Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Surendranie J. Cabral de Mel, Saman Seneweera, Ashoka Dangolla, Devaka K. Weerakoon, Rachel King, Tek Maraseni, Benjamin L. Allen
{"title":"Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants","authors":"Surendranie J. Cabral de Mel,&nbsp;Saman Seneweera,&nbsp;Ashoka Dangolla,&nbsp;Devaka K. Weerakoon,&nbsp;Rachel King,&nbsp;Tek Maraseni,&nbsp;Benjamin L. Allen","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many Asian elephant populations inhabit fragmented human-dominated landscapes. Human–elephant conflict (HEC) has intensified in such regions, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people and elephants each year. Controversy between stakeholders then arises as people debate the merits of HEC mitigation approaches, stifling progress. We conducted a survey to evaluate the opinions of experts, farmers and others who have and have not experienced HEC (<i>n</i> = 611), on the causes of HEC, the importance of, conservation of and co-existence with elephants, and on the acceptability and effectiveness of potential HEC mitigation methods. Analysis of variance and the Potential for Conflict Index showed that all groups agreed with nine of the 10 causes of HEC assessed, on average. All respondent groups had mostly positive attitudes towards the importance and conservation of elephants. However, farmers exposed to HEC disagreed that people should co-exist with elephants and supported the view that elephants should be removed from human habitats. All groups agreed on the acceptability and effectiveness of electric fencing, early warning systems with infrasonic call detectors, Global Positioning System collars and geophones. However, there was disparity in views between the experts and other stakeholder groups on the acceptability and effectiveness of restricting elephants to protected areas, and translocation of problem elephants to protected areas away from their capture site or to wild elephant holding grounds. While similar views between stakeholders on many subjects are encouraging for elephant conservation, the disparities identified should be given greater attention when planning HEC management programs to minimize conflict between stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"6 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13238","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13238","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many Asian elephant populations inhabit fragmented human-dominated landscapes. Human–elephant conflict (HEC) has intensified in such regions, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people and elephants each year. Controversy between stakeholders then arises as people debate the merits of HEC mitigation approaches, stifling progress. We conducted a survey to evaluate the opinions of experts, farmers and others who have and have not experienced HEC (n = 611), on the causes of HEC, the importance of, conservation of and co-existence with elephants, and on the acceptability and effectiveness of potential HEC mitigation methods. Analysis of variance and the Potential for Conflict Index showed that all groups agreed with nine of the 10 causes of HEC assessed, on average. All respondent groups had mostly positive attitudes towards the importance and conservation of elephants. However, farmers exposed to HEC disagreed that people should co-exist with elephants and supported the view that elephants should be removed from human habitats. All groups agreed on the acceptability and effectiveness of electric fencing, early warning systems with infrasonic call detectors, Global Positioning System collars and geophones. However, there was disparity in views between the experts and other stakeholder groups on the acceptability and effectiveness of restricting elephants to protected areas, and translocation of problem elephants to protected areas away from their capture site or to wild elephant holding grounds. While similar views between stakeholders on many subjects are encouraging for elephant conservation, the disparities identified should be given greater attention when planning HEC management programs to minimize conflict between stakeholders.

Abstract Image

对人类与亚洲象冲突的原因和解决办法的态度
许多亚洲象种群栖息在以人类为主的支离破碎的土地上。人象冲突(HEC)在这些地区愈演愈烈,每年造成数百人和大象死亡。随着人们对缓解人象冲突方法的优劣进行争论,利益相关者之间的争议也随之产生,从而阻碍了进展。我们进行了一项调查,以评估专家、农民和其他经历过或未经历过黑潮的人员(n = 611)对黑潮成因、保护大象的重要性以及与大象共存的看法,以及对潜在黑潮缓解方法的可接受性和有效性的看法。方差分析和潜在冲突指数显示,所有群体平均同意所评估的 10 个导致冲突的原因中的 9 个。所有受访群体对大象的重要性和保护都持积极态度。然而,受到港珠澳大桥影响的农民不同意人类应与大象共存,并支持应将大象从人类栖息地移走的观点。所有小组都同意电围栏、使用次声波呼叫探测器的预警系统、全球定位系统项圈和检波器的可接受性和有效性。然而,对于将大象限制在保护区内,以及将问题大象迁移到远离捕获地的保护区或野象栖息地的可接受性和有效性,专家和其他利益相关者群体之间的观点存在分歧。虽然利益相关者在许多问题上的观点相似对大象保护来说是令人鼓舞的,但在规划共生境管理计划时,应更多地关注所发现的差异,以尽量减少利益相关者之间的冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信