Human–elephant conflict mitigation 745
patterns in response to the light
barrier.However,we cannot conclude that a light barrier would stop elephants accessing a habitual migration path or route to water. Although the camera traps we used to record elephants
crossing the light barriers validated information reported by participating farmers, they did not effectively document elephants retreating from fields. We thus relied on farmers’ reports on the type of elephant activity that occurred in and around fields with and without lights. In future studies cam- era traps should be placed both on the light line barrier and outside the crop field to reduce the reliance on farmers’ re- ports for evidence of elephant movement both inside and outside the field. Although the solar-powered strobe light barriers trialled
herewere effective in deterring elephants from entering crop fields, they may not work equally well in different situations. Mitigation methods often need to be combined with other techniques and should be reviewed frequently to maximize their effectiveness in deterring animals (Lesilau et al., 2018). Testing the success or failure of any method to mitigate human–elephant interactions is important (Webber et al., 2007) as it allows wildlife managers to gain knowledge of what suits different locations and situations, and can pre- vent investment in ineffective management techniques. Farmers are more likely to continue using a mitigation method if it is affordable and easy to use and maintain (Hoare, 2015), and if they have first-hand experience with the technique. Previous studies have demonstrated that farmers are willing to adopt and use methods that effective- ly reduce negative interactions with elephants (Gunaryadi et al., 2017). We hope that this will be the case with strobe light barriers and that further trials will be carried out within the Chobe Enclave and in other areas. Any future deploy- ment of the method should consider the risk that elephants could become habituated to the lights, and plan accordingly. In summary, we explored the potential of a novel mitiga-
tion method to reduce the likelihood of elephants entering crop fields. We found that the solar-powered strobe light barrier was successful in deterring elephants from entering these fields. Therefore it is worth exploring the usefulness and applicability of solar-powered strobe light barriers to deter elephants, and potentially other species, in other parts of Africa and Asia. Specific social, farming and envi- ronmental factors will need to be considered, and further research is required to assess the long-term efficacy and broad-scale applicability of the method to reduce negative human–wildlife interactions.
Acknowledgements We thank the Government of Botswana for approving and supporting this research, under permit EWT 8/34/4 XX (34), granted by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks to Elephants Without Borders; the Department of the Environment Affairs’ National Environment Fund, the Kristin Steuerle Fund, the Damien Foundation, Vera G. Irions, Anne Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Mr W. Grant Williams III (The Sayers Foundation), Molasky Family,
Thomas C. Bishop Charitable Fund and Smith Family Charitable Fund for their financial assistance; the farmers from Kavimba, Mabele and Muchenje villages for their participation; D. Peake from Mochaba for sharing the idea and supplying the lights to Botswana; and B. Malnorba, M. Zambo, R. Sutcliffe, K. Landen, M. Chase and E. Patterson for their assistance with field work and revisions of the text.
Author contributions Study design: TSFA; fieldwork: TSFA, IM; data analysis: NRJ; writing: TSFA, NRJ.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards and was approved by the Botswana Government under research permit EWT 8/34/4 XX (34), granted by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks to ElephantsWithout Borders.
References
ADAMS, T.S.F. (2016a) A Preliminary Assessment of Human–Wildlife Conflict for Mabele Village, Chobe Enclave, March–August 2016. Unpublished report. ElephantsWithout Borders, Kasane, Botswana.
ADAMS, T.S.F. (2016b) How can humans and elephants coexist in Botswana? PhD Thesis, University of New SouthWales, Sydney, Australia.
ADAMS, T.S.F., CHASE, M.J., ROGERS,T. & LEGGETT,K.(2017a) Taking the elephant out of the room and into the corridor: can urban corridors work? Oryx, 51, 347–353.
ADAMS, T.S.F., CHASE, M.J., ATTARD,A. & LEGGETT, K.E.A. (2017b) A preliminary study of stakeholders’ opinions and perceptions of elephants and elephant management in Botswana. Pachyderm, 58, 67–76.
AKAIKE,H. (1974) New look at statistical-model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.
BALMFORD, A.,MOORE, J.L., BROOKS, T., BURGESS, N.,HANSEN, L.A., WILLIAMS,P.&RAHBEK,C.(2001) Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science, 291, 2616–2619.
BARTOŃ,K.(2012) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 3.0.2.
CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn [accessed 20 February 2020].
BATES, D., MAECHLER, M., BOLKER,B.&WALKER,S. (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
BURNHAM, K.P., ANDERSON, D.R. & HAYVAERT, K.P. (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 23–35.
CENSUS OFFICE (2015) 2011 Population&Housing Census Preliminary Results Brief. Central Statistics Office, Gaborone, Botswana.
CHASE, M., SCHLOSSBERG, S., SUTCLIFFE,R.&SEONYATSENG,E. (2019) Dry Season Aerial Survey of Elephants andWildlife in Northern Botswana: July–October 2018. Elephants Without Borders & Department ofWildlife & National Parks of Botswana, Kasane, Botswana.
CRESPIN, S.J. & SIMONETTI, J.A. (2019) Reconciling farming and wild nature: integrating human–wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework. Ambio, 48, 131–138.
DAVIES, T.E.,WILSON, S.,HAZARIKA, N., CHAKRABARTY, J., DAS, D., HODGSON, D.J. & ZIMMERMAN,A. (2011) Effectiveness of intervention methods against crop-raiding elephants. Conservation Letters, 4, 346–354.
Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 739–746 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001182
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 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
