Understanding Farm Households’ Tolerance Toward Asian Elephants in China: Evidence from 873 Households in Yunnan Province
School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China; junfengchen@ruc.edu.cn
School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China; yixie@bjfu.edu.cn (Y.X.); zmy21703@163.com (M.Z.)
School of Economics and Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
Simple Summary
Increasing spatial overlap between humans and Asian elephants has intensified the pressure of human–elephant coexistence. Farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants is therefore a key social foundation for effective conservation and long-term coexistence. This study draws on household survey data from Asian elephant distribution areas in Yunnan Province, China. It measures farm households’ tolerance across five dimensions: types of elephant-related damage, economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency. Differences in tolerance among farm household groups are also examined. The study provides insights into farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants and offers implications for improving human–elephant conflict management and promoting long-term human–elephant coexistence.
Untitled section
Keywords: Asian elephant conservation, human–elephant conflict, farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants, human–elephant coexistence
Abstract
Improved conservation efforts in China have contributed to the recovery and range expansion of the Asian elephant, increasing spatial overlap between humans and elephants and intensifying the pressure of human–elephant coexistence. Understanding human tolerance toward Asian elephants has therefore become an important pathway for promoting conservation and coexistence. Using survey data from 873 farm households collected in Xishuangbanna Prefecture and Pu’er City in Yunnan Province, this study measures tolerance toward Asian elephants across five dimensions: types of elephant-related damage, economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency. Independent-sample t-tests, one-way ANOVA and ANCOVA were used to examine differences in tolerance among different groups of farm households. The results show that: (1) the overall tolerance toward Asian elephants among farm households is relatively low (mean = 2.40); (2) within types of elephant-related damage, tolerance is lowest for crop loss and cash crop loss, followed by loss of working time and risk of human injury, while tolerance is relatively higher for damage to houses and property, loss of stored food, and damage to vehicles; (3) farm households showed low levels of tolerance across the dimensions of economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency; (4) higher tolerance is observed among male respondents, Dai farm households, those engaged in wildlife protection-related occupations, and households located in Pu’er City, and tolerance increased as cultivated land area decreased, household income increased, and agricultural dependence declined. These findings provide empirical evidence for understanding farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants and offer policy insights for improving tolerance, optimizing human–elephant conflict (HEC) management, and promoting the social sustainability of human–elephant coexistence. The study also contributes China-based evidence to discussions on flagship species conservation and community coexistence under the SDG 15 and CBD frameworks.
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2026 Mar 13; Revised 2026 Apr 7; Accepted 2026 Apr 13; Collection date 2026 Apr.
1. Introduction
Terrestrial biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration are key priorities under Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG 15) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), a flagship and umbrella species, plays an important role in maintaining forest ecosystem structure and biodiversity [1,2]. In recent years, strengthened protection policies in China have supported the recovery and range expansion of Asian elephant populations in Yunnan Province. At the same time, intensified land use, agricultural expansion, and infrastructure development have increased spatial overlap between human activities and Asian elephant habitats [3,4,5]. As a result, conservation gains have coincided with rising livelihood costs for local communities in some areas [6,7]. Human–Elephant Conflict (HEC) has therefore become increasingly frequent in rural regions and is now recognized as a key social challenge affecting the long-term sustainability of conservation outcomes [8,9].
For farm households in HEC areas, the impacts of Asian elephants entering farmland and settlements are multidimensional. These impacts include crop loss, cash crop loss, loss of working time, damage to houses and property, loss of stored food, damage to vehicles, and the risk of human injury [10,11,12]. Such direct and indirect costs can shape farm households’ perceptions of Asian elephant conservation and their support for related management measures. To mitigate HEC, the Chinese government and local authorities have implemented various measures, including elephant-proof fencing, the establishment of food-source areas, monitoring and early-warning systems, and patrol management [6,13,14]. As management practices have evolved, conservation agencies have increasingly recognized that tolerance toward Asian elephants among farm households is a critical social foundation influencing conservation outcomes and the stability of human–elephant coexistence [15,16]. Previous studies also suggest that the persistence of wildlife in human-dominated landscapes depends not only on ecological carrying capacity but also on human behavior [17]. A key determinant of such behavior is human tolerance toward the species concerned [18]. When ecological carrying capacity cannot be substantially altered in the short term, increasing human tolerance becomes an important pathway for promoting human–elephant coexistence [19]. Therefore, identifying and understanding the tolerance toward Asian elephants among farm households in Asian elephant distribution areas, as well as its variation across different groups, is of considerable theoretical and practical importance.
Research on wildlife tolerance has received increasing attention in recent years and has become an important perspective for understanding human–wildlife conflict. Existing studies can generally be grouped into two strands. The first focuses on psychological and attitudinal perspectives [20]. In this line of research, tolerance is often defined as people’s attitudes toward the presence and behavior of wildlife, or the threshold at which wildlife impacts remain acceptable. These studies typically examine public acceptance of wildlife conservation, population changes, and related management measures [21,22,23]. The second strand emphasizes economic and livelihood perspectives. Here, tolerance is understood as the willingness and capacity of people to bear wildlife-related losses and risks under coexistence conditions. Such studies pay particular attention to the effects of economic loss, livelihood impacts, and compensation mechanisms on human attitudes toward wildlife [24,25,26]. In terms of measurement, early research often relied on single attitudinal items to assess human tolerance toward wildlife. However, this approach has limitations. It struggles to explain the common “attitude–behavior inconsistency” and provides limited guidance for conflict management [27,28,29]. As the field has developed, researchers have increasingly adopted multidimensional measurement frameworks. These approaches incorporate factors such as loss experiences, behavioral intentions, preferences regarding population change, acceptable spatial distance, and support for management measures. Such frameworks allow a more comprehensive assessment of the acceptable boundaries of human–wildlife coexistence and improve both explanatory power and policy relevance [30,31,32].
Although research on wildlife tolerance has grown rapidly, several gaps remain. First, empirical evidence on certain species and contexts is still limited. Much of the existing literature focuses on large carnivores such as wolves, bears, and leopards, while relatively little research has examined Asian elephants, particularly using farm households in Asian elephant distribution areas of China as the unit of analysis. Second, measurement approaches remain relatively limited. Some studies still rely primarily on single attitudinal items or a small number of behavioral intention indicators. Such approaches make it difficult to translate tolerance into specific information useful for policy design. For example, they rarely capture how farm households differ in their tolerance toward different types of elephant-related damage, economic loss, spatial distance, or activity frequency. Third, the role of social heterogeneity remains insufficiently explored. Effective management of HEC relies heavily on local social support. However, farm households differ substantially in sociodemographic characteristics, income levels, livelihood structures, and spatial contexts. Without recognizing this heterogeneity, mitigation measures, compensation arrangements, and risk management tools may fail to match the needs of different groups, thereby reducing both policy effectiveness and perceived fairness.
Against this background, this study develops a multidimensional measurement framework of tolerance toward Asian elephants at the farm household level to better address the practical needs of human–elephant coexistence. The analysis is based on survey data from 873 farm households collected through field investigations in Xishuangbanna Prefecture and Pu’er City, Yunnan Province, China. This study focuses on three main issues. First, it examines the overall level of farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants in elephant distribution areas. Second, it analyzes the level and structural features of tolerance across five dimensions: types of elephant-related damage, economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency. Third, it tests differences in tolerance among farm households with different individual and household characteristics. The findings provide targeted evidence for improving risk mitigation, compensation mechanisms, and livelihood support measures, as well as for strengthening community participation and conservation collaboration. The study also contributes China-based evidence to discussions on long-term human–elephant coexistence governance under the SDG 15 and CBD frameworks.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
Yunnan Province is currently the only region in China where wild Asian elephants are found [33]. Recent monitoring and surveys estimate that the Asian elephant population in Yunnan is about 300 individuals [6]. Xishuangbanna Prefecture and Pu’er City constitute the core habitats and primary activity areas of Asian elephants, accounting for more than 95% of the total population [34]. Xishuangbanna has historically been the primary habitat of Asian elephants. In recent years, however, their activity range has gradually expanded from Xishuangbanna toward Pu’er [35,36]. Based on the main distribution areas of Asian elephants, this study selects Xishuangbanna Prefecture (Jinghong City, Mengla County, and Menghai County) and Pu’er City (Jiangcheng County, Lancang County, Ning’er County, and Simao District) as the study area, providing a representative context for analysis (Figure 1). The spatial distribution map of the study area was generated using ArcGIS 10.8 (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA).
2.2. Data Collection
Fieldwork was conducted in Yunnan Province from July to August 2023. The survey team consisted of graduate students, faculty members, and local staff engaged in wildlife protection, all of whom had prior survey experience. Before the formal survey, all investigators received standardized training on questionnaire administration to ensure interview consistency and data quality. A combination of purposive and random sampling was used. Surveys were conducted in counties (districts/cities) where Asian elephants are distributed in Xishuangbanna Prefecture and Pu’er City. Based on the distribution of Asian elephants and recommendations from local wildlife management authorities, one to two townships were selected in each county (district/city). Within each township, two to four administrative villages were randomly chosen, and 20–30 farm households were randomly sampled in each village. The questionnaire survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews. Investigators spoke directly with respondents and recorded their answers. The questionnaire was completed by the household head or the primary decision-maker, representing the attitudes of the entire farm household. In total, 873 valid questionnaires were obtained.
2.3. Variable Selection
Because tolerance has a strong subjective dimension, this study measures the perceived acceptability of human–elephant coexistence among farm households under existing compensation and management conditions, rather than directly assessing objective risk exposure or the actual intensity of damage [37,38]. It should also be noted that tolerance is not merely an emotional attitude. Instead, it reflects a comprehensive judgment formed by farm households when weighing the costs and risks associated with coexistence. Based on this understanding, this study defines farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants in the following way. It refers to the attitudinal response of farm households to the extent to which they can bear the risks, losses, and coexistence constraints associated with living alongside Asian elephants [39,40]. Drawing on previous research and typical HEC situations in Asian elephant distribution areas of Yunnan Province, this study develops a multidimensional measurement framework of tolerance toward Asian elephants at the farm household level [6,36,41]. The framework aims to translate the abstract concept of tolerance into empirical indicators that can be decomposed and compared. Based on a pilot survey and field feedback, the wording of questionnaire items and response options was further refined to improve clarity and contextual relevance.
This study measures farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants across five dimensions: types of elephant-related damage, economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency. These dimensions correspond to key aspects of HEC management, including consequences, economic impacts, population scale, spatial proximity, and activity frequency [7,33]. This design allows a multidimensional assessment of the acceptable range of human–elephant coexistence among farm households, while avoiding reliance on a single indicator to represent the complex structure of tolerance. The specific measurement items are presented in Table 1.
| Tolerance Dimensions | Variable | Definition | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | Tolerance toward crop loss | What is your level of tolerance toward crop loss caused by Asian elephants? | 1 = Completely intolerable; 2 = Relatively intolerable; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Relatively tolerable; 5 = Completely tolerable |
| Tolerance toward cash crop loss | What is your level of tolerance toward cash crop loss caused by Asian elephants? | ||
| Tolerance toward loss of working time | What is your level of tolerance toward loss of working time (delays in work and farming activities) caused by Asian elephants? | ||
| Tolerance toward risk of human injury | What is your level of tolerance toward the risk of human injury caused by Asian elephants? | ||
| Tolerance toward damage to houses and property | What is your level of tolerance toward damage to houses and property caused by Asian elephants? | ||
| Tolerance toward loss of stored food | What is your level of tolerance toward loss of stored food caused by Asian elephants? | ||
| Tolerance toward damage to vehicles | What is your level of tolerance toward damage to vehicles caused by Asian elephants? | ||
| Economic loss | Tolerance toward economic loss | Under current compensation and management conditions, what is the maximum annual net economic loss (after compensation) you are willing to tolerate from Asian elephants? | 1 = ≤ USD 145 2 = USD 146–291; 3 = USD 292–509; 4 = USD 510–727; 5 = > USD 727 |
| Population size | Tolerance toward population size | From your perspective, what change would you prefer in the local Asian elephant population size in the future? | 1 = Decrease significantly 2 = Decrease slightly 3 = Remain unchanged 4 = Increase slightly 5 = Increase significantly |
| Spatial distance | Tolerance toward spatial distance | What is the minimum distance you consider acceptable between Asian elephant activity areas and residential areas? | 1 = ≥ 10 km 2 = 7.5–10 km 3 = 5–7.5 km 4 = 2.5–5 km 5 = ≤ 2.5 km |
| Activity frequency | Tolerance toward activity frequency | Under current compensation and protection conditions, what is your level of tolerance toward Asian elephants continuing to be active in this area? | 1 = Completely intolerable 2 = Relatively intolerable 3 = Neutral 4 = Relatively tolerable 5 = Completely tolerable |
2.4. Research Methods
Tests of group differences were used to identify variations in tolerance toward Asian elephants among farm households [42,43]. First, a one-sample t-test was conducted to examine whether the mean values of each item or dimension significantly deviated from the midpoint of the scale (3 = neutral). Second, differences in tolerance among different groups of farm households were examined. Independent-sample t-tests were applied to binary variables, including gender, whether respondents were engaged in wildlife protection-related occupations, and region. For variables with multiple categories—age, education level, ethnicity, cultivated land area, household income, and agricultural dependence—one-way ANOVA was used. The comparisons covered five dimensions: types of elephant-related damage, economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency, as well as the overall tolerance index. To ensure the robustness of the results, we further conducted an ANCOVA. Age, cultivated land area, household income, and agricultural dependence were included as covariates. The effects of gender, ethnicity, education level, wildlife protection-related occupation, and region on overall tolerance were then examined. All data processing and statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Tolerance Toward Different Types of Elephant-Related Damage
The distribution of farm households’ tolerance toward different types of elephant-related damage is presented in Figure 2. Overall, tolerance toward crop loss and cash crop loss shows a highly similar pattern and is clearly concentrated at low tolerance levels. Specifically, 57.39% and 57.27% of farm households reported that these losses were “intolerable,” while only 20.96% and 21.31% considered them “tolerable.” These results indicate that farm households are particularly sensitive to damage affecting key agricultural crops. In comparison, tolerance toward loss of working time is also relatively low. About 52.23% of farm households reported that such losses were “intolerable,” while 24.74% considered them “tolerable.” This finding suggests that the loss of working time and the associated opportunity costs caused by Asian elephants also have a substantial impact on farm households.
Tolerance toward the risk of human injury shows a pattern characterized by predominantly low tolerance, while the proportion of neutral responses remains relatively high. Specifically, 401 farm households (45.93%) reported low tolerance, and the largest share, 218 households (24.97%), selected the neutral option. This suggests that although most farm households are unwilling to tolerate the risk of human injury caused by Asian elephants, a considerable proportion remain neutral or uncertain in their attitudes.
In comparison, tolerance toward damage to houses and property and loss of stored food is closer to the midpoint of the scale, and the two dimensions display similar distribution patterns. The proportion of low tolerance is 36.90% and 38.37%, respectively, which is more than ten percentage points lower than that observed for crop loss, cash crop loss, and loss of working time. Meanwhile, 22.82% and 27.26% of respondents reported neutral attitudes, while 30.01% and 34.36% indicated that these losses were tolerable. Overall, tolerance toward these two types of damage is relatively higher. Among them, loss of stored food is closest to the midpoint of the scale and reflects a moderate level of tolerance.
Among all types of damage, tolerance toward damage to vehicles is the highest. A total of 348 farm households (39.86%) reported that such losses were tolerable, which is higher than the 300 households (34.36%) who considered them intolerable. Overall, tolerance toward this type of damage has reached or slightly exceeded the midpoint of the scale.
Taken together, the results reveal a clear gradient across different types of elephant-related damage, with tolerance increasing in the following order: crop loss, cash crop loss, loss of working time, risk of human injury, damage to houses and property, loss of stored food, and damage to vehicles. This pattern indicates that losses directly related to agricultural production and immediate livelihood impacts are the least tolerable. In contrast, damages related to household assets or stored goods are relatively more acceptable to farm households.
To examine whether the mean values of each item significantly deviated from the midpoint of the scale (3 = neutral), a one-sample t-test was conducted for all items under types of elephant-related damage (test value = 3). The results are reported in Table 2. Except for loss of stored food, most items show mean values that differ significantly from 3 and are generally below the moderate tolerance level. Specifically, tolerance toward crop loss, cash crop loss, loss of working time, and risk of human injury is significantly lower than the neutral level, with mean values of 2.386, 2.402, 2.581, and 2.727, respectively (all p < 0.001). Tolerance toward damage to houses and property is also significantly below 3 (mean = 2.865, p = 0.002), although the deviation from the midpoint is relatively small. In contrast, the item loss of stored food does not reach statistical significance (mean = 2.926, p = 0.098), indicating that its tolerance level is not significantly different from the scale midpoint and is therefore close to a neutral level. Notably, the mean value for damage to vehicles is slightly above 3 and statistically significant (mean = 3.101, p = 0.028). This suggests that farm households show relatively higher tolerance toward this type of elephant-related damage, although the overall level remains close to moderate tolerance.
| Types of Elephant-Related Damage | t Value | df | p Value | Mean Difference | 95% CI (Lower) | 95% CI (Upper) | Mean | Standard Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| crop loss | −14.543 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.614 | −0.697 | −0.531 | 2.386 | 1.247 |
| cash crop loss | −14.004 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.598 | −0.682 | −0.514 | 2.402 | 1.262 |
| damage to houses and property | −3.055 | 872 | 0.002 | −0.135 | −0.222 | −0.048 | 2.865 | 1.307 |
| loss of stored food | −1.654 | 872 | 0.098 | −0.074 | −0.163 | 0.014 | 2.926 | 1.330 |
| damage to vehicles | 2.199 | 872 | 0.028 | 0.101 | 0.0108 | 0.191 | 3.101 | 1.354 |
| loss of working time | −6.001 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.273 | −0.362 | −0.184 | 2.581 | 1.294 |
| risk of human injury | −9.571 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.419 | −0.506 | −0.333 | 2.727 | 1.342 |
3.2. Farm Households’ Tolerance Across Other Dimensions
Tolerance toward Asian elephants was further examined across four dimensions: economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3. Overall, tolerance levels are relatively low across all dimensions, although some variation exists among them.
| Tolerance Dimension | Very Low | Low | Neutral | High | Very High | Mean | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic loss | 383 | 194 | 64 | 148 | 84 | 2.26 | 1.41 |
| (43.87%) | (22.22%) | (7.33%) | (16.95%) | (9.62%) | |||
| Population size | 275 | 225 | 146 | 154 | 73 | 2.46 | 1.32 |
| (31.50%) | (25.77%) | (16.72%) | (17.64%) | (8.36%) | |||
| Spatial distance | 330 | 162 | 163 | 193 | 25 | 2.34 | 1.26 |
| (33.92%) | (16.65%) | (16.75%) | (19.84%) | (2.57%) | |||
| Activity frequency | 252 | 384 | 40 | 169 | 28 | 2.24 | 1.16 |
| (28.87%) | (43.99%) | (4.58%) | (19.36%) | (3.21%) |
For the economic loss dimension, tolerance is generally low and strongly concentrated at the lower end of the scale. A total of 66.09% of farm households reported either “very low” or “low” tolerance, including 43.87% indicating “very low.” In contrast, 26.57% reported “high” or “very high” tolerance. The mean value for this dimension is 2.26, clearly below the scale midpoint of 3, suggesting that farm households have limited tolerance toward the economic loss caused by Asian elephants.
For population size, tolerance also remains relatively low. The proportion of farm households reporting “very low” or “low” tolerance is 57.27%, while 16.72% reported a neutral level and 26.00% reported “high” or “very high” tolerance. The mean value for this dimension is 2.46, which is below the scale midpoint. This indicates that farm households in the sample generally show limited tolerance toward the current population size of nearby Asian elephants.
For spatial distance, the acceptable level of proximity between humans and elephants is also relatively low. The proportion of low tolerance reaches 50.57%, including 33.92% reporting “very low” tolerance, while 22.41% report “high” or “very high” tolerance. The mean value of 2.34 suggests that most farm households prefer a greater spatial distance between Asian elephant activity areas and residential areas.
Among the four dimensions, tolerance toward activity frequency is the lowest. A total of 72.86% of farm households report low tolerance, including 43.99% indicating “low” and 28.87% indicating “very low.” Only 22.57% report “high” or “very high” tolerance. The mean value for this dimension is 2.24, indicating that most farm households do not want Asian elephants to remain frequently active in their local areas.
To examine whether the mean values of the four dimensions significantly deviate from the midpoint of the scale (test value = 3), a one-sample t-test was conducted (Table 4). The results show that the mean values for economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency are all significantly lower than 3 (all p < 0.001), and the mean differences are negative in each case. These findings indicate that, at the overall attitudinal level, farm households exhibit tolerance levels significantly below the moderate level in terms of acceptable economic loss, acceptable population size, acceptable spatial distance, and acceptable activity frequency of Asian elephants. Considering all five dimensions together, the overall mean level of tolerance toward Asian elephants among farm households is 2.40.
| Tolerance Dimension | t Value | df | p Value | Mean Difference | 95% CI (Lower) | 95% CI (Upper) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic loss | −15.452 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.738 | −0.831 | −0.644 |
| Population size | −12.206 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.544 | −0.632 | −0.457 |
| Spatial distance | −15.516 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.663 | −0.747 | −0.580 |
| Activity frequency | −19.595 | 872 | 0.000 | −0.766 | −0.843 | −0.690 |
3.3. One-Way ANOVA of Tolerance Based on Individual and Household Characteristics
3.3.1. Gender Differences
As shown in Table 5, significant gender differences were found across all five dimensions and overall tolerance (all p < 0.001). Overall, farm households represented by male respondents report higher tolerance toward Asian elephants than those represented by female respondents across all dimensions and in overall tolerance. The differences are particularly pronounced for population size and spatial distance tolerance.
| Tolerance Dimension | Male (N = 624) | Female (N = 249) | t Value | df | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 2.82 ± 1.06 | 2.43 ± 1.08 | 4.932 | 871 | 0.000 |
| Economic loss | 2.37 ± 1.45 | 2.00 ± 1.27 | 3.638 | 517 | 0.000 |
| Population size | 2.60 ± 1.34 | 2.10 ± 1.18 | 5.347 | 518 | 0.000 |
| Spatial distance | 2.48 ± 1.28 | 1.98 ± 1.15 | 5.601 | 503 | 0.000 |
| Activity frequency | 2.32 ± 1.17 | 2.04 ± 1.10 | 3.274 | 486 | 0.000 |
| Overall tolerance | 2.52 ± 1.00 | 2.11 ± 0.89 | 5.871 | 510 | 0.000 |
3.3.2. Age Differences
As shown in Table 6, although mean values across different age groups vary slightly across all dimensions and overall tolerance, the results of the one-way ANOVA do not reach statistical significance. This indicates that no stable differences in tolerance toward Asian elephants are observed among different age groups in this sample. From the distribution of mean values, the young group (18–30 years) shows relatively higher tolerance in terms of economic loss, population size, spatial distance, activity frequency, and overall tolerance compared with other age groups.
| Tolerance Dimension | 18–30 (N = 63) | 31–40 (N = 239) | 41–50 (N = 255) | 51–65 (N = 279) | Above 65 (N = 37) | f Value | df1 | df2 | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 2.83 ± 0.96 | 2.68 ± 1.03 | 2.66 ± 1.13 | 2.74 ± 1.11 | 2.85 ± 1.01 | 0.632 | 4 | 868 | 0.639 |
| Economic loss | 2.43 ± 1.33 | 2.16 ± 1.35 | 2.31 ± 1.41 | 2.26 ± 1.46 | 2.35 ± 1.59 | 0.611 | 4 | 868 | 0.655 |
| Population size | 2.57 ± 1.29 | 2.39 ± 1.32 | 2.49 ± 1.32 | 2.44 ± 1.30 | 2.54 ± 1.50 | 0.360 | 4 | 868 | 0.837 |
| Spatial distance | 2.51 ± 1.23 | 2.27 ± 1.33 | 2.28 ± 1.18 | 2.39 ± 1.28 | 2.43 ± 1.26 | 0.786 | 4 | 177 | 0.535 |
| Activity frequency | 2.38 ± 1.18 | 2.25 ± 1.18 | 2.18 ± 1.14 | 2.27 ± 1.15 | 2.19 ± 1.27 | 0.454 | 4 | 868 | 0.769 |
| Overall tolerance | 2.54 ± 0.95 | 2.35 ± 0.96 | 2.38 ± 0.95 | 2.42 ± 1.02 | 2.47 ± 1.10 | 0.593 | 4 | 868 | 0.668 |
3.3.3. Education Level Differences
As shown in Table 7, the group with college or above showed relatively higher mean values across most dimensions. However, differences across education groups were generally not statistically significant for any dimension or for overall tolerance.
| Tolerance Dimension | Primary School or Below (N = 460) | Junior High School (N = 327) | Senior High School (N = 57) | College or Above (N = 29) | f Value | df1 | df2 | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 2.69 ± 1.07 | 2.71 ± 1.09 | 2.79 ± 1.12 | 3.01 ± 1.05 | 0.924 | 3 | 869 | 0.429 |
| Economic loss | 2.24 ± 1.40 | 2.22 ± 1.43 | 2.33 ± 1.31 | 2.97 ± 1.48 | 2.611 | 3 | 869 | 0.050 |
| Population size | 2.38 ± 1.28 | 2.49 ± 1.35 | 2.70 ± 1.36 | 2.83 ± 1.36 | 2.042 | 3 | 869 | 0.106 |
| Spatial distance | 2.33 ± 1.27 | 2.31 ± 1.27 | 2.40 ± 1.19 | 2.62 ± 1.29 | 0.598 | 3 | 869 | 0.617 |
| Activity frequency | 2.21 ± 1.13 | 2.28 ± 1.16 | 2.21 ± 1.21 | 2.34 ± 1.50 | 0.310 | 3 | 96 | 0.818 |
| Overall tolerance | 2.37 ± 0.96 | 2.40 ± 1.02 | 2.49 ± 0.95 | 2.75 ± 0.99 | 1.560 | 3 | 869 | 0.198 |
3.3.4. Ethnic Differences
As shown in Table 8, significant differences across ethnic groups are observed for all five dimensions and overall tolerance toward Asian elephants (all p < 0.001). The results indicate that farm households represented by Dai respondents report the highest mean values across all dimensions and in overall tolerance (overall tolerance = 3.11), whereas farm households represented by Han respondents show the lowest levels of tolerance (overall tolerance = 1.85). Tolerance levels among Hani, Lahu, and other ethnic minority households fall between these two groups. These findings suggest that ethnicity is an important factor explaining the heterogeneity in farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants.
| Tolerance Dimension | Han (N = 165) | Dai (N = 246) | Hani (N = 225) | Lahu (N = 83) | Other Ethnic Minorities (N = 154) | f Value | df1 | df2 | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 2.14 ± 0.81 | 3.39 ± 1.05 | 2.57 ± 1.07 | 2.71 ± 1.01 | 2.47 ± 0.89 | 48.881 | 4 | 351 | 0.000 |
| Economic loss | 1.70 ± 1.03 | 3.14 ± 1.54 | 2.02 ± 1.26 | 2.01 ± 1.18 | 1.95 ± 1.23 | 34.560 | 4 | 355 | 0.000 |
| Population size | 2.01 ± 1.25 | 3.07 ± 1.37 | 2.30 ± 1.20 | 2.39 ± 1.18 | 2.23 ± 1.19 | 19.507 | 4 | 352 | 0.000 |
| Spatial distance | 1.62 ± 0.97 | 3.01 ± 1.30 | 2.28 ± 1.13 | 2.30 ± 1.18 | 2.13 ± 1.21 | 38.698 | 4 | 349 | 0.000 |
| Activity frequency | 1.79 ± 0.85 | 2.95 ± 1.30 | 2.00 ± 1.00 | 2.20 ± 1.08 | 1.96 ± 0.95 | 32.878 | 4 | 351 | 0.000 |
| Overall tolerance | 1.85 ± 0.60 | 3.11 ± 1.08 | 2.23 ± 0.85 | 2.32 ± 0.78 | 2.15 ± 0.78 | 57.187 | 4 | 356 | 0.000 |
3.3.5. Occupational Differences
As shown in Table 9, significant differences are observed across all dimensions and overall tolerance toward Asian elephants between respondents engaged in wildlife protection-related occupations (Asian elephant monitors and forest rangers) and those who are not (all p < 0.001). Farm households represented by respondents working in wildlife protection-related occupations report significantly higher tolerance levels across all dimensions and in overall tolerance compared with those not engaged in such occupations. The magnitude of these differences is also relatively large. These results suggest that farm households involved in wildlife protection-related work generally exhibit higher tolerance toward Asian elephants.
| Tolerance Dimension | Wildlife Protection-Related Occupations (N = 111) | Other Occupations (N = 762) | t Value | df | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 3.46 ± 1.09 | 2.60 ± 1.04 | 8.067 | 871 | 0.000 |
| Economic loss | 3.05 ± 1.61 | 2.15 ± 1.34 | 5.595 | 133 | 0.000 |
| Population size | 3.33 ± 1.35 | 2.33 ± 1.26 | 7.764 | 871 | 0.000 |
| Spatial distance | 3.18 ± 1.25 | 2.21 ± 1.22 | 7.784 | 871 | 0.000 |
| Activity frequency | 2.85 ± 1.38 | 2.15 ± 1.10 | 5.065 | 131 | 0.000 |
| Overall tolerance | 3.17 ± 1.10 | 2.29 ± 0.91 | 8.056 | 133 | 0.000 |
3.3.6. Regional Differences
Table 10 compares the regional differences in tolerance toward Asian elephants between farm households in Xishuangbanna Prefecture and Pu’er City. The results show significant regional differences across all dimensions. In terms of mean values, farm households in Pu’er City report higher tolerance levels than those in Xishuangbanna Prefecture across all dimensions and in overall tolerance.
| Tolerance Dimension | Xishuangbanna Prefecture (N = 446) | Pu’er City (N = 427) | t Value | df | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 2.42 ± 0.98 | 3.02 ± 1.09 | −8.579 | 871 | 0.000 |
| Economic loss | 1.93 ± 1.26 | 2.61 ± 1.48 | −7.342 | 837 | 0.000 |
| Population size | 2.21 ± 1.25 | 2.71 ± 1.34 | −5.713 | 860 | 0.000 |
| Spatial distance | 2.18 ± 1.15 | 2.50 ± 1.36 | −3.669 | 835 | 0.000 |
| Activity frequency | 1.98 ± 0.97 | 2.51 ± 1.28 | −6.815 | 792 | 0.000 |
| Overall tolerance | 2.14 ± 0.82 | 2.67 ± 1.07 | −8.131 | 797 | 0.000 |
3.3.7. Differences by Cultivated Land Area
Table 11 compares the differences in tolerance toward Asian elephants among farm households with different cultivated land areas. The results showed that mean tolerance increased as cultivated land area decreased. In terms of statistical significance, only tolerance toward spatial distance showed a significant difference across groups (p = 0.011), indicating that households with larger cultivated land areas had lower mean tolerance toward spatial distance.
| Tolerance Dimension | ≤0.33 (N = 179) | 0.33–0.67 (N = 188) | 0.67–1.00 (N = 201) | 1.00–1.33 (N = 164) | >1.33 (N = 141) | f Value | df1 | df2 | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 2.84 ± 1.14 | 2.72 ± 1.11 | 2.70 ± 1.05 | 2.64 ± 1.05 | 2.64 ± 1.04 | 1.000 | 4 | 868 | 0.407 |
| Economic loss | 2.37 ± 1.48 | 2.22 ± 1.40 | 2.13 ± 1.33 | 2.33 ± 1.44 | 2.28 ± 1.41 | 0.821 | 4 | 423 | 0.512 |
| Population size | 2.61 ± 1.44 | 2.37 ± 1.30 | 2.35 ± 1.22 | 2.51 ± 1.29 | 2.45 ± 1.35 | 1.161 | 4 | 422 | 0.328 |
| Spatial distance | 2.56 ± 1.30 | 2.30 ± 1.21 | 2.36 ± 1.21 | 2.34 ± 1.33 | 2.06 ± 1.25 | 3.266 | 4 | 868 | 0.011 |
| Activity frequency | 2.36 ± 1.17 | 2.23 ± 1.18 | 2.15 ± 1.13 | 2.37 ± 1.19 | 2.07 ± 1.11 | 2.080 | 4 | 868 | 0.082 |
| Overall tolerance | 2.55 ± 1.05 | 2.37 ± 1.00 | 2.34 ± 0.92 | 2.44 ± 0.97 | 2.30 ± 0.95 | 1.723 | 4 | 868 | 0.143 |
3.3.8. Differences by Household Income
Table 12 presents the differences in tolerance toward Asian elephants across household income groups. The results show that significant differences exist across all five dimensions and in overall tolerance (all p < 0.001). Overall, mean tolerance toward Asian elephants tends to increase as household income rises.
| Tolerance Dimension | ≤7.3 (N = 268) | 7.3–14.5 (N = 259) | 14.5–21.8 (N = 119) | 21.8–29.1 (N = 135) | >29.1 (N = 92) | f Value | df1 | df2 | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 2.50 ± 1.00 | 2.58 ± 1.08 | 2.58 ± 1.04 | 3.29 ± 1.02 | 3.05 ± 1.08 | 17.306 | 4 | 868 | 0.000 |
| Economic loss | 1.89 ± 1.31 | 2.11 ± 1.28 | 2.22 ± 1.28 | 3.11 ± 1.52 | 2.59 ± 1.49 | 17.523 | 4 | 325 | 0.000 |
| Population size | 2.46 ± 1.33 | 2.32 ± 1.29 | 2.24 ± 1.20 | 2.93 ± 1.38 | 2.40 ± 1.25 | 5.952 | 4 | 868 | 0.000 |
| Spatial distance | 2.08 ± 1.17 | 2.29 ± 1.20 | 2.26 ± 1.20 | 2.84 ± 1.40 | 2.57 ± 1.35 | 8.362 | 4 | 325 | 0.000 |
| Activity frequency | 2.14 ± 1.10 | 2.13 ± 1.07 | 2.06 ± 1.08 | 2.79 ± 1.28 | 2.26 ± 1.25 | 8.150 | 4 | 325 | 0.000 |
| Overall tolerance | 2.21 ± 0.88 | 2.29 ± 0.91 | 2.27 ± 0.85 | 2.99 ± 1.12 | 2.57 ± 1.04 | 14.176 | 4 | 325 | 0.000 |
3.3.9. Differences by Agricultural Dependence
Table 13 shows the differences in tolerance toward Asian elephants across groups with different levels of agricultural dependence. Significant differences are observed across all dimensions and in overall tolerance. Based on the mean values, tolerance decreases as agricultural dependence increases. Farm households with agricultural dependence ≤ 20% report the highest tolerance across all dimensions, including types of elephant-related damage, economic loss, population size, spatial distance, activity frequency, and overall tolerance (overall mean = 2.81). In contrast, farm households with agricultural dependence of 80–100% report the lowest tolerance levels (overall mean = 2.08).
| Tolerance Dimension | ≤20% (N = 150) | 20–40% (N = 159) | 40–60% (N = 147) | 60–80% (N = 186) | 80–100% (N = 231) | f Value | df1 | df2 | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of elephant-related damage | 3.17 ± 1.17 | 2.85 ± 1.10 | 2.86 ± 1.00 | 2.56 ± 1.04 | 2.35 ± 0.94 | 16.509 | 4 | 410 | 0.000 |
| Economic loss | 2.81 ± 1.55 | 2.50 ± 1.45 | 2.39 ± 1.36 | 2.18 ± 1.39 | 1.73 ± 1.14 | 17.876 | 4 | 405 | 0.000 |
| Population size | 2.92 ± 1.36 | 2.52 ± 1.34 | 2.51 ± 1.23 | 2.33 ± 1.27 | 2.18 ± 1.28 | 8.094 | 4 | 868 | 0.000 |
| Spatial distance | 2.69 ± 1.32 | 2.43 ± 1.33 | 2.44 ± 1.23 | 2.27 ± 1.26 | 2.03 ± 1.13 | 7.168 | 4 | 410 | 0.000 |
| Activity frequency | 2.48 ± 1.23 | 2.33 ± 1.27 | 2.22 ± 1.10 | 2.18 ± 1.15 | 2.09 ± 1.05 | 2.944 | 4 | 410 | 0.020 |
| Overall tolerance | 2.81 ± 1.06 | 2.53 ± 1.05 | 2.48 ± 0.89 | 2.30 ± 0.96 | 2.08 ± 0.84 | 15.317 | 4 | 409 | 0.000 |
3.4. ANCOVA of Tolerance Based on Individual and Household Characteristics
To further examine differences in overall tolerance across groups and ensure the robustness of the results, this study conducted an ANCOVA in addition to independent-samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA. As shown in Table 14, the overall model was statistically significant, with an adjusted R2 of 0.364. This indicates that ethnicity, gender, education, occupation, region, age, cultivated land area, agricultural dependence, and household income jointly explain variations in overall tolerance among farm households.
| Variables | f Value | df | p Value | Partial η2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 21.902 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.025 |
| Education Level | 0.544 | 3 | 0.653 | 0.002 |
| Ethnic | 53.498 | 4 | 0.000 | 0.200 |
| Occupation | 39.062 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.044 |
| Region | 60.205 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.066 |
| Age | 0.740 | 1 | 0.390 | 0.001 |
| Cultivated land area | 8.696 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Household income | 4.212 | 1 | 0.040 | 0.005 |
| Agricultural dependence | 10.504 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| R2 | 0.374 | |||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.364 | |||
After controlling for age, cultivated land area, agricultural dependence, and household income, ethnicity, gender, occupation, and region remained significantly associated with overall tolerance, whereas education was not significant. Ethnicity showed the strongest effect, followed by region and occupation. This suggests that differences in tolerance related to ethnicity, region, and occupation remained relatively robust after controlling for key continuous variables. Parameter estimates further showed that male respondents, Dai households, households engaged in wildlife protection-related occupations, and households located in Pu’er had higher overall tolerance.
Further Bonferroni pairwise comparisons based on estimated marginal means showed that the ethnic differences were mainly reflected in the significantly higher overall tolerance of Dai households than that of all other groups, while Han households showed significantly lower overall tolerance than all other groups. Differences among the remaining ethnic groups were not statistically significant.
Among the covariates, cultivated land area, agricultural dependence, and household income all had significant effects on overall tolerance, whereas age was not significant. Specifically, overall tolerance decreased as cultivated land area increased and as agricultural dependence rose. By contrast, overall tolerance increased as household income increased. The corresponding parameter estimates and Bonferroni pairwise comparison results for ethnicity are provided in the Appendix A.
4. Discussion
4.2. Key Dimensions of Tolerance in Human–Elephant Coexistence
Across the four dimensions of economic loss, population size, spatial distance, and activity frequency, tolerance levels are all significantly below the midpoint of the scale. This suggests that the acceptable boundary of coexistence is influenced not only by the types of elephant-related damage, but also by the frequency of conflict events and the accumulation of economic losses [51]. When Asian elephants appear repeatedly and cause frequent disturbances, farm households may become increasingly intolerant even if the loss from any single event is relatively small [52]. This finding indicates that, in the daily experience of farm households, HEC is not merely an isolated loss event but rather a continuous disturbance process. Frequent elephant activity not only increases the risk of crop loss, but may also disrupt daily farming schedules, affect travel safety, and heighten psychological uncertainty about future risks [53]. Moreover, when economic losses accumulate through repeated conflict events, farm households are more likely to develop negative attitudes toward elephant presence [48]. Therefore, in efforts to promote human–elephant coexistence, management strategies should not only aim to reduce individual loss events but also focus on lowering the frequency of elephant incursions into farmland or residential areas, while strengthening compensation mechanisms to reduce the actual economic burden on farm households and mitigate their perception of persistent conflict risks [51,54].
Tolerance toward spatial distance is also relatively low, reflecting farm households’ tendency to avoid the safety risks and uncertainty associated with close human–elephant proximity. As the spatial distance between elephants and human settlements decreases, the unpredictability of potential conflicts increases, and daily production and livelihood activities are more likely to be disrupted, thereby lowering tolerance levels [55,56]. For example, when elephant activity occurs near farmland or villages, farm households often need to devote additional time to monitoring, guarding, or adjusting farming practices. This not only increases labor costs but also reinforces their perception of ongoing risk.
The mean tolerance toward population size is also below the midpoint of the scale. This suggests that Asian elephant population size is as easy to perceive as elephant visitation frequency, proximity to residential areas, and the economic losses caused. All of these serve as important cues shaping farm households’ risk perception and judgments about coexistence [57,58]. This finding implies that perceptions of coexistence are not based on a single dimension. Instead, they reflect the combined influence of economic loss, population size, activity frequency, and spatial distance. Therefore, efforts to enhance tolerance should adopt a more targeted approach and address multidimensional risks. In particular, spatial management and risk prevention measures should be strengthened. These measures can reduce the frequency of elephant incursions into farmland and residential areas. They can also lessen the economic losses and disruptions to daily life caused by conflict. In this way, they may help alleviate the risk perception and uncertainty associated with close human–elephant proximity [19,59].
4.3. Differences in Tolerance Across Socio-Demographic and Household Characteristics
Tolerance toward Asian elephants shows clear heterogeneity across socio-demographic and household characteristics, although these differences are not consistent across all variables. This suggests that tolerance is shaped by specific socio-economic contexts rather than by any single factor. At the individual level, gender, ethnicity, and engagement in wildlife protection-related occupations are significantly associated with tolerance. In particular, Dai farm households show significantly higher tolerance than all other ethnic groups. This may be closely related to local cultural identity and traditional beliefs [60,61]. In Dai culture, elephants are widely regarded as symbols of good fortune and agricultural prosperity, and they occupy an important place in religious practices and traditional customs. As a result, farm households may be more likely to adopt a positive or tolerant attitude toward the presence of Asian elephants [62].
In addition, farm households represented by respondents engaged in wildlife protection-related occupations also show higher tolerance levels. This may partly reflect their greater awareness of conservation policies and ecological protection values, as well as their involvement in conservation practices and potential benefits derived from them [63,64]. Female farm households show relatively lower tolerance toward Asian elephants, which may be related to women’s greater involvement in farming activities around the home and in daily agricultural production. Because women more frequently come into direct contact with farmland and situations involving crop loss, they may perceive elephant-related crop loss and disruptions to daily production more directly, which may contribute to lower tolerance. Overall, these findings indicate that differences in tolerance are more closely related to local social structures, cultural contexts, and the degree of engagement with conservation activities, rather than simply determined by generational or educational differences [35,65].
In terms of region, farm households in Pu’er City show higher overall tolerance than those in Xishuangbanna Prefecture. This difference may reflect variations in both conflict exposure and governance contexts between the two regions. On the one hand, Xishuangbanna is the traditional habitat of Asian elephants in China, where HEC have occurred for a longer period and at higher frequency. Long-term exposure to such conflicts may increase risk perceptions among farm households and reduce their tolerance toward elephant activity [35,66,67]. On the other hand, Pu’er has recently invested more resources in wildlife damage compensation programs, with relatively higher compensation standards and payment levels. When HEC occur, higher compensation may partially offset actual economic losses [68]. Because farm households tend to be particularly sensitive to economic loss, more adequate compensation mechanisms may help reduce negative perceptions associated with conflicts and increase tolerance toward Asian elephants [69,70]. This finding is consistent with previous studies suggesting that compensation or benefits derived from conservation can increase tolerance toward wildlife [71,72].
Regarding household income, tolerance increases with rising household income, indicating that greater economic capacity can help buffer the financial risks associated with HEC [73]. When household income sources become more diversified and dependence on agricultural income declines, farm households are typically better able to absorb wildlife-related losses and therefore tend to show higher tolerance levels [74].
In terms of agricultural dependence, tolerance toward Asian elephants decreases as reliance on agricultural income increases. This indicates that when farm households depend heavily on agriculture and have limited alternative income sources, HEC impose a stronger marginal impact on their livelihoods, thereby reducing tolerance. For households whose primary income derives from agriculture, elephant activity in farmland can cause direct crop loss while also increasing uncertainty in agricultural production, further heightening sensitivity to livelihood risks [36,75]. By contrast, households with lower agricultural dependence often have more diversified income sources, including off-farm employment, which provides greater resilience against wildlife-related losses and is associated with higher tolerance levels [76]. Overall, these results highlight the importance of livelihood structure in shaping tolerance toward wildlife in HEC areas.
Finally, the effect of cultivated land area on tolerance is mainly reflected in the dimensions of spatial distance. In general, farm households with larger cultivated land areas show lower tolerance for elephants approaching farmland. This may be because larger farmland areas increase the spatial exposure of agricultural production, meaning that when elephants enter farmland, the potential scale of damage and economic loss is greater [77,78]. At the same time, larger farmland areas may increase the likelihood of spatial overlap between elephant activity and agricultural land, thereby raising the probability and frequency of elephant incursions into farmland and reinforcing farmers’ sensitivity to such risks [79,80]. Consequently, in addition to the size of farmland itself, farm households are particularly concerned with the distance between farmland and elephant activity areas.
4.4. Research Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the questionnaire relies on self-reported responses, which may be influenced by individual risk perceptions and social desirability, potentially introducing some bias. Second, the analysis mainly employs descriptive statistics, one-sample tests, and group comparison tests. While these methods help identify the overall level of tolerance and differences across farm household groups, they provide limited insight into the underlying mechanisms influencing tolerance. Future research could further explore the determinants and causal mechanisms of farm households’ tolerance toward Asian elephants.
5. Conclusions
This study finds that farm households show relatively low overall tolerance toward Asian elephants. In terms of types of elephant-related damage, losses directly related to agricultural production and household livelihood security are the least tolerated. In addition, tolerance varies significantly across individual and household characteristics. Male respondents, Dai households, households engaged in wildlife protection-related occupations, and households located in Pu’er show relatively higher tolerance. In addition, overall tolerance is also higher among households with smaller cultivated land areas, higher income levels, and lower agricultural dependence. These multidimensional findings suggest that improving the social sustainability of human–elephant coexistence requires addressing the dimensions of conflict that farm households perceive as most sensitive. At the same time, reducing uncertainty and opportunity costs associated with close human–elephant proximity may help enhance conservation outcomes and promote coexistence.
First, priority should be given to reducing livelihood impacts caused by crop loss and loss of working time. As these represent the most intolerable consequences of HEC for farm households, mitigation measures should focus on key stages of agricultural production. In areas with frequent conflict, early-warning systems, patrol management, and protective infrastructure should be strengthened during critical farming seasons and in high-risk farmland areas to reduce the probability of elephants entering farmland. This can help lower the risk of crop damage as well as the time costs associated with protective activities undertaken by farmers. In addition, local agricultural conditions may allow for adjustments in cropping patterns or the introduction of alternative crops, thereby reducing dependence on crops that are particularly vulnerable to elephant damage and mitigating the direct livelihood impacts of conflict.
Second, management efforts should shift from simply reducing losses to reducing the frequency of conflict events. Farm households are relatively sensitive to the activity frequency of Asian elephants, suggesting that compensation or reductions in individual loss events alone may not substantially improve attitudes toward coexistence. Instead, reducing the frequency of elephant incursions into farmland and residential areas, limiting persistent disturbances, and controlling uncertainty associated with conflict risks are likely to be more effective in increasing tolerance. HEC management should therefore move beyond post-event compensation and place greater emphasis on spatial management, early-warning systems, and habitat-based strategies to reduce the ongoing disruptions caused by elephant activity in human-dominated landscapes.
Third, differentiated governance and targeted support for vulnerable groups should be strengthened. Significant differences in tolerance exist across regions, income levels, and degrees of agricultural dependence. As a result, policy design should incorporate context-specific approaches in resource allocation, compensation mechanisms, and risk communication. Particular attention should be given to farm households with lower tolerance levels and more vulnerable livelihoods, such as those with high agricultural dependence or high exposure to conflict. Providing targeted compensation, technical assistance, and risk management support for these groups can improve the effectiveness and fairness of conflict mitigation policies, while avoiding the inefficiencies associated with one-size-fits-all approaches.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our investigators and the households who participated in our survey.
Appendix A
| Variables | Reference Group | Coefficient | Standard Error | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Han | Other ethnic minorities | −0.253 | 0.090 | 0.005 |
| Dai | 0.849 | 0.083 | 0.000 | |
| Hani | 0.153 | 0.083 | 0.065 | |
| Lahu | 0.297 | 0.109 | 0.007 | |
| Female | Male | −0.289 | 0.062 | 0.000 |
| Primary school or below | College or above | −0.168 | 0.156 | 0.280 |
| Junior high school | −0.193 | 0.155 | 0.211 | |
| Senior high school | −0.190 | 0.181 | 0.297 | |
| Other occupations | Wildlife protection-related occupations | −0.521 | 0.083 | 0.000 |
| Pu’er City | Xishuangbanna Prefecture | 0.431 | 0.055 | 0.000 |
| Age | −0.024 | 0.028 | 0.390 | |
| Cultivated Land Area | −0.060 | 0.020 | 0.003 | |
| Agricultural Dependence | −0.066 | 0.020 | 0.001 | |
| Household Income | 0.045 | 0.022 | 0.040 |
| Comparison Group | Comparison Group | Mean Difference | Standard Error | p Value | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Han | Dai | −1.103 | 0.082 | 0.000 | Yes |
| Hani | −0.407 | 0.082 | 0.000 | Yes | |
| Lahu | −0.550 | 0.107 | 0.000 | Yes | |
| Other ethnic minorities | −0.253 | 0.090 | 0.048 | Yes | |
| Dai | Hani | 0.696 | 0.075 | 0.000 | Yes |
| Lahu | 0.553 | 0.103 | 0.000 | Yes | |
| Other ethnic minorities | 0.849 | 0.083 | 0.000 | Yes | |
| Hani | Lahu | −0.143 | 0.103 | 1.000 | No |
| Other ethnic minorities | 0.153 | 0.083 | 0.651 | No | |
| Lahu | Other ethnic minorities | 0.297 | 0.109 | 0.068 | No |
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study does not fall within the scope of medical research, involves no animal experimentation, and entails no human subjects. All data were collected via questionnaire surveys. Our research adheres to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Renmin University of China, Beijing Forestry University, and Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University informed us that our research does not require ethical approval as all participants voluntarily took part in the survey, the collected information was strictly confidential and anonymised, and no personal privacy was infringed upon nor ethical issues raised. Our research process strictly adhered to the guidelines and regulations of Renmin University of China, Beijing Forestry University, and Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University. No non-routine procedures were employed in any human-involved research. Before all interviews, the content of the study was explained to the interviewees and informed consent was obtained.
Data Availability Statement
The data and materials used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, grant number 2025M772463; and National Social Science Foundation of China, grant number 2023BGL177.
Footnotes
Footnote Group
References
Untitled section
References
- 1.Campos-Arceiz A., Blake S. Megagardeners of the Forest—The Role of Elephants in Seed Dispersal. Acta Oecologica. 2011;37:542–553. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2011.01.014.
- 2.Fernando P., De Silva M.K.C.R., Jayasinghe L.K.A., Janaka H.K., Pastorini J. First Country-Wide Survey of the Endangered Asian Elephant: Towards Better Conservation and Management in Sri Lanka. Oryx. 2021;55:46–55. doi: 10.1017/S0030605318001254.
- 3.Thant Z.M., Leimgruber P., Williams A.C., Oo Z.M., Roskaft E., May R. Factors Influencing the Habitat Suitability of Wild Asian Elephants and Their Implications for Human-Elephant Conflict in Myanmar. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2023;43:e02468. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02468.
- 4.Wan X., Jiang G., Yan C., He F., Wen R., Gu J., Li X., Ma J., Stenseth N.C., Zhang Z. Historical Records Reveal the Distinctive Associations of Human Disturbance and Extreme Climate Change with Local Extinction of Mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2019;116:19001–19008. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1818019116.
- 5.Bowers M.J., Corde S.C., Von Hagen L., Kasaine S., Amakobe B., Githiru M., Wambugu G.M., Mutwiwa U.N., Schulte B.A. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Human–Elephant Conflict in Southern Kenya: Intercropping with Use of a Metal Strip Deterrent Fence. Afr. J. Ecol. 2025;63:e70051. doi: 10.1111/aje.70051.
- 6.Xu B., Zhang X., Zhang J., Fan H. Reciprocal Regulation between Rural Settlement Expansion and Human-Elephant Conflict in China’s Wild Elephant Range. Geogr. Sustain. 2025;6:100238. doi: 10.1016/j.geosus.2024.08.014.
- 7.Guarnieri M., Kumaishi G., Brock C., Chatterjee M., Fabiano E., Katrak-Adefowora R., Larsen A., Lockmann T.M., Roehrdanz P.R. Effects of Climate, Land Use, and Human Population Change on Human–Elephant Conflict Risk in Africa and Asia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2024;121:e2312569121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2312569121.
- 8.Wenborn M.J., Katjimbari R., Tjiseua J., Muheue K., Tjimuine U., Muundjua S.T., Svensson M.S., Nijman V. Assessment of Mitigation of Human–Elephant Conflict in the Highlands of Northwest Namibia. J. Environ. Dev. 2025;34:684–706. doi: 10.1177/10704965241311353.
- 9.Serenari C., Othman N.B., Yadav K., Rubino E., Goossens B. Investigating Blame for Human-Wildlife Conflict: Reason Conditions for Human-Elephant Conflict in Borneo. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2025;18:19400829251375307. doi: 10.1177/19400829251375307.
- 10.Supanta J., Poolkhet C., Yindee M., Manatchaiworakul W., Wongtawan T. Human–Elephant Conflict in Thailand over the Past Decade (2014–2023): Occurrence, Geographical Distribution, and Temporal Trends. Animals. 2025;15:1304. doi: 10.3390/ani15091304.
- 11.Köpke S., Withanachchi S.S., Chinthaka Perera E.N., Withanachchi C.R., Gamage D.U., Nissanka T.S., Warapitiya C.C., Nissanka B.M., Ranasinghe N.N., Senarathna C.D., et al. Factors Driving Human–Elephant Conflict: Statistical Assessment of Vulnerability and Implications for Wildlife Conflict Management in Sri Lanka. Biodivers. Conserv. 2024;33:3075–3101. doi: 10.1007/s10531-024-02903-z.
- 12.Gunawansa T.D., Perera K., Apan A., Hettiarachchi N.K. The Human-Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka: History and Present Status. Biodivers. Conserv. 2023;32:3025–3052. doi: 10.1007/s10531-023-02650-7.
- 13.Wong E.P., Campos-Arceiz A., Zulaikha N., Chackrapani P., Quilter A.G., de la Torre J.A., Solana-Mena A., Tan W.H., Ong L., Rusli M.A., et al. Living with Elephants: Evidence-Based Planning to Conserve Wild Elephants in a Megadiverse South East Asian Country. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2021;2:682590. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.682590.
- 14.Zhang Q., Hu J., Graybill S.A., Moody A., Bista R., Bilsborrow R.E., Song C. Crop-Raiding by Wildlife and Cropland Abandonment as Feedback from Nature-Based Solutions: Lessons from Case Studies in China and Nepal. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024;19:124029. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad8c69.
- 15.Exposito-Granados M., Castro A.J., Lozano J., Aznar-Sanchez J.A., Carter N.H., Requena-Mullor J.M., Malo A.F., Olszanska A., Morales-Reyes Z., Moleon M., et al. Human-Carnivore Relations: Conflicts, Tolerance and Coexistence in the American West. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019;14:123005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab5485.
- 16.Fernando P., Pastorini J. Whither the Science in Wildlife Management? Anim. Conserv. 2021;24:735–737. doi: 10.1111/acv.12743.
- 17.DeMotts R., Hoon P. Whose Elephants? Conserving, Compensating, and Competing in Northern Botswana. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012;25:837–851. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.638362.
- 18.Frank B. Human-Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Tolerance and Coexistence: An Introductory Comment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2016;29:738–743. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388.
- 19.Bhatia S., Redpath S.M., Suryawanshi K., Mishra C. Beyond Conflict: Exploring the Spectrum of Human–Wildlife Interactions and Their Underlying Mechanisms. Oryx. 2020;54:621–628. doi: 10.1017/S003060531800159X.
- 20.Whitehouse-Tedd K., Abell J., Dunn A.K. Evaluation of the Use of Psychometric Scales in Human-Wildlife Interaction Research to Determine Attitudes and Tolerance toward Wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 2021;35:533–547. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13599.
- 21.Bruskotter J.T., Singh A., Fulton D.C., Slagle K. Assessing Tolerance for Wildlife: Clarifying Relations between Concepts and Measures. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2015;20:255–270. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2015.1016387.
- 22.Bruskotter J.T., Wilson R.S. Determining Where the Wild Things Will Be: Using Psychological Theory to Find Tolerance for Large Carnivores. Conserv. Lett. 2014;7:158–165. doi: 10.1111/conl.12072.
- 23.McLean H.E., Teel T.L., Bright A.D., Jaebker L.M., Tomecek J.M., Frank M.G., Connally R.L., Shwiff S.A., Carlisle K.M. Understanding Tolerance for an Invasive Species: An Investigation of Hunter Acceptance Capacity for Wild Pigs (Sus scrofa) in Texas. J. Environ. Manag. 2021;285:112143. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112143.
- 24.Virtanen P., Macandza V., Goba P., Mourinho J., Roque D., Mamugy F., Langa B. Assessing Tolerance for Wildlife: Human-Elephant Conflict in Chimanimani, Mozambique. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2021;26:411–428. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2020.1834648.
- 25.Murphy K.J., Kenny U., Ciuti S., Byrne A.W. Understanding Deer Management Dilemmas: A Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Diverse Stakeholder Values in Human-Wildlife Conflicts. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2025;71:78. doi: 10.1007/s10344-025-01954-z.
- 26.Kansky R., Knight A.T. Key Factors Driving Attitudes towards Large Mammals in Conflict with Humans. Biol. Conserv. 2014;179:93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.008.
- 27.Decker D., Purdy K. Toward a Concept of Wildlife Acceptance Capacity in Wildlife Management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1988;16:53–57.
- 28.Delie J., Needham M.D., Biedenweg K. Modeling Cognitive Antecedents of Tolerance for Black Bears: The Roles of Direct Experience, Knowledge, and Risk Perceptions. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2023;28:564–584. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2022.2098424.
- 29.Glikman J.A., Frank B., Ruppert K.A., Knox J., Sponarski C.C., Metcalf E.C., Metcalf A.L., Marchini S. Coexisting with Different Human-Wildlife Coexistence Perspectives. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2021;2:703174. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.703174.
- 30.Lecuyer L., Calmé S., Schmook B., White R.M. Conservation Conflict Hotspots: Mapping Impacts, Risk Perception and Tolerance for Sustainable Conservation Management. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2022;3:909908. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2022.909908.
- 31.Kansky R., Kidd M., Fischer J. Understanding Drivers of Human Tolerance towards Mammals in a Mixed-Use Transfrontier Conservation Area in Southern Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2021;254:108947. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108947.
- 32.Marino F., Kansky R., Shivji I., Di Croce A., Ciucci P., Knight A.T. Understanding Drivers of Human Tolerance to Gray Wolves and Brown Bears as a Strategy to Improve Landholder-Carnivore Coexistence. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021;3:e265. doi: 10.1111/csp2.265.
- 33.Zhang H., Guo S., Ma L., Su K., Lobora A., Hou Y., Wen Y. Living with Elephants: Analyzing Commonalities and Differences in Human-Elephant Conflicts in China and Tanzania Based on Residents’ Perspectives. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2024;53:e03034. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03034.
- 34.Wang J., Chen Y., Sun Y., Lyu Z., Shi K. Inferring Human-Elephant Coexistence Based on Characteristics of Human-Elephant Interactions in Nangunhe of Yunnan, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2023;33:363–376. doi: 10.1007/s11769-023-1332-6.
- 35.Chen Y., Marino J., Chen Y., Tao Q., Sullivan C.D., Shi K., Macdonald D.W. Predicting Hotspots of Human-Elephant Conflict to Inform Mitigation Strategies in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0162035. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162035.
- 36.Zhao M., Chen J., Liu B., Xie Y. Impact of Human–Elephant Conflict Risk Perception on Farmers’ Land Use Efficiency in Yunnan, China. Land. 2025;14:764. doi: 10.3390/land14040764.
- 37.Lischka S.A., Riley S.J., Rudolph B.A. Effects of Impact Perception on Acceptance Capacity for White-Tailed Deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 2008;72:502–509. doi: 10.2193/2007-117.
- 38.Slagle K.M., Wilson R.S., Bruskotter J.T. Tolerance for Wolves in the United States. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022;10:817809. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.817809.
- 39.Pragadeesh V., Asokhan M., Prasad S.A., Baranidharan K., Jayashree V., Kumar D.S., Sriram N., Murugan P.P., Gangaiselvi R. Human-Wildlife Conflict in South Indian Agriculture: Causes, Impacts and Mitigation Strategies. Plant Sci. Today. 2025;12:1–12. doi: 10.14719/pst.7458.
- 40.Shrestha S., Shrestha U.B., Shrestha P., Joshi S. Livelihood Vulnerability and Human Wildlife Conflict in Nepal’s Lowland Protected Areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2026;65:e04029. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e04029.
- 41.Knox J., Ruppert K., Frank B., Sponarski C.C., Glikman J.A. Usage, Definition, and Measurement of Coexistence, Tolerance and Acceptance in Wildlife Conservation Research in Africa. Ambio. 2021;50:301–313. doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01352-6.
- 42.Wolf G.W. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Mitt. Osterr. Geogr. Ges. 2018;160:409–410.
- 43.Kuhnt S., Steinberg D.M. Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. AStA Adv. Stat. Anal. 2010;94:307–309. doi: 10.1007/s10182-010-0143-0.
- 44.Henley M.D., Cook R.M., Bedetti A., Wilmot J., Roode A., Pereira C.L., Almeida J., Alverca A. A Phased Approach to Increase Human Tolerance in Elephant Corridors to Link Protected Areas in Southern Mozambique. Diversity. 2023;15:85. doi: 10.3390/d15010085.
- 45.Borah B.C., Bhattacharya A., Sarkar P., Choudhury P. People’s Perception on Human-Elephant Conflict in Rani-Garbhanga Reserve Forest of Assam, India. GeoJournal. 2022;87:4127–4141. doi: 10.1007/s10708-021-10491-6.
- 46.Khan T.U., Nabi G., Iqbal A., Ullah K., Hu H. Fields of Conflict: Public Attitudes and Economic Impacts of Human-Wildlife Conflict on Rural Livelihood in District Lakki Marwat, Pakistan. Diversity. 2025;17:180. doi: 10.3390/d17030180.
- 47.Hazzah L., Dolrenry S., Kaplan D., Frank L. The Influence of Park Access during Drought on Attitudes toward Wildlife and Lion Killing Behaviour in Maasailand, Kenya. Environ. Conserv. 2013;40:266–276. doi: 10.1017/S0376892913000040.
- 48.Saif O., Kansky R., Palash A., Kidd M., Knight A.T. Costs of Coexistence: Understanding the Drivers of Tolerance towards Asian Elephants Elephas maximus in Rural Bangladesh. Oryx. 2020;54:603–611. doi: 10.1017/S0030605318001072.
- 49.Raycraft J. Wildlife and Human Safety in the Tarangire Ecosystem, Tanzania. Trees For. People. 2023;13:100418. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100418.
- 50.Usman M.F., Le Bel S., Grimaud P., Nielsen M.R. Evaluating the Determinants of Wildlife Tolerance in the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area in Zimbabwe. J. Nat. Conserv. 2023;75:126466. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126466.
- 51.Rodgers P.D., Pienaar E.F. Tolerance for the Florida Panther in Exurban Southwest Florida. J. Wildl. Manag. 2018;82:865–876. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21431.
- 52.Gosling E., Bojarska K., Gula R., Kuehn R. Recent Arrivals or Established Tenants? History of Wolf Presence Influences Attitudes toward the Carnivore. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2019;43:639–650. doi: 10.1002/wsb.1027.
- 53.Hazzah L., Mulder M.B., Frank L. Lions and Warriors: Social Factors Underlying Declining African Lion Populations and the Effect of Incentive-Based Management in Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 2009;142:2428–2437. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.006.
- 54.Redpath S., Arroyo B., Leckie E., Bacon P., Bayfield N., Gutiérrez R., Thirgood S. Using Decision Modeling with Stakeholders to Reduce Human-Wildlife Conflict: A Raptor-Grouse Case Study. Conserv. Biol. 2004;18:351–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00421.x.
- 55.Kidane E.E., Kiros S., Berhe A., Girma Z. Human-Wildlife Conflict and Community Perceptions towards Wildlife Conservation in and around a Biodiverse National Park, Northern Ethiopia. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2024;54:e03072. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03072.
- 56.Bongi P., Baruffetti M., Gazzola A., O’Mahony K. Coexistence in Ecological Corridors: Understanding Tolerance of Wolves in the Northwestern Apennines, Italy. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2023;28:53–69. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2021.2010288.
- 57.Digun-Aweto O. Analysis of Human and Wildlife Coexistence in National Parks; the Case Study of Okomu and Cross River National Parks, Nigeria. GeoJournal. 2024;89:152. doi: 10.1007/s10708-024-11119-1.
- 58.Nsonsi F., Heymans J.-C., Diamouangana J., Breuer T. Attitudes towards Forest Elephant Conservation around a Protected Area in Northern Congo. Conserv. Soc. 2017;15:59–73. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.201394.
- 59.Kansky R., Maassarani T. Teaching Nonviolent Communication to Increase Empathy between People and toward Wildlife to Promote Human-Wildlife Coexistence. Conserv. Lett. 2022;15:e12862. doi: 10.1111/conl.12862.
- 60.Thekaekara T., Bhagwat S.A., Thornton T.F. Coexistence and Culture: Understanding Human Diversity and Tolerance in Human-Elephant Interactions. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2021;2:735929. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.735929.
- 61.Lischka S.A., Teel T.L., Johnson H.E., Crooks K.R. Understanding and Managing Human Tolerance for a Large Carnivore in a Residential System. Biol. Conserv. 2019;238:108189. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.034.
- 62.Yeshey, Ford R.M.J., Keenan R.J.R., Nitschke C.R. Religious Beliefs and Wildlife Value Orientations Influence Tolerance of Wildlife Impacts in Bhutan. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2024;29:301–318. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2023.2234389.
- 63.Bruskotter J.T., Fulton D.C. Will Hunters Steward Wolves? A Comment on Treves and Martin. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012;25:97–102. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.622735.
- 64.Riley S., Decker D. Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity for Cougars in Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2000;28:931–939.
- 65.Dorresteijn I., Milcu A.I., Leventon J., Hanspach J., Fischer J. Social Factors Mediating Human-Carnivore Coexistence: Understanding Thematic Strands Influencing Coexistence in Central Romania. Ambio. 2016;45:491–500. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0760-7.
- 66.Li W., Liu P., Guo X., Wang L., Wang Q., Yu Y., Dai Y., Li L., Zhang L. Human-Elephant Conflict in Xishuangbanna Prefecture, China: Distribution, Diffusion, and Mitigation. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018;16:e00462. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00462.
- 67.Su K., Ren J., Yang J., Hou Y., Wen Y. Human-Elephant Conflicts and Villagers’ Attitudes and Knowledge in the Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:8910. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238910.
- 68.Naughton-Treves L., Grossberg R., Treves A. Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens’ Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. Conserv. Biol. 2003;17:1501–1511. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x.
- 69.Karanth K.K., Gopalaswamy A.M., Prasad P.K., Dasgupta S. Patterns of Human-Wildlife Conflicts and Compensation: Insights from Western Ghats Protected Areas. Biol. Conserv. 2013;166:175–185. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.027.
- 70.Karlsson J., Sjostrom M. Subsidized Fencing of Livestock as a Means of Increasing Tolerance for Wolves. Ecol. Soc. 2011;16:16. doi: 10.5751/ES-03878-160116.
- 71.Terada S., Yobo C.M., Moussavou G.-M., Matsuura N. Human-Elephant Conflict around Moukalaba-Doudou National Park in Gabon: Socioeconomic Changes and Effects of Conservation Projects on Local Tolerance. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2021;14:1–16. doi: 10.1177/19400829211026775.
- 72.Marino A., Braschi C., Ricci S., Salvatori V., Ciucci P. Ex Post and Insurance-Based Compensation Fail to Increase Tolerance for Wolves in Semi-Agricultural Landscapes of Central Italy. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016;62:227–240. doi: 10.1007/s10344-016-1001-5.
- 73.Pawar P., Mule M. Farmer-Wildlife Coexistence: Decoding the Pattern of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Compensation in the Human-Dominated Landscape of Marathwada, Western India. Wildl. Res. 2025;52:WR24080. doi: 10.1071/WR24080.
- 74.Malley G.S., Gorenflo L.J. Shifts in the Conflict-Coexistence Continuum: Exploring Social-Ecological Determinants of Human-Elephant Interactions. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0274155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274155.
- 75.Ardiantiono, Sugiyo, Johnson P.J., Lubis M.I., Amama F., Sukatmoko, Marthy W., Zimmermann A. Towards Coexistence: Can People’s Attitudes Explain Their Willingness to Live with Sumatran Elephants in Indonesia? Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021;3:e520. doi: 10.1111/csp2.520.
- 76.Hill C.M. Perspectives of “Conflict” at the Wildlife-Agriculture Boundary: 10 Years On. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2015;20:296–301. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2015.1004143.
- 77.Panja U., Mistri B. Human-Elephant Conflict Risks in the Forest-Dominated Areas of West Bengal, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2025;197:659. doi: 10.1007/s10661-025-14061-y.
- 78.Jarungrattanapong R., Olewiler N. Ecosystem Management to Reduce Human–Elephant Conflict in Thailand. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2025;27:15005–15024. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04485-w.
- 79.Snyman S. Assessment of the Main Factors Impacting Community Members’ Attitudes towards Tourism and Protected Areas in Six Southern African Countries. Koedoe. 2014;56:a1139. doi: 10.4102/koedoe.v56i2.1139.
- 80.Denninger Snyder K., Tiedeman K.M., Barrett B.J., Kibwe M., Hijmans R.J., Wittemeyer G. Differentiated Drivers in Wildlife-Induced Damage Necessitate Species-Specific Mitigation Strategies in the Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 2023;285:110202. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110202.
Associated Data
Data Availability Statement
The data and materials used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.