Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Cabral de Mel, S.J.;
Seneweera, S.; Dangolla, A.;
Weerakoon, D.K.; Maraseni, T.; Allen,
B.L. Attitudes towards the Potential
Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices
to Manage Wild Elephant Movement.
Animals 2023,13, 2657. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ani13162657
Academic Editors: Bruce Alexander
Schulte and Chase LaDue
Received: 24 July 2023
Revised: 11 August 2023
Accepted: 14 August 2023
Published: 18 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
animals
Article
Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing
Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement
Surendranie J. Cabral de Mel 1,2 , Saman Seneweera 2,3, Ashoka Dangolla 4, Devaka K. Weerakoon 5,
Tek Maraseni 1,6 and Benjamin L. Allen 1,7 ,*
1Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland,
Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia; surendranie.cabral@gmail.com (S.J.C.d.M.);
tek.maraseni@usq.edu.au (T.M.)
2National Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy 20000, Sri Lanka; seneweera@gmail.com
3School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Sciences, The University of Melbourne,
Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
4Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka;
adangolla@gmail.com
5Department of Zoology and Environmental Sciences, University of Colombo, Colombo 00300, Sri Lanka;
devakaw@gmail.com
6Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Lanzhou 730000, China
7Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth 6034, South Africa
*Correspondence: benjamin.allen@usq.edu.au
Simple Summary:
Human-elephant conflict (HEC) has intensified in the recent decades and poses a
great threat to Asian elephant conservation. Aversive geofencing devices (AGDs) or animal-borne
satellite-linked shock collars might become a useful tool to help reduce HEC incidents. AGDs may be
used on problem causing elephants, to train them to move away from human-dominated landscapes
by associating the receipt of electric shocks with preceding audio warnings given from the AGD as
they approach virtual boundaries. We assessed the opinions of experts, farmers, and others who
have and have not experienced HEC towards the potential use of AGDs on Asian elephants. Most
respondents had positive opinions on the potential effectiveness of AGDs in managing elephant
movement (62.2%). About 62.8% respondents also expressed positive responses for the acceptability
of AGDs if pilot studies with captive elephants have been successful in managing their movements.
Some respondents perceived AGDs to be unacceptable because they are unethical or harmful and
would be unsuccessful given wild elephants may respond differently to AGDs than captive elephants.
Respondents identified several potential challenges for implementing AGDs as an elephant manage-
ment tool. These issues need attention when developing AGDs to increase support from stakeholders
and to effectively reduce HEC incidents in the future.
Abstract:
Aversive geofencing devices (AGDs) or animal-borne satellite-linked shock collars might
become a useful tool to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC). AGDs have the potential to condition
problem elephants to avoid human-dominated landscapes by associating mild electric shocks with
preceding audio warnings given as they approach virtual boundaries. We assessed the opinions
of different stakeholders (experts, farmers, and others who have and have not experienced HEC;
n = 611) on the potential use of AGDs on Asian elephants. Most respondents expressed positive
opinions on the potential effectiveness of AGDs in managing elephant movement (62.2%). About
62.8% respondents also provided positive responses for the acceptability of AGDs if pilot studies with
captive elephants have been successful in managing their movements. Some respondents perceived
AGDs to be unacceptable because they are unethical or harmful and would be unsuccessful given
wild elephants may respond differently to AGDs than captive elephants. Respondents identified
acceptability, support and awareness of stakeholders, safety and wellbeing of elephants, logistical
difficulties, durability and reliable functionality of AGDs, and uncertainties in elephants’ responses to
AGDs as potential challenges for implementing AGDs. These issues need attention when developing
AGDs to increase support from stakeholders and to effectively reduce HEC incidents in the future.
Animals 2023,13, 2657. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13162657 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Animals 2023,13, 2657 2 of 14
Keywords:
conservation; electric shock collars; Elephas maximus; human-elephant conflict; public
opinion; virtual fencing; wildlife management
1. Introduction
The majority of Asian elephant Elephas maximus populations inhabit fragmented habi-
tats dispersed among human-dominated landscapes. Thus, negative interactions between
humans and elephants are inevitable [
1
–
5
]. Human-elephant conflict (HEC) is spread
across all the 13 Asian elephant range countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China,
India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam) and
is the biggest challenge for the conservation of this endangered species [
6
]. As a result
of HEC, hundreds of human lives are lost each year and farmers in rural communities
experience large scale economic losses from crop and property damage [
7
–
11
]. Hundreds of
elephants also die annually from intentional or unintentional human actions that directly or
indirectly result from HEC. Unintentional deaths of elephants may be caused by accidents
such as falling into agricultural wells and abandoned quarries or gem pits, colliding with
trains, traps or snares setup for other animals, and electrocution from contact with low
lying electric power lines or lethal electric fences [
5
,
12
–
16
]. Intentional deaths occur from
poaching for elephant body parts [
17
–
19
], but the majority are due to retaliation against
conflict-causing elephants by using jaw bombs (explosives placed in fruits which are then
offered to elephants), or poisoning or shooting [
15
,
19
,
20
]. Despite the religious and cultural
significance of elephants in the region [
21
–
23
], many people may be driven to retaliate out
of desperation to protect their lives and livelihoods.
Lethal control is considered by most people to be unacceptable [
24
] and is no longer
permitted in most range countries [
25
,
26
]. Rather, removal of problem elephants from
conflict areas by translocation, domestication, or driving them into protected areas are
commonly practiced to mitigate HEC [
27
–
31
]. Government authorities are compelled to
take such extreme action due to public and political pressure. However, these measures have
typically proven to be ineffective in reducing HEC and rather intensify it or severely compromise
the wellbeing of elephants, sometimes even causing death to the animal [
27
,
28
,
32
–
35
]. HEC
mitigation approaches readily available to people, such as various physical and biological
barrier methods or repellent techniques, have numerous drawbacks or are ineffective in the
long-term given that elephants quickly habituate to them [
36
–
38
]. Electric fences may be
the most effective HEC mitigation method, if properly built and maintained [
39
–
41
]. But
inherent problems of electric fences, such as lack of flexibility once they are constructed,
restriction of movement, and access to resources for both elephants and non-targeted
species [
25
,
42
,
43
] emphasise the need to explore more innovative methods, to provide
effective solutions to mitigate HEC.
Animal-borne satellite-linked electric shock collars or aversive geofencing devices
(AGDs) are a potentially effective but perhaps controversial tool suggested for managing
conflicts with Asian elephants [
26
,
38
]. AGDs were first used as a virtual fencing system
for domestic pets and were designed to deliver a shock when an animal wearing the collar
approached a signal-emitting wire hidden around a predetermined area [
44
]. Modern
AGDs, now commercially used on livestock species have real-time Global Positioning
System (GPS) tracking capabilities and can be programmed to deliver an audio warning
followed by a mild electric shock automatically whenever an animal attempts to cross a
virtual boundary [
45
]. These devices have successfully trained cattle Bos taurus and sheep
Ovis aries to associate an audio warning with an unpleasant or aversive electric shock
and avoid it by altering their movement whenever they hear the audio warning [
46
–
48
].
Similarly, AGDs may have the potential to condition elephants to alter their movement
and avoid human-dominated landscapes. This approach has also been tested on several
wild canid species to minimise human-wildlife conflict or prevent predation, and has
been identified as an acceptable alternative to lethal control [
49
–
52
]. AGDs could also act
Animals 2023,13, 2657 3 of 14
as an early warning system which can automatically send a message to mobile phones
warning villagers and wildlife managers about the presence of a problem elephant near the
village and the potential breaches of virtual fences by those elephants that ignore the audio
warnings and electric shocks [
38
]. AGDs could, therefore, help reduce conflict incidents
with problem causing elephants.
Although the use of electric shocks to manage domestic pets and livestock species
have been in existence for many decades [
53
], their use is still debated over animal ethics
and welfare concerns [54–58]. Part of the reason for this debate may be the many nuances
associated with the way electric shocks are used with these species, e.g., the strength of
the shock, or whether shocks are delivered by humans or if animals can avoid the shock if
they choose, and the possible stress that it would cause on the animal. Non-lethal electric
fences used for elephants typically deliver electric shocks of 5500–10,000 V with very low
amperage (~5 mA) and a pulse duration of about a few milliseconds [
25
,
40
,
59
,
60
], and are
generally perceived as an acceptable HEC mitigation tool [
61
]. AGDs used on livestock
are also designed to deliver shocks with similar characteristics, but use a much lower
voltage (e.g., ~800 V [
47
,
62
]) and lower energy than that given from electric fences used
for these species [
63
]. Similarly, a much milder electric shock than that used in elephant
electric fences might be used with AGDs for elephants as well [
64
]. However, compared
to capturing and attaching collars with AGDs on other smaller or domesticated animals,
fitting AGDs on elephants would pose a risk to both elephants and humans involved in the
collaring process [65].
Stakeholders’ interests and ideas about managing wildlife, especially on controversial
management tools may differ [
66
–
72
]. Public opinion can also be stronger when it comes
to large, charismatic, and symbolic species [
73
–
75
]. Understanding the opinions of stake-
holders towards potentially controversial but otherwise effective human-wildlife conflict
mitigation approaches is important for their successful implementation. We previously
conducted pilot studies on AGDs which revealed that electric shocks (~4000 V, ~51.7
µ
s,
with no resistance) from a modified dog-training collar delivered on the neck of captive
Asian elephants produces desirable aversive responses, and that there is potential to con-
dition elephants to avoid the shock with a prior audio warning [
64
]. Furthermore, our
assessment of behavioural and physiological stress responses to electric shocks of these
captive elephants showed that the expected increase in acute stress responses returned
to normal levels soon afterwards [
76
]. These studies revealed promising results for the
potential use of AGDs to manage wild elephants, but their successful use may depend on
their acceptability just as much as their efficacy [
36
,
77
], which was not assessed in these
studies. Evaluating and considering the views of experts and non-experts, and those who
are and are not affected by HEC is important for developing consensus around the suc-
cessful deployment of AGDs. Therefore, in this study we aimed to assess the perceptions
of different stakeholders towards the potential use of AGDs as an HEC mitigation tool.
We further explored the respondents’ stated reasons for unacceptability and solicited their
views on potential challenges that could be faced when developing AGDs. The overall aim
of the study was to identify issues that may need further research as the development and
use of AGDs continue.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Administration
We conducted an online and paper-based questionnaire survey from May–October
2022 to evaluate people’s opinion on the potential use of AGDs as an HEC mitigation tool.
Participants were enlisted using convenience and snowball sampling. The online survey
targeted citizens or residents of the Asian elephant range countries, as well as experts
from around the world involved in research or other work related to Asian elephants. The
online survey was created using the University of Southern Queensland web-based survey
tool and was shared with potential participants using social media. Email addresses of
experts were obtained from published research articles or relevant organisation websites,
Animals 2023,13, 2657 4 of 14
and personal emails were sent with the survey link inviting them to participate in the
survey. The paper-based survey was conducted in Sri Lanka, a country experiencing
very high levels of HEC incidents [
8
], and targeted the rural farming communities in
areas experiencing HEC with limited facilities to participate in the online survey. With
the support of volunteer field assistants, self-administered survey forms were distributed
among people and completed forms were collected later. The survey was made available
in English as well as Sinhala and Tamil languages, the two main languages spoken in
Sri Lanka. Individual respondents were not identifiable from the data (i.e., individual
identifiers were not collected) and all respondents provided implied consent by completing
and submitting the survey voluntarily. This study was approved by the Human Research
Ethics Committee of the University of Southern Queensland, Australia (H21REA209) and
the Institute of Biology, Sri Lanka (ERC IOBSL 258 01 2022).
2.2. Survey Questions
The concept of AGDs was briefly explained with illustrations at the beginning of the
survey to provide respondents with a basic understanding on how AGDs are expected
to manage elephant movement (Figure 1). The initial section of the survey collected demo-
graphic information of respondents such as age, gender, education level, citizenship, religion,
and involvement in agriculture and in work related to Asian elephants (Table S1). Respon-
dents’ experiences with HEC were collected by asking the severity level and type of HEC
they faced (Table S2). People’s opinions on AGDs were collected using four closed-ended
questions and three optional open-ended questions. The four closed-ended questions were
5-point Likert-type questions with responses on a bipolar scale (
−
2 to +2). These questions
considered (1) How likely it would be for elephants to learn to avoid an electric shock
from AGDs, (2) How acceptable it is to give an electric shock to an elephant using an AGD,
(3) How effective AGDs would be in managing elephant movement, and (4) Would the use
of AGDs on wild elephants be acceptable if pilot studies conducted with captive elephants
are proven successful. The three optional open-ended questions collected respondents’
feedback on (1) Reasons for unacceptability, (2) Potential challenges in implementing AGDs,
and (3) Any other comments on the use of AGDs.
2.3. Data Analysis
We analysed responses from 611 respondents based on three social groups (experts,
farmers and others) and whether or not they have experienced HEC (HEC or no HEC).
Respondents were categorised as a “farmer” or “expert” if they had indicated their involve-
ment in farming (annual crops or perennial crops or livestock) or work related to Asian
elephants in their responses to the survey (see Table S1). Those who did not belong to either
of the groups were categorised as “other”. Respondents were categorised as “HEC” if they
had selected a severity level of HEC they experienced and/or mentioned at least one HEC
related problem they have experienced (see Table S2), while the remaining respondents
were categorised as “no-HEC”.
We analysed the responses for the Likert-type questions using a logistic-regression
model (a generalised linear model with a binomial distribution and a logit link function), by
collapsing the responses to a binary variable (
−
2,
−
1 and 0 as a “negative/neutral” response
and +1, +2 as a “positive” response). Such transformation of scale avoids issues with low
frequency of responses in some response categories and simplifies the interpretation of
data [
78
,
79
]. We used the ‘glm’ function and the forestplot package [
80
] in the R statistical
software [
81
] for this analysis. We used the Potential for Conflict Index
2
(PCI
2
) [
82
] to
examine the mean responses given on the five-point scale (
−
2 to +2) and the level of
consensus within the six groups: expert-HEC, expert-no HEC, farmer-HEC, farmer-no
HEC, other-HEC, and other-no HEC. PCI
2
values range between 0 and 1 and depict the
dispersion within the sample, with 0 indicating highest consensus within a group of
respondents and 1 indicating the lowest consensus within a group (i.e., all responses are
divided between the extreme response categories equally). We used the programs provided
Animals 2023,13, 2657 5 of 14
by Vaske et al. [
82
] to calculate and graph PCI
2
and mean values. The centre and the size of
the bubble in the graph depict the mean score on the scale of the y axis and the PCI
2
value,
respectively. High potential for conflict within a group is depicted by larger bubbles and
low potential for conflict within a group is depicted by smaller bubbles. Each analysed
question (item) was reduced to shorter phrases for the convenience of display and are
italicised when mentioned in the Results section (below). Table S3 contains the full-length
questions. Responses to the open-ended questions were categorised according to themes,
and due to the ambiguity in interpretation of the responses the approximate number of
respondents commenting under each category are given within parenthesis.
Animals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
Figure 1.
How aversive geofencing devices (satellite-linked electric shock collars) could be used to
manage elephant movement.
Animals 2023,13, 2657 6 of 14
3. Results
Out of the 611 responses we analysed in this study, 25.9% (n = 158) were classified as
experts. Of these, 65 had experienced HEC and 93 had not. These experts included 70 Sri
Lankan citizens, 60 from other range countries, and 28 from non-range countries (Table S1).
Farmers comprised 18.3% (n = 112) of the respondents. Of these, 85 had experienced HEC
and 27 had not. The remaining 341 respondents classified as others included 83 who had
experienced HEC and 258 who had not. A total of 38.1% (n = 233) of respondents had
experienced HEC (Table S2).
Overall, more than 50% of all respondents had positive responses for all items except
for acceptability of using AGDs on elephants, for which only 44.2% (n = 270) of respondents
had positive opinions (Figure 2). The logistic regression did not reveal detectable differ-
ences in opinions for all four items between the stakeholder groups; farmers and others
compared to experts or those who had experienced HEC compared to those who had not
(p> 0.05, Figure 2). All respondent groups had positive mean scores for likelihood of elephants
learning to avoid the electric shocks from AGDs and effectiveness of AGDs in managing elephant
movement with relatively high consensus (PCI
2
range = 0.00–0.20, Figure 3). Mean scores for
acceptability of using AGDs on elephants ranged from
−
0.03 to 0.48 (PCI
2
range = 0.12–0.41),
while the mean scores for acceptability, if pilot studies on captive elephants have been successful
ranged from 0.37 to 1.22 (PCI
2
range = 0.15–0.45, Figure 3). Provided with the condition ‘if
pilot studies on captive elephants have been successful’, acceptability scores increased by a
mean difference of 0.57 (t = 11.50, df = 610, p< 0.001).
Animals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
been successful ranged from 0.37 to 1.22 (PCI2 range = 0.15–0.45, Figure 3). Provided with
the condition ‘if pilot studies on captive elephants have been successful’, acceptability
scores increased by a mean difference of 0.57 (t = 11.50, df = 610, p < 0.001).
Figure 2. Forest plot for the logistic regression on the aitudes towards use of aversive geofencing
devices (AGDs) as a human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation tool by farmers and others relative
to experts and those who have experienced HEC relative to those who have not along with overall
percentage responses for each item. Black squares and horizontal lines indicate the odds ratio and
the 95% confidence interval, respectively.
Figure 2.
Forest plot for the logistic regression on the attitudes towards use of aversive geofencing
devices (AGDs) as a human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation tool by farmers and others relative
to experts and those who have experienced HEC relative to those who have not along with overall
percentage responses for each item. Black squares and horizontal lines indicate the odds ratio and the
95% confidence interval, respectively.
Of the total respondents, 15.9% (n = 97) selected “unacceptable” or “somewhat unac-
ceptable” for acceptability, if pilot studies on captive elephants have been successful (Figure 2).
These respondents were represented by all six groups: 13.8% of expert-HEC (n = 9), 30.1%
of expert-no HEC (n = 28), 7.1% farmer-HEC (n = 6), 11.1% of farmer-no HEC (n = 3),
14.5% of other-HEC (n = 12), and 15.1% of other-no HEC (n = 39) (Table S3). Of these
97 respondents, 61 offered reasons for the unacceptability of AGDs, which mostly indi-
Animals 2023,13, 2657 7 of 14
cated that they perceived AGDs to be unethical, cruel or harmful to elephants (~41), and
that it is an approach they considered to be unfeasible or would be unsuccessful because
wild elephant behaviour would be different from captive elephants (~25). About 300 re-
spondents provided feedback on the potential challenges in implementing AGDs and/or
other comments. These comments can be categorised under five themes: (1) acceptability,
support and awareness of stakeholders (~46), (2) safety and wellbeing of elephants (~68),
(3) logistical difficulties (~169), (4) durability and reliable functionality of AGDs (~91), and
(5) uncertainties in elephants’ responses to AGDs (~62). Selected comments offered as
reasons for unacceptability and potential challenges are discussed below and provided as
Supplementary Material (Tables S4 and S5, respectively).
Animals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15
Figure 3. Bubble graphs for mean and Potential for Conflict Index2 (PCI2) on the perception of po-
tential use of aversive geofencing devices (AGDs) as a human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation
tool among experts, farmers and others who have and have not experienced HEC. (a) Likelihood of
elephants learning to avoid the electric shocks from AGDs, (b) Acceptability of using AGDs on ele-
phants, (c) Effectiveness of AGDs in managing elephant movement, (d) Acceptability, if pilot studies
on captive elephants have been successful. Centre of the bubble indicates the mean score (on the
scale of the y axis) and bubble size illustrates the magnitude of PCI2, with larger bubbles indicating
low consensus among respondents within groups. Values under each bubble indicate mean and
PCI2 value within parenthesis.
Figure 3.
Bubble graphs for mean and Potential for Conflict Index
2
(PCI
2
) on the perception of
potential use of aversive geofencing devices (AGDs) as a human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation
tool among experts, farmers and others who have and have not experienced HEC. (
a
) Likelihood
of elephants learning to avoid the electric shocks from AGDs, (
b
) Acceptability of using AGDs on
elephants, (
c
) Effectiveness of AGDs in managing elephant movement, (
d
) Acceptability, if pilot
studies on captive elephants have been successful. Centre of the bubble indicates the mean score
(on the scale of the y axis) and bubble size illustrates the magnitude of PCI
2
, with larger bubbles
indicating low consensus among respondents within groups. Values under each bubble indicate
mean and PCI2value within parenthesis.
Animals 2023,13, 2657 8 of 14
4. Discussion
We explored the perceptions towards the potential use of AGDs to manage elephant
movement by surveying different stakeholder groups whose opinions and support is vital
for the successful implementation of AGDs as an HEC mitigation tool. We found that
respondents had similar views towards AGDs regardless of whether they were experts,
farmers or others, and whether or not they had personal experience with HEC; each group
largely felt the same towards AGDs (Figure 2). Elephants are intelligent animals with
superior cognitive skills [
83
,
84
], a trait acknowledged by the general public with usage of
phrases such as “memory like an elephant” or “an elephant never forgets” [
85
,
86
]. This
understanding may have contributed to all respondent groups agreeing on the likelihood
of elephants learning to associate the AGDs’ warning sound with the impending electric
shock, thereby avoiding the shock and highlighting the potential effectiveness of AGDs
in managing elephant movement (Figure 3a,c). When questioned about the acceptability
of managing elephants in this way, the expert-no HEC and other-no HEC groups were
relatively neutral, while all other groups considered it somewhat acceptable (Figure 3b).
People tend to perceive a novel HEC mitigation tool as increasingly favourable as their
knowledge on its effectiveness improves [
77
]. Similarly, our results suggested that if
evidence can be provided that AGDs can effectively manage the movement of captive
elephants, then the acceptability of using AGDs on wild elephants would increase among
all groups (Figure 3d). However, the relatively lower acceptability and higher potential for
conflict within the expert-no HEC group, even if such evidence is provided, indicates that
building consensus among all experts on AGDs may pose some challenges.
Most people were either ambivalent or considered AGDs to be acceptable (Figure 1),
but those who considered AGDs to be unacceptable may be categorised into two main
groups based on their stated reasons for unacceptability: (1) those who see AGDs as
unethical or harmful, and (2) those who feel that AGDs will be unsuccessful in managing
wild elephant movements (Table S4). These opinions may be due to “conflict over values
and conflict over evidence”, as highlighted by Donfrancesco et al. [
72
]. If scientific evidence
can be provided on the effectiveness of AGDs from preliminary trials with wild elephants,
it will help develop consensus with the latter group. But the views of those who consider
AGDs to be unethical might vary under different severity levels of HEC [
87
], for example,
when HEC results in frequent death of humans and elephants, rather than a low frequency
of crop damage. Obtaining social acceptability and the support of stakeholders is important
and was also suggested by our respondents as a potential challenge for implementing
AGDs. One respondent even pointed out that some may consider elephants as non-human
persons with rights (Table S5, see also Riddle, [
88
]; Lev and Barkai, [
89
] and Locke, [
90
]), and
therefore, using methods where humans ‘control’ animals may be perceived as unethical.
People’s opinion towards management approaches may change with more awareness
of the actual situation [
74
]. Proper dialog between relevant groups on the severity of
HEC experienced in many regions and whether retaliatory killing, other HEC mitigation
approaches or use of AGDs would be ethically justifiable and effective in such situations
will be important.
Respondents questioned the impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of elephants
in response to electric shocks. Previous studies conducted on other species [
63
,
91
–
95
]
and with captive Asian elephants [
76
] showed that the expected increase in acute stress
levels measured using behavioural (e.g., aversive or anxiety/stress related behaviours)
and physiological (e.g., cortisol hormone levels, heart rate, body temperature) responses to
electric shock rapidly returned to baseline levels soon after experiencing them. Further, by
ensuring that stimuli are delivered only when the elephant moved in the ‘wrong’ direction
and not based on its location, will permit elephants to learn accurately and move in the
‘right’ direction to avoid the shock [
96
]. Coupling the electric shock with the audio warning
provides the ability for elephants to predict and control the receipt of shocks [
97
,
98
], which
would further reduce their acute stress response levels as shown for cattle [
94
]. After
elephants learn to predict and control the receipt of shock, chronic stress responses to
Animals 2023,13, 2657 9 of 14
AGDs might be negligible compared to baseline levels [
63
,
95
]. The impact of electric shocks
from AGDs on elephants’ wellbeing would, therefore, be negligible or no different to that
experienced with other HEC mitigation tools, though this needs further investigation.
Many respondents had reasonable concerns about logistical challenges during imple-
mentation of AGDs. For example, collaring wild elephants and planning virtual fences
will be a very difficult task (Table S5, see also Pastorini et al. [
65
]). Fitting collars on wild
elephants to monitor their movements has been practiced for many years [
4
,
17
,
28
,
32
,
65
],
but AGDs should preferably be used on selected problem elephants or in HEC scenarios
where no other acceptable approach has been effective [
38
]. AGDs should not be considered
as a replacement for all other existing HEC mitigation approaches. While elephant herds
are sometimes known to raid crops [
32
,
99
,
100
], it is primarily the male elephants that are
involved in direct confrontations with people [
32
,
101
] and crop raiding [
102
–
105
]. AGDs
could help reduce these HEC incidents if used on those types of problem elephants. To
successfully reduce HEC incidents with problem elephants using AGDs, it is important to
incorporate both human and elephant needs and ensure connectivity between elephant
habitats when planning virtual fences [
106
,
107
]. Therefore, conducting baseline studies to
understand the land use patterns of humans and elephants and the unique situation of HEC
where AGDs are to be implemented are required to design virtual fences appropriately [
38
].
Our study also revealed several other potential challenges that should be resolved
during the research and development process of AGDs. These include ensuring reliability
of the technology (e.g., consistency and accuracy of delivering audio and electrical stimuli,
maintaining uninterrupted satellite communication), durability of the device (e.g., weather
resistance, long lasting battery life), and resolving uncertainties in elephant’s behavioural
responses to electric shocks (e.g., individual variations in responses or potential to show
aggressive behaviours, possibility to learn through social facilitation and possibility of
habituation to the stimuli) (Table S5). These possible challenges have been identified and
discussed in Cabral de Mel et al. [
38
,
64
] and should be further investigated. Given the
general support or lack of widespread opposition towards AGDs, the next step would be
designing and developing a wearable, prototype AGD and optimising it by further testing
with captive elephants to provide evidence on its efficacy in managing elephant movement
with minimum impact on elephant wellbeing. Once many of the uncertainties are resolved
and with the acceptance and support of stakeholders, this prototype device can then be
modified (if necessary) and trialled on selected wild elephants in a high-HEC area to further
assess its efficacy.
5. Conclusions
AGDs are an innovative tool used to manage animal movement and could help man-
age Asian elephant movement too. However, the successful use of AGDs is most likely to
occur when consideration is given to all stakeholder views. Our study showed that the
majority of respondents had confidence that elephants will learn to avoid the shock from
AGDs by altering their movement when presented with the audio warning and thereby ef-
fectively mitigate HEC. Most respondents were also neutral or generally accepting towards
the use of AGDs. Providing evidence that AGDs reliably and effectively manage captive
elephant movement without compromising elephant wellbeing would further improve
the acceptability of AGDs among stakeholders. Such favourable views, especially among
people experiencing HEC, are important to receive support for the successful implementa-
tion of AGDs. We expect that there will still be a small proportion of stakeholders who will
object to the use of AGDs on elephants irrespective of its efficacy or general acceptability
in managing captive elephant movement, so such views should be further evaluated to
discover how they may vary depending on different HEC scenarios. Proper communication
and awareness among stakeholders about the outcome of preliminary research on AGDs
should build consensus among stakeholders around the more widespread use of AGDs in
the future.
Animals 2023,13, 2657 10 of 14
Supplementary Materials:
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani13162657/s1, Table S1: Socioeconomic details of all respondents
analysed in the study; Table S2: Personal experience of respondents in human-elephant conflict
(HEC); Table S3: Full length question of the items analysed in the study; Table S4: Selected list
of reasons provided by respondents for unacceptability of using aversive geofencing devices on
elephants; Table S5: Selected list of feedback received from respondents for potential challenges and
other comments on aversive geofencing devices.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, S.J.C.d.M. and B.L.A.; methodology, S.J.C.d.M., D.K.W.,
A.D., T.M. and B.L.A.; formal analysis, S.J.C.d.M.; investigation, S.J.C.d.M.; data curation, S.J.C.d.M.;
writing—original draft preparation, S.J.C.d.M.; writing—review and editing, S.J.C.d.M., S.S., D.K.W.,
A.D., T.M. and B.L.A.; visualization, S.J.C.d.M.; supervision, S.S., D.K.W., A.D., T.M. and B.L.A.;
project administration, S.J.C.d.M., S.S., D.K.W., A.D., T.M. and B.L.A.; funding acquisition, S.S. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
S.J.C.d.M. was jointly supported by the University of Southern Queensland, Australia
(International Fees Research Scholarship) and the National Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy,
Sri Lanka (in-kind support). The project was funded by the National Research Council, Sri Lanka,
grant number 19-046, awarded to S.S.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the University of Southern Queensland, Australia (H21REA209) and the Institute of
Biology, Sri Lanka (ERC IOBSL 258 01 2022).
Informed Consent Statement:
Data collected were non-identifiable and all respondents provided
implied consent by completing and submitting the survey voluntarily.
Data Availability Statement:
The authors confirm that the supporting data of these findings are
available within the article and its Supplementary Materials. The summarised data generated during
the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments:
Authors sincerely thank Ruvinda K. de Mel, Umair Kaleelullah, Ashkar Thasleem,
Sanjaya N. Weerakkody, Rukmal Ratnayake, Kulangana Theivendrarajah, Jael Nirubha Kanagarat-
nam, Gajavathany Kandasamy, and Dishane K. Hewavithana for their inputs and support in translat-
ing and proofreading the survey. Authors also thank Deepthi Madumali for the digital illustrations
used. We greatly appreciate the support of the many volunteer field assistants in distributing the
paper-based survey to collect data from respondents in rural farming communities in Sri Lanka. We
are also deeply grateful to all respondents for their active participation in the survey and providing
valuable feedback on AGDs. We acknowledge Rachel King of the University of Southern Queensland
and Mahesh Senarathna for their valuable inputs on statistical analysis. Authors also thank the
anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Padalia, H.; Ghosh, S.; Reddy, C.S.; Nandy, S.; Singh, S.; Kumar, A.S. Assessment of Historical Forest Cover Loss and Fragmenta-
tion in Asian Elephant Ranges in India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019,191, 802. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
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. [CrossRef]
3.
Liu, P.; Wen, H.; Harich, F.K.; He, C.; Wang, L.; Guo, X.; Zhao, J.; Luo, A.; Yang, H.; Sun, X.; et al. Conflict between Conservation
and Development: Cash Forest Encroachment in Asian Elephant Distributions. Sci. Rep. 2017,7, 6404. [CrossRef]
4.
Wadey, J.; Beyer, H.L.; Saaban, S.; Othman, N.; Leimgruber, P.; Campos-Arceiz, A. Why Did the Elephant Cross the Road? The
Complex Response of Wild Elephants to a Major Road in Peninsular Malaysia. Biol. Conserv. 2018,218, 91–98. [CrossRef]
5.
Othman, N.; Goossens, B.; Cheah, C.P.I.; Nathan, S.; Bumpus, R.; Ancrenaz, M. Shift of Paradigm Needed towards Improving
Human–Elephant Coexistence in Monoculture Landscapes in Sabah. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2019,53, 161–173. [CrossRef]
6.
Williams, C.; Tiwari, S.K.R.; Goswami, V.R.; de Silva, S.; Kumar, A.; Baskaran, N.; Yoganand, K.; Menon, V. Elephas maximus.
Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7140/45818198 (accessed on 17 June 2023).
7.
Acharya, K.P.; Paudel, P.K.; Neupane, P.R.; Köhl, M. Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Nepal: Patterns of Human Fatalities and Injuries
Caused by Large Mammals. PLoS ONE 2016,11, e0161717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Prakash, T.G.S.L.; Wijeratne, A.W.; Fernando, P. Human-Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka: Patterns and Extent. Gajah
2020
,51,
16–25.
Animals 2023,13, 2657 11 of 14
9.
Ganesh, S. Human Elephant Conflict Kills 1713 People, 373 Pachyderms in 3 Years. Available online: https://www.thehindu.
com/news/national/human-elephant-conflict-kills-1713-people-373- pachyderms-in-3-years/article26225515.ece (accessed on
11 May 2020).
10.
Karanth, K.K.; Gupta, S.; Vanamamalai, A. Compensation Payments, Procedures and Policies towards Human-Wildlife Conflict
Management: Insights from India. Biol. Conserv. 2018,227, 383–389. [CrossRef]
11.
Nair, R.P.; Jayson, E.A. Estimation of Economic Loss and Identifying the Factors Affecting the Crop Raiding Behaviour of Asian
Elephant (Elephas maximus) in Nilambur Part of the Southern Western Ghats, Kerala, India. Curr. Sci. 2021,121, 521. [CrossRef]
12.
Palei, N.C.; Palei, H.S.; Rath, B.P.; Kar, C.S. Mortality of the Endangered Asian Elephant Elephas maximus by Electrocution in
Odisha, India. Oryx 2014,48, 602–604. [CrossRef]
13.
Williams, A.C.; Johnsingh, A.J.T.; Krausman, P.R. Elephant-Human Conflicts in Rajaji National Park, Northwestern India. Wildl.
Soc. Bull. 2001,29, 1097–1104.
14. Perera, B.M.A.O. The Human-Elephant Conflict: A Review of Current Status and Mitigation Methods. Gajah 2009,30, 41–52.
15.
LaDue, C.A.; Eranda, I.; Jayasinghe, C.; Vandercone, R.P.G. Mortality Patterns of Asian Elephants in a Region of Human–Elephant
Conflict. J. Wildl. Manag. 2021,85, 794–802. [CrossRef]
16.
Kalam, T.; Kumar Baishya, H.; Smith, D. Lethal Fence Electrocution: A Major Threat to Asian Elephants in Assam, India. Trop.
Conserv. Sci. 2018,11, 194008291881728. [CrossRef]
17.
Sampson, C.; McEvoy, J.; Oo, Z.M.; Chit, A.M.; Chan, A.N.; Tonkyn, D.; Soe, P.; Songer, M.; Williams, A.C.; Reisinger, K.; et al.
New Elephant Crisis in Asia-Early Warning Signs from Myanmar. PLoS ONE 2018,13, e0194113. [CrossRef]
18.
Nijman, V.; Shepherd, C.R. Emergence of Mong La on the Myanmar–China Border as a Global Hub for the International Trade in
Ivory and Elephant Parts. Biol. Conserv. 2014,179, 17–22. [CrossRef]
19.
Qomariah, I.N.; Rahmi, T.; Said, Z.; Wijaya, A. Conflict between Human and Wild Sumatran Elephant (Elephas maximus sumatranus
Temminck, 1847) in Aceh Province, Indonesia. Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers. 2018,20, 77–84. [CrossRef]
20.
Gubbi, S.; Swaminath, M.H.; Poornesha, H.C.; Bhat, R.; Raghunath, R. An Elephantine Challenge: Human-Elephant Conflict
Distribution in the Largest Asian Elephant Population, Southern India. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014,23, 633–647. [CrossRef]
21.
Gogoi, M. Emotional Coping among Communities Affected by Wildlife-Caused Damage in North-East India: Opportunities for
Building Tolerance and Improving Conservation Outcomes. Oryx 2018,52, 214–219. [CrossRef]
22.
Sukumar, R. The Living Elephants: Evolutionary Ecology, Behavior and Conservation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA,
2003; ISBN 0195107780.
23.
Köpke, S.; Withanachchi, S.S.; Pathiranage, R.; Withanachchi, C.R.; Gamage, D.U.; Nissanka, T.S.; Warapitiya, C.C.; Nissanka,
B.M.; Ranasinghe, N.N.; Senarathna, C.D.; et al. Human–Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka: A Critical Review of Causal Explanations.
Sustainability 2021,13, 8625. [CrossRef]
24.
Allen, B.L.; Bobier, C.; Dawson, S.; Fleming, P.J.S.; Hampton, J.; Jachowski, D.; Kerley, G.I.H.; Linnell, J.D.C.; Marnewick, K.;
Minnie, L.; et al. Why Humans Kill Animals and Why We Cannot Avoid It. Sci. Total Environ.
2023
,896, 165283. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25.
Desai, A.A.; Riddle, H.S. Human-Elephant Conflict in Asia; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Asian Elephant Support: Washington,
DC, USA, 2015.
26. Fernando, P. Managing ‘Problem Elephants’. Loris 2011,25, 32–36.
27.
Fernando, P.; Leimgruber, P.; Prasad, T.; Pastorini, J. Problem-Elephant Translocation: Translocating the Problem and the Elephant?
PLoS ONE 2012,7, e50917. [CrossRef]
28.
Fernando, P.; Prasad, T.; Janaka, H.K.; Ekanayaka, S.K.; Nishantha, H.G.; Pastorini, J. The Use of Radio-Tracking Data to Guide
Development and Manage Elephants. Wildlanka 2015,3, 12–19.
29. Azmi, W.; Gunaryadi, D. Current Status of Asian Elephants in Indonesia. Gajah 2011,35, 55–61.
30.
Leimgruber, P.; Oo, Z.; Aung, M.; Kelly, D.; Wemmer, C.; Senior, B.; Songer, M. Current Status of Asian Elephants in Myanmar.
Gajah 2011,35, 76–86.
31.
Saaban, S.; Othman, N.B.; Yasak, M.N.B.; Nor, B.M.; Ahmad, Z.; Campos-Arceiz, A. Current Status of Asian Elephants in
Peninsular Malaysia. Gajah 2011,35, 67–75.
32.
de la Torre, J.A.; Wong, E.P.; Lechner, A.M.; Zulaikha, N.; Zawawi, A.; Abdul-Patah, P.; Saaban, S.; Goossens, B.; Campos-Arceiz,
A. There Will Be Conflict—Agricultural Landscapes Are Prime, Rather than Marginal, Habitats for Asian Elephants. Anim.
Conserv. 2021,24, 720–732. [CrossRef]
33.
Vijayakrishnan, S.; Kumar, M.A.; Umapathy, G.; Kumar, V.; Sinha, A. Physiological Stress Responses in Wild Asian Elephants
Elephas maximus in a Human-Dominated Landscape in the Western Ghats, Southern India. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol.
2018
,266,
150–156. [CrossRef]
34.
Lahdenperä, M.; Mar, K.U.; Courtiol, A.; Lummaa, V. Differences in Age-Specific Mortality between Wild-Caught and Captive-
Born Asian Elephants. Nat. Commun. 2018,9, 3023. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Stüwe, M.; Abdul, J.B.; Nor, B.M.; Wemmer, C.M. Tracking the Movements of Translocated Elephants in Malaysia Using Satellite
Telemetry. Oryx 1998,32, 68–74. [CrossRef]
36.
Denninger Snyder, K.; Rentsch, D. Rethinking Assessment of Success of Mitigation Strategies for Elephant-induced Crop Damage.
Conserv. Biol. 2020,34, 829–842. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 2023,13, 2657 12 of 14
37.
Shaffer, L.J.; Khadka, K.K.; Van Den Hoek, J.; Naithani, K.J. Human-Elephant Conflict: A Review of Current Management
Strategies and Future Directions. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019,6, 235. [CrossRef]
38.
Cabral de Mel, S.J.; Seneweera, S.; de Mel, R.K.; Dangolla, A.; Weerakoon, D.K.; Maraseni, T.; Allen, B.L. Current and Future
Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices.
Animals 2022,12, 2965. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Ponnusamy, V.; Chackrapani, P.; Lim, T.W.; Saaban, S.; Campos-Arceiz, A. Farmers’ Perceptions and Attitudes towards
Government-Constructed Electric Fences in Peninsular Malaysia. Gajah 2016,45, 4–11.
40.
Liefting, Y.; de Jong, J.F.; Prins, H.H.T. A New Type of Elephant Fence: Permeable for People and Game but Not for Elephant.
Gajah 2018,49, 11–19.
41.
Pekor, A.; Miller, J.R.B.; Flyman, M.V.; Kasiki, S.; Kesch, M.K.; Miller, S.M.; Uiseb, K.; van der Merve, V.; Lindsey, P.A. Fencing
Africa’s Protected Areas: Costs, Benefits, and Management Issues. Biol. Conserv. 2019,229, 67–75. [CrossRef]
42.
Hayward, M.W.; Kerley, G.I.H. Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening
Processes? Biol. Conserv. 2009,142, 1–13. [CrossRef]
43.
Smith, D.; King, R.; Allen, B.L. Impacts of Exclusion Fencing on Target and Non-target Fauna: A Global Review. Biol. Rev.
2020
,
95, 1590–1606. [CrossRef]
44. Peck, R.M. Method and Apparatus for Controlling an Animal. U.S. Patent 3753421, 21 August 1973.
45.
Goli ´nski, P.; Sobolewska, P.; Stefa ´nska, B.; Goli´nska, B. Virtual Fencing Technology for Cattle Management in the Pasture Feeding
System—A Review. Agriculture 2023,13, 91. [CrossRef]
46.
Campbell, D.L.M.; Ouzman, J.; Mowat, D.; Lea, J.M.; Lee, C.; Llewellyn, R.S. Virtual Fencing Technology Excludes Beef Cattle
from an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Animals 2020,10, 1069. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Boyd, C.S.; O’Connor, R.; Ranches, J.; Bohnert, D.W.; Bates, J.D.; Johnson, D.D.; Davies, K.W.; Parker, T.; Doherty, K.E. Virtual
Fencing Effectively Excludes Cattle from Burned Sagebrush Steppe. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2022,81, 55–62. [CrossRef]
48.
Marini, D.; Meuleman, M.; Belson, S.; Rodenburg, T.; Llewellyn, R.; Lee, C. Developing an Ethically Acceptable Virtual Fencing
System for Sheep. Animals 2018,8, 33. [CrossRef]
49.
Andelt, W.F.; Phillips, R.L.; Gruver, K.S.; Guthrie, J.W. Coyote Predation on Domestic Sheep Deterred with Electronic Dog-Training
Collar. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1999,27, 12–18.
50.
Rossler, S.T.; Gehring, T.M.; Schultz, R.N.; Rossler, M.T.; Wydeven, A.P.; Hawley, J.E. Shock Collars as a Site-Aversive Conditioning
Tool for Wolves. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2012,36, 176–184. [CrossRef]
51.
Appleby, R. Dingo–Human Conflict: Attacks on Humans. In The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation; Smith, B., Ed.;
CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Australia, 2015; pp. 131–158.
52.
Cooper, D.M.; Kershner, E.L.; Garcelon, D.K. The Use of Shock Collars to Prevent Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) Predation on
the Endangered San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi). In Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands
Symposium, Ventura, CA, USA, 1–3 December 2003; Garcelon, D.K., Schwemm, C.A., Eds.; National Park Service Technical
Publication CHIS-05-01. Institute for Wildlife Studies: Arcata, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 287–297.
53. Anderson, D.M. Virtual Fencing—Past, Present and Future. Rangel. J. 2007,29, 65–78. [CrossRef]
54.
Blackwell, E.J.; Bolster, C.; Richards, G.; Loftus, B.A.; Casey, R.A. The Use of Electronic Collars for Training Domestic Dogs:
Estimated Prevalence, Reasons and Risk Factors for Use, and Owner Perceived Success as Compared to Other Training Methods.
BMC Vet. Res. 2012,8, 93. [CrossRef]
55.
China, L.; Mills, D.S.; Cooper, J.J. Efficacy of Dog Training with and without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive
Reinforcement. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020,7, 508. [CrossRef]
56.
Masson, S.; Nigron, I.; Gaultier, E. Questionnaire Survey on the Use of Different E-Collar Types in France in Everyday Life with a
View to Providing Recommendations for Possible Future Regulations. J. Vet. Behav. 2018,26, 48–60. [CrossRef]
57.
Masson, S.; de la Vega, S.; Gazzano, A.; Mariti, C.; Pereira, G.D.G.; Halsberghe, C.; Muser Leyvraz, A.; McPeake, K.; Schoening, B.
Electronic Training Devices: Discussion on the Pros and Cons of Their Use in Dogs as a Basis for the Position Statement of the
European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology. J. Vet. Behav. 2018,25, 71–75. [CrossRef]
58.
Brunberg, E.I.; Bergslid, I.K.; Bøe, K.E.; Sørheim, K.M. The Ability of Ewes with Lambs to Learn a Virtual Fencing System. Animal
2017,11, 2045–2050. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Fernando, P. Guide for Implementing Community-Based Electric Fences for the Effective Mitigation of Human-Elephant Conflict; The
World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
60.
Kamdar, A.; Baishya, H.K.; Nagendra, H.; Ratnam, J.; Smith, D.; Sekar, N. Human–Elephant Conflict Mitigation as a Public Good:
What Determines Fence Maintenance? Ecol. Soc. 2022,27, 24. [CrossRef]
61.
Cabral de Mel, L.S.J. Efficacy and Welfare of Aversive Geofencing Devices for Managing the Movements of Asian Elephants.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern Queenaland, Toowoomba, Australia, 2023.
62.
Campbell, D.L.M.; Lea, J.M.; Haynes, S.J.; Farrer, W.J.; Leigh-Lancaster, C.J.; Lee, C. Virtual Fencing of Cattle Using an Automated
Collar in a Feed Attractant Trial. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018,200, 71–77. [CrossRef]
63.
Campbell, D.L.M.; Lea, J.M.; Keshavarzi, H.; Lee, C. Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior
and Welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019,6, 445. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 2023,13, 2657 13 of 14
64.
Cabral de Mel, S.J.; Seneweera, S.; de Mel, R.K.; Medawala, M.; Abeysinghe, N.; Dangolla, A.; Weerakoon, D.K.; Maraseni, T.;
Allen, B.L. Virtual Fencing of Captive Asian Elephants Fitted with an Aversive Geofencing Device to Manage Their Movement.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2023,258, 105822. [CrossRef]
65.
Pastorini, J.; Prasad, T.; Leimgruber, P.; Isler, K.; Fernando, P. Elephant GPS Tracking Collars: Is There a Best? Gajah
2015
,43,
15–25.
66.
van Eeden, L.M.; Newsome, T.M.; Crowther, M.S.; Dickman, C.R.; Bruskotter, J. Social Identity Shapes Support for Management
of Wildlife and Pests. Biol. Conserv. 2019,231, 167–173. [CrossRef]
67.
van Eeden, L.M.; Newsome, T.M.; Crowther, M.S.; Dickman, C.R.; Bruskotter, J. Diverse Public Perceptions of Species’ Status and
Management Align with Conflicting Conservation Frameworks. Biol. Conserv. 2020,242, 108416. [CrossRef]
68.
Drijfhout, M.; Kendal, D.; Green, P. Mind the Gap: Comparing Expert and Public Opinions on Managing Overabundant Koalas. J.
Environ. Manag. 2022,308, 114621. [CrossRef]
69.
Bobier, C.A.; Allen, B.L. Compassionate Conservation Is Indistinguishable from Traditional Forms of Conservation in Practice.
Front. Psychol. 2022,13, 750313. [CrossRef]
70.
Lute, M.L.; Carter, N.H.; López-Bao, J.V.; Linnell, J.D.C. Conservation Professionals Agree on Challenges to Coexisting with Large
Carnivores but Not on Solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2018,218, 223–232. [CrossRef]
71.
Donfrancesco, V.; Ciucci, P.; Salvatori, V.; Benson, D.; Andersen, L.W.; Bassi, E.; Blanco, J.C.; Boitani, L.; Caniglia, R.; Canu, A.;
et al. Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe. Front. Ecol. Evol.
2019
,7, 175.
[CrossRef]
72.
Donfrancesco, V.; Allen, B.L.; Appleby, R.; Behrendorff, L.; Conroy, G.; Crowther, M.S.; Dickman, C.R.; Doherty, T.; Fancourt, B.A.;
Gordon, C.E.; et al. Understanding Conflict among Experts Working on Controversial Species: A Case Study on the Australian
Dingo. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2023,5, e12900. [CrossRef]
73. Johnson, B.B.; Sciascia, J. Views on Black Bear Management in New Jersey. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2013,18, 249–262. [CrossRef]
74.
Drijfhout, M.; Kendal, D.; Green, P.T. Understanding the Human Dimensions of Managing Overabundant Charismatic Wildlife in
Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2020,244, 108506. [CrossRef]
75.
Engel, M.T.; Vaske, J.J.; Bath, A.J.; Marchini, S. Attitudes toward Jaguars and Pumas and the Acceptability of Killing Big Cats in
the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: An Application of the Potential for Conflict Index2. Ambio 2017,46, 604–612. [CrossRef]
76.
Cabral de Mel, S.J.; Seneweera, S.; de Mel, R.K.; Dangolla, A.; Weerakoon, D.K.; Maraseni, T.; Allen, B.L. Welfare Impacts
Associated with Using Aversive Geofencing Devices on Captive Asian Elephants. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
2023
,265, 105991.
[CrossRef]
77.
Noga, S.R.; Kolawole, O.D.; Thakadu, O.; Masunga, G. Small Farmers’ Adoption Behaviour: Uptake of Elephant Crop-Raiding
Deterrent Innovations in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2015,7, 408–419. [CrossRef]
78.
Jeong, H.-J.; Lee, W.-C. The Level of Collapse We Are Allowed: Comparison of Different Response Scales in Safety Attitudes
Questionnaire. Biom. Biostat. Int. J. 2016,4, 128–134. [CrossRef]
79.
DiStefano, C.; Shi, D.; Morgan, G.B. Collapsing Categories Is Often More Advantageous than Modeling Sparse Data: Investigations
in the CFA Framework. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2021,28, 237–249. [CrossRef]
80.
Gordon, M.; Lumley, T. Package ‘Forestplot’. Advanced Forest Plot Using ‘Grid’ Graphics 2022. Available online: https:
//cran.r-project.org/web/packages/forestplot/forestplot.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2023).
81.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022.
82. Vaske, J.J.; Beaman, J.; Barreto, H.; Shelby, L.B. An Extension and Further Validation of the Potential for Conflict Index. Leis. Sci.
2010,32, 240–254. [CrossRef]
83.
Hart, B.L.; Hart, L.A.; Pinter-Wollman, N. Large Brains and Cognition: Where Do Elephants Fit in? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
2008
,
32, 86–98. [CrossRef]
84. Bates, L.A.; Poole, J.H.; Byrne, R.W. Elephant Cognition. Curr. Biol. 2008,18, 544–546. [CrossRef]
85.
Gabriele an Elephant Never Forgets. Available online: https://blogs.transparent.com/english/an-elephant-never-forgets/
(accessed on 26 March 2023).
86.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr.; Gerrig, R.J. How Context Makes Metaphor Comprehension Seem “Special”. Metaphor Symb. Act.
1989
,4, 145–158.
[CrossRef]
87.
Tan, A.S.L.; de la Torre, J.A.; Wong, E.P.; Thuppil, V.; Campos-Arceiz, A. Factors Affecting Urban and Rural Tolerance towards
Conflict-Prone Endangered Megafauna in Peninsular Malaysia. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020,23, e01179. [CrossRef]
88. Riddle, D.I. Evolving Notions of Nonhuman Personhood. J. Ethics Emerg. Technol. 2014,24, 4–19. [CrossRef]
89.
Lev, M.; Barkai, R. Elephants Are People, People Are Elephants: Human–Proboscideans Similarities as a Case for Cross Cultural
Animal Humanization in Recent and Paleolithic Times. Quat. Int. 2016,406, 239–245. [CrossRef]
90.
Locke, P. Elephants as Persons, Affective Apprenticeship, and Fieldwork with Nonhuman Informants in Nepal. HAU J. Ethnogr.
Theory 2017,7, 353–376. [CrossRef]
91.
Schalke, E.; Stichnoth, J.; Ott, S.; Jones-Baade, R. Clinical Signs Caused by the Use of Electric Training Collars on Dogs in Everyday
Life Situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007,105, 369–380. [CrossRef]
92.
Steiss, J.E.; Schaffer, C.; Ahmad, H.A.; Voith, V.L. Evaluation of Plasma Cortisol Levels and Behavior in Dogs Wearing Bark
Control Collars. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007,106, 96–106. [CrossRef]
Animals 2023,13, 2657 14 of 14
93.
Kearton, T.; Marini, D.; Cowley, F.; Belson, S.; Lee, C. The Effect of Virtual Fencing Stimuli on Stress Responses and Behavior in
Sheep. Animals 2019,9, 30. [CrossRef]
94.
Kearton, T.; Marini, D.; Cowley, F.; Belson, S.; Keshavarzi, H.; Mayes, B.; Lee, C. The Influence of Predictability and Controllability
on Stress Responses to the Aversive Component of a Virtual Fence. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020,7, 580523. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95.
Campbell, D.L.M.; Lea, J.M.; Farrer, W.J.; Haynes, S.J.; Lee, C. Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual
Fence Lines. Animals 2017,7, 72. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96.
Lee, C.; Henshall, J.M.; Wark, T.J.; Crossman, C.C.; Reed, M.T.; Brewer, H.G.; Grady, J.O.; Fisher, A.D. Associative Learning by
Cattle to Enable Effective and Ethical Virtual Fences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009,119, 15–22. [CrossRef]
97.
Lee, C.; Colditz, I.G.; Campbell, D.L.M. A Framework to Assess the Impact of New Animal Management Technologies on Welfare:
A Case Study of Virtual Fencing. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018,5, 187. [CrossRef]
98.
Lee, C.; Campbell, D.L.M. A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Assess the Welfare Impacts of a New Virtual Fencing Technology.
Front. Vet. Sci. 2021,8, 637709. [CrossRef]
99.
Nath, N.K.; Lahkar, B.P.; Brahma, N.; Dey, S.; Das, J.P.; Sarma, P.K.; Talukdar, B.K. An Assessment of Human-Elephant Conflict in
Manas National Park, Assam, India. J. Threat. Taxa 2009,1, 309–316. [CrossRef]
100.
Ramkumar, K.; Ramakrishnan, B.; Saravanamuthu, R. Crop Damage by Asian Elephants Elephas maximus and Effectiveness of
Mitigating Measures in Coimbatore Forest Division, South India. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2014,3, 1–11.
101.
Neupane, D.; Johnson, R.L.; Risch, T.S. How Do Land-use Practices Affect Human—Elephant Conflict in Nepal? Wildl. Biol.
2017
,
2017, wlb.00313. [CrossRef]
102.
Haturusinghe, H.S.; Weerakoon, D.K. Crop Raiding Behaviour of Elephants in the Northwestern Region of Sri Lanka. Gajah
2012
,
36, 26–31.
103.
Campos-Arceiz, A.; Takatsuki, S.; Ekanayaka, S.K.K.; Hasegawa, T. The Human-Elephant Conflict in Southeastern Sri Lanka:
Type of Damage, Seasonal Patterns, and Sexual Differences in the Raiding Behavior of Elephants. Gajah 2009,31, 5–14.
104.
Sukumar, R. A Brief Review of the Status, Distribution and Biology of Wild Asian Elephants Elephas maximus.Int. Zoo Yearb.
2006
,
40, 1–8. [CrossRef]
105.
Sukumar, R. The Management of Large Mammals in Relation to Male Stratefies and Conflict with People. Biol. Conserv.
1991
,55,
93–102. [CrossRef]
106.
Mumby, H.S.; Plotnik, J.M. Taking the Elephants’ Perspective: Remembering Elephant Behavior, Cognition and Ecology in
Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2018,6, 122. [CrossRef]
107.
Goswami, V.R.; Vasudev, D. Triage of Conservation Needs: The Juxtaposition of Conflict Mitigation and Connectivity Considera-
tions in Heterogeneous, Human-Dominated Landscapes. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2017,4, 144. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.