When I first visited Ruaneliya Estate in the Bingiriya area, 75 miles from the heart of the city of Colombo, 200 of its 1,200 acres were under coconuts, the rest was jungle. In spite of occasional raids by elephants, the coconuts did well; but as surrounding areas were opened up, the elephants became isolated in Ruaneliya and the surrounding jungles and their visits to the coconut plantation became more and more frequent.

We attempted to deter crop-raiding elephants Elephas maximus by using playbacks of threatening vocalizations such as felid growls and human shouts. For this purpose, we tested two sound-playback systems in southern India: a wireless, active infrared beam-triggered system to explore the effects of night-time uncertainty in elephants' assessment of predatory threats, and a passive infrared motion detector-triggered system for closer-range playbacks. Using the first system, we deterred 90% of crop-raiding attempts using tiger Panthera tigris growls, 72.7% using leopard Panthera pardus growls, and 57.1% using human shouts, with no statistically significant difference among the three sounds. Using the second system, playbacks of tiger and lion Panthera leo growls deterred 100 and 83.3% of crop-raiding attempts, respectively, with no statistically reliable difference between the two, although video evidence indicated that elephants were more fearful of tiger growls. Our results indicate that playbacks of threatening sounds can be effective in mitigating human–elephant conflict, particularly in bolstering existing deterrent methods.

Conflict between carnivores and livestock farmers affects human livelihoods and predator populations. Historically, successful mitigation of this conflict has been limited, sometimes because of a lack of participation among stakeholders to create and implement agreeable and effective solutions. Finding common ground between stakeholders can, however, be difficult, partly because of the range and intensity of values held. Using a novel combination of Q-methodology and the Delphi technique, I investigated whether a diverse range of stakeholders could agree on how to mitigate conflict between carnivores and livestock farmers in Namibia. A strong consensus was reached on using conservation education and husbandry training to reduce livestock depredation. Two narratives emerged: one group preferred non-lethal methods to manage the conflict, whereas a smaller group preferred lethal measures. This new decision-making exercise has potential to be applied to other conservation conflicts to assist with participatory decision making.

Human-wildlife conflict has negative implications for wildlife conservation, and current crop protection methods are not sufficient to address the problem. Alternative livelihood strategies may provide the ultimate solution to this conflict but they are not always feasible in the short-term. We test the viability of using chilli Capsicum spp. as an unpalatable cash crop to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Our trials indicate that chilli is less vulnerable to wildlife than other crops and is also economically viable.

Wildlife attacks on people in and around protected areas have become one of the main challenges for wildlife management authorities. We assessed all correlates of wildlife attacks during 2003–2013 in the vicinity of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. We used data from various sources (discussion with stakeholders, field observations, questionnaire surveys). Wildlife attacks were significantly correlated to factors such as site, season and time, activity, gender and awareness. Moreover, 89% of recorded attacks occurred outside the Park. The number of attacks fluctuated widely and patterns of attacks were significantly uneven across seasons and months. Of the 87% of attacks that occurred during the day, 63% occurred in the morning. Most victims were male and c. 45% of attacks occurred when people were collecting forest resources or working on croplands. Attacks were carried out predominantly by rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis (38%), tigers Panthera tigris (21%), sloth bears Melursus ursinus (18%), elephants Elephas maximus (9%) and wild boar Sus scrofa (8%). The people attacked lived close to the Park, depended on farming for their livelihoods, and had little knowledge of animal behaviour. Attacks can be mitigated through proper management of habitats inside the Park and raising awareness of wildlife behaviour among local people. We recommend establishing a participatory emergency rescue team to deal with problematic animals in high-risk areas.

We translocated four Amur tigers Panthera tigris altaica captured after killing domestic animals or attacking people; two were released immediately and two following 162 and 388 days rehabilitation. All were radio-collared and released 150–350 km from their capture site. Two translocations were successful: the tigers caused no conflicts with people, killed wild prey, and survived their first winter, although one was poached after 1.1 year and one slipped its collar after surviving 10 months. In the two translocations that were unsuccessful, both tigers moved to areas of high human activity and were killed by people. At least in some cases, translocation appears to be a viable alternative to killing or removing problem tigers from the wild.

Despite its small size and high human population Sri Lanka is home to c. 4,400 wild Asian elephants Elephas maximus. Human–elephant conflict around agriculture is severe, with > 100 elephants and c. 50 people killed annually. Elephants appear to be able to time their raiding of paddy-fields in Sri Lanka with the harvesting of the rice, as if they are responding to an olfactory trigger. It is the elephant’s sophisticated chemosensory system that may hold the key to resolving human–elephant conflict. Research is required to determine the odours associated with the various development stages of rice, using gas chromatography, and to find a suitable substance that could be used to mask the specific odour of ripening rice. The use of chemosensory-based methods, if feasible, will not be a universal panacea for the mitigation of human–elephant conflict but, in combination with other methods, could reduce conflict and make it easier for farmers to harvest their crops in safety. Such a combination of methods could be useful across the range of both Asian and African elephants.

The translocation of predators believed to be preying on livestock is often perceived as a more humane and desirable method of removal than lethal control. However, the survival of translocated predators and the effectiveness of translocation in reducing conflict at the removal site are often not documented. We assessed farmers’ perceptions of the efficacy of translocation at reducing livestock and game-stock losses in Botswana, and determined the post-release survival of translocated cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus, the most threatened large felid in Africa. Eighteen percent of translocated cheetahs survived 1 year (n = 11). The low survival rate was thought to be related to homing behaviour and wide-ranging movements post release. The majority of farmers who had translocated a problem predator from their farm within the 12 months prior to the study perceived that the translocation was ineffective at reducing stock losses, both in the short (59.1%) and long term (63.6%, n = 22). At least one of the monitored cheetahs continued to predate livestock after release. In light of the low survival, significant financial costs and failure to reduce stock losses, we conclude that the translocation of problem cheetahs in Botswana should no longer be conducted, and that conflict mitigation methods should focus on techniques that promote coexistence of predators and humans.

Attempts to mitigate conflict between wolves and livestock breeding in the Mugello area of central Italy have so far proven to be costly, resource-intensive and fraught with tension. I applied frame analysis as a tool for investigating the roots of such tensions. The frame-analytical perspective highlighted that, while current policy focuses on improving technical approaches, conflict is also fuelled by a discrepancy in the frames of meaning that groups of stakeholders construct around the issue of wolf management. I outline two discordant frames: a dominant valuable wolf frame, currently underlying policy, and a political wolf frame that challenges existing management aims. Barriers to communication and potential points of mediation are identified. In addition, I outline a third, problematic wolf frame that may act as a potential aid in the process of bridging the two discordant frames, which is identified as a condition for successful wolf management.

As human populations grow and transform undeveloped terrestrial and aquatic habitats, human–wildlife conflict inevitably increases. This is particularly problematic for large predators and the humans who live alongside them. Relatively little research has been conducted on alleviating adverse human encounters with one of the most significant predator species in Africa, the Nile crocodile Crocodylus niloticus. This short communication raises questions about some of the general statements made to explain the incidence of attacks by crocodiles. Some of the limitations of the data on such attacks are considered, with recommendations on what kinds of data are required. Data collection and analysis, and how they can inform more effective mitigation efforts, are discussed.

Livestock depredation has implications for conservation and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than non-lethal methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally. We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal control in the first year and switched to guardian animals (dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal control the combined implementation and running costs were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head). However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%, to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly lower than in previous years and depredation costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator control.