Beehive fences as a multidimensional conflict‐mitigation tool for farmers coexisting with elephants

Abstract

Increasing habitat fragmentation and human population growth in Africa has resulted in an escalation in human-elephant conflict between small-scale farmers and free-ranging African elephants (Loxodonta Africana). In 2012 Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) implemented the national 10-year Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya, which includes an action aimed at testing whether beehive fences can be used to mitigate human-elephant conflict. From 2012 to 2015, we field-tested the efficacy of beehive fences to protect 10 0.4-ha farms next to Tsavo East National Park from elephants. We hung a series of beehives every 10 m around the boundary of each farm plot. The hives were linked with strong wire. After an initial pilot test with 2 farms, the remaining 8 of 10 beehive fences also contained 2-dimensional dummy hives between real beehives to help reduce the cost of the fence. Each trial plot had a neighboring control plot of the same size within the same farm. Of the 131 beehives deployed 88% were occupied at least once during the 3.5-year trial. Two hundred and fifty-three elephants, predominantly 20-45 years old entered the community farming area, typically during the crop- ripening season. Eighty percent of the elephants that approached the trial farms were kept out of the areas protected by the beehive fences, and elephants that broke a fence were in smaller than average groups. Beehive fences not only kept large groups of elephants from invading the farmland plots but the farmers also benefited socially and financially from the sale of 228 kg of elephant-friendly honey. As news of the success of the trial spread, a further 12 farmers requested to join the project, bringing the number of beehive fence protected farms to 22 and beehives to 297. This demonstrates positive adoption of beehive fences as a community mitigation tool. Understanding the response of elephants to the beehive fences, the seasonality of crop raiding and fence breaking, and the willingness of the community to engage with the mitigation method will help contribute to future management strategies for this high human-elephant conflict hotspot and other similar areas in Kenya.

Fencing solves human‐wildlife conflict locally but shifts problems elsewhere: A case study using functional connectivity modelling of the African elephant

“…Adding a seasonal component to our analysis helped to prioritize seasonal corridors, identify commonly used routes and to confirm the time of the year where elephant movements may cause HEC. As the importance of non‐protected lands increased in the dry season and HEC occurs more often in the driest periods (King, Lala, Nzumu, Mwambingu, & Douglas‐Hamilton, ; Kioko et al., ), we suggest that the movement corridors with the highest ranks predicted for the dry period should receive special attention in local management planning and be considered for more formal protection within conservation estates.…”

An experimental test of community‐based strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict around protected areas

“…Indeed, offsetting economic losses is considered essential to managing human–elephant conflict successfully (Hartter, Solomon, Ryan, Jacobson, & Goldman, ; Snyman, ). Although programs for compensating subsistence farmers for crop losses to elephants have met with difficulties in Africa (Shaffer et al, ), the production of marketable commodities such as honey (King, Lala, Nzumu, Mwambingu, & Douglas‐Hamilton, ), chili products (Hedges & Gunaryadi, ), or other cash crops (Parker & Osborn, ) as a byproduct of deterrence can increase community buy‐in and foster greater tolerance toward elephants (Shaffer et al, ).…”

“…The goal of our project was simultaneously to reduce the frequency of crop‐raiding by elephants and to improve attitudes toward elephants by working with community members to develop and test multiple mitigation techniques with the potential to produce profitable byproducts. We evaluated the efficacy of three techniques for reducing elephant crop‐raiding: (1) beehive fences (Karidozo & Osborn, ; King, Lawrence, Douglas‐Hamilton, & Vollrath, ; King, Douglas–Hamilton, & Vollrath, ; King et al, ; Scheijen, Richards, Smit, Jones, & Nowak, ); (2) chili‐pepper fences (Hedges & Gunaryadi, ; Wiafe & Sam, ); and (3) a combination of the two that we termed “spicy beehive” fences. We conducted a manipulative experiment in which we used two independent data streams (movement data from GPS‐collared elephants, and daily reports from community members about the presence of elephants at each fence location) to compare: (1) use of crossing points by GPS‐collared elephants between years with (year 2) and without (year 1) fences; and (2) use of crossing points with treatment, procedural‐control, or no fences during year 2.…”

Taking the Elephants' Perspective: Remembering Elephant Behavior, Cognition and Ecology in Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation

“…In addition, these monitoring methods and mitigation strategies do not aim to directly alter or impact elephant behavior in a positive way, but only focus on physical, acoustic or olfactory barriers between elephants, humans and their habitats. (Hoare, 2003;Fernando et al, 2008), stone or log (Hoare, 2003;Fernando et al, 2008), electric (Osborn and Parker, 2002;Hoare, 2003;Kioko et al, 2008;Asimopoulos, 2016), chili pepper paste applied to rope (Fernando et al, 2008;Wiafe and Sam, 2014;Wahed et al, 2016), beehives on fences or trees (Ngama et al, 2016;King et al, 2017;Cook et al, 2018).…”