Participatory modelling across Kenyan villages facilitates insights into the complexity of human–elephant interactions LYN N VON HAG E N * 1 , 2 ,S TEVE N A. GRAY 3,BRUCE A. SCHULTE 4 , 5 ,


MWAN G I GITHIRU 6,HELEN A I. KIUTE 7 and CHRI S T O PHER A. L EP C Z Y K 1


Abstract Negativehuman–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 objec- tives: (1) to evaluate stakeholder participatory models of human–elephant conflict; (2) to note any novel or under- represented variables in the models; and (3) to deter- mine if there were indicators for assessing the success of mit- igation programmes using a biocultural approach. We con- ducted participatory modelling sessions in six villages in rural Kenya using fuzzy cognitive mapping (n = 206 partici- pants). 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 dynam- ics) associated with income and feelings of security. Most variables fell into two categories: environmental interac- tions, and policy and management. Multiple variables such as road infrastructure (drivers) and soil compaction (con- sequences) were identified as aspects of conflicts that are under-reported or absent in scientific literature, as well as potential socio-cultural indicators. The participatory meth- od used is a tool for gaining more refined insights into inter- actions with elephants, with implications for other complex conservation issues or wildlife interactions. A more holistic view of the impacts of human–elephant interactions as de- monstrated here can lead to sustainable, co-developed pro- grammes that benefit both farmer livelihoods and elephant conservation.


Keywords Bioculture, conservation planning, human–ele- phant conflict, human–wildlife interactions, mental models, rural sociology, social-ecological systems, systems thinking


The supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605324000449


Introduction N


egative interactions between humans and elephants are a prominent problem across areas of Asia and


Africa (Hoare, 2000; Desai & Riddle, 2015; Shaffer et al., 2019). Positive elephant interactions drive tourism in many countries, but negative ones, also known as human– elephant conflicts, are among the greatest threats to the species along with illegal killing (including ivory poaching) and habitat loss (Goswami et al., 2014; Boult et al., 2019; LaDue et al., 2021; IUCN, 2023). Crop foraging, also termed crop raiding, is themain type of negative interaction, where- by elephants alter their natural foraging routines to include cultivated crops (Osborn, 2004; Davies et al., 2011; Hill, 2018). Elephants may also destroy and/or consume food or water stores, especially in times of drought (Hoare, 2000; Karidozo et al., 2016). Crop foraging can also result in de- struction of property, and can cause injury or death of peo- ple and/or elephants when farmers attempt to prevent elephant incursions (Zarestky & Ruyle, 2016; Schlossberg et al., 2020). Although mitigation of such conflicts is a primary focus


*Corresponding author, lvonhagen@comcast.net 1College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn,


Alabama, USA 2Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance, Denver, Colorado, USA 3College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East


Lansing, Michigan, USA 4Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA 5North Carolina, State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA 6Wildlife Works, Voi, Kenya 7Independent Project Assistant, Taita Taveta County, Kenya


Received 24 April 2023. Revision requested 3 August 2023. Accepted 4 March 2024. First published online 4 December 2024.


for many agencies, socio-economic disparities hinder these efforts (Dickman, 2010; Virtanen et al., 2020; Raphela & Pillay, 2021), particularly in areas where local or Indigenous people have been displaced, or impacts of colo- nialist policies persist (Kamau&Sluyter, 2018). For instance, farmers seeking to mitigate crop foraging can be constrained by lack of knowledge about deterrent methods or limited access to financial or material resources (Shaffer et al., 2019;O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000; Snyder & Rentsch, 2020; Von Hagen et al., 2024). Notably, rural communities that border protected areas often bear the brunt of these conflicts (Mcleod et al., 2015;Jordanetal., 2020). Numerous approaches to mitigating human–elephant conflicts have been evaluated, such as fencing deterrents or compensation programmes, but none have emerged as ubiquitous solu- tions (Blackwell et al., 2016; van deWater&Matteson, 2018).


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 40–49 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000449


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140