The Endangered Asian elephant Elephas maximus comes into widespread conflict with agrarian communities, necessitating active management. The species’ distribution is of primary importance for management planning. However, data-based countrywide distribution maps have not been available for any of the 13 Asian elephant range states. We conducted a 5 × 5 km grid-based questionnaire survey in Sri Lanka to produce an island-wide elephant distribution map. Elephants occur over 59.9% of Sri Lanka and people are resident in 69.4% of elephant range, indicating the challenge of separating people and elephants at a landscape scale. Elephants in Sri Lanka have lost 16.1% of their range since 1960 but their current distribution remains largely contiguous. We found the range of adult males was 15.1% greater, and less seasonal, than that of herds, possibly because males have a higher tolerance for conflict with people. The distribution of conflict coincided with the co-occurrence of humans and elephants. We conclude that a human–elephant coexistence model is the only viable option for effectively mitigating human–elephant conflict and conserving elephants in Sri Lanka. The findings are currently being used to effect a paradigm change in elephant conservation and management in the country.

In areas where farmland borders protected areas, wildlife may be attracted to crops and cause substantial financial damage for farmers. Elephants, in particular, can destroy a year's harvest in a single night, and can also cause damage to buildings and other farm structures. Few studies have examined whether damage caused by wild elephants increases social inequalities in farmer communities. We interviewed settlement leaders and subsistence rice farmers living in the buffer zone of Bardiya National Park, Nepal, to examine (1) the variation and spatial distribution of wealth within the farmer community, (2) the severity and spatio-temporal distribution of damage inflicted by Asian elephants Elephas maximus, and (3) the willingness to insure against such damage. We investigated whether particular societal strata are disproportionally affected by negative interactions with elephants. We found that farmers near the boundary between agricultural and wilderness areas were significantly poorer and had smaller landholdings than those further into the cultivated lands. Concomitantly, damage to crops and houses was more frequent nearer the wilderness–agriculture boundary than further away from it. Hence, in the buffer zone of Bardiya National Park, farmers near the wilderness–cultivation boundary, with small landholdings, had a relatively higher cost of elephant damage, yet were less willing to pay for an insurance scheme. We infer that in areas where both social inequality and damage caused by wildlife are spatially structured, conservation success may cause economic hardship for the local community, particularly for the poorer class. We discuss causes of the current lack of communal mitigation measures against the damage caused by elephants in the Park, and potential solutions.

The IUCN now recognizes the savannah Loxodonta africana and forest Loxodonta cyclotis elephants to be separate species. Despite ecological, behavioural and morphological differences, and different habitat ranges, genetic studies confirm that the two species and hybrids coexist in forest–savannah ecotones. However, the hybrid phenotypes have not yet been described. In this survey we examined whether the phenotypes of the two species and of hybrids can be distinguished. In the first step, we used a machine learning algorithm (K-nearest neighbours) to compare 296 reference images of African elephants from five forest areas and six savannah areas where hybrids have not been recorded, confirming that six morphological criteria can be used to distinguish the species with more than 90% confidence. In the second step, we analysed 1,408 videos of elephants from 14 camera traps in Sebitoli, in Kibale National Park, Uganda, part of the main hybridization area. We used a multiple correspondence analysis and a species assignment key, highlighting the presence of three categories of phenotypes. Compared to the savannah and forest phenotypes (36.8 and 12.1%, respectively), the intermediate phenotypes, which could include hybrids, were more frequent (51.1%). Further studies combining morphology and genetics of the same individuals will be necessary to refine this species assignment key to characterize phenotypes confidently. This non-invasive, fast and inexpensive phenotypical-based method could be a valuable tool for conservation programmes.

The Babile Elephant Sanctuary in Ethiopia was established in 1970 specifically to protect its elephants Loxodonta africana. They were once part of a larger population that ranged in eastern Ethiopia and northern Somalia but that was largely extirpated during the 20th century. Since its establishment, the Sanctuary has experienced severe anthropogenic pressure, inadequate government support, and civil conflict. Mapping was undertaken to analyse the rate of human immigration into the Sanctuary in 2006, 2014 and 2017, as part of an assessment of the Sanctuary's effectiveness in protecting its resident elephant population and in mitigating anthropogenic pressures. From 2006 to 2017 the number of illegal houses in the Sanctuary increased from 18,000 to > 50,000, of which > 32,000 were in the area in which elephants range. This settlement, coupled with high demand for natural resources, has resulted in significant habitat destruction and could also have exacerbated human–elephant conflict. Elephant conservation and monitoring by the Born Free Foundation were challenging because of ethnic conflict; rural and political stability is required if efforts to protect wildlife are to be successful. Unless these issues are resolved and the integrity of the Sanctuary is restored, this elephant population will be extirpated in the near future.

The Asian elephant Elephas maximus is at risk of extinction as a result of anthropogenic pressures, and remaining populations are often small and fragmented remnants, occupying a fraction of the species' former range. Once widely distributed across China, only a maximum of 245 elephants are estimated to survive across seven small populations. We assessed the Asian elephant population in Nangunhe National Nature Reserve in Lincang Prefecture, China, using camera traps during May–July 2017, to estimate the population size and structure of this genetically important population. Although detection probability was low (0.31), we estimated a total population size of c. 20 individuals, and an effective density of 0.39 elephants per km2. Social structure indicated a strong sex ratio bias towards females, with only one adult male detected within the population. Most of the elephants associated as one herd but three adult females remained separate from the herd throughout the trapping period. These results highlight the fragility of remnant elephant populations such as Nangunhe and we suggest options such as a managed metapopulation approach for their continued survival in China and more widely.

Wildlife movements within a landscape are influenced by environmental factors such as food availability and, as human-modified landscapes continue to expand, the risks associated with encountering people. For Asian elephants Elephas maximus, human-dominated landscapes can be a risky but also rewarding habitat. When elephants share space with people, negative human–elephant interactions are common, sometimes resulting in injuries or deaths of both people and elephants. We monitored elephant movements in and out of a forest reserve in central Sri Lanka to test four predictions regarding elephant behaviour: (1) visits to agricultural areas occur at times of the year when crops are plentiful, (2) elephants exploit these areas by night to avoid interactions with people, (3) increased nocturnal illumination reduces use of agricultural areas, and (4) males make greater use of anthropogenic food sources than family groups. Analysis of camera-trap data confirmed that elephants visited human-dominated areas mostly at night. The frequency of such incursions was not influenced by moon phase for males, but there was a weak effect of moon phase for family groups. Males moved more frequently into human-dominated landscapes than family groups, and their movements showed a distinct seasonal pattern, peaking at times of rice and fruit harvest. Our findings suggest that elephants primarily venture into human-dominated areas to consume crops. Encouraging farmers in areas frequented by elephants to adapt land-use practices (e.g. guarding crops, fencing villages, planting orange/citrus fences) and establish early warning systems could help limit the damage caused by elephants.

The Asian elephant Elephas maximus is of cultural significance for the Thai people. The development of legal protection for elephants in Thailand dates back to the 17th century, reflecting concerns about both human livelihoods and elephant conservation. The legal status of privately owned, captive elephants differs from that of wild individuals, with consequences for the lawful use of ivory from captive animals. Prior to 2015, the lack of comprehensive measures to control the Thai ivory market enabled the laundering of illegally sourced ivory in the country. The Thai government introduced legal reforms in 2015, imposing strict controls over the possession and domestic trade of ivory from captive Asian elephants, and aligning the protection of African elephants and their ivory with CITES regulations. Nonetheless, the sustainable use of Thai ivory remains disputed, and international pressure to close the commercial trade in domestic ivory persists. Here we review this complex situation, aiming to inform future reforms. Consolidation of laws related to elephants and ivory would facilitate law enforcement and compliance. Use of an electronic database would improve the monitoring of ivory movements and aid the implementation and enforcement of laws.

Habitat degradation and fragmentation have heightened the importance of understanding human tolerance towards wildlife, as the fate of wildlife in multi-use landscapes depends on people's capacity for coexistence. We applied the wildlife tolerance model to examine drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh, interviewing local people in 17 villages. We used structural equation modelling to identify causal pathways in which elephant-related exposure, positive and negative interactions, costs and benefits (tangible and intangible) contributed to tolerance. Contrary to expectations, monetary costs were non-significant in shaping tolerance despite major impacts on livelihoods. Instead, intangible costs and intangible benefits were significant factors determining tolerance. Furthermore, reducing people's exposure to elephants would not necessarily affect tolerance, nor would increasing positive interactions. We discuss how the socio-economic and bio-cultural dynamics of local communities can explain these results, and demonstrate how our model can be used to incorporate such complexities into conservation decision-making. For instance, compensation schemes aim to recompense monetary losses and direct damages, to improve tolerance, whereas our results suggest a more effective approach would be to enhance resilience to non-monetary costs and improve perceived benefits. We conclude that future studies should pay increased attention to intangible costs and consider the less direct drivers of tolerance. Through repeated testing of universal models such as that presented here, broad trends may emerge that will facilitate the application of policies across contexts and landscapes.

Successful anti-poaching policies and effective conservation of Asian elephants Elephas maximus require input and support from all stakeholders, including the public. But although Myanmar has one of the largest remaining populations of wild Asian elephants, there has been little research on public attitudes there towards elephants and poaching. We developed a questionnaire to assess attitudes of people in rural and urban areas towards elephants and conservation, and their perceptions of and experience with elephant poaching. We conducted 178 interviews across two regions in Myanmar. Although both rural and urban participants supported elephant conservation, people from urban areas expressed more favourable attitudes towards elephants than their rural counterparts. Similarly, conservation priorities differed between rural and urban communities, with rural communities less likely to believe that peaceful human–elephant coexistence was possible and preferring conservation initiatives that prioritize human activities over elephant conservation. Both groups were familiar with elephant poaching in Myanmar, but rural communities appeared to be better informed regarding the challenges faced by conservation agencies, and were more negatively affected by poaching. Our findings highlight potential areas for intervention by government and conservation agencies to reduce criminal activity and to protect both Myanmar's citizens and its elephants.

This study assesses the patterns of crop damage by elephants Loxodonta africana in areas adjacent to the Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves in Tanzania. We used a questionnaire survey to collect data from a total of 210 household heads from seven villages, with 30 household heads in each village, during June–August 2015. Proximity was a significant factor influencing losses, with crop farms within < 1 km from the reserves having higher losses, followed by those 1–5 km and > 5 km distant. Most households (81.0%) < 1 km from a reserve reported crop damage whereas those within 1–5 km (65.9%) and > 5 km (20.0%) reported less damage. Most of the losses (79.8%) occurred in the first half of the year (the wet season). Immigrants reported higher average losses to crops than Indigenous respondents. Noise making, flashlights, setting fire around fields and disturbance by shooting were the methods used to deter elephants from entering crop fields. We recommend that communities around these game reserves avoid areas that are < 1 km from the reserve boundary, plant crops such as chilli, use honeybee Apis mellifera fences to deter elephants from their crops, and receive education on available mitigation methods, to help minimize crop losses to elephants.

Managing interactions between humans and wild elephants is a complex problem that is increasing as a result of agricultural and urban expansion into and alongside protected areas. Mitigating negative interactions requires the development of new tools to reduce competition and promote coexistence. Many studies have tested various mitigation techniques across elephant ranges in Africa and Asia, with varying levels of success. Recently, strobe lights have been suggested as a potential mitigation strategy in deterring African lions Panthera leo from kraals or bomas, but this technique has to date not been tested to reduce negative human–elephant interactions. Over a 2-year period (November 2016–June 2018), we tested the effectiveness of solar-powered strobe light barriers in deterring African elephants Loxodonta africana, in collaboration with 18 farmers in a community adjacent to the Chobe Forest Reserve and Chobe National Park in northern Botswana. Although elephants were more likely to pass by fields with solar-powered strobe light barriers (which was probably a result of selection bias as we focused on fields that had previously been damaged by elephants), they were less likely to enter these treatment fields than control fields without such barriers. Our findings demonstrate the efficacy of light barriers to reduce negative human–elephant interactions in rural communities.

Human–elephant coexistence remains a major conservation and livelihood challenge across elephant Loxodonta africana range in Africa. This study investigates the extent of elephant crop damage on 66 farms in the Selous–Niassa corridor (Tanzania), to search for potential management solutions to this problem. We found that the relative abundance of highly preferred crops (area covered by preferred crops divided by the total area of each farm) was by far the most important factor determining crop damage by elephants. Eighteen crop types were ranked according to their preference by elephants. Sweet potatoes, bananas, peanuts, onions, pumpkins and maize were the most preferred crops, with maize the most common crop among those highly preferred. On average elephants damaged 25.7% of the cultivated farmland they entered. A beta regression model suggests that a reduction in the cultivation of preferred crops from 75 to 25% of the farmland area decreases elephant crop damage by 64%. Water availability (distance to the nearest waterhole) and the presence of private investors (mostly hunting tourism companies) were of lower importance in determining elephant crop damage. Thus, damage by elephants increased with shorter distances to waterholes and decreased in areas with private investors. However, further studies are required, particularly of the perceived costs and benefits of elephants to local communities. Farm aggregation and the use of non-preferred crops that also require less water would potentially reduce elephant damage but would be a major lifestyle change for some local communities.