IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0350166.html

Human-elephant conflict in communities bordering Kruger National Park: Revealing causes and unpicking social media narratives

Author

Listed:
  • Tom P Moorhouse
  • Herbert Ntuli
  • Prince Nketiah
  • Angie Elwin
  • Suzi Paterson
  • Neil C D’Cruze

Abstract

Conflict between humans and wildlife in communities living adjacent to protected areas is one of the most intractable issues facing policymakers and conservation practitioners. The presence of wildlife can negatively impact on humans in a number of different ways, from fatalities to loss of livelihoods. Proximity to human communities can also negatively impact wildlife, for example through retaliatory killings and illegal harvesting. Meeting conservation objectives therefore often requires measures to reduce human-wildlife conflict, especially at the borders of national parks. We examine the drivers of human-elephant conflict occurring in villages bordering Kruger National Park (KNP), South Africa – which can result in the killing of elephants that enter these communities. We use data from surveys in these communities, as well as online descriptions of an incident in the village of Matsulu which resulted in the death of an elephant and which was filmed by several community members, generating a large number of social media stories. Social media stories and survey responses both highlighted the same underlying drivers of elephant killings: that members of the community appear to have tampered with the KNP fence and encouraged elephants to exit the park. Community members benefited through obtaining elephant meat. Data from the survey additionally indicated that a small number of community members profit financially from elephant escapes, but that the wider community experiences a range of negative impacts, which may be partially defrayed by benefits in the form of meat. The majority (71.2%) of survey respondents stated they would support non-lethal elephant management approaches. The current policy regarding elephant management in KNP is that elephants are protected within the park but if outside and considered a danger to humans are permitted to be killed. This policy has implications for elephant conservation in a context where members of local communities may feel incentivised to facilitate the escape of elephants, in order to benefit from legitimately killing them. We recommend an evaluation of this policy in the light of community attitudes towards elephants and their management.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom P Moorhouse & Herbert Ntuli & Prince Nketiah & Angie Elwin & Suzi Paterson & Neil C D’Cruze, 2026. "Human-elephant conflict in communities bordering Kruger National Park: Revealing causes and unpicking social media narratives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350166
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350166
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350166&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0350166?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    2. Ntuli, Herbert & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2017. "Effects of wildlife resources on community welfare in Southern Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 572-583.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ceddia, M.G. & Bardsley, N.O. & Goodwin, R. & Holloway, G.J. & Nocella, G. & Stasi, A., 2013. "A complex system perspective on the emergence and spread of infectious diseases: Integrating economic and ecological aspects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 124-131.
    2. Yanghua Shi, 2026. "Biodiversity, Governance, and Municipal Bonds," Working Papers EMS_2026_09, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    3. Blackwood, Julie & Hastings, Alan & Costello, Christopher, 2010. "Cost-effective management of invasive species using linear-quadratic control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 519-527, January.
    4. Don Driscoll & Adam Felton & Philip Gibbons & Annika Felton & Nicola Munro & David Lindenmayer, 2012. "Priorities in policy and management when existing biodiversity stressors interact with climate-change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 533-557, April.
    5. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    6. repec:plo:pone00:0120373 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Nunes, Pedro & Branco, Manuela & Franco, José Carlos & Santos, Mário, 2025. "Patterns, processes and scales shaping invasive pest species dynamics within agricultural landscapes: Modelling the spread of the African citrus psyllid in European lemon orchards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    8. Cook, David C., 2008. "Benefit cost analysis of an import access request," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 277-285, June.
    9. Holmberg, Robert J. & Tlusty, Michael F. & Futoma, Elizabeth & Kaufman, Les & Morris, James A. & Rhyne, Andrew L., 2015. "The 800-Pound Grouper in the Room: Asymptotic Body Size and Invasiveness of Marine Aquarium Fishes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 7-12.
    10. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0165094 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Charles Perrings, 2016. "Options for managing the infectious animal and plant disease risks of international trade," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 27-35, February.
    13. Aldrich, Preston R. & El-Zabet, Jermeen & Hassan, Seerat & Briguglio, Joseph & Aliaj, Enela & Radcliffe, Maria & Mirza, Taha & Comar, Timothy & Nadolski, Jeremy & Huebner, Cynthia D., 2015. "Monte Carlo tests of small-world architecture for coarse-grained networks of the United States railroad and highway transportation systems," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 438(C), pages 32-39.
    14. Elofsson, Katarina & Bengtsson, Goran & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2011. "Optimal Management of Invasive Species with Different Reproduction and Survival Strategies," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114343, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. M-Mahdi Naddaf-Sh & Harley Myler & Hassan Zargarzadeh, 2018. "Design and Implementation of an Assistive Real-Time Red Lionfish Detection System for AUV/ROVs," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, November.
    16. Costello, Christopher & Springborn, Michael & McAusland, Carol & Solow, Andrew, 2007. "Unintended biological invasions: Does risk vary by trading partner?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 262-276, November.
    17. Antonín Kouba & Francisco J Oficialdegui & Ross N Cuthbert & Melina Kourantidou & Josie South & Elena Tricarico & Rodolphe E Gozlan & Franck Courchamp & Phillip J Haubrock, 2022. "Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans," Post-Print hal-03860579, HAL.
    18. İ. Esra Büyüktahtakın & Robert G. Haight, 2018. "A review of operations research models in invasive species management: state of the art, challenges, and future directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 357-403, December.
    19. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Silva, Daniel P. & Gonzalez, Victor H. & Melo, Gabriel A.R. & Lucia, Mariano & Alvarez, Leopoldo J. & De Marco, Paulo, 2014. "Seeking the flowers for the bees: Integrating biotic interactions into niche models to assess the distribution of the exotic bee species Lithurgus huberi in South America," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 200-209.
    21. Zhang, Congwen & Boyle, Kevin J., 2010. "The effect of an aquatic invasive species (Eurasian watermilfoil) on lakefront property values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 394-404, December.
    22. Corrado Zoppi, 2018. "Integration of Conservation Measures Concerning Natura 2000 Sites into Marine Protected Areas Regulations: A Study Related to Sardinia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.