Research

INTRODUCTION

Existing conservation strategies have failed to halt the rapid decline of wildlife species in the face of global change (Pascual et al. 2021). Limited involvement of local communities in conservation decision-making processes, coupled with inadequate benefit-sharing mechanisms, can exacerbate human-wildlife conflicts and diminish the quality of life and health of people living near protected conservation areas (Díaz et al. 2018). Furthermore, the impact of conservation efforts on the welfare of wild animals is becoming an increasingly pressing issue (Beausoleil 2014), involving moral considerations and impacting the long-term effectiveness of conservation measures (Harrington et al. 2013, Vucetich et al. 2018). Studies on the effectiveness of conservation policies and interventions predominantly focus on their direct, intended outcomes, often overlooking the broader implications for animal populations, people, or the environment (e.g. Beausoleil et al. 2016, Mellor 2016, Derkley et al. 2019).

The growing recognition of the interconnectedness of environmental health, and animal and human well-being requires holistic approaches to global conservation. The One Welfare approach, which emerged from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) One Health initiative (Zinsstag et al. 2011), integrates animal welfare, human well-being, and environmental health, highlighting the interconnected impact of each dimension on the others (Garcia Pinillos et al. 2016, Fawcett et al. 2018). Here, we apply this approach, reframed as “One Well-being” to more accurately represent the collective and social (as opposed to individual) well-being of humans, animals, and the environment, to explore the consequences of conservation management of African savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana) in South Africa.

Our framework adopts a co-viability approach that recognizes the intertwined nature of well-being across the different dimensions, thereby facilitating a more holistic evaluation of conservation policies and interventions (Garcia Pinillos et al. 2016, Fawcett et al. 2018). We emphasize the mutual reliance among ecological, economic, and social factors, underlining the importance of sustainable habitats and wildlife populations for a balanced coexistence (Doyen et al. 2017). The framework acknowledges the critical dependency of human well-being on healthy ecological systems, and seeks to harmonize social and natural dimensions and promote social-ecological sustainability (Barrière 2008). It aims to mitigate vulnerabilities and risks, while promoting multidisciplinary collaboration and broader support for conservation efforts (Garcia Pinillos et al. 2016, Doyen et al. 2017). Ultimately, the goal is to develop conservation strategies that are sustainable and equitable, acknowledging the complex interplay among ecological, social, and ethical factors.

The (often indirect) consequences of management interventions for what we term “environmental well-being,”^[1] along with the implications for the well-being of humans and animals, can generate positive or negative feedback loops within the social-ecological system (Garcia Pinillos et al. 2016, Bourque 2017). The interactions and feedback mechanisms between social and ecological systems, as well as the cascading consequences of conservation strategies or management actions, remain poorly understood. This gap in understanding often leads to contention (DEA 2014, DFFE 2020) and highlights the need for assessment tools to elucidate how those components interact and affect each other (Herrero-Jáuregui et al. 2018).

In this study, we introduce a framework and process designed to holistically assess conservation management interventions by evaluating their impacts on animal, human, and environmental well-being, using evidence collated from literature and practical management experience. Although policy papers and scientific articles about elephant management interventions abound, there exists a wealth of practical knowledge that has remained largely unexplored in formal assessments or published literature. Therefore, we incorporate these on-the-ground experiences to enhance our understanding of management outcomes, aiming to provide valuable insights that can support policy makers and managers in future decision-making processes. We demonstrate the application of the One Well-being approach in assessing, categorizing and evaluating the consequences of 12 elephant management interventions in South Africa.

South Africa boasts extensive experience and success in managing protected areas. The preference for establishing fenced reserves, aimed at containing and preserving large mammals, necessitates intensive management practices. However, these interventions’ long-term and/or indirect consequences are often overlooked or unknown (Hayward and Kerley 2009, Slotow 2012, DEA 2014, Zungu and Slotow 2022). Moreover, these management interventions can prove unsustainable or contentious, especially when involving charismatic “flagship species” like elephants, as their iconic status and cultural and economic importance can lead to heightened emotions and divergent opinions (DEAT 2005, Di Minin et al. 2013a, Convention on Biological Diversity 2021). Because fencing is increasingly used as a strategy to mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC; e.g., see Woodroffe et al. 2014, and the resulting letters), South Africa’s experience in managing the consequences of confining large mammals in fenced reserves (Shaffer et al. 2019, Zungu and Slotow 2022) takes on increased significance.

Although the conservation status of the African savanna elephant has recently changed from Vulnerable to Endangered on the global IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Gobush et al. 2021), the southern African population is increasing and regionally classified as Least Concern in South Africa (Selier et al. 2016). With an estimated 44,326 elephants (CITES 2022) in South Africa, the growing population numbers have raised concerns about their impact on reserve vegetation because elephants are known to push over trees and can potentially create grass-dominated landscapes (Owen-Smith et al. 2006). Various management interventions have been deployed in response, focusing on either reducing elephant densities or altering their spatial behavior (DEAT 2008, Zungu and Slotow 2022). Among these interventions, culling is arguably the most publicly debated and criticized (Owen-Smith et al. 2006, Henley and Cook 2019). Other management interventions implemented in South Africa include translocation, which involves relocating elephants between reserves; contraception to control population growth; and efforts to alter access to water and expand elephant range and increase habitat connectivity. Over 800 elephants have been translocated across South African reserves in the past three decades (Slotow et al. 2005, Naidoo et al. 2016, Selier et al. 2016, DFFE 2020). The application of contraceptives to manage elephant populations has been studied since 1995 (Delsink et al. 2013, Bertschinger et al. 2018), and range expansion initiatives have been actively pursued (Van Aarde and Jackson 2007, Di Minin et al. 2013b, Henley et al. 2023).

Various national policies and agreements in South Africa regulate these management interventions. The Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa (DEAT 2008) were gazetted in 2008 to harmonize elephant management practices throughout the Republic, aligning them with national and international agreements. The Norms and Standards specifically guide the practical application of elephant management interventions (birth/population control, water provision, fire, supplementary feeding, fencing, corridors, range expansion, translocation, and culling). Since their introduction, every reserve hosting elephants has been mandated to develop an Elephant Management Plan that complies with these Norms and Standards, as well as with the broader National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act: Protected Areas Act (Republic of South Africa 2004).

Using data from on-the-ground management experience, along with the extensive body of policies, laws, and goals developed through stakeholder participation, the One Well-being framework proposed in this study can aid policy makers and managers in developing conservation strategies for elephants and other species or ecosystems, and encourage the conservation community to develop more ethical, socially just, and sustainable conservation strategies (Lindenmayer and Kaufman 2021).

METHODS

Building the framework

In our study, we built a One Well-being framework to methodically assess the consequences of elephant management interventions across the intertwined dimensions of animal, human, and environmental well-being (Fig. 1). This framework disaggregates each dimension into specific sub-components for a more nuanced and relevant analysis of the interventions’ consequences. By adopting a multicriteria approach, it allows for a comprehensive evaluation, which is especially valuable in scenarios marked by uncertainty, ethical dilemmas, or stakeholder contention, traits often found in elephant conservation discussions (Dickson and Adams 2009, Doyen et al. 2017). We consider animal well-being as criteria for basic health and functioning, natural living, and affective states (happiness; Fraser 2008). Human well-being is examined through the lenses of material well-being (wealth and livelihood), subjective well-being (physical and psychological), and relational well-being (sociocultural and spiritual; McGregor and Pouw 2017). Environmental well-being is assessed in terms of ecological functioning, the provision of ecosystem services, the risk of biodiversity loss, and ecological resilience (adapted from Bibri 2021). Our framework categorizes the consequences of interventions into three types: direct intentional consequences of interventions, where actions deliberately aim to influence animals, people, or the environment; direct unintentional, where interventions have a direct but unintended impact; and indirect, where the effects of human actions on animals, people, or the environment occur indirectly (Fraser and MacRae 2011). To understand the prevalence and nature of these consequences, we quantified beneficial and harmful impacts across each well-being dimension, calculating their frequency and differentiating between beneficial and harmful, as well as direct and indirect consequences.

The proposed decision-making process for selecting and implementing elephant management interventions is depicted in Figure 2. It synthesizes a multi-step approach that incorporates stakeholder engagement, assessing evidence, and a scoring system to evaluate the impact of interventions on animal, human, and environmental well-being. The flowchart outlines the progression from the identification of conservation concerns to the final decision of whether an intervention should be implemented, taking into account both its overall One Well-being score and the necessity and feasibility of mitigating any potentially harmful consequences. This integrated approach ensures that intervention strategies are thoroughly vetted for their implications across multiple dimensions before being put into practice.

Step 1: Identify a conservation concern, a vision, goals, and potential intervention options

The One Well-being approach advocates that biodiversity is most effectively managed through a system that clearly defines a conservation concern, a vision, and ecological and socioeconomic goals agreed upon by all stakeholders. To develop and test the framework, we focused specifically on ecological concerns related to increasing elephant densities in South Africa. In response to these concerns, a range of management interventions was implemented with the objectives of either reducing elephant population densities or modifying their spatial behavior to mitigate their impact on the reserve’s vegetation and overall ecological health. Our analysis focused on the impacts of 12 elephant management interventions commonly applied in South Africa. Interventions were organized to assess their potential impacts on both the individual level and the level of the social-ecological influence on the population as a whole. Initially, interventions were categorized into three groups based on the directness of contact with elephants (Categories A to C). These categories were further assessed for their level of invasiveness or interference with the social-ecology of larger elephant populations, using a scale ranging from low (1) to high (12) interference. The linear assignment of scores is complicated by factors such as the size of the protected area and the history of the founder population and is further nuanced by stakeholders’ priorities. This process of assigning scores can be approached from various perspectives, which can significantly influence the outcomes, leading to different scores within the same category on a case-by-case basis. In our example, category A consists of interventions that do not require direct contact with elephants (A1. doing nothing, A2. range expansion/opening corridors, A3. closure of water points [to encourage dispersal and limit population sizes]; A4. fencing, and A5. militarized anti-poaching). Category B involves interventions that necessitate direct contact with elephants (B6. population control via contraception with Porcine Zona Pellucida vaccine [pZP], B7. population control or control of problematic bull behavior through Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone [GnRH] treatment, B8. population control through vasectomy; and B9. translocation). Category C includes interventions that require direct contact with the intention of ending an elephant’s life (C10. control of damage causing animals [DCAs]; C11. trophy hunting; and C12. culling). DCA control is more common outside reserves than within protected areas. Although it represents extreme interference at the individual level, its impact on the population within protected areas may be less compared to trophy hunting, which predominantly occurs within reserves. Culling, characterized by the involvement of a larger number of animals and targeting highly protective mothers and their young, is considered more severe in terms of its impact on both levels of interference.

Step 2: Gather evidence on the consequences of interventions

In order to identify the consequences of 12 elephant management interventions, our example evaluation draws on six sources of evidence: (1) literature on elephant management interventions published between 2007 and 2021; (2) qualitative data collected through a participatory workshop with elephant managers and scientists in 2019; (3) questionnaires distributed among managers of 46 South African reserves in 2017 by the Elephant Specialist Advisory Group (ESAG); (4) databases of the provincial South African authorities responsible for permit issuance of restricted activities or interventions for DCAs, containing details of 469 DCA cases that occurred between 2015 and 2020; (5) reserve management reports about the effectiveness of 386 cases of elephant management interventions that have been conducted since 1991; (6) detailed reports from a non-profit organization, Elephants Alive, on the handling of 10 DCA incidents that occurred between 2008 and 2010 (Table 1).

Literature review of the consequences of elephant management interventions

The basis of the literature review was a comprehensive systematic review of the consequences of nine elephant management interventions (Zungu and Slotow 2022), and we identified and included three more interventions in our study. Zungu and Slotow’s work synthesized research published between 2007 and 2021 that focused on interventions involving the African savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana), the African forest elephant (L. cyclotis), and the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), supplementing an earlier elephant management assessment (Scholes and Mennell 2008). They listed beneficial consequences, demographic responses, and unintended consequences for elephants. We classified these consequences as beneficial or harmful, included them in Appendix 1, and checked the articles mentioned in Zungu and Slotow (2022) for data related to the impact of these interventions on human and environmental well-being. The three additional interventions we have added to our study are: (1) doing nothing; (2) DCA control; and (3) militarized anti-poaching. Although assessments often overlook the impact of doing nothing to control an overabundance of elephants, we argue that this should be included because it is, in fact, a management decision with potential long-term consequences. A DCA is defined as “an individual animal or group of animals that, when in conflict with human activities, there is proof that it causes substantial loss to livestock or to wild animals; causes substantial damage to cultivated trees, crops, or other property; or presents an imminent threat to human life” (Republic of South Africa 2016). The control of DCAs is a relatively common management intervention in South Africa, which can result in the death of elephants. Militarized anti-poaching efforts are included in this assessment because they represent a critical intervention for protecting elephants (and rhinoceroses) from persistent poaching threats. These efforts, often referred to as “green militarization,” have been documented to affect human well-being (Duffy 2014, Büscher and Ramutsindela 2016, Mogomotsi and Madigele 2017). Finally, because trophy hunting is very selective, it is not suitable as a measure of population control (Milner et al. 2007) and, thus, typically not viewed as a management intervention. However, because trophy hunting is a legal, highly regulated practice within South African wildlife management and is sometimes suggested as a method to control elephant numbers (e.g., DEAT 2008), trophy hunting is also included in this assessment.

We expanded our literature search to include articles that specifically discuss the impact of (one or more of) the 12 elephant management interventions on animal, human, and/or environmental well-being. From February 2022 to January 2023, we conducted a search in Web of Science and Google Scholar for English language, peer-reviewed publications, using the search terms: “elephant” AND “laissez-faire” OR “range expansion” OR “corridor” OR “connectivity” OR “population control,” OR “artificial water” OR “water provision” OR “fencing” OR “fences” OR “militarised anti-poaching” OR “anti-poaching” OR “pZP” OR “contraception” OR “GnRH” OR “vasectomy” OR “translocation” OR “DCA” OR “trophy hunting” OR “culling.” Relevant statements and citations detailing the consequences of elephant management interventions on animal, human, and environmental well-being were extracted.

Elephant expert participatory workshop

On 5th–6th June 2019, ESAG hosted an elephant expert workshop at the Southern African Wildlife College in Limpopo province, attended by 58 delegates. The workshop facilitated group discussions on the intended and unintended consequences of elephant management interventions, encouraging delegates to share experiences about what succeeded and what failed during and after the implementation of these interventions. Following these discussions, the groups presented summaries of their discussions to all participants for further input and insight (ESAG workshop in Table 1).

Reserve management questionnaire

In 2017, ESAG distributed a questionnaire among managers of 46 reserves in South Africa as part of its long-term monitoring activities. Reserve managers, ecologists, and conservation agency staff were contacted through e-mail, by phone, and by visits to key reserves to increase participation in the survey. Managers and key staff were requested to provide reports on elephant management interventions and were interviewed in order to obtain any relevant information not included in written documents (ESAG survey in Table 1).

Provincial data on damage causing elephants

The Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) provided us with electronic spreadsheets of DCA incidents with elephants in Limpopo province. Northwest Province Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism also provided a spreadsheet with five DCA incidents. In total, we included 471 reported DCA cases that occurred between 2015 and 2020 (Provincial DCA data in Table 1).

Reports on applied elephant management interventions

Information on elephant management interventions was provided by South African National Parks (SANParks) for interventions in two National Parks, and by Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, for interventions in five provincial Protected Areas. The management interventions for LEDET-managed Protected Areas are included in the DCA database mentioned above, and LEDET provided summary information on elephant management interventions conducted in one additional reserve. Two key private reserves with a substantial ecotourism presence, where a range of management interventions have taken place, also provided information (Reserves data in Table 1).

Elephants Alive, an elephant research non-profit organization, provided detailed reports on handling DCA incidents in Limpopo province between 2008 and 2010, involving the killing of 14 elephants (Elephants Alive data in Table 1). In Appendix 1, the analysis categorizes the 252 documented consequences of interventions as beneficial or harmful, further classified as direct intentional, direct unintentional, and indirect.

Step 3: Scoring the framework

For this paper, this phase was dedicated solely to testing the framework, providing a preliminary assessment of each management intervention without intending to influence conservation policy. Recognizing the importance of broader stakeholder involvement for a more robust evaluation of the elephant management interventions within the One Well-being framework, we anticipate incorporating broader stakeholder participation into future research. Nonetheless, our approach provides an initial exploration of the potential risks associated with various management interventions by holistically examining their beneficial and harmful, intended, unintended, and indirect consequences.

Eight scientists, including five researchers from the University of KwaZulu-Natal who conducted this project on behalf of South Africa’s Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE), along with three additional authors who are experienced elephant researchers, applied the framework to evaluate the consequences of the 12 elephant management interventions. Drawing on information from Appendix 1 and their expertise, these researchers individually scored each intervention. Scores ranged from -2 (very harmful effects) to +2 (very beneficial effects). The most frequent (modal) score on each sub-component for each intervention was identified. The modal scores obtained from the sub-components were averaged to calculate a single score for each One Well-being intervention. Aggregating these scores across the three dimensions provided an overall One Well-being Intervention Score for each management intervention. This cumulative One Well-being Intervention Score was then used to rank the interventions according to their relative One-Well-being outcomes.

For each of the 12 elephant management interventions, spanning 10 categories, evaluators assigned a total of 120 scores (Fig. 3). The influence of personal experiences with these elephant management interventions may have affected the scores assigned by each researcher. Therefore, the agreement level was calculated for each intervention and sub-component. We also calculated the average disagreement across the scores for each intervention as the number of scorers who disagreed with the mode score across all sub-components for that intervention, divided by 10 (the number of sub-components scored).

Step 4: Prioritizing goals, establishing acceptability zones, and considering future scenarios

This step involves establishing priorities and acceptability zones through a co-viability model approach (Hardy et al. 2013, Doyen et al. 2017). It entails a thorough assessment of the anticipated severity and likelihood of consequences, guiding the prioritization of interventions and their associated consequences over others (Delsink et al., unpublished manuscript). During this phase, stakeholders determine their priorities based on the local context and specific conservation objectives while also setting thresholds to delineate acceptability zones (Thébaud et al. 2014). Conservation priority setting, inherently influenced by scale, aims to determine the specifics of management interventions—what, when, where, and how they should be implemented first, acknowledging the impracticality of tackling all aspects simultaneously (Wilson et al. 2009). This process involves stakeholders in discussions about the levels of uncertainty tied to various outcomes and possible future scenarios. It is crucial to assess the relative significance of the three dimensions within the local context and to identify the decision makers who are authorized to establish these priorities while navigating challenges like power imbalances and the potential personal interests of influential stakeholders. Additionally, there is a crucial need to incorporate considerations of future scenarios into this phase. Evaluating interventions in isolation fails to account for the full scope of potential impacts. Management interventions like fencing, which require sustained financial support, can lead to increased DCA management if affected by governmental corruption within the socioeconomic systems designated for their upkeep. Moreover, measures such as lethal interventions or the closure of water points may have unintended consequences within the context of changing environmental, socioeconomic, and political conditions. Therefore, conservation strategies should extend beyond immediate ecological concerns, incorporating policies that promote inter-regional and intergenerational equity (Doyen et al. 2017, De Silva et al. 2023, Zungu and Slotow 2022).

Step 5: Use One well-being score and acceptability zones to guide decision making

The acceptability zones and the overall One Well-being scores can be used to guide the decision-making process toward optimal outcomes. It aids in selecting interventions that align with pre-established viability and goals and ensures the incorporation of plans for potential mitigation strategies. Moreover, by promoting positive outcomes across all One Well-being dimensions, it fosters holistic and sustainable progress. Although we did not directly implement this step, we provided decision makers with a practical flowchart (Fig. 2) to effectively translate the outcomes of the One well-being assessment into actionable strategies.

RESULTS

Step 2: The consequences of elephant management interventions

Appendix 1 provides a comprehensive overview of all data from literature and the other five sources of data on on-the-ground practice in South Africa, detailing the direct intended, direct unintended, and indirect consequences of 12 elephant management interventions. A summary table (Table 2) is provided for ease of reference, highlighting several key beneficial and harmful consequences of each intervention. We recommend consulting this table in conjunction with the more exhaustive table in Appendix 1 for a thorough understanding. Overall, 252 consequences were identified: 58 as direct intentional, 127 as direct unintentional, and 67 as indirect (Appendix 1). Most direct intentional consequences were beneficial (91.4%), in contrast to direct unintentional and indirect consequences that were predominantly harmful (96.9% and 76.1%, respectively). All harmful direct intentional consequences concerned harm to elephants, and none to people or the environment. Comparing the beneficial and harmful consequences among the three One Well-being dimensions, 74.2% of the listed consequences for animal well-being were harmful, 73.0% of the consequences for human well-being were harmful, and 61.8% for environmental well-being were harmful. The greatest number of harmful consequences were recorded for control of DCA (29 harmful consequences, of which 9 were harmful to elephants, 19 to people, and 1 to the environment), translocation (27, of which 14 were harmful to elephants, 8 to people, and 5 to the environment), and fencing (22, of which 8 were harmful to elephants, 7 to people, and 7 to the environment). Relative to other interventions, more consequences were reported for translocation (35 consequences), DCA (34), and fencing (29), while the fewest consequences were noted for doing nothing, militarized anti-poaching, and vasectomy, with 11 consequences each.

Step 3: Scoring the framework

For almost half of the scores (45% of the 120 scores), there was either complete agreement or only one score differed from the mode score. For 36% of the scores, two of the eight scorers gave a different score from the mode, 14% of the scores had three people who assigned a different score, and in 5% of the cases, four different scores were given. Most variation in assigned scores was observed concerning vasectomy and trophy hunting. The greatest consensus was found on the scores for doing nothing, range expansion, and translocation. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation was used to compare rankings for each intervention based on the level of interference on elephants and the calculated One Well-being scores, for which we used two-tailed P values to determine the statistical significance of these comparisons. The evaluation of elephant management interventions reveals an imbalance across the three dimensions of One Well-being. Among the interventions, only range expansion and pZP contraception received positive scores in all three One Well-being dimensions. Environmental well-being benefited from 9 out of 12 interventions, with an average score of 0.49, whereas animal and human well-being saw positive scores in only four and three interventions, respectively, with averages of -0.42 for animal well-being and -0.20 for human well-being. Although five interventions achieved a positive overall score, two adversely affected human well-being and one negatively impacted animal well-being. Three interventions—doing nothing, fencing, and DCA control—scored negatively across all One Well-being dimensions. According to evaluations by eight researchers and from a One Well-being standpoint, DCA control, culling, and fencing rank as the least favored management strategies. Conversely, range expansion, pZP contraception, and the closure of water points emerged as the most preferred interventions (Figure 3).

Step 4: Prioritizing goals, establishing acceptability zones, and considering future scenarios

For the purpose of validating the framework, we determined four distinct acceptability zones: “Preferred” (score above 1), “Acceptable” (scores ranging from 0 to 1), “Caution” (scores between -1 and 0), and “Inappropriate” (scores below -1). We acknowledge the arbitrary nature of these benchmarks. To provide a visual representation and a quick reference system for the acceptability of management interventions, we have developed Figure 4 illustrating these zones, with green denoting higher acceptability compared to red (Delsink et al., unpublished manuscript).

Interference vs One Well-being ranking

Spearman’s rank correlation was used to assess the association between the level of interference and the One Well-being ranking of the 12 elephant management interventions (Fig. 5). No significant correlation was found between the ranking based on interference level (where higher numbers indicate greater interference, and, therefore a greater welfare concern for the individual involved) and the One Well-being ranking (where the top rank of 1 suggests holistic benefits in terms of the three well-being dimensions, and lower-ranking indicates reducing benefits and increasing harm, with 12 as the worst ranked intervention; r_s = 0.41, n = 12, p = 0.18).

Step 5: Use One well-being score and acceptability zones to guide decision making

Guided by the acceptability zones presented in Figure 4, our case study provides a nuanced understanding of the consequences of the various elephant management interventions. The figure highlights that both “Fencing” and “Culling” fall into the inappropriate zone across two dimensions, indicating that these interventions are not recommended because they likely lead to adverse outcomes. The figure indicates that “Doing Nothing,” “Militarized Anti-Poaching,” “GnRH,” “DCA Control,” and “Trophy Hunting” each have one dimension falling into the inappropriate zone. These interventions should either be avoided or implemented with a strong focus on mitigating risks throughout the decision-making process. “Closure of Water Points,” “Vasectomy,” and “Translocation” are identified as approaches that warrant cautious application. These interventions require the implementation of specific mitigation measures to avoid, or at least minimize, potential harm. Conversely, “Range Expansion” and “pZP Contraception” are considered acceptable interventions, with “Range Expansion" being particularly promoted for its contribution to One Well-being. If management decisions hinge only on the Interference Rank (Fig. 5), options like doing nothing, fencing, or militarized anti-poaching might be favored. However, this perspective overlooks the more comprehensive and long-term consequences that the One Well-being approach brings to light.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we explored the multifaceted impacts of conservation management on the well-being of animals, humans, and the environment, aiming to bridge the gap between extensive literature on elephant management and the lesser-documented, yet invaluable practical knowledge gained from field experiences. Through synthesizing various evidence sources, we developed a framework to holistically evaluate the outcomes of these interventions based on the interconnectedness of the One Well-being dimensions. We argue that viewing these dimensions in isolation is an artificial separation (Colonius and Earley 2013, Garcia Pinillos et al. 2016). Traditional frameworks, like the three pillars of sustainable development (which presume independence of pillars), have faced criticism for often prioritizing economics based on the assumption that economic gains can compensate for shortcomings in the other pillars (Purvis et al. 2019). The interactive well-being framework developed by Wünderlich et al. (2021) integrates animal and human well-being but omits environmental well-being, which is a crucial dimension for our biodiversity conservation objectives. Their approach is more economically focused, emphasizing the concept of community (Wünderlich et al. 2021), whereas our framework expands this to encompass a broader societal context. Examining different interactive well-being frameworks through various lenses offers valuable insights and enhances our understanding of their multifaceted nature. Our adoption of the One Well-being approach, grounded in co-viability principles (Barrière 2008, Thébaud et al. 2014, Doyen et al. 2017), marks a substantial departure from purely economic-focused strategies that tend to favor short-term gains over long-term sustainability (Doyen et al. 2017, Purvis et al. 2019, Menton et al. 2020). This shift is essential for addressing issues arising from the commodification of nature, which often leads to biodiversity loss, poverty, and inequality (Menton et al. 2020, Otero et al. 2020, Van de Water et al. 2022a). Our approach recognizes that no single aspect can truly substitute for another, thus transcending the traditional economic valuation of wildlife.

We have expanded the scope of the One Welfare framework to develop the “One Well-being Framework,” aiming to comprehensively incorporate the collective well-being of animals, people, and environments. Although animal welfare focuses on individual animals’ physical and mental states (WOAH 2023), our approach emphasizes the broader concept of well-being. This perspective accounts for the interconnectedness of individual and population health, recognizing that the distress of a single animal can have a ripple effect and impact an entire population, especially in social animals. For instance, elephant hunting in Pilanesberg National Park has adverse effects on the well-being of the remaining elephants (Burke et al. 2008). Evidence of heightened stress levels in calves from previously translocated elephants suggests the potential for trauma and stress to cause epigenetic modifications, affecting subsequent generations (Jachowski et al. 2012, Jensen 2013, Burton and Metcalfe 2014). Similarly, extremely disruptive social events like culling or translocation can impair critical social behavior, impacting both individuals directly involved as well as those who were not exposed to these interventions (Shannon et al. 2013, 2022, Garaï et al. 2023).

Insights from other studies, such as Derkley et al. (2019), which examined the effects of rhinoceros conservation policies, further underscore the importance of integrating the well-being of individual animals and entire populations. By incorporating these principles into our framework, we align more closely with human-related concerns, recognizing the need to address well-being at both individual and community levels (e.g., Tomita et al. 2022). The disconnect between the interference level (representing individual animal welfare concerns in isolation) and One Well-being rankings evident here underscores the necessity for a broader perspective in evaluating management intervention outcomes. This disparity advocates for a shift away from making conservation decisions based solely on immediate, direct effects within siloed disciplines. Instead, we recommend adopting a holistic, transdisciplinary approach that ensures the well-being of animals and humans within sustainable ecosystems and societies (Colonius and Earley 2013).

Applying the One Well-being scoring system uncovers an imbalance in conservation outcomes from management interventions, predominantly favoring environmental well-being at the expense of animals and humans. This finding is underscored by Appendix 1, which shows that listed consequences tend to focus on isolated dimensions, emphasizing either direct or indirect effects. This highlights a critical gap in comprehensive assessments, suggesting the need for evaluations encompassing both immediate and long-term impacts of conservation practices. The predominance of interventions that benefit environmental well-being likely stems from their design by biologically trained professionals primarily focused on biodiversity goals (Van Meerbeek et al. 2019). In comparison, the minimal positive outcomes observed on animal well-being suggest a possible undervaluation of this aspect in current elephant management practices. This often results in increased stress and negative well-being outcomes for the elephants. This oversight is particularly alarming when dealing with sentient beings and species under intensive management, such as elephants (Harrington et al. 2013, Beausoleil 2014). Except for militarized anti-poaching, all reviewed management interventions potentially result in increased stress among elephants, which can lead to adverse effects such as increased vulnerability, aggression, and lowered reproductive success, with lasting impacts across generations (Gobush et al. 2008, Burton and Metcalfe 2014). Moreover, the scoring system’s findings on human well-being reveal a general disregard for the social and societal implications of conservation actions, indicating a considerable gap in incorporating human-centric considerations into conservation management decisions (Van de Water et al. 2022a). The analysis also differentiates between the beneficial direct intentional consequences and the predominantly harmful unintentional and indirect consequences of interventions, suggesting that elephant management decisions are frequently made with a narrow focus on immediate outcomes without accounting for the wider, potentially negative impacts on the social-ecological system. It is important to acknowledge the variability in sample sizes across the 12 interventions assessed in this study; the minimum samples size is still large enough to draw valid conclusions. Although larger sample sizes may yield additional consequences, the overall trend of imbalance is unlikely to change substantially. It should be noted that the application of the One Well-being scoring system consistently uncovered imbalances in conservation outcomes regardless of the sample sizes. This aligns with comprehensive reviews confirming that conservation efforts often prioritize environmental goals over human and animal well-being (McKinnon et al. 2016, Cheng et al. 2020). These include reviews on elephant management that emphasize the need for considering animal welfare, as well as findings that HEC mitigation strategies are often unbalanced, as they have an immediate human-centric approach (Mumby and Plotnik 2018, Shaffer et al. 2019, Zungu and Slotow 2022).

The assessment revealed the inherent flaws in “command and control” conservation and land management strategies, which often overlook long-term harmful consequences (Zungu and Slotow 2022). In South Africa, conservation policy has historically focused on ecosystem protection and species survival, resulting in practices that limit reserve size and enforce wildlife fencing (Zungu and Slotow 2022). These measures restrict animal movement and lead to additional management challenges, with unintended adverse effects. Such management decisions not only undermine animal well-being but can also negatively impact tourism and the nation’s reputation (Edge et al. 2017). For instance, in addressing wildlife overpopulation, it is critical to consider the public’s values regarding animal welfare and select interventions likely to garner widespread support (Brown et al. 2019). Such alignment with public sentiment not only ensures the ethical treatment of wildlife but also secures the effectiveness and longevity of conservation efforts (Nugent et al. 2011). In contrast to “command and control,” the South African Constitutional Court has endorsed an integrative approach that values both individual and ecosystem well-being, suggesting a shift toward more holistic conservation solutions (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2016). This approach acknowledges the interconnectedness of conservation issues and promotes strategies that respect both animals and their environments (Colonius and Earley 2013, Bilchitz 2017, Lindenmayer and Kaufman 2021).

Our study’s findings on range expansion and corridor creation illustrate the necessity of adopting a holistic One Well-being approach in conservation. Range expansion and the creation of corridors were identified as optimal strategies for elephant conservation, emphasizing their role in enhancing biodiversity, social-ecological resilience, and the conservation of elephants and their habitat (Osborn and Parker 2003, Van Aarde and Jackson 2007, Huang et al. 2024). By supporting all One Well-being dimensions, range expansion can potentially reduce the need for more invasive elephant management interventions, such as population control, although the need for coexistence solutions may increase (DEA 2014). Given the availability of adjacent suitable land, the feasibility of significant range expansion in South Africa presents a promising avenue for conservation. However, the success of these initiatives hinges on strategic planning and maintenance to prevent human development from undermining connectivity goals and exacerbating human-elephant conflicts (Ngene et al. 2010, Canney 2021, Okita-Ouma et al. 2021, Henley et al. 2023). Militarized anti-poaching, on the other hand, while beneficial for animal and environmental well-being, poses significant risks to human well-being, including potential human rights violations (Witter 2013, Büscher and Ramutsindela 2016, Booker and Roe 2017, De Leeuw et al. 2018, Duffy et al. 2019). The severity of these consequences, which undermine social agreements, elevate their importance and necessitate prioritizing them above others, is essential because these consequences directly challenge the foundational agreements that bind communities, and ignoring these concerns could lead to a breakdown of the social compact (Van de Water et al. 2022a). This emphasizes the critical need for a detailed assessment of interventions, taking into account the implications of each consequence both within individual dimensions and across multiple dimensions. We advocate for anti-poaching strategies that do not exacerbate inequity or violence, suggesting community-driven initiatives as viable alternatives (Di Minin et al. 2022). For instance, empowering women through snare sweeping and wildlife protection advocacy can positively impact both human and animal well-being, fostering greater community support and potentially reducing poaching (Massé et al. 2017, Agu and Gore 2020, Janssens et al. 2022).

We acknowledge two limitations of the One Well-being scoring system. The first limitation concerns prioritization and power dynamics. It is necessary to determine the relative importance of the three dimensions within the local context, and identify who has the authority to set these priorities amidst challenges such as power imbalances and the potential personal interests of powerful stakeholders (Van de Water et al. 2022b). A broad range of stakeholders, including conservationists, local communities, wildlife authorities, commercial entities, NGOs, researchers, and the public, have vested interests in elephant management, often leading to conflicting views (Biggs et al. 2017). Despite the recognized need to align conservation and human well-being, trade-offs remain common (McShane et al. 2011, Van de Water et al. 2022a). Balancing the diverse values of biodiversity, profits, and ethics is challenging, especially with conflicting interests within each dimension. Our goal is to identify a process for solutions that benefit all well-being dimensions without resorting to trade-offs (Hansmann et al. 2012). We suggest using the acceptability zones for all dimensions (Fig. 4) in order to evaluate management decisions, guide acceptable interventions, and plan mitigation of potential harm (Doyen et al. 2017). Policy makers and managers must weigh the impact of negative scores, considering long-term effects and feedback loops. The scoring system aids in developing strategies that either minimize negative trade-offs or make them fully transparent for informed decision making and strategic planning for risk mitigation. Therefore, we advocate for a risk management approach to address any negative impacts, allowing for the strategic planning of risk mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management to navigate future challenges (DEAT 2008, Gillson et al. 2019). Adopting a proactive risk management approach ensures that stakeholders are well-informed about significant risks, emphasizes the prioritization of mitigation strategies, and facilitates the successful realization of conservation objectives (Delsink et al., unpublished manuscript). This method fosters an iterative process for continuous improvement, enabling policy makers and managers to evaluate, adjust, and enhance management practices effectively.

The second limitation concerns the number of scoring inputs in this example. Our validation of the One Well-being scoring system was conducted by only eight researchers, necessitating a cautious interpretation of the outcomes. The involvement of a broader range of stakeholders is crucial for future assessments to mitigate bias and provide a more robust perspective. Incorporating viewpoints from researchers, landowners, reserve managers, and communities coexisting with wildlife can enrich such an assessment. These diverse stakeholders often have varying priorities, for instance, marginalized communities may focus more on human well-being, whereas landowners may emphasize the well-being of animals and the environment (Van de Water et al. 2023).

Despite these limitations, the One Well-being framework introduces an innovative process for developing win-win solutions and navigating conservation trade-offs, thereby enhancing the well-being of life on Earth (Colonius and Earley 2013). It offers a tool for assessing interventions at a site or landscape level, assisting policy makers and managers in devising conservation strategies that ensure social-ecological resilience, aligned with best practice principles, and adapting to evolving policies and legislation that focus on achieving One Well-being through an interactive process. Contrasting our One Well-being approach with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we find the SDGs lacking in recognizing the intertwined relationship of humans, nature, and well-being (van Norren 2020). They overlook nature’s intrinsic value and fail to encourage a reciprocal relationship with wildlife and nature, rooted in a growth-centric model that demands endless resource use to sustain it. The SDGs compartmentalize social and environmental justice rather than integrating them into their core principles (Menton et al. 2020). Unlike our method, which emphasizes collective well-being and reciprocity, the SDGs focus more on achievements against individual targets. We propose that the SDGs could better consider a One Well-being framework that prioritizes interconnectedness and mutual benefits over mere development, adopts iterative processes rather than end goal-focused thinking, and aims for holistic earth stewardship rather than a static definition of sustainability (van Norren 2020).

This study highlights that the most effective conservation strategies are those that integrate human, animal, and environmental well-being. Emphasizing ethical and effective management interventions (Friswold et al. 2023), such as the expansion and connectivity of protected areas, offers elephants the necessary space to thrive, while also fostering community engagement and promoting human-elephant coexistence, benefiting both wildlife and human populations.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the usefulness of a One Well-being approach in conservation and wildlife management, advocating for holistic strategies that integrate the well-being of animals, humans, and the environment. By developing a framework, we address the limitations of conventional conservation strategies that often prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability and equity. Our findings highlight the importance of incorporating both animal and human well-being into conservation efforts, aligning with global shifts toward recognizing animal and human well-being’s impact on policy making and the moral and legal obligations encapsulated in national constitutions to safeguard a healthy environment (Boyd 2018, Brown et al. 2019, Menton et al. 2020, CITES 2021). The One Well-being approach integrates these aspects, thereby supporting these global aspirations, suggesting management actions that uphold people’s rights and garner local and international conservation support. The One Well-being approach facilitates a shift toward conservation practices that are aligned with societal values and legal mandates for nature protection (Van de Water et al. 2022a). Adopting this approach envisions a future where conservation is ethical, equitable, and environmentally sound, fostering a world that values sustainable coexistence and the interconnectedness of all life.

__________

^[1] We use the term environmental well-being rather than environmental health, to more accurately reflect its conservation relevance (Lindenmayer and Kaufman 2021).

LITERATURE CITED

Abrams, A. 2022. We just saw the fence: infrastructural violence, fencing and the legacy of South Africas bantustan. Pages 113-133 in M. Ramutsindela, F. Matose, and T. Mushonga, editors. The violence of conservation in Africa. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800885615.00018

Agu, H. U., and M. L. Gore. 2020. Women in wildlife trafficking in Africa: a synthesis of literature. Global Ecology and Conservation 23:e01166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01166

Ahlering, M. A., J. E. Maldonado, L. S. Eggert, R. C. Fleischer, D. Western, and J. L. Brown. 2013. Conservation outside protected areas and the effect of human-dominated landscapes on stress hormones in savannah elephants. Conservation Biology 27:569-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12061

Ahlers, M. J., A. Ganswindt, S. Münscher, and H. J. Bertschinger. 2012. Fecal 20-oxo-pregnane concentrations in free-ranging African elephants (Loxodonta africana) treated with porcine zona pellucida vaccine. Theriogenology 78:77-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.01.023

Allen, C. R. B., L. J. N. Brent, T. Motsentwa, M. N. Weiss, and D. P. Croft. 2020. Importance of old bulls: leaders and followers in collective movements of all-male groups in African savannah elephants (Loxodonta africana). Scientific Reports 10(1):13996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70682-y

Anthony, B. P., P. Scott, and A. Antypas. 2010. Sitting on the fence? Policies and practices in managing human-wildlife conflict in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Conservation and Society 8(3):225-240. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.73812

Archie, E. A., J. E. Maldonado, J. A. Hollister-Smith, J. H. Poole, C. J. Moss, R. C. Fleischer, and S. C. Alberts. 2008. Fine-scale population genetic structure in a fission-fusion society. Molecular Ecology 17(11):2666-2679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03797.x

Barrière, O. 2008. Legal aspects of the co-viability of social and ecological systems in African arid zones: a legal anthropology approach to environmental law. Pages 583-597 in C. Lee and T. Schaaf, editors. The future of drylands. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6970-3_51

Bartlam-Brooks, H. L. A., M. C. Bonyongo, and S. Harris. 2011. Will reconnecting ecosystems allow long-distance mammal migrations to resume? A case study of a zebra Equus burchelli migration in Botswana. Oryx 45:210-216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000414

Batavia, C., M. P. Nelson, C. T. Darimont, P. C. Paquet, W. J. Ripple, and A. D. Wallach. 2019. The elephant (head) in the room: a critical look at trophy hunting. Conservation Letters 12(1):e12565. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12565

Beausoleil, N. J. 2014. Balancing the need for conservation and the welfare of individual animals. Pages 124-147 in M. C. Appleby, D. M. Weary, and P. Sandøe, editors. Dilemmas in animal welfare. CABI, Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780642161.0124

Beausoleil, N. J., P. Fisher, K. E. Littin, B. Warburton, D. J. Mellor, R. R. Dalefield, and P. Cowan. 2016. A systematic approach to evaluating and ranking the relative animal welfare impacts of wildlife control methods: poisons used for lethal control of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Wildlife Research 43(7):553-565. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16041

Belsky, J., P. L. Ruttle, W. T. Boyce, J. M. Armstrong, and M. J. Essex. 2015. Early adversity, elevated stress physiology, accelerated sexual maturation, and poor health in females. Developmental Psychology 51(6):816–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000017

Bertschinger, H. J., and P. Caldwell. 2016. Fertility suppression of some wildlife species in southern Africa—a review. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 51:18-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.12783

Bertschinger, H. J., A. Delsink, J. J. Van Altena, and J. F. Kirkpatrick. 2018. Porcine zona pellucida vaccine immunocontraception of African elephant (Loxodonta africana) cows: a review of 22 years of research. Bothalia - African Biodiversity and Conservation 48(2):a2324. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v48i2.2324

Bertschinger, H. J., A. Delsink, J. J. Van Altena, J. Kirkpatrick, H. Killian, A. Ganswindt, R. Slotow, and G. Castley. 2008. Reproductive control of elephants. Pages 257-328 in R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell, editors. Elephant management: a scientific assessment of South Africa. Wits University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.18772/22008034792.14

Bibri, S. 2021. A novel model for data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future: the institutional transformations required for balancing and advancing the three goals of sustainability. Energy Informatics 4:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-021-00138-8

Biggs, D., M. H. Holden, A. Braczkowski, C. N. Cook, E. J. Milner-Gulland, J. Phelps, R. J. Scholes, R. J. Smith, F. M. Underwood, V. M. Adams, J. Allan, H. Brink, R. Cooney, Y. Gao, J. Hutton, E. Macdonald-Madden, M. Maron, K. H. Redford, W. J. Sutherland, and H. P. Possingham. 2017. Breaking the deadlock on ivory. Science 358(6369):1378-1381. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan5215

Bilchitz, D. 2017. Exploring the relationship between the environmental right in the South African constitution and protection for the interests of animals. South African Law Journal 134(4). https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-b4fd20d65

Booker, F., and D. Roe. 2017. First line of defence? A review of evidence on the effectiveness of engaging communities to tackle illegal wildlife trade. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Boone, R. B., and N. T. Hobbs. 2004. Lines around fragments: effects of fencing on large herbivores. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 21(3):147-157. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220110409485847

Bourque, T. 2017. One welfare. Canadian Veterinary Journal 58(3):217-218.

Boyd, D. R. 2018. Catalyst for change: evaluating forty years of experience in implementing the right to a healthy environment. Pages 17-41 in J. H. Knox and R. Pejan, editors. The human right to a healthy environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108367530.002

Bradshaw, G., A. Schore, J. Brown, J. Poole, and C. Moss. 2005. Elephant breakdown. Social trauma: early trauma and social disruption can affect the physiology, behaviour and culture of animals and humans over generations. Nature 433:807. https://doi.org/10.1038/433807a

Brown, A. A., A. J. Dean, H. Possingham, and D. Biggs. 2019. The role of animal welfare values in the rhino horn trade debate. Conservation Science and Practice 1(11):e103. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.104

Bunney, K., W. Bond, and M. Henley. 2017. Seed dispersal kernel of the largest surviving megaherbivore—the African savanna elephant. Biotropica 49(3):395-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12423

Burke, T., B. Page, G. V. Dyk, J. Millspaugh, and R. Slotow. 2008. Risk and ethical concerns of hunting male elephant: behavioural and physiological assays of the remaining elephants. PLoS ONE 3(6):e2417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002417

Burton, T., and N. B. Metcalfe. 2014. Can environmental conditions experienced in early life influence future generations? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1785):20140311. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0311

Büscher, B., and R. Fletcher. 2020. The conservation revolution: radical ideas for saving nature beyond the Anthropocene. Verso Books, London, UK.

Büscher, B., and M. Ramutsindela. 2016. Green violence: rhino poaching and the war to save Southern Africa’s peace parks. African Affairs 115:1-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adv058

Campbell-Staton, S. C., B. J. Arnold, D. Gonçalves, P. Granli, J. Poole, R. A. Long, and R. M. Pringle. 2021. Ivory poaching and the rapid evolution of tusklessness in African elephants. Science 374(6566):483-487. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe7389

Canney, S. M. 2021. Making space for nature: elephant conservation in Mali as a case study in sustainability. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 63(2):4-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2021.1871292

Chamaillé-Jammes, S., H. Fritz, M. Valeix, F. Murindagomo, and J. Colbert. 2008. Resource variability, aggregation and direct density dependence in an open context: the local regulation of an elephant population. Journal of Animal Ecology 77:135-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01307.x

Chamaillé-Jammes, S., M. Valeix, and H. Fritz. 2007a. Managing heterogeneity in elephant distribution: interactions between elephant population density and surface-water availability. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:625-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01300.x

Chamaillé-Jammes, S., M. Valeix, and H. Fritz. 2007b. Elephant management: why can’t we throw out the babies with the artificial bathwater? Diversity and Distributions 13:663-665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00415.x

Chaminuka, P., C. M. E. McCrindle, and H. M. J. Udo. 2012. Cattle farming at the wildlife/livestock interface: assessment of costs and benefits adjacent to Kruger National Park, South Africa. Society and Natural Resources 25(3):235-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.580417

Chapron, G., and J. V. López-Bao. 2019. Trophy hunting: role of consequentialism. Science 366(6464):432. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz4951

Cheng, S. H., M. C. McKinnon, Y. J. Masuda, R. Garside, K. W. Jones, D. C. Miller, A. S. Pullin, W. J. Sutherland, C. Augustin, D. A. Gill, S. Wongbusarakum, and D. Wilkie. 2020. Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being. PLoS ONE 15(3):e0230495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230495

Child, M. F., S. A. J. Selier, F. G. T. Radloff, W. A. Taylor, M. Hoffmann, L. Nel, R. J. Power, C. Birss, N. C. Okes, M. J. Peel, D. Mallon, and H. Davies- Mostert. 2019. A framework to measure the wildness of managed large vertebrate populations. Conservation Biology 33(5):1106-1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13299

Chiyo, P. I., C. J. Moss, E. A. Archie, J. A. Hollister-Smith, and S. C. Alberts. 2011. Using molecular and observational techniques to estimate the number and raiding patterns of crop-raiding elephants. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3):788-796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01967.x

Clevenger, A. P., and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14(1):47-56. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00099-085.x

Clutton-Brock, T. H., and G. R. Iason. 1986. Sex ratio variation in mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology 61(3):339-374. https://doi.org/10.1086/415033

Colonius, T. J., and R. W. Earley. 2013. One welfare: a call to develop a broader framework of thought and action. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 242(3):309-310. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.242.3.309

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2021. South Africa - country profile. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Québec, Canada. https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=za

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 2021. Statement on trade in live African elephants under Articles III and IV of the Convention. CITES, Geneva, Switzerland. https://cites.org/eng/Statement_trade_elephants_CITES_articles3_4_17_sep_17092021

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 2022. The status of Africa’s elephants and updates on issues relevant to CITES. CoP19 Inf. 64 (Rev.1). Nineteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties Panama City, Panama, 14-25 November. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/E-CoP19-Inf-64-R1_0.pdf

Coulson, T., S. Schindler, L. Traill, and B. E. Kendall. 2018. Predicting the evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting on a quantitative trait. Journal of Wildlife Management 82(1):46-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21261

Crego, R. D., H. B. M. Wells, K. S. Ndung’u, L. Evans, R. Njeri Nduguta, M. A. Chege, M. B. Brown, J. O. Ogutu, G. O. Ojwang, J. Fennessy, D. O’Connor, J. Stacy-Dawes, D. I. Rubenstein, D. J. Martins, P. Leimgruber, and J. A. Stabach. 2021. Moving through the mosaic: identifying critical linkage zones for large herbivores across a multiple‐use African landscape. Landscape Ecology 36(5):1325-1340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01232-8

Dalm, M. S. 1995. Elephant translocation: the Malaysian approach. Gajah 14:43-48.

Davies-Mostert, H. T., M. G. L. Mills, and D. W. Macdonald. 2013. Hard boundaries influence African wild dogs’ diet and prey selection. Journal of Applied Ecology 50(6):1358-1366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12129

De Beer, Y., W. Kilian, W. Versfeld, and R. J. Van Aarde. 2006. Elephants and low rainfall alter woody vegetation in Etosha National Park, Namibia. Journal of Arid Environments 64:412-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.06.015

De Beer, Y., and R. J. Van Aarde. 2008. Do landscape heterogeneity and water distribution explain aspects of elephant home range in Southern Africa’s arid savannas? Journal of Arid Environments 72(11):2017-2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.07.002

De Boer, W. F., J. D. Stigter, and C. P. Ntumi. 2007. Optimising investments from elephant tourist revenues in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Journal for Nature Conservation 15(4):225-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2006.11.002

De Leeuw, J., S. Carsan, G. Koech, A. Yaye, and J. Nyongesa. 2018. Biodiversity-based value chains: a review of best practices for selected biodiversity-based value chains that promotes pro-poor conservation in the Horn of Africa. The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

De Silva, S., T. Wu, P. Nyhus, A. Weaver, A. Thieme, J. Johnson, J. Wadey, A. Mossbrucker, T. Vu, T. Neang, B. S. Chen, M. Songer, and P. Leimgruber. 2023. Land-use change is associated with multi-century loss of elephant ecosystems in Asia. Scientific Reports 13(1):5996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30650-8

Dellinger, M. 2019. Trophy hunting—a relic of the past. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 34:25-60.

Delsink, A. K., J. Kirkpatrick, J. J. Van Altena, H. J. Bertschinger, S. M. Ferreira, and R. Slotow. 2013. Lack of spatial and behavioral responses to immunocontraception application in African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44(4):52-74. https://doi.org/10.1638/1042-7260-44.4S.S52

Delsink, A. K., J. J. Van Altena, D. Grobler, H. Bertschinger, J. Kirkpatrick, and R. Slotow. 2006. Regulation of a small, discrete African elephant population through immunocontraception in the Makalali Conservancy, Limpopo, South Africa: South African Journal of Science 102(9):403-405.

Delsink, A. K., J. J. Van Altena, D. Grobler, H. J. Bertschinger, J. F. Kirkpatrick, and R. Slotow. 2007. Implementing immunocontraception in free-ranging African elephants at Makalali Conservancy. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 78(1):25-30. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v78i1.282

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). 2014. South Africa National Elephant Research Strategy 2014-2024. DEA, Pretoria, South Africa.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). 2005. South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. DEA, Pretoria, South Africa. https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/nationalbiodiversit_stractandactionplan.pdf

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). 2008. National environmental management: Biodiversity act, 2004 (act no. 10 of 2004) National norms and standards for the management of elephants in South Africa. Staatskoerant 30833(251):3-39.

Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). 2020. The high-level panel of experts for the review of policies, legislation and practices on matters of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling. DFFE, Pretoria, South Africa. https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/reports/2020-12-22_high-levelpanel_report.pdf

Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). 2022. White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity 2022 Revised: Comments invited (No. G47378 GoN 2689). DFFE, Pretoria, South Africa.

Derkley, T., D. Biggs, M. Holden, and C. Phillips. 2019. A framework to evaluate animal welfare implications of policies on rhino horn trade. Biological Conservation 235:236-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.004

Di Minin, E., H. S. Clements, R. A. Correia, G. Cortés-Capano, C. Fink, A. Haukka, A. Hausmann, R. Kulkarni, and C. J. A. Bradshaw. 2021a. Consequences of recreational hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth 4(2):238-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.014

Di Minin, E., R. Slotow, C. Fink, H. Bauer, and C. Packer. 2021b. A pan-African spatial assessment of human conflicts with lions and elephants. Nature Communications 12(1):2978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23283-w

Di Minin, E., I. Fraser, R. Slotow, and D. C. MacMillan. 2013a. Understanding heterogeneous preference of tourists for big game species: implications for conservation and management. Animal Conservation 16(3):249-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00595.x

Di Minin, E., L. T. B. Hunter, G. A. Balme, R. J. Smith, P. S. Goodman, and R. Slotow. 2013b. Creating larger and better connected protected areas enhances the persistence of big game species in the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany biodiversity hotspot. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071788

Di Minin, E., N. Leader-Williams, and C. J. A. Bradshaw. 2016. Banning trophy hunting will exacerbate biodiversity loss. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31(2):99-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.006

Di Minin, E., M. ’t Sas-Rolfes, J. Selier, M. Louis, and C. J. A. Bradshaw. 2022. Dismantling the poachernomics of the illegal wildlife trade. Biological Conservation 265:109418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109418

Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P. W. Leadley, A. P. E. Van Oudenhoven, F. Van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

Dickens, M. J., D. J. Delehanty, and L. M. Romero. 2010. Stress: an inevitable component of animal translocation. Biological Conservation 143(6):1329-1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.032

Dickson, P., and W. Adams. 2009. Science and uncertainty in South Africa’s elephant culling debate. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 27:110-123. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0792j

Doughty, L. S., K. Slater, H. Zitzer, T. Avent, and S. Thompson. 2014. The impact of male contraception on dominance hierarchy and herd association patterns of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in a fenced game reserve. Global Ecology and Conservation 2:88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.08.004

Doyen, L., C. Béné, M. Bertignac, F. Blanchard, A. A. Cissé, C. Dichmont, S. Gourguet, O. Guyader, P.-Y. Hardy, S. Jennings, L. R. Little, C. Macher, D. J. Mills, A. Noussair, S. Pascoe, J.-C. Pereau, N. Sanz, A. Schwarz, T. Smith, and O. Thébaud. 2017. Ecoviability for ecosystem-based fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 18(6):1056-1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12224

Druce, H. C. 2012. Effects of management intervention on elephant behaviour in small, enclosed populations. Dissertation. University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.

Druce, H. C., K. Pretorius, and R. Slotow. 2008. The response of an elephant population to conservation area expansion: Phinda Private Game Reserve, South Africa. Biological Conservation 141(12):3127-3138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.024

Duffy, R. 2014. Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation. International Affairs 90(4):819-834. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12142

Duffy, R., F. Massé, E. Smidt, E. Marijnen, B. Büscher, J. Verweijen, M. Ramutsindela, T. Simlai, L. Joanny, and E. Lunstrum. 2019. Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biological Conservation 232:66-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.013

Dupuis-Desormeaux, M., Z. Davidson, L. Pratt, M. Mwololo, and S. E. MacDonald. 2016. Testing the effects of perimeter fencing and elephant exclosures on lion predation patterns in a Kenyan wildlife conservancy. PeerJ 4:e1681. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1681

Edge, A., M. Henley, J. Daday, and B. A. Schulte. 2017. Examining human perception of elephants and large trees for insights into conservation of an African savanna ecosystem. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22(3):231-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1298168

Fanson, K. V., M. Lynch, L. Vogelnest, G. Miller, and T. Keeley. 2013. Response to long-distance relocation in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus): monitoring adrenocortical activity via serum, urine, and feces. European Journal of Wildlife Research 59(5):655-664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0718-7

Fawcett, A., S. Mullan, and P. McGreevy. 2018. Application of Fraser’s “practical” ethic in veterinary practice, and its compatibility with a “one welfare” framework. Animals 8(7):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8070109

Fernando, P. 2015. Managing elephants in Sri Lanka: where we are and where we need to be. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 44(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v44i1.7336

Fernando, P., P. Leimgruber, T. Prasad, and J. Pastorini. 2012. Problem-elephant translocation: translocating the problem and the elephant? PLoS ONE 7(12):e50917. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050917

Fischer, J., and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2000. An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biological Conservation 96(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00048-3

Foley, C., N. Pettorelli, and L. Foley. 2008. Severe drought and calf survival in elephants. Biology Letters 4(5):541-544. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0370

Foley, C. A. H., and L. J. Faust. 2010. Rapid population growth in an elephant Loxodonta africana population recovering from poaching in Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. Oryx 44(2):205-212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605309990706

Franz, M., S. Kramer-Schadt, W. Kilian, C. Wissel, and J. Groeneveld. 2010. Understanding the effects of rainfall on elephant-vegetation interactions around waterholes. Ecological Modelling 221(24):2909-2917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.09.003

Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50:S1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1

Fraser, D., and A. M. MacRae. 2011. Four types of activities that affect animals: implications for animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy. Animal Welfare 20(4):581-590. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600003213

Friswold, B., B. Mitchell, G. Gale, and A. Van de Water. 2023. Twisting collars on male elephants in shrub terrain: animal welfare considerations for researchers, managers and manufacturers. Pachyderm 64:78-91.

Garaï, M. E., L. A. Bates, H. Bertschinger, A. Delsink, Y. Pretorius, J. Selier, and H. R. Zitzer. 2018. Non-lethal elephant population control methods: summary of the first workshop of the Elephant Specialist Advisory Group of South Africa. Bothalia - African Biodiversity and Conservation 48(2):a2357. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v48i2.2357

Garaï, M. E., V. L. Boult, and H. R. Zitzer. 2023. Identifying the effects of social disruption through translocation on African elephants (Loxodonta africana), with specifics on the social and ecological impacts of orphaning. Animals 13(3):483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030483

Garcia Pinillos, R., M. Appleby, X. Manteca, F. Scott-Park, C. Smith, and A. Velarde. 2016. One welfare - a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Veterinary Record 179:412-413. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.i5470

Gillson, L., H. Biggs, I. P. J. Smit, M. Virah-Sawmy, and K. Rogers. 2019. Finding common ground between adaptive management and evidence-based approaches to biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 34(1):31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.10.003

Gobush, K. S., C. T. T. Edwards, D. Balfour, G. Wittemyer, F. Maisels, and R. D. Taylor. 2021. Loxodonta africana. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021:e.T181008073A181022663. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T181008073A181022663.en

Gobush, K. S., B. M. Mutayoba, and S. K. Wasser. 2008. Long-term impacts of poaching on relatedness, stress physiology, and reproductive output of adult female African elephants. Conservation Biology 22(6):1590-1599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01035.x

Gordon, C. E., M. Greve, M. Henley, A. Bedetti, P. Allin, and J.-C. Svenning. 2023. Elephant rewilding affects landscape openness and fauna habitat across a 92-year period. Ecological Applications 33(3):e2810. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2810

Grant, C. C., R. Bengis, D. Balfour, M. Peel, W. Davies-Mostert, H. Killian, R. Little, I. Smit, M. Garaï, M. Henley, B. Anthony, P. Hartley, M. Prinsloo, I. Bester, J. Adendorf, P. Havemann, B. Howells, D. MacFadyen, and T. Parke. 2008. Controlling the distribution of elephants. Pages 329-369 in R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell, editors. Elephant management: a scientific assessment for South Africa. Wits University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.18772/22008034792.14

Green, S. E., Z. Davidson, T. Kaaria, and C. P. Doncaster. 2018. Do wildlife corridors link or extend habitat? Insights from elephant use of a Kenyan wildlife corridor. African Journal of Ecology 56(4):860-871. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12541

Grobler, D. G., J. J. Van Altena, J. H. Malan, and R. L. Mackey. 2008. Elephant translocation. Pages 241-256 in R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell, editors. Elephant management: a scientific assessment for South Africa. Wits University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.18772/22008034792.14

Hambrecht, S., A. K. Oerke, M. Heistermann, and P. W. Dierkes. 2020. Diurnal variation of salivary cortisol in captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana) under routine management conditions and in relation to a translocation event. Zoo Biology 39(3):186-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21537

Hammond, N. L., A. Dickman, and D. Biggs. 2022. Examining attention given to threats to elephant conservation on social media. Conservation Science and Practice 4(10):e12785. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12785

Hampton, J. O., B. Warburton, and P. Sandøe. 2019. Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation. Conservation Biology 33(4):751-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13249

Hansmann, R., H. A. Mieg, and P. Frischknecht. 2012. Principal sustainability components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 19(5):451-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2012.696220

Hardy, P.-Y., C. Béné, L. Doyen, and A.-M. Schwarz. 2013. Food security versus environment conservation: a case study of Solomon Islands’ small-scale fisheries. Environmental Development 8:38-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.04.009

Harrington, L. A., A. Moehrenschlager, M. Gelling, R. P. D. Atkinson, J. Hughes, and D. W. Macdonald. 2013. Conflicting and complementary ethics of animal welfare considerations in reintroductions. Conservation Biology 27(3):486-500. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12021

Harvey, R. G. 2020. Towards a cost-benefit analysis of South Africa’s captive predator breeding industry. Global Ecology and Conservation 23:e01157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01157

Haynes, G. 2012. Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology 157-158:99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.045

Hayward, M. W., and G. I. H. Kerley. 2009. Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation 142(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.022

Hein, S., and J. Jacob. 2015. Recovery of small rodent populations after population collapse. Wildlife Research 42(2):108-118. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14165

Henley, M. D., and R. M. Cook. 2019. The management dilemma: removing elephants to save large trees. Koedoe 61(1):a1564. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v61i1.1564

Henley, M. D., R. M. Cook, A. Bedetti, A., J. Wilmot, A. Roode, C. L. Pereira, J. Almeida, and A. Alverca. 2023. A phased approach to increase human tolerance in elephant corridors to link protected areas in southern Mozambique. Diversity 15(1):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15010085

Herrero-Jáuregui, C., C. Arnaiz-Schmitz, M. F. Reyes, M. Telesnicki, I. Agramonte, M. H. Easdale, M. F. Schmitz, M. Aguiar, A. Gómez-Sal, and C. Montes. 2018. What do we talk about when we talk about social-ecological systems? A literature review. Sustainability 10(8):2950. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082950

Hoare, R. 1992. Present and future use of fencing in the management of larger African mammals. Environmental Conservation 19(2):160-164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900030642

Hoare, R. 2001. Management implications of new research on problem elephants. Pachyderm 30:44-48.

Hoare, R. 2012. Lessons from 15 years of human-elephant conflict mitigation: management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in Africa. Pachyderm 51:60-74.

Hoare, R. 2015. Lessons from 20 years of human-elephant conflict mitigation in Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20(4):289-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1005855

Hollister-Smith, J. A., J. H. Poole, E. A. Archie, E. A. Vance, N. J. Georgiadis, C. J. Moss, and S. C. Alberts. 2007. Age, musth and paternity success in wild male African elephants, Loxodonta africana. Animal Behaviour 74(2):287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.12.008

Holt, S., L. K. Horwitz, B. Wilson, and D. Codron. 2021. Leopard tortoise Stigmochelys pardalis (Bell, 1928) mortality caused by electrified fences in central South Africa and its impact on tortoise demography. African Journal of Herpetology 70(1):32-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21564574.2020.1860140

Horskins, K., P. B. Mather, and J. C. Wilson. 2006. Corridors and connectivity: when use and function do not equate. Landscape Ecology 21(5):641-655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-5203-6

Howes, B., L. S. Doughty, and S. Thompson. 2020. African elephant feeding preferences in a small South African fenced game reserve. Journal for Nature Conservation 53:125700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.03.001

Huang, R. M., C. Maré, R. A. R. Guldemond, S. L. Pimm, and R. J. van Aarde. 2024. Protecting and connecting landscapes stabilizes populations of the endangered savannah elephant. Science Advances 10(1):eadk2896. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adk2896

Hunninck, L., I. H. Ringstad, C. R. Jackson, R. May, F. Fossøy, K. Uiseb, W. Killian, R. Palme, and E. Røskaft. 2017. Being stressed outside the park—conservation of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in Namibia. Conservation Physiology 5(1):cox067. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cox067

Jachmann, H., P. S. M. Berry, and H. Imae. 1995. Tusklessness in African elephants: a future trend. African Journal of Ecology 33(3):230-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1995.tb00800.x

Jachowski, D. S., R. Slotow, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2012. Physiological stress and refuge behavior by African elephants. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31818. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031818

Jachowski, D. S., R. Slotow, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2013. Corridor use and streaking behavior by African elephants in relation to physiological state. Biological Conservation 167:276-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.005

Janssens, I., L. J. De Bisthoven, A. J. Rochette, R. G. Kakaï, J. D. T. Akpona, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, and J. Hugé. 2022. Conservation conflict following a management shift in Pendjari National Park (Benin). Biological Conservation 272:109598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109598

Jensen, P. 2013. Transgenerational epigenetic effects on animal behaviour. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 113(3):447-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2013.01.001

Kalcher-Sommersguter, E., C. Franz-Schaider, K. Crailsheim, and S. Preuschoft. 2013. Social competence of adult chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with severe deprivation history: a relational approach. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 26(2):135-157. https://doi.org/10.46867/ijcp.2013.26.02.03

Kerley, G. I. H., B. G. S. Geach, and C. Vial. 2003. Jumbos or bust: do tourists’ perceptions lead to an under-appreciation of biodiversity? South African Journal of Wildlife Research 33(1):13-21.

Kerley, G. I. H., M. Landman, L. Kruger, N. Owen-Smith, D. Balfour, W. F. De Boer, A. Gaylard, K. Lindsay, and R. Slotow. 2008. Effects of elephants on ecosystems and biodiversity. Pages 146-205 in R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell, editors. Elephant management: a scientific assessment for South Africa. Wits University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.18772/22008034792.14

Kikoti, A., C. Griffin, and L. Pamphil. 2010. Elephant use and conflict leads to Tanzania’s first wildlife conservation corridor. Pachyderm 48:57-66.

Kinnaird, M. F., and T. G. O’Brien. 2012. Effects of private-land use, livestock management, and human tolerance on diversity, distribution, and abundance of large African mammals. Conservation Biology 26(6):1026–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01942.x

Kirkpatrick, J. F., R. O. Lyda, and K. M. Frank. 2011. Contraceptive vaccines for wildlife: a review. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 66(1):40-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2011.01003.x

Koenig, R. 2007. Researchers explore alternatives to elephant culling. Science 315(5817):1349. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.315.5817.1349

Koot, S., and F. Veenenbos. 2023. The spectacle of inclusive female anti-poaching: heroines, green militarization and invisible violence. Geoforum 144:103806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103806

Kuiper, T. R., D. J. Druce, and H. C. Druce. 2018. Demography and social dynamics of an African elephant population 35 years after reintroduction as juveniles. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(6):2898-2907. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13199

Lagendijk, D. D. G., R. L. Mackey, B. R. Page, and R. Slotow. 2011. The effects of herbivory by a mega- and mesoherbivore on tree recruitment in Sand Forest, South Africa. PLoS ONE 6(3):e17983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017983

Lee, A. T. K., M. B. Macray, P. G. Ryan, and G. J. Alexander. 2021. Tortoise mortality along fence lines in the Karoo region of South Africa. Journal for Nature Conservation 59:125945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125945

Lindenmayer, J. M., and G. E. Kaufman. 2021. One health and one welfare. Pages 1-30 in T. Stephens, editor. One welfare in practice. First edition. CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003218333-1

Loarie, S. R., R. J. Van Aarde, and S. L. Pimm. 2009. Fences and artificial water affect African savannah elephant movement patterns. Biological Conservation 142(12):3086-3098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.08.008

Lötter, H. P. P. 2005. Should humans interfere in the lives of elephants? Koers - Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 70(4):4. https://doi.org/10.4102/koers.v70i4.292

Lueders, I., T. B. Hildebrandt, C. Gray, S. Botha, P. Rich, and C. Niemuller. 2014. Supression of testicular function in a male Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone vaccines. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 45(3):611-619. https://doi.org/10.1638/2013-0233R.1

Lueders, I., D. Young, L. Maree, G. Van der Horst, I. Luther, S. Botha, B. Tindall, G. Fosgate, A. Ganswindt, and H. J. Bertschinger. 2017. Effects of GnRH vaccination in wild and captive African Elephant bulls (Loxodonta africana) on reproductive organs and semen quality. PLoS ONE 12(9):e0178270. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178270

Lunstrum, E. 2014. Green militarization: anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association Of American Geographers 104(4):816-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.912545

MacDonald, K. I. 2005. Global hunting grounds: power, scale and ecology in the negotiation of conservation. Cultural Geographies 12(3):259-291. https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474005eu330oa

Mackey, R. L., B. R. Page, D. Grobler, and R. Slotow. 2009. Modelling the effectiveness of contraception for controlling introduced populations of elephant in South Africa. African Journal of Ecology 47(4):747-755. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01075.x

Malima, C., R. Hoare, and J. Blanc. 2005. Systematic recording of human-elephant conflict: a case study in south-eastern Tanzania. Pachyderm 38(38):29-38.

Marais, H. J., D. A. Hendrickson, M. Stetter, J. R. Zuba, M. Penning, J. Siegal-Willott, and C. Hardy. 2013. Laparoscopic vasectomy in African savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana); surgical technique and results. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44(4s). https://doi.org/10.1638/1042-7260-44.4S.S18

Marijnen, E., and J. Verweijen. 2016. Selling green militarisation: the discursive (re)production of militarised conservation in the Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Geoforum 75:274-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.08.003

Massé, F., A. Gardiner, R. Lubilo, and M. N. Themba. 2017. Inclusive anti-poaching? Exploring the potential and challenges of community-based anti-poaching. South African Crime Quarterly 60:19-27. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2017/v0n60a1732

Massé, F., N. Givá, and E. Lunstrum. 2021. A feminist political ecology of wildlife crime: the gendered dimensions of a poaching economy and its impacts in Southern Africa. Geoforum 126:205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.07.031

Mbaiwa, J. E. 2018. Effects of the safari hunting tourism ban on rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation in Northern Botswana. South African Geographical Journal 100(1):41-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2017.1299639

McComb, K., C. Moss, S. M. Durant, L. Baker, and S. Sayialel. 2001. Matriarchs as repositories of social knowledge in African elephants. Science 292(5516):491-494. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057895

McComb, K., G. Shannon, S. M. Durant, K. Sayialel, R. Slotow, J. Poole, and C. Moss. 2011. Leadership in elephants: the adaptive value of age. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278(1722):3270-3276. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0168

McGregor, J. 2005. Crocodile crimes: people versus wildlife and the politics of postcolonial conservation on Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Geoforum 36(3):353-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.06.007

McGregor, J., and N. Pouw. 2017. Towards an economics of well-being. Cambridge Journal of Economics 41(4):1123-1142. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew044

McKinnon, M. C., S. H. Cheng, S. Dupre, J. Edmond, R. Garside, L. Glew, M. B. Holland, E. Levine, Y. J. Masuda, D. C. Miller, I. Oliveira, J. Revenaz, D. Roe, S. Shamer, D. Wilkie, S. Wongbusarakum, and E. Woodhouse. 2016. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environmental Evidence 5(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7

McShane, T. O., P. D. Hirsch, T. C. Trung, A. N. Songorwa, A. Kinzig, B. Monteferri, D. Mutekanga, H. V. Thang, L. J. Dammert, M. Pulgar-Vidal, M. Welch-Devine, J. P. Brosius, P. Coppolillo, and S. O’Connor. 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation 144(3):966-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038

Mellor, D. J. 2016. Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “a life worth living.” Animals 6(3):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6030021

Menton, M., C. Larrea, S. Latorre, J. Martinez-Alier, M. Peck, L. Temper, and M. Walter. 2020. Environmental justice and the SDGs: from synergies to gaps and contradictions. Sustainability Science 15:1621-1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00789-8

Millspaugh, J. J., T. Burke, G. Van Dyk, R. Slotow, B. E. Washburn, and R. J. Woods. 2007. Stress response of working African elephants to transportation and safari adventures. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1257-1260. https://doi.org/10.2193/2006-015

Milner, J. M., E. B. Nilsen, and H. P. Andreassen. 2007. Demographic side effects of selective hunting in ungulates and carnivores. Conservation Biology 21(1):36-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00591.x

Mkono, M. 2019. Neo-colonialism and greed: Africans’ views on trophy hunting in social media. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(5):689-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1604719

Mogomotsi, G. E., and P. K. Madigele. 2017. Live by the gun, die by the gun. Botswana’s ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy as an anti-poaching strategy. South African Crime Quarterly 60:51-59. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2017/v0n60a1787

Moss, C. J. 1983. Oestrous behaviour and female choice in the African elephant. Behaviour 86(3/4):167-195. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853983X00354

Mumby, H. S., and J. M. Plotnik. 2018. Taking the elephants’ perspective: remembering elephant behavior, cognition and ecology in human-elephant conflict mitigation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00122

Naidoo, R., B. Fisher, A. Manica, and A. Balmford. 2016. Estimating economic losses to tourism in Africa from the illegal killing of elephants. Nature Communications 7(1):13379. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13379

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another ZACC 46, CCT1/16 (Constitutional Court 2016). http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/46.html

Ngene, S. M., H. Van Gils, S. E. Van Wieren, H. Rasmussen, A. K. Skidmore, H. H. T. Prins, A. G. Toxopeus, P. Omondi, and I. Douglas-Hamilton. 2010. The ranging patterns of elephants in Marsabit protected area, Kenya: the use of satellite-linked GPS collars. African Journal of Ecology 48(2):386-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01125.x

Nolan, M. B. 2019. Efficacy and safety of recombinant zona pellucida vaccines in domestic horse mares and current application of native porcine zona pellucida vaccines in African elephant cows. Dissertation. University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Nugent, G., W. J. McShea, J. Parkes, S. Woodley, J. Waithaka, J. Moro, R. Gutierrez, C. Azorit, F. M. Guerrero, W. T. Flueck, and J. M. Smith-Flueck. 2011. Policies and management of overabundant deer (native or exotic) in protected areas. Animal Production Science 51(4):384-389. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN10288

O’Connor, T. G. 2017. Demography of woody species in a semi-arid African savanna reserve following the re-introduction of elephants. Acta Oecologica 78:61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2016.12.009

O’Connor, T. G., and B. R. Page. 2014. Simplification of the composition, diversity and structure of woody vegetation in a semi-arid African savanna reserve following the re-introduction of elephants. Biological Conservation 180:122-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.036

Okita-Ouma, B., M. Koskei, L. Tiller, F. Lala, L. King, R. Moller, R. Amin, and I. Douglas-Hamilton. 2021. Effectiveness of wildlife underpasses and culverts in connecting elephant habitats: a case study of new railway through Kenya’s Tsavo National Parks. African Journal of Ecology 59(3):624-640. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12873

Osborn, F. V., and G. E. Parker. 2003. Linking two elephant refuges with a corridor in the communal lands of Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology 41(1):68-74. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2028.2003.00413.x

Otero, I., K. N. Farrell, S. Pueyo, G. Kallis, L. Kehoe, H. Haberl, C. Plutzar, P. Hobson, J. García‐Márquez, B. Rodríguez‐Labajos, J.-L. Martin, K.-H. Erb, S. Schindler, J. Nielsen, T. Skorin, J. Settele, F. Essl, E. Gómez‐Baggethun, L. Brotons, W. Rabitsch, F. Schneider, and G. Pe’er. 2020. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conservation Letters 13(4):e12713. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713

Owen-Smith, N., G. I. H. Kerley, B. Page, R. Slotow, and R. J. Van Aarde. 2006. A scientific perspective on the management of elephants in the Kruger National Park and elsewhere. South African Journal of Science 102(9/10):389-394.

Parker, J. M., C. T. Webb, D. Daballen, S. Z. Goldenberg, J. Lepirei, D. Letitiya, D. Lolchuragi, C. Leadismo, I. Douglas-Hamilton, and G. Wittemyer. 2021. Poaching of African elephants indirectly decreases population growth through lowered orphan survival. Current Biology 31(18):4156-4162.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.091

Pascual, U., W. M. Adams, S. Díaz, S. Lele, G. M. Mace, and E. Turnhout. 2021. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nature Sustainability 4:567-572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7

Pekor, A., J. R. B. Miller, M. Flyman, S. Kasiki, M. K. Kesch, S. M. Miller, K. Uiseb, V. Van der Merve, and P. A. Lindsey. 2019. Fencing Africa’s protected areas: costs, benefits, and management issues. Biological Conservation 229:67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.030

Pietersen, D. W., A. E. McKechnie, and R. Jansen. 2011. A review of the anthropogenic threats faced by Temminck’s ground pangolin, Smutsia temminckii, in southern Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 44(2):167-178. https://doi.org/10.3957/056.044.0209

Pinter-Wollman, N. 2009. Spatial behaviour of translocated African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in a novel environment: using behaviour to inform conservation actions. Behaviour 23:1171-1192. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853909X413105

Purvis, B., Y. Mao, and D. Robinson. 2019. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science 14:681-695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

Puyravaud, J. P., S. A. Cushman, P. Davidar, and D. Madappa. 2017. Predicting landscape connectivity for the Asian elephant in its largest remaining subpopulation. Animal Conservation 20(3):225-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12314

Republic of South Africa. 2004. National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act. No. 57, 26025). Republic of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a57-03.pdf

Republic of South Africa. 2016. National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (10/2004). Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage-causing Animals in South Africa. (No. 40412). Department of Environmental Affairs, Republic of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Rubio-Martínez, L. M., D. A. Hendrickson, M. Stetter, J. R. Zuba, and H. J. Marais. 2014. Laparoscopic vasectomy in African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Veterinary Surgery 43(5):507-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12163.x

Scholes, R. J., and K. Mennell. 2008. Elephant management: a scientific assessment of South Africa. Wits University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.18772/22008034792.14

Schüßler, D., P. C. Lee, and R. Stadtmann. 2018. Analysing land use change to identify migration corridors of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Kenyan-Tanzanian borderlands. Landscape Ecology 33(12):2121-2136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0728-7

Seager, J., G. Bowser, and A. Dutta. 2021. Where are the women? Towards gender equality in the ranger workforce. Parks Stewardship Forum 37(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/P537151751

Selier, S. A. J., M. D. Henley, Y. Pretorius, and M. Garaï. 2016. A conservation assessment of Loxodonta africana. In M. F. Child, L. Roxburgh, E. Do Linh San, D. Raimondo, and H. T. Davies-Mostert, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa. https://elephantsalive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Sellier-et-al-2016.pdf

Selier, S. A. J., B. R. Page, A. T. Vanak, and R. Slotow, R. 2014. Sustainability of elephant hunting across international borders in southern Africa: a case study of the greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(1):122-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.641

Shaffer, L. J., K. K. Khadka, J. Van Den Hoek, and K. J. Naithani. 2019. Human-elephant conflict: a review of current management strategies and future directions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6:235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00235

Shannon, G., L. S. Cordes, R. Slotow, C. Moss, and K. McComb. 2022. Social disruption impairs predatory threat assessment in African elephants. Animals 12(4):495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12040495

Shannon, G., R. Slotow, S. M. Durant, K. N. Sayialel, J. Poole, C. Moss, and K. McComb. 2013. Effects of social disruption in elephants persist decades after culling. Frontiers in Zoology 10(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-62

Sheikh, P. A. 2019. International trophy hunting (No. R45615; p. 28). Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190320_R45615_4a927a3400fba2b11199637667605455dd2507b7.pdf

Shrader, A. M., S. L. Pimm, and R. J. Van Aarde. 2010. Elephant survival, rainfall and the confounding effects of water provision and fences. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(8):2235-2245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9836-7

Slotow, R. 2012. Fencing for purpose: a case study of elephants in South Africa. Pages 91-104 in M. J. Somers and M. Hayward, editors. Fencing for conservation. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0902-1_6

Slotow, R., A. Blackmore, M. Henley, K. Trendler, and M. Garaï. 2021. Could culling of elephants be considered inhumane and illegal in South African law? Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 24:181-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529

Slotow, R., M. E. Garaï, B. Reilly, B. Page, and R. D. Carr. 2005. Population dynamics of elephants re-introduced to small fenced reserves in South Africa: research article. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 35(1):23-32.

Slotow, R., G. Van Dyk, J. Poole, B. Page, and A. Klocke. 2000. Older bull elephants control young males. Nature 408(6811):425-426. https://doi.org/10.1038/35044191

Slotow, R., I. Whyte, M. Hofmeyr, G. Kerley, T. Conway, and R. J Scholes. 2008. Lethal management of elephants. Pages 370-405 in R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell, editors. Elephant management: a scientific assessment for South Africa. Wits University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.18772/22008034792.14

Smit, I. P. J., and S. M. Ferreira. 2010. Management intervention affects river-bound spatial dynamics of elephants. Biological Conservation 143(9):2172–2181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.001

Smit, I. P. J., C. C. Grant, and B. J. Devereux. 2007. Do artificial waterholes influence the way herbivores use the landscape? Herbivore distribution patterns around rivers and artificial surface water sources in a large African savanna park. Biological Conservation 136(1):85-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.009

Strong, M., and J. A. Silva. 2020. Impacts of hunting prohibitions on multidimensional well-being. Biological Conservation 243:108451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108451

Sundström, A., A. Linell, H. Ntuli, M. Sjöstedt, and M. L. Gore. 2020. Gender differences in poaching attitudes: insights from communities in Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe living near the great Limpopo. Conservation Letters 13(1):e12686. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12686

Svenning, J. C., P. B. M. Pedersen, C. J. Donlan, R. Ejrnæs, S. Faurby, M. Galetti, D. M. Hansen, B. Sandel, C. J. Sandom, J. W. Terborgh, and F. W. M. Vera. 2015. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(4):898-906. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502556112

Teixeira, C. P., C. S. De Azevedo, M. Mendl, C. F. Cipreste, and R. J. Young. 2007. Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour 73(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.06.002

Thaker, M., P. R. Gupte, H. H. T. Prins, R. Slotow, and A. T. Vanak. 2019. Fine-scale tracking of ambient temperature and movement reveals shuttling behavior of elephants to water. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00004

Thakholi, L. 2021. Conserving inequality: subjugating black labour by accumulating and defending property in South Africa’s private nature reserves. Dissertation. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://edepot.wur.nl/553410

Thébaud, O., N. Ellis, L. R. Little, L. Doyen, and R. J. Marriott. 2014. Viability trade-offs in the evaluation of strategies to manage recreational fishing in a marine park. Ecological Indicators 46:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.013

Tiller, L. N., L. E. King, B. Okita-Ouma, F. Lala, F. Pope, I. Douglas-Hamilton, and C. R. Thouless. 2022. The behaviour and fate of translocated bull African savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana) into a novel environment. African Journal of Ecology 60(4):866-881. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13038

Tingvold, H. G., R. Fyumagwa, C. Bech, L. F. Baardsen, H. Rosenlund, and E. Røskaft. 2013. Determining adrenocortical activity as a measure of stress in African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in relation to human activities in Serengeti ecosystem. African Journal of Ecology 51(4):580-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12069

Tomita, A., B. P. Ncama, Y. Moodley, R. Davids, J. K. Burns, T. Mabhaudhi, A. T. Modi, and R. Slotow. 2022. Community disaster exposure and first onset of depression: a panel analysis of nationally representative South African data, 2008-2017. PLoS Climate 1(4):e0000024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000024

Trivers, R. L., and D. E. Willard. 1973. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science 179(4068):90-92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4068.90

Van Aarde, R., and T. P. Jackson. 2007. Megaparks for metapopulations: addressing the causes of locally high elephant numbers in southern Africa. Biological Conservation 134(3):289-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.027

Van Aarde, R., I. Whyte, and S. Pimm. 1999. Culling and the dynamics of the Kruger National Park African elephant population. Animal Conservation 2(4):287-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.1999.tb00075.x

Van de Water, A., E. Di Minin, and R. Slotow. 2022a. Human-elephant coexistence through aligning conservation with societal aspirations. Global Ecology and Conservation 37:e02165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02165

Van de Water, A., S. Doornwaard, L. Sluiter, M. Henley, C. Sutherland, and R. Slotow. 2023. Resolving conservation conflicts through shared vision, collective benefits and relevant values. Diversity 15(10):1041. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101041

Van de Water, A., M. D. Henley, L. Bates, and R. Slotow. 2020. Future of Thailand’s captive elephants. Animal Sentience 28(18). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1579

Van de Water, A., M. D. Henley, L. Bates, and R. Slotow. 2022b. The value of elephants: a pluralistic approach. Ecosystem Services 58(101488). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101488

Van Meerbeek, K., B. Muys, S. D. Schowanek, and J. C. Svenning. 2019. Reconciling conflicting paradigms of biodiversity conservation: human intervention and rewilding. BioScience 69(12):997-1007. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz106

Van Norren, D. E. 2020. The sustainable development goals viewed through gross national happiness, Ubuntu, and Buen Vivir. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 20(3):431-458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09487-3

Viljoen, J. J., A. Ganswindt, R. Palme, H. C. Reynecke, J. T. Du Toit, and W. Langbauer. 2008. Measurement of concentrations of faecal glucocorticoid metabolites in free-ranging African elephants within the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 50(1):18-21. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v50i1.129

Viljoen, J. J., A. Ganswindt, C. Reynecke, A. S. Stoeger, and W. R. Langbauer. 2015. Vocal stress associated with a translocation of a family herd of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Bioacoustics 24(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2014.906320

Vucetich, J. A., D. Burnham, E. A. Macdonald, J. T. Bruskotter, S. Marchini, A. Zimmermann, and D. W. Macdonald. 2018. Just conservation: What is it and should we pursue it? Biological Conservation 221:23-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.02.022

Wambwa, E. N., T. N. Manyibe, M. Litoroh, F. Gakuya, and J. Kanyingi. 2001. Resolving human-elephant conflict in Luwero District, Uganda, through elephant translocation. Pachyderm 31:58-62.

Wasser, S. K., and K. S. Gobush. 2019. Conservation: monitoring elephant poaching to prevent a population crash. Current Biology 29(13):627-630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.06.009

Wato, Y. A., I. M. A. Heitkönig, S. E. van Wieren, G. Wahungu, H. H. T. Prins, and F. van Langevelde. 2016. Prolonged drought results in starvation of African elephant (Loxodonta africana). Biological Conservation 203:89-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.007

Whitehouse, A. M. 2002. Tusklessness in the elephant population of the Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa. Journal of Zoology 257(2):249-254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836902000845

Whitehouse, A. M., and A. J. Hall-Martin. 2000. Elephants in Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa: reconstruction of the population’s history. Oryx 34(1):46-55. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00093.x

Whitehouse, A. M., and E. H. Harley. 2002. Post-bottleneck genetic diversity of elephant populations in South Africa, revealed using microsatellite analysis. Molecular Ecology 10(9):2139-2149. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01356.x

Whitehead, H. 2010. Conserving and managing animals that learn socially and share cultures. Learning and Behavior 38(3):329-336. https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.38.3.329

Whiten, A., F. J. Ayala, M. W. Feldman, and K. N. Laland. 2017. The extension of biology through culture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(30):7775-7781. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707630114

Wilson, K. A., J. Carwardine, and H. P. Possingham. 2009. Setting conservation priorities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162(1):237-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x

Wittemyer, G., I. Douglas-Hamilton, and W. M. Getz. 2005. The socio-ecology of elephants: analysis of the processes creating multitiered social structures. Animal Behaviour 69(6):1357-1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.08.018

Witter, R. 2013. Elephant-induced displacement and the power of choice: moral narratives about resettlement in Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park. Conservation and Society 11(4):406-419. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125756

Witter, R. 2021. Why militarized conservation may be counter-productive: illegal wildlife hunting as defiance. Journal of Political Ecology 28(1):175-192. https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2357

Woodroffe, R., S. Hedges, and S. M. Durant. 2014. To fence or not to fence. Science 344(6179):46-48. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246251

Woolley, L. A., J. J. Millspaugh, R. J. Woods, S. J. Van Rensburg, R. L. Mackey, B. Page, and R. Slotow. 2008. Population and individual elephant response to a catastrophic fire in Pilanesberg National Park. PLoS ONE 3(9):e3233. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003233

World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). 2023. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. World Organisation for Animal Health. WOAH, Paris, France. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/

Wünderlich, N., J. Mosteller, M. Beverland, H. Downey, K. Kraus, M.-H. Lin, and H. Syrjälä. 2021. Animals in our lives: an interactive well-being perspective. Journal of Macromarketing 41(4):646-662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146720984815

Young, K. D., and R. J. Van Aarde. 2010. Density as an explanatory variable of movements and calf survival in savanna elephants across southern Africa. Journal of Animal Ecology 79(3):662-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01667.x

Zacarias, D., and R. Loyola. 2018. Distribution modelling and multi-scale landscape connectivity highlight important areas for the conservation of savannah elephants. Biological Conservation 224:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.014

Zinsstag, J., E. Schelling, D. Waltner-Toews, and M. Tanner. 2011. From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 101(3-4):148-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.003

Zipple, M. N., E. A. Archie, J. Tung, J. Altmann, and S. C. Alberts. 2019. Intergenerational effects of early adversity on survival in wild baboons. eLife 8:e47433. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47433

Zitzer, H. R., and V. L. Boult. 2018. Vasectomies of male African elephants as a population management tool: a case study. Bothalia - African Biodiversity and Conservation 48(2):a2313. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v48i2.2313

Zungu, M., and R. Slotow. 2022. A systematic review of the success and unintended consequences of management interventions on African elephants. Pachyderm 63:99-139.