Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42418461›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

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

Tom P Moorhouse, Herbert Ntuli, Prince Nketiah, Angie Elwin, Suzi Paterson, Neil C D'Cruze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tom P MoorhouseOxford Wildlife Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8889-2175
Herbert NtuliDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, South Africa.
Prince NketiahDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, South Africa.
Angie ElwinWorld Animal Protection, London, United Kingdom.
Suzi PatersonWorld Animal Protection, London, United Kingdom.
Neil C D'CruzeWorld Animal Protection, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesElephantsParks, RecreationalSocial MediaAnimalsAnimals, WildHumansSouth AfricaWildlife Trade

Identifiers

PMID42418461
PMCPMC13345282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.