46 L. Von Hagen et al.


began in 2014, has been controversial because it reduced path- ways available for wildlife to cross one of the main highways bisectingTsavo East National Park (Okita-Ouma et al., 2016). Some villagers believe proximity to railroad underpasses in- creases or redirects elephants’ access to farms.All variables by village and category are included in Supplementary Fig. 6.


Discussion


By evaluating the participatory models constructed during our sessions with local farmers, we clearly distinguished how farmers conceptualized human–elephant interactions across the villages. Many complex interactions between variables were displayed in the models, showing that local expertise is invaluable for gaining insights into conservation issues (Vogel et al., 2022). Several variables stood out as un- derrepresented drivers and consequences of human– elephant conflicts, such as soil compaction by frequent elephant visits, and the lack of reliable road infrastructure, leading to wildlife officers being unable to reach some farms. Some variables were novel to this ecosystem, such as the local railroad altering wildlife movements; our new insights on this issue can be used to address concerns of local villagers and develop specific management plans. Using a biocultural approach, we found that certain vari- ables could potentially be adapted as indicators to gauge mitigation programmesuccess with respect to socio-cultural aspects, such as feeling more secure, reduced early mar- riages, or families remaining intact instead of men leaving home to find work. By using more cultural approaches in lieu of the standard socio-economic indicators to assess pro- gramme success (Dacks et al., 2019), we can ensure that human culture, health and well-being are considered when addressing conservation issues. Our success in gaining intimate knowledge of this system indicates the potential for this methodology to be used with other stakeholders across a broad range of conservation issues. With income levels being the dominant variable across


the villages (aside from human–elephant conflict), it is clear that the economic impacts from crop foraging are a key driver of conflict in this community. In particular, when income levels are reduced, individuals have fewer re- sources available to address challenges such as drought or medical emergencies (Twomlow et al., 2008; Mcleod et al., 2015). Feelings of security emerged as an important variable, which corroborates results from other surveys showing the majority of villagers live in fear of elephants (Von Hagen, 2024) and earlier research that showed impacts of crop for- aging are not only economic (McShane et al., 2011; Barua et al., 2013; Mmbaga et al., 2017). These findings collectively point to human–elephant conflict as a multidimensional issue jeopardizing the ability of farmers to thrive across social, cultural and economic levels.


Environmental interactions were the dominant category


in the models across all villages, demonstrating the connect- edness of this socio-ecological system. The policy and man- agement category was the second most prevalent type of variable, and participants voiced their concerns about the way these conflicts are managed. For the co-created local model, several issues prominent in this system were not highlighted by farmers such as the payment of school fees and illegal grazing (farmers are not allowed to graze their cattle in the Sanctuary). School fee payment and other inter- mittent events such as illness in the household can also drive an increase in other harmful activities such as charcoal pro- duction and bushmeat poaching (Zulu & Richardson, 2013; Nyaki et al., 2014). Thus, village models and those incorpo- rating practitioner experiences had key differences. These types of differences can be an indicator of different priorities between ecosystem actors and various wildlife authorities and point to the need for further open dialogue about what is truly important to local communities. Underrepresented and novel local drivers again demon-


strated the utility of our methodology in exposing local con- cerns related to specific conservation issues and priorities for communication by wildlife officials. For example, soil compaction was an unexpected consequence of crop for- aging by elephants, which demonstrated the importance of incorporating the knowledge of local people. One study evaluating the impacts of African elephant presence on soil found positive effects of moderate elephant presence but that soil moisture, infiltration rates, nitrogen mineraliza- tion and nitrification all decreased with increased elephant presence (Maponga et al., 2022). These negative effects of soil compaction from heavy elephant presence appear to be an issue already known to some local farmers. The vari- able farming spirit (how determined a farmer was to con- tinue with their profession, despite losses incurred by elephants) could be adapted as a biocultural indicator as it relates to a sense of place and cultural identity, and it is sensitive to environmental impacts (DeRoy et al., 2019). Despite the novel and informative insights gained, there


were limitations to this study. Firstly, there was the facilitator adaptation as the sessions progressed, as noted above. To avoid such issues and reduce bias for future projectmanagers, we recommend training and practice sessions for facilitators prior to commencing the actual study. Secondly, although all participants were encouraged to share their opinions, differ- ences in personalities or social intimidation may have caused some farmers to refrain from fully expressing themselves. This study revealed several management implications for


agencies working with farmers to mitigate the impacts of human–elephant conflicts, which can be applied to other wildlife conflicts. The first is the establishment of multi- dimensional indicators that capture both the ecological and social-cultural impacts of human–elephant interactions (Sterling et al., 2017) tomeasure programme efficacy in local


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