784 L. Von Hagen et al.


TABLE 5 Top five results from binomial generalized linear models for the economic-barriers hypothesis evaluating demographic factors of farmers from the six study villages who said that they definitely could implement deterrents (n = 98). Model descriptions and terms are presented in Tables 2 and 3, and full results are in Supplementary Table 5.


Model 6


1


12 4 2


Intercept 1.12


0.87 2.12 1.13 1.20


AICc


119.24 121.09 122.29 122.62 122.98


ΔAICc 0.00


1.85 3.05 3.38 3.75


information (no exposure) were almost three times more likely to believe that they could implement such deterrents. This may seem counterintuitive, but appears to show initial over-confidence on the part of the farmers and aligns with our additional results and previous studies showing that once farmers understand the expense and effort required to implement and maintain deterrents, they may view such implementation unfavourably or realise they cannot afford the relevant materials (Noga et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2022). The prevalence and effect sizes of the variables of exposure and education across several models suggest that farmers receiving information and the variation in edu- cation appear to significantly affect usage and uptake beha- viours. Why education level is important in this context is unclear, but it could be related to those with more education also having higher income levels, enabling them to afford deterrent materials. Understanding local attitudes and contexts related to ele-


phants and crop foraging is an important part of holistic ap- proaches to addressing conflict. Respondents in the study area live in fear of elephants, and such fear can affect their health and well-being and incur lost opportunity costs (Barua et al., 2013; Mmbaga et al., 2017; Thondhlana et al., 2020). Another factor that could lead farmers to fear elephants was that most had never received information on how to safely live near elephants or interact with them. In addition, the majority of villagers blamed elephants for their crop losses despite significant drought having occurred and despite the presence of other pests (Karimi, 2009; Kasaine & Githiru, 2016). Fears and frustrations from crop losses could lead farmers to retaliate against elephants (Naughton-Treves & Treves, 2005; Treves & Santiago- Ávila, 2020), but only a small percentage of farmers stated they had attempted to harm elephants, although most re- spondents admitted to actively chasing elephants from their farms. This is a common way of deterring elephants (Fernando, 2015; Mariki et al., 2015; Montero-Botey et al., 2021), but it is also dangerous. Our findings show that nega- tive interactions with elephants in this area represent a threat to human health and livelihoods and pose concerns for elephant conservation. We demonstrated that exposure to relevant information plays an important role in the usage of deterrents, which has


Adj. r2 0.03


0.00 0.02


,0.00 −0.01


wi


0.39 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.06


LL


−57.56 −59.52 −56.93 −59.25 −59.43


k 2


1 4 2 2


broad implications for conservation management. Most re- spondents had never received information on ways to pre- vent crop foraging, and most of the information they had received was on traditional measures; very few had received information specifically about different types of fencing (usually modern methods). Not only is information rarely reaching villagers but, when it does, it focuses on methods that are potentially less effective and more time-consuming (although perhaps more easily implemented in practice). Only 18% of respondents used modern methods such as de- ploying solar lights along fencing, planting chili peppers (an unpalatable crop; Osborn & Parker, 2003) or installing Kasaine metal strip fences (Von Hagen et al., 2021). This low uptake rate of modern deterrents demonstrates the need for outreach efforts that provide up-to-date infor- mation on such methods. All respondents who believed that they could not imple-


ment deterrents cited a lack of financial resources as the rea- son, which is consistent with previous research (Vedeld et al., 2012; Seoraj-Pillai & Pillay, 2017). This is a key factor that is often overlooked in mitigation plans. Our findings in this community suggest that if the deterrent methods are too labour intensive or require too many resources, or if there is a lack of community cooperation, then they may fail even if they have been implemented successfully in other areas (Osborn & Parker, 2003; Sitati & Walpole, 2006; Graham & Ochieng, 2008). That financial constraints influence the deterrent usage of farmers has also been shown in recent research from Botswana (Vogel et al., 2022). Other than exposure and education level, demographic


variables had little explanatory power in the models, prob- ably because of the respondent population being essentially homogeneous in their views. Some respondents may have provided answers they thought would be viewed favourably, potentially introducing social desirability bias (Chung & Monroe, 2003). Several respondents did not fully answer the questions, and some gave contradictory answers, indicating that some questions may have been unclear; we eliminated these responses from our analysis (Supplementary Material 2). Despite these limitations, our findings are relevant and applic- able for agencies managing human–elephant interactions. In our study area in the Kasigau Wildlife Corridor in Kenya, we found that vital information for reducing


Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 779–787 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001795


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