Publication: Spatio-temporal dynamics of human−elephant conflict in a valley of pineapple plantations
1
0
Issued Date
2023-06-01
Resource Type
eISSN
27709329
DOI
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85196630896
Journal Title
Integrative Conservation
Volume
2
Issue
2
Start Page
95
End Page
107
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Integrative Conservation Vol.2 No.2 (2023) , 95-107
Suggested Citation
Kochprapa P., Savini C., Ngoprasert D., Savini T., Gale G.A. Spatio-temporal dynamics of human−elephant conflict in a valley of pineapple plantations. Integrative Conservation Vol.2 No.2 (2023) , 95-107. 107. doi:10.1002/inc3.23 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/20899
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Human−elephant conflict (HEC) is a major conservation challenge negatively impacting elephant populations and local agricultural livelihoods. Studies of drivers and spatiotemporal patterns of HEC have potential to indicate where mitigation actions should be prioritized with the goal of achieving long-term coexistence. We examined temporal and spatial patterns of elephant crop raiding adjacent to Kuiburi National Park in southern Thailand by assessing locations of elephant raids in conjunction with multiple environmental variables along with crop characteristics and crop availability. Raiding incidents primarily happened in pineapple plantations, however compositional analysis suggested that fruit orchards were most preferred by elephants probably reflecting the high frequency of raiding in orchards relative to their small spatial area. Logistic regression models predicted that crop type and crop maturity stage, distance to forest and mitigation strategy combined had the strongest support in explaining the probability of crop raiding. Relative probability of raiding appeared to be associated with crop accessibility for elephants and perhaps crop nutrient value, with orchards with ripe fruit being most raided, while oil palm the least. The most frequently used mitigation measure was guarding by local people and could lower the probability when compared with other mitigations, although the relative effectiveness did not show a clear pattern; local guarding, patrolling by park rangers and physical barriers appeared to have some benefit but elephant-preferred crops still had >40% chance of being raided. Other results also indicated that water availability and season were not associated with elephant raiding, but rather crop type/crop stage had the most influence. The surprising lack of seasonality was likely due to the availability of the elephant's preferred crops year-round. Finally, our results indicated that there is no zone in Kuiburi that is free from elephant raiding, leaving the entire community vulnerable. We recommend improvements in the mitigation measures through better coordination among stakeholders in such communities and development of concrete action plans for all stakeholders including an extensive market-based examination of the feasibility of growing crops less preferred by elephants.