small g oups; Class 3: No
a ec ed and communal; Class 4: A ec ed and indi idualis ; Class 5: No a ec ed whose amily,
iends, o neighbo s ha e been a ec ed and indi idualis .
Figu e 4.
Fa me s’ pe cep ion abou he e ec i i y o a m-based mi iga ion measu es o educe c op
damage by elephan s.
Table 1.
Resul s o he andom pa ame e logi models (457 ace- o- ace wildli e ange s and
12 choices pe indi idual; numbe o
obse a ions = 5484
; Log likelihood
unc ion = −6410.09
;
es ic ed
log
likelihood = −8826.16
; McFadden Pseudo
R-squa ed = 0.2737
; eplica ions o sim-
ula ed p obs. = 500; used Hal on sequences in simula ions).
Coe icien S anda d E o Z P ob. |z| > Z * 95% Con idence In e al
Random pa ame e s
ASC −2.485 *** 0.2080 −11.94 <0.001 (−2.8927, −2.0772)
C op selec ion 0.288 ** 0.1226 2.35 0.019 (0.0478, 0.5286)
C op ansloca ion −0.38 7 *** 0.1135 −3.41 <0.001 (−0.6092, −0.1645)
Noisemake s −0.075 0. 1332 −0.57 0.571 (−0.3365, 0.1858)
Chili-oil ences 1.213 *** 0.1131 10.72 <0.001 (0.9908, 1.4343)
Bee-hi e ences 0.708 *** 0.1257 5.63 <0.001 (0.4617, 0. 9545)
Technical suppo 0.658 *** 0.0748 8.79 <0.001 (0.5111, 0.8044)
Coope a ion in small g oups
−0.024 0.0603 −0.39 0. 694 (−0.1419, 0.0944)
Coope a ion in big g oups 0.437 *** 0.0604 7.24 <0.001 (0.3189, 0.5557)
BID Cos /yea −0.110 *** 0.0081 −13.60 <0.001 (−0.1254, −0.0938)
S anda d De ia ions o andom pa ame e s (no mally dis ibu ed)
ASC 3.091 *** 0. 1862 16.60 <0.001 (2.7263, 3.4562)
C op selec ion 1.741 *** 0.1204 14.46 <0.001 (1.5047, 1.9766)
C op ansloca ion 1.243 *** 0.1115 11.16 <0.001 (1.0248, 1.4617)
Noisemake s 1.865 *** 0.1580 11.80 <0.001 (1.5557, 2.1751)
Chili-oil ences 1.8465 *** 0.1009 18.30 <0.001 (1.6487, 2.0443)
Bee-hi e ences 2.070 *** 0.1337 15.48 <0.001 (1.8080, 2.3321)
Technical suppo 1.238 *** 0.0708 17.49 <0.001 (1.0992, 1.3766)
Coope a ion in small g oups
0.218 0.1621 1.34 0.180 (−0.1001, 0.5351)
Coope a ion in big g oups 0.5142 *** 0.0823 6.25 <0.001 (0.3530, 0.6754)
BID Cos /yea 0.135 *** 0.0070 19.26 <0.001 (0.1217, 0.1492)
*** Signi icance a 1% le el; ** Signi icance a 5% le el; * Signi icance a 10% le el.
Animals 2022,12, 1867 9 o 18
The esul s o he andom pa ame e s logi model (Table 1) show ha ega ding he
mi iga ion ools, a me s’ mos p e e ed ool was he use o chili-oil ences, ollowed by bee-
hi e ences, ha ing echnical suppo , p omo ing coope a ion in la ge g oups (communi y
le els), and c op selec ion. Using noisemake s and su eillance and coope a ion in small-
and medium-sized g oups we e no signi ican , and ansloca ing c ops was ejec ed as i
educes o e all a me s’ well-being.
The la en class model iden i ied i e di e en classes o beha io among he espon-
den s ha explained he mi iga ion s a egies’ choice he e ogenei y (Table 2). Combining
his in o ma ion wi h hei expe ience, ood sho age (Figu e 5), and he geog aphical
con ex (Figu e 6shows he spa ial dis ibu ion o e e y class in he illages o he Selous-
Niassa Wildli e Co ido ), we cha ac e ized and u he explained he classes ha esul ed
om he model. The main indings a e: (i) 24.1% o he esponden s (class 1) we e di-
ec ly a ec ed by elephan s, had su e ed om a se e e ood sho age, and we e willing
o coope a e a he illage le el; (ii) 23.8% o he esponden s (class 2) we e no di ec ly
a ec ed by elephan s, had su e ed a mode a e ood sho age, we e no conce ned abou
he economic cos , and we e no e y demanding on he cha ac e is ics o he p og am;
(iii) 21.1% o he esponden s (class 3) we e no di ec ly a ec ed by elephan s, su e ed
a lowe ood sho age, we e willing o pay much mo e (almos 6- old), bu hey we e in
a o o a p og am in ol ing he whole communi y and echnical suppo ; (i ) 18.5% o
he esponden s (class 4) we e di ec ly a ec ed by elephan s, had su e ed om a se e e
ood sho age, alued echnical suppo bu hey p e e ed an indi idual p og am, and
had a s ong nega i e eac ion o c op ansloca ion; (i ) and 12.5% o he esponden s
(class 5) we e no di ec ly a ec ed and we e cha ac e ized by low coope a ion and s ong
willingness o pay (almos 4 imes mo e han he di ec ly a ec ed classes; Table 2), wi h
li le o no appa en alue o echnical suppo .
Animals 2022, 12, 1867 10 o 18
Figu e 4. Fa me s´ pe cep ion abou he e ec i i y o a m-based mi iga ion measu es o educe
c op damage by elephan s.
Figu e 5. Desc ip ion o he classes ega ding he pe cen age o esponden s ha had seen an ele-
phan (blue ba ) and he pe cen age o esponden s ha had su e ed a ood sho age in hei house-
holds (g ey ba ). The line shows he a e age du a ion o he ood sho age pe iod (in mon hs). Class
1: A ec ed and coope a i e; Class 2: No a ec ed and coope a ion in small g oups; Class 3: No
a ec ed and communal; Class 4: A ec ed and indi idualis ; Class 5: No a ec ed whose amily,
iends, o neighbo s ha e been a ec ed and indi idualis .
Figu e 5.
Desc ip ion o he classes ega ding he pe cen age o esponden s ha had seen an elephan
(blue ba ) and he pe cen age o esponden s ha had su e ed a ood sho age in hei households
(g ey ba ). The line shows he a e age du a ion o he ood sho age pe iod (in mon hs). Class 1:
A ec ed and coope a i e; Class 2: No a ec ed and coope a ion in small g oups; Class 3: No a ec ed
and communal; Class 4: A ec ed and indi idualis ; Class 5: No a ec ed whose amily, iends, o
neighbo s ha e been a ec ed and indi idualis .
Animals 2022,12, 1867 16 o 18
35. Thouless, C.R. Con lic be ween humans and elephan s on p i a e land in no he n Kenya. O yx 1994,28, 119–127. [C ossRe ]
36.
Naugh on-T e es, L. P edic ing Pa e ns o C op Damage by Wildli e a ound Kibale Na ional Pa k, Uganda. Conse . Biol.
1998,12, 156–168. [C ossRe ]
37.
Naugh on, L.; Rose, R.; T e es, A. The Social Dimensions o Human-Elephan Con lic in A ica: A Li e a u e Re iew and Case S udies
om Uganda and Came oon; A Repo o he A ican Elephan Specialis G oup, Human-Elephan Con lic Task Fo ce; IUCN:
Glands, Swi ze land, 1999.
38.
Si ienei, A.J.; Jiwen, G.; Ngene, S.M. Assessing he cos o li ing wi h elephan s (Loxodon a a icana) in a eas adjacen o Me u
Na ional Pa k, Kenya. Eu . J. Wildl. Res. 2014,60, 323–330. [C ossRe ]
39.
Ma iki, S.B.; S a s ad, H.; Benjaminsen, T.A. Elephan s o e he cli : Explaining wildli e killings in Tanzania. Land Use Policy
2015,44, 19–30. [C ossRe ]
40.
Nsonsi, F.; Heymans, J.C.; Diamouangana, J.; Ma inga, F.B.; B eue , T. Pe cei ed human-elephan con lic and i s impac o
elephan conse a ion in no he n Congo. A . J. Ecol. 2017,56, 208–215. [C ossRe ]
41.
Hill, C.M. Con lic o in e es be ween people and baboons: C op aiding in Uganda. In . J. P ima ol.
2000
,21, 299–315. [C ossRe ]
42.
Og a, M.V. Human–wildli e con lic and gende in p o ec ed a ea bo de lands: A case s udy o cos s, pe cep ions, and ulne abil-
i ies om U a akhand (U a anchal), India. Geo o um 2008,39, 1408–1422. [C ossRe ]
43.
Ba ua, M.; Bhagwa , S.A.; Jadha , S. The hidden dimensions o human-willdi e con lic : Heal h impac s, oppo uni y and
ansac ion cos s. Biol. Conse . 2013,157, 309–316. [C ossRe ]
44.
Si a i, N.W.; Walpole, M.J.; Smi h, R.J.; Leade -Williams, N. P edic ing spa ial aspec s o human-elephan con lic . J. Appl. Ecol.
2003,40, 667–677. [C ossRe ]
45. Songhu s , A.; Coulson, T. Explo ing he e ec s o spa ial au oco ela ion when iden i ying key d i e s o wildli e c op- aiding.
Ecol. E ol. 2014,4, 582–593. [C ossRe ]
46. TAWIRI. Tanzania Elephan Managemen Plan 2010-2015; TAWIRI: A usha, Tanzania, 2010.
47.
G aham, M.D.; Adams, W.M.; Kahi o, G.N. Mobile phone communica ion in e ec i e human elephan -con lic managemen in
Laikipa Coun y, Kenya. O yx 2012,46, 137–144. [C ossRe ]
48.
No g o e, L.; Hilme, D. Pa king esis ance and esis ing he pa k: ’weapons o he weak’, Con on ing conse a ion a Moun
Elgon, Uganda. De . Chang. 2006,37, 1093–1116. [C ossRe ]
49. Hoa e, R.E. De e minan s o human-elephan con lic in a land-use mosaic. J. Appl. Ecol. 1999,36, 689–700. [C ossRe ]
50.
Pozo, R.A.; McCulloch, G.; S onza, A.; Coulson, T.; Songhu s , A. De e mining baselines o human-elephan con lic : A ma e
o ime. PLoS ONE 2017,12, e0178840. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
51.
Walpole, M.J.; Linkie, M. Mi iga ing Human-Elephan Con lic : Case S udies om, A ica and Asia; Fauna and Flo a In e na ional:
Camb idge, UK, 2008.
52.
Lama que, F.; Ande son, J.; Fe gusson, R.; Lag ange, M.; Osei-Owusu, Y.; Bakke , L. Human-Wildli e Con lic in A ica: Causes,
Consequences and Managemen S a egies (No. 157); Food and Ag icul u e O ganiza ion o he Uni ed Na ions (FAO): Rome,
I aly, 2009.
53.
Chase, M.J.; Schlossbe g, S.; G i in, C.R.; Bouché, P.J.C.; Djene, S.W.; Elkan, P.W.; Fe ei a, S.; G ossman, F.; Kohi, E.M.; Landen,
K.; e al. Con inen -wide su ey e eals massi e decline in A ican sa annah elephan s. Pee J
2016
,4, e2354. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
54.
MNRT. Na ional Human-Wildli e Con lic Managemen S a egy 2020–2024; Minis y o Na u al Resou ces and Tou ism, Uni ed
Republic o Tanzania: A usha, Tanzania, 2020.
55.
Lou ie e, J.J.; Henshe , D.A.; Swai , J.D. S a ed Choice Me hods: Analysis and Applica ions; Camb idge Uni e si y P ess: Camb idge,
UK, 2000.
56.
Ba kowski, B.; Lienhoop, N.; Hansjü gens, B. Cap u ing he complexi y o biodi e si y: A c i ical e iew o economic alua ion
s udies o biological di e si y. Ecol. Econ. 2015,113, 1–14. [C ossRe ]
57.
Czajkowski, M.; Hanley, N. Using labels o in es iga e scope e ec s in s a ed p e e ence me hods. En i on. Resou . Econ.
2009,44, 521–535. [C ossRe ]
58.
Pa ke , G.E.; Osbo n, F.V.; Hoa e, R.E.; Niskanen, L.S. Human-Elephan Con lic Mi iga ion: A T aining Cou se o Communi y-Based
App oaches in A ica. Pa icipan ’s Manual; Elephan Peppe De elopmen T us , Li ings one, Zambia and IUCN/SSC A ESG:
Nai obi, Kenya, 2007.
59.
G aham, M.; Ochieng, T. Up ake and pe o mance o a m-based measu es o educing c op aiding by elephan s Loxodon a
a icana among smallholde a ms in Laikipia Dis ic , Kenya. O yx 2008,42, 76–82. [C ossRe ]
60.
Chang’a, A.; Souza de, N.; Muya, J.; Keyyu, J.; Mwaka obe, A.; Malugu, L.; Ndossi, H.P.; Konuche, J.; Omondi, R.; Mpinge, A.;
e al. Scaling-up he use o chili ences o educing human-elephan con lic ac oss landscapes in Tazania. T op. Conse . Sci.
2016,9, 921–930. [C ossRe ]
61. Hoa e, R. A ican elephan s and humans in con lic : The ou look o co-exis ence. O yx 2000,34, 34–38. [C ossRe ]
62.
King, L.E.; Douglas-Hamil on, I.; Voll a h, F. A ican elephan s un om he sound o dis u bed bees. Cu . Biol.
2007,17, R832–R833. [C ossRe ]
63.
King, L.E.; Law ence, A.; Douglas-Hamil on, I.; Voll a h, F. Beehi e ence de e s c op- aiding elephan s. A . J. Ecol.
2009,47, 131–137. [C ossRe ]
64.
Si a i, N.W.; Walpole, M.J.; Leade -Williams, N. Fac o s a ec ing suscep ibili y o a ms o c op aiding by A ican elephan s:
Using a p edic i e model o mi iga e con lic . J. Appl. Ecol. 2005,42, 1175–1182. [C ossRe ]
Animals 2022,12, 1867 17 o 18
65.
Chiyo, P.I.; Coch ane, E.P.; Naugh on, L.; Basu a, G.I. Tempo al pa e ns o c op aiding by elephan s: A esponse o changes in
o age quali y o c op a ailabili y? A . J. Ecol. 2005,43, 48–55. [C ossRe ]
66.
Pa ke , G.E.; Osbo n, F.V. In es iga ing he po en ial o chilli Capsicum spp. o educe human-wildli e con lic in Zimbabwe.
O yx 2006,40, 343–346. [C ossRe ]
67.
G oss, E.M.; McRobb, R.; G oss, J. Cul i a ing al e na i e c ops educes c op losses due o A ican elephan s. J. Pes Sci.
2016,89, 497–506. [C ossRe ]
68.
Inogwabini, B.I.; Mbende, L.; Bakanza, A.; Bokika, J.C. C op damage done by elephan s in Malebo Region, Democ a ic Republic
o Congo. Pachyde m 2013,54, 59–65.
69.
Bouma, J.; Bul e, E.; an Soes , D. T us and coope a ion: Social capi al and communi y esou ce managemen . J. En i on. Econ.
Manag. 2008,56, 155–166. [C ossRe ]
70.
Aus in, J. Fa me s’ Pe cep ions o ECAN’s P oposed, “Good P ac ice Discha ge Allowance” in he Waimaka i i Sub Region o
En i onmen Can e bu y’s (ECAN) Dis ic o New Zealand. Ph.D. Thesis, Lincoln Uni e si y, Lincoln, New Zealand, 2014.
71.
Espinosa-Goded, M.; Ba ei o-Hu lé, J.; Ru o, E. Wha do a me s wan om ag i-en i onmen al scheme design? A choice
expe imen app oach. J. Ag ic. Econ. 2010,61, 259–273. [C ossRe ]
72.
Olsen, S.B.; Meye ho , J. Will he alphabe soup o design c i e ia a ec disc e e choice expe imen esul s? Eu . Re . Ag ic. Econ.
2017,44, 309–336. [C ossRe ]
73. Ngene, C. 1.2 Use Manual & Re e ence Guide; ChoiceMe ics P y L d.: Sydney, Aus alia, 2018.
74.
Hanley, N.; Mou a o, S.; W igh , R.E. Choice modelling app oaches: A supe io al e na i e o en i onmen al alua ioin? J. Econ.
Su . 2002,15, 435–462. [C ossRe ]
75.
Soliño, M.; Fa izo, B.A. Pe sonal ai s unde lying en i onmen al p e e ences: A disc e e choice expe imen . PLoS ONE
2014,9, e89603. [C ossRe ]
76.
Soliño, M.; O iedo, J.L.; Capa ós, A. A e o es landowne s eady o woody ene gy c ops? P e e ences o a o es a ion p og ams
in Sou he n Spain. Ene gy Econ. 2018,73, 239–247. [C ossRe ]
77.
Ve mun , J.K.; Magidson, J. Upg ade Manual o La en Gold Choice 5.1: Basic, Ad anced, and Syn ax; S a is ical Inno a ions Inc.:
Belmon , MA, USA, 2016.
78.
Kansky, R.; Knigh , A.T. Key ac o s d i ing a i udes owa ds la ge mammals in con lic wi h humans. Biol. Conse .
2014,179, 93–105. [C ossRe ]
79.
Mu e , B.A.; Go e, M.L.; Riley, S.J. Social con agion o isk pe cep ions in en i onmen al managemen ne wo ks. Risk Anal.
2013,33, 1489–1499. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
80.
Linnell, J.D.; Nilsen, E.B.; Lande, U.S.; He indal, I.; Odden, J.; Skogen, K.; Ande sen, R.; B ei enmose , U. Zoning as a means o
mi iga ing con lic s wi h la ge ca ni o es: P inciples and eali y. In People and Wildli e, Con lic o Co-Exis ence? Wood o e, R.,
Thi good, S., Rabinowi z, A., Eds.; Camb idge Uni e si y P ess: Camb idge, UK, 2005; p. 162.
81.
Si a i, N.W.; Walpole, M.J. Assessing a m-based measu es o mi iga ing human-elephan con lic in T ansma a Dis ic , Kenya.
O yx 2006,40, 279–286. [C ossRe ]
82. Ballan yne, P. Owne ship and pa ne ship: Keys o sus aining ICT-enabled de elopmen ac i i ies. IICD Res. B ie 2003,8, 1–8.
83.
Weeks, J.; Ande son, D.; C ame , C.; Geda, A.; Hailu, D.; Muhe eza, G.; Rizzo, M.; Ronge, E.; S ein, H. Suppo ing Owne ship:
Swedish De elopmen Coope a ion wi h Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda; Sida E alua ion, Sida: S ockholm, Sweden, 2002; Volume 2.
84.
Hedges, S.; Guna yadi, D. Reducing human-elephan con lic : Do chillies help de e elephan s om en e ing c op ields? O yx
2010,44, 139–146. [C ossRe ]
85.
Baishya, H.K.; Dey, S.; Sa mah, A.; Sha ma, A.; Gogoi, S.; Aziz, T.; Ghose, D.; Williams, A.C. Use o chilli ences o de e Asian
elephan s—A pilo s udy. Gajah 2012,36, 11–13.
86.
Xiang, P.; Zhang, H.; Geng, L.; Zhou, K.; Wu, Y. Indi idualis –collec i is di e ences in clima e change inac ion: The ole o
pe cei ed in ac abili y. F on . Psychol. 2019,10, 187. [C ossRe ]
87.
Sha e , L.J.; Khadka, K.K.; Van Den Hoek, J.; Nai hani, K.J. Human-elephan con lic : A e iew o cu en managemen s a egies
and u u e di ec ions. F on . Ecol. E ol. 2019,6, 235. [C ossRe ]
88.
B anco, P.S.; Me kle, J.A.; P ingle, R.M.; King, L.; Tindall, T.; S almans, M.; Long, R.A. An expe imen al es o communi y-based
s a egies o mi iga ing human–wildli e con lic a ound p o ec ed a eas. Conse . Le . 2020,13, e12679. [C ossRe ]
89.
Ma sika, T.A.; Adje ay, J.A.; Obopile, M.; Songhu s , A.C.; McCulloch, G.; S onza, A. Al e na i e c ops as a mi iga ion measu e
o elephan c op aiding in he eas e n Oka ango Panhandle. Pachyde m 2020,61, 140–152.
90. Rajamma, G. Changing om subsis ence o cash c opping: Saka amma’s s o y. Gend. De . 1993,1, 19–21. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
91.
Baiphe hi, M.N.; Jacobs, P.T. The con ibu ion o subsis ence a ming o ood secu i y in Sou h A ica. Ag ekon
2009
,48, 459–482.
[C ossRe ]
92.
Guna yadi, D.; Hedges, S. Communi y-based human–elephan con lic mi iga ion: The alue o an e idence-based app oach in
p omo ing he up ake o e ec i e me hods. PLoS ONE 2017,12, e0173742. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
93.
Thuppil, V.; Coss, R.G. Playback o elid g owls mi iga es c op- aiding by elephan s Elephas maximus in sou he n India. O yx
2016,50, 329–335. [C ossRe ]
94.
S okke, S.; Du Toi , J.T. Sexual seg ega ion in habi a use by elephan s in Chobe Na ional Pa k, Bo swana. A . J. Ecol.
2002,40, 360–371. [C ossRe ]
Animals 2022,12, 1867 18 o 18
95.
Smi h, R.J.; Kasiki, S.M. A Spa ial Analysis o Human–Elephan Con lic in he Tsa o Ecosys em, Kenya. A ESG Repo ; IUCN/SSC:
Gland, Swi ze land, 2000.
96.
Haile, G.G.; Tang, Q.; Sun, S.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X. D ough s in Eas A ica: Causes, impac s and esilience. Ea h Sci. Re .
2019,193, 146–161. [C ossRe ]
97.
Kubo, T.; Shoji, Y. Spa ial adeo s be ween esiden s’ p e e ences o b own bea conse a ion and he mi iga ion o human–bea
con lic s. Biol. Conse . 2014,176, 126–132. [C ossRe ]
98.
T e es, A.; Ka an h, K.U. Human-ca ni o e con lic and pe spec i es on ca ni o e managemen wo ldwide. Conse . Biol.
2003,17, 1491–1499. [C ossRe ]
99.
Van Eeden, L.M.; C ow he , M.S.; Dickman, C.R.; Macdonald, D.W.; Ripple, W.J.; Ri chie, E.G.; Newsome, T.M. Managing con lic
be ween la ge ca ni o es and li es ock. Conse . Biol. 2017,32, 26–34. [C ossRe ]
100.
König, H.J.; Ki ne , C.; K ame -Schad , S.; Fü s , C.; Keuling, O.; Fo d, A.T. Human-wildli e coexis ence in a changing wo ld.
Conse . Biol. 2020,34, 786–794. [C ossRe ]
101.
Røska , E.; Bje ke, T.; Kal enbo n, B.; Linnell, J.D.; Ande sen, R. Pa e ns o sel - epo ed ea owa ds la ge ca ni o es among he
No wegian public. E ol. Hum. Beha . 2003,24, 184–198. [C ossRe ]
102.
Klei en, J.; Bje ke, T.; Kal enbo n, B.P. Fac o s in luencing he social accep abili y o la ge ca ni o e beha iou s. Biodi e s. Conse .
2004,13, 1647–1658. [C ossRe ]
103.
Tho n on, C.; Quinn, M.S. Risk pe cep ions and public a i udes owa ds couga s in he sou he n oo hills o Albe a. Hum.
Dimens. Wildl. 2010,15, 359–372. [C ossRe ]
104.
Tie ney, K.J.; Lindell, M.K.; Pe y, R.W. Facing he unexpec ed: Disas e p epa edness and esponse in he Uni ed S a es. Disas e
P e . Manag. 2002,11, 222. [C ossRe ]
105.
Ki schenbaum, A. P epa ing o he ine i able: En i onmen al isk pe cep ions and disas e p epa edness. In . J. Mass Eme gencies
Disas e s 2005,23, 97–127.
106.
G o hmann, T.; Reusswig, F. People a isk o looding: Why some esiden s ake p ecau iona y ac ion while o he s do no . Na .
Haza ds 2006,38, 101–120. [C ossRe ]
107.
Win e , G.; F ied, J.S. Homeowne pe spec i es on i e haza d, esponsibili y, and managemen s a egies a he wildland-u ban
in e ace. Soc. Na . Resou . 2000,13, 33–49. [C ossRe ]
108.
McGee, T.K.; McFa lane, B.L.; Va ghese, J. An examina ion o he in luence o haza d expe ience on wild i e isk pe cep ions and
adop ion o mi iga ion measu es. Soc. Na . Resou . 2019,22, 308–323. [C ossRe ]
109.
Tille , L.N.; Oniba, E.; Opi a, G.; B ennan, E.J.; King, L.E.; Ndombi, V.; Wanjala, D.; Robe son, M.R. “Smelly” Elephan Repellen :
Assessing he E icacy o a no el ol ac o y app oach o mi iga ing elephan c op aiding in Uganda and Kenya. Di e si y
2022,14, 509. [C ossRe ]
110.
T e es, A.; Wallace, R.B.; Naugh on-T e es, L.; Mo ales, A. Co-managing human-wildli e con lic s: A e iew. Hum. Dimens. Wildl.
2006,11, 383–396. [C ossRe ]
111.
Benne , N.J.; Ro h, R.; Klain, S.C.; Chan, K.; Ch is ie, P.; Cla k, D.A.; Cullman, G.; Cu an, D.; Du bin, T.J.; Eps ein, G.;
e al. Conse a ion social science: Unde s anding and in eg a ing human dimensions o imp o e conse a ion. Biol. Conse .
2017,205, 93–108. [C ossRe ]
