Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

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 management 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.