Spatial distribution of indirect effects of human-elephant interactions around Mikumi National Park, Tanzania

Spatial distribution of indirect effects of human-elephant interactions around Mikumi National Park, Tanzania | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 9 January 2026 V1 Latest version Share on Spatial distribution of indirect effects of human-elephant interactions around Mikumi National Park, Tanzania Author : Deusdedith Fidelis 0000-0003-3944-9772 [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176796578.84933297/v1 198 views 89 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract \articletype Original Articles The human-elephant interface challenges have been the global wildlife conservation topic, because of negative consequences to local communities lying mainly on crop loss, human injuries and deaths, and livestock deaths which makes direct effects from elephants. Research on human-elephant conflicts has focused on the direct effects of elephants on humans neglecting their indirect effects. Studies on human-elephant interactions around Mikumi National Park (MNP) have scant information on indirect effects of human-elephant interactions which are psycho-social usually occurring unnoticed, unreported, and uncompensated due to lack of tangible evidence. This paper uses data which were collected from 405 households during the dry and wet seasons of 2023. Primary data were collected using Likert scale from 1-extremely low to 5-extremely high, asking respondents to assess the extent of indirect effects experienced by their households due to the presence of elephants, while recording the GPS locations for recorded indirect effects. Descriptive and spatial analyses were conducted to produce visualizations, tables, and heatmaps illustrating the patterns and extent of these effects. The results show that the most reported indirect effects were compromised safety, food insecurity, and restricted movement, while the least reported effects included time lost by parents escorting children to and from school. Spatial autocorrelation analyses indicate that these indirect effects are localized rather than widespread, highlighting hotspots of vulnerability. This study reveals a complex web of socio-economic challenges arising from the indirect effects of elephants, which significantly affect community well-being. These findings underscore the need for inclusive mitigation strategies that extend beyond direct impacts to address indirect effects and promote harmonious human–elephant coexistence. Potential interventions could include but not limited to the provision of adequate hostels for pupils in areas prone to elephant activity and improved access to psychological and medical services for affected households. \articletype Original Articles 1. Introduction Impacts emanating from human-elephant interactions has become a global conservation challenge (Mamboleo et al.,2021; Zang et al., (2024 ), bringing negative consequences as result of crop damages, injuries and deaths to humans, livestock and destruction of property (Glikman et al. 2021; Bhuyan et al. 2023 ). For instance, in India elephant crop damage affect up to 500,000 families, damaging 10,000–15,000 houses. In Sri Lanka the conflict accounting for 70 human mortalities annually (Shaffer et al. 2019). Moreover, Zang et al. (2024) reported that elephants were responsible for 100 causalities and costed 210 million Yuan on property damages from 2013 to 2020 in China. In Tanzania 70 people were killed, and 16 people were injured from 2017 to 2019, whereas roughly 200 people were killed by elephants between 2010 and 2017 in Kenya (Manoa et al.2021). Apart from these widely known direct effects, there are indirect effects of human-elephant interactions; which occurs as secondary consequences from elephants’ direct actions (Barua et al. 2013; Mayberry et al. 2017), which usually go unnoticed, unreported, temporary delayed and uncompensated due to lack of direct physical damages (Nyumba et al. 2020; Sampson et al. 2021). They are characterised by their immaterial and emotional based impacts, occurring as cumulative consequences of elephants’ direct actions to human wellbeing (Barua et al. 2013; Mayberry et al. 2017). Effects such as fear of elephant attacks, psychological stress, interrupted sleep for night farm guarding and reduced agricultural productivity, post-traumatic disorder from losing family members, and reduced ability to collect firewood fuel and water (Hoare, 2015; Graham et al. 2010; Barua et al. 2013). These effects may persist long after occurrence of direct elephant incidents. The indirect effects of elephants to humans lead to opportunity costs impairing communities’ livelihood (Barua et al. 2013; Sampson et al. 2021) and undermine individual’s socio-economic welfares (Khumalo & Yung, 2015). For example, restrictions on peoples’ movements potentially affect communities’ daily routines, reducing productivity and social cohesion (Barua et al.2013; Mamboleo et al. 2021). Further, prolonged stress and shock from elephants’ presence gradually subjects victims into chronic stress and emotional state (Khumalo & Yung, 2015; Barua et al. 2013), changing their physiology and behaviour which impairs their natural immunity, making them vulnerable to heart diseases and deaths (Mamboleo et al. 2021; Sampson et al. 2021). Such indirect effects influence negative perceptions, intolerance and unwillingness of the local communities to co-exist with elephants. The direct consequences of elephant to humans in villages surrounding MNP have extensively been well documented to include crop raiding, human deaths and injuries, property damages and elephant retaliatory killings (Gunn et al. 2013; Mayengo et al. 2017; Malley & Gorenflo, 2023). However, their indirect effects have scantly been documented, conservationists and local people hardly regard them as effects that needs attention . This paper seeks to contribute towards understanding of the indirect effects of human-elephant interactions, and their spatial patterns within communities for inclusive mitigation measures planning to facilitate co-existence between humans and elephants. The study assesses; (1) occurrences and extent of indirect effects of human-human elephant interactions, and (2) distribution of indirect effects of human elephant interactions within communities. The study hypothesized that, the occurrence of indirect effects of human-elephant interactions would be higher to crop farmers compared to pastoralists members of the community. We further predicted that, the indirect effects of human-elephant interactions would be spatially randomly distributed across the study area. \articletype Original Articles 2. Methodology \articletype Original Articles 2.1 Study Area The study was conducted in ten (10) villages located adjacent to Mikumi National Park (MNP) in south-eastern Tanzania (Gunn et al. 2013). These villages include Mikumi, Ihombwe, Kitunduweta, and Mhenda along the western boundary of the park; Mbamba, Kiduhi, Kilangali, Mkata, and Doma along the northern boundary; and Maharaka on the north-eastern boundary of the park. The study area forms part of the broader Mikumi–Selous ecosystem, which supports one of the largest elephant populations in the country, estimated at approximately 15,217 individuals (Lohay et al. 2020). The area receives an average annual rainfall of about 860 mm and has a mean annual temperature of 25.5°C (Gunn et al. 2013). Among the surveyed villages, Kiduhi is predominantly inhabited by Maasai pastoralists, whereas the remaining nine villages are primarily agrarian whose livelihoods are centred on crop farming. Human–elephant interactions in these communities are frequent and have resulted in intense conflicts over crop raiding, human injuries and fatalities, and retaliatory killings of elephants (Gunn et al. 2013; Mayengo et al. 2017). \articletype Original Articles Figure 1: Map of Tanzania showing locations of sampled households in villages adjacent to MNP (January-December 2023) \articletype Original Articles 2.2 Study design The study employed a repeated cross-sectional observational design, using both closed- and open-ended questionnaires administered during the wet and dry seasons of 2023. The wet season, spanning January to June, coincides with peak crop cultivation and adequate rainfall for agricultural activities, while the dry season, from July to December, is characterized by reduced rainfall and drought conditions. Household surveys were conducted among 405 households across ten villages directly bordering Mikumi National Park (MNP). Villages were purposively selected based on a documented history of human–elephant conflict, accessibility, and direct adjacency to the park. The sample size was determined using Cochran’s formula (1977) (equation (i)) to ensure statistical representativeness (Uarkarn et al.2021): \(n_{0}=\frac{Z^{2}\cdot P\cdot Q}{e^{2}}\)………(i) where \(n_{0}\)is the required sample size, \(Z=1.96\ \)corresponds to the 95% confidence level, \(P=0.5\)is the estimated population proportion to maximize sample size, \(Q=1-P\), and\(e=0.05\)represents the 5% margin of error. Household selection followed a systematic sampling approach. The first household was selected from the one nearest the village office, and subsequent households were chosen using a sampling interval calculated by dividing the total number of households in each village by 40. Questionnaires were translated into Kiswahili and pretested on 20 households in Sewe and Mangae villages neighboring villages. These pretested villages did not participate in the survey. Respondents included household heads, spouses, or other adults aged 18 years or older who had resided in the household for at least 12 months. Additionally, focused group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in Maharaka, Mkata, Doma, Kilangali, and Kiduhi villages, continuing until no new information on indirect effects emerged (Hennink et al. 2019). Each FGD comprised a minimum of six participants (Susanto et al. 2024), including village game scouts and members of the village natural resources committee. Discussions were guided by prepared questions to elicit perceptions of indirect effects, and information was recorded using both audio recordings and written notes. \articletype Original Articles 2.3 Data collection methods Close-ended and open-ended questionnaires were used to collect respondents’ demographics including occupation and/or main activity, alongside primary data collected by asking respondents if presence of elephants in their premises have had any indirect effects to their families and/or communities. A list of perceived indirect effects was presented to the respondents to select from depending on how their livelihoods are impacted (Khumalo & Yung, 2015; Sampson et al. 2021). Respondents were then asked to rate the extent to which the perceived impacts negatively affect their livelihoods using likert scale from 1- extremely low to 5 – extremely high. The GPS coordinate locations for participating households were recorded to enable calculation of distance from households to nearest park boundaries. \articletype Original Articles 2.4 Data analysis Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using R studio version 4.3.1, to produce relative frequency distributions bar chart graphs for visualization of the numerical and categorical indirect effects of human elephant interactions (R Core Team 2020). Distances from households to MNP border were calculated using ArcGIS 10.5 as in Gunawansa et al., (2024). Since the data did not meet the normality distribution assumptions through Shapiro-Wilk test, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for variations of responses on indirect effects among different respondents’ occupations . Spatial analysis was conducted by importing weighted sum of indirect effect scores from excel file to raster file in the ArcGIS 10.5 and mapped into the shape files for Mikumi producing heatmap to visualize spatial distribution of effects as in Mamboleo et al. (2021). Further, Moran’s index test was run for the spatial autocorrelation of indirect effects of human-elephant interactions. \articletype Original Articles 3. RESULTS \articletype Original Articles 3.1 Indirect effects of human-elephant interaction Figure 2, show proportions of reported indirect effects of human-elephant interactions in villages adjacent to MNP. The highest score of indirect effects was c ompromised safety in Maharaka and Mkata villages with almost 100% of respondents. Similarly, food insecurity, p sychological trauma and restricted movements for Maharaka and Mkata villages scored almost 100% . The least indirect effects score included School abstaining and dropout for farm guarding, with less than 5%. The Kruskal-Wallis test on indirect effects across respondents’ occupations had statistically significant differences results (p < 0.001), where a follow-up post-hoc (Dunn’s) test for respondents’ occupation show households practicing both (farming and pastoralist) (P.adj. p < 0.001), and both (farming and Business) (P.adj. = 0.0431). This indicate that indirect effects were only significantly different among community members who diversified for (farming and pastoralist), and those who diversified for (farming and Business), while it was statistically insignificant among crop farmers and pastoralists. This rejected the null hypothesis which stated that the occurrence of indirect effects of human-elephant interactions would be higher to crop farmers compared to pastoralists members of the community. \articletype Original Articles Figure 2: Proportion of reported indirect effects of human elephant interactions around Mikumi National Park Further, during FGDs in Mkata and Ihombwe villages reported that; many farmers in Mkata village had opted to shift their farming activities to Kidago - Ngaite village a nearby village in Kilosa District to avoid elephant conflicts. Also, farmers in Ihombwe village shifted to cultivate in Kisanga and Mbegesera neighbouring villages for similar reasons. Also, in another FGD at Mhenda village respondents reported anonymous marriage problems where in some cases men who went for farm guarding at nights, and women who stay home were unfaithful to their marriages. \articletype Original Articles 3.2 Spatial distribution of indirect effects Figure 3 shows the indirect effects extent in villages adjacent to MNP. The highest rated effects include c ompromised safety at Doma, Maharaka and Mkata villages rated by >95% respondents, restricted movement at Doma, Mkata, Mikumi and Maharaka villages rated by >90% respondents, food insecurity at Mkata, Maharaka and Doma villages rated above 90% by respondents, and psychological trauma at Doma and Maharaka villages rated above 85% of respondents. School time delays and school drop-out and/or abstaining scored low to non-significant levels. Further, figure 4 shows indirect effects spatial distribution, whereby the villages of Doma, Kiduhi and Mbamba were moderately affected. Low to moderately affected villages were Maharaka, Mhenda, Mkata and Mikumi. The least affected villages were Ihombwe, Kitunduweta, and Kilangali. Moran’s index test for spatial autocorrelation of indirect effects was significant (Moran’s I test, I=0.25, p < 0.0001), indicating that there is a tendency for neighboring villages to have similar levels of effects by being grouped together rather than being randomly spread out, and that spatial clustering is highly significant and not by chance. Possible reasons for similar levels and/or type of effects could potentially be from common elephant movement patterns and population, common human activities or crops and livelihoods strategies. This rejected the prediction which stated that indirect effects of human-elephant interactions would be spatially randomly distributed across the study area. Figure 3: Distribution of Indirect effects of human elephant interaction around Mikumi National Park (January-December 2023) \articletype Original Articles Figure 4: Spatial distribution patterns of indirect effects of human elephant interactions around Mikumi National Park (January-December 2023) \articletype Original Articles 4. DISCUSSION \articletype Original Articles 4.1 Indirect effects of human-elephant interaction The indirect effects form a complex causal-effect relationship with consequences to communities’ livelihoods. For instance, highly scored compromised safety from fear and/or presence of elephants’ communities restrict movements and distract daily routines like delays to work by adults and reporting to schools by pupils. Community routines distraction potentially led to reduced productivity, food shortage, and reduced social cohesions which could potentially lead to victims’ shifting places to avoid elephant conflicts. Similar results were demonstrated by Mamboleo et al. (2021) in villages adjacent to Serengeti National Park, where presence of elephants caused delays in lessons attendance for pupils, restricted movement, abandonment of farms and houses, marriage problems and reduced farming activities. The worst scenario was that; presence of elephants distracted households from collection and preparation of families’ basic needs like water and firewood, and reduced accessibility to washrooms because many households in the area had outdoor washrooms. Further, villagers in northeast India could not leave their homes because of the continued presence of elephants in their premises (Barua et al. 2013). Also, natural curfews were imposed to villagers by elephants in fear of elephant attacks in Taita-Taveta District bordering Tsavo National Park, Kenya (Manoa et al. 2021). Mamboleo et al. (2021); Galley & Anthony, (2024), reported that farmers who experience continuous elephant damages opt to abandon their farms to offset the effects from elephant damages. However, practices of relocation to avoid elephant conflicts lead to dispossession of land which necessitate farmers to incur costs for acquisition of a new land (Barua et al. 2013), which magnify the negative perceptions of local communities to co-exist with elephants. Mamboleo et al. (2021), demonstrated a similar case at Bukore village, Bunda District, Tanzania, when night farm guarding men complained about unfaithful wives while women who stay home complained of unfaithful men when out for guarding farms. Food scarcity was observed throughout all the villages surveyed but most pronounced Maharaka, Mkata, and Doma villages where elephants had destroyed all the maize and paddy farms which prompted victims to work extra to secure funds to buy food (figures 2 and 3). Galley & Anthony, (2024), demonstrated that crop losses from elephants to farmers neighbouring Uttarakhand neighbouring Rajaji National Park in India, reduced households’ food supply, women had to sacrifice food for their children when food was not enough for all. Food insecurity has been linked to loss of sleep, reduced health status, and compromised immunity system and deaths (Barua et al. 2013; Mayberry et al. 2017). Night farm guarding causes loss of sleep leading into mental health morbidity from fatigue, and further exposure to contacting malaria as observed in the surveyed villages. Barua et al. 2013 and Sampson et al. 2021, established that crop raiding elephants compelled farm guards to stay awake to prevent elephants, which subjected victims to vectors of diseases like malaria reported in tropical countries with high overlap between malaria prevalence and human elephant conflict zones. Farm guarding has further been linked to poor academic performance because of reduced school attendance and drop-outs during guarding season (Mayberry et al. 2017) Overall, safety concerns from fear of elephant appears to be central to most of the indirect effects of human elephant interactions, because they are linked to distraction of socio-economic routines leading into socio-economic distress. Victims may be psychologically traumatized from stress and continuous fear of being attacked by elephants, elephant damages on crops leads to poverty and food insecure to households. Such concerns might induce negative perceptions of local communities against elephant conservation, which calls for mitigating daily routines distractions and food scarcity from elephants. \articletype Original Articles 4.2 Spatial distribution of effects Almost all the surveyed households experienced indirect effects from elephant at different scale and type, Neighbouring areas/villages experience similar type of effects of elephants compared to areas apart from presence of elephants. School abstain/drop-out for farm guarding were only reported in Ihombwe, Mikumi, Doma and Maharaka villages. School time delays were reported in Maharaka, Mikumi, Doma, Mhenda, Kilangali, and Ihombwe (figure 2). Also, on spatial scale, Ihombwe and Kitunduweta had low to moderate effects, while Mbamba and Kiduhi villages had moderate effects (figure 3). These results concur with those of Nyumba et al. (2020), in Trans Mara District and Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya; where it was reported that elephant effects to communities do not occur uniformly. Also, in villages adjacent to Serengeti National Park, Bunda District – Tanzania, hotspot of indirect effects had patterns of being closer to each other and cold spots effects of human elephant interactions were also closer (Mamboleo et al. 2021). The magnitude of indirect effects declines with increasing distance from protected areas, typically diminishing beyond a threshold of 5 kilometres (Sydney et al. (2021). For example, Chiyo et al. (2005) and Graham et al. (2010), observed that communities residing within 5 kilometres from protected areas experience disproportionately higher livelihood disruptions due to recurrent elephant presence. Further that, the severity and spatial extent of human-elephant interactions are not uniformly distributed across landscapes but vary according to ecological, socio-economic, and spatial gradients (Songhurst & Coulson, 2014); Hoare, 2015; Shaffer et al. 2019). Furthermore, while socio-economic and environmental variables compound this spatial variability; some households may afford shifting farther from elephant ranges, other households might remain trapped in high-risk zones, perpetuating spatial inequality in exposure to indirect effects (Sitati et al., 2003). Pastoralists are spatially restricted within grazing areas facing difficulties to displace herds, and even competition over shrinking safe pastures with elephants compared to crop farmers (Okello et al. 2014). The localized nature of indirect effects to specific areas, requires area specific interventions, which calls for focused mitigations at specific landscape scale to enhance efficient resource allocation. Such spatial insights are critical for designing buffer zones, land-use plans, and early warning systems that account for both direct and indirect conflict dimensions. \articletype Original Articles 5. Conclusion and Recommendations The findings of this study highlight the complex and multifaceted nature of human–elephant interactions and their impacts on the socio-economic development of communities adjacent to Mikumi National Park. Understanding these effects and their dynamics is critical for informing the design, planning, and implementation of mitigation measures that promote human–elephant coexistence. Sustainable conservation can be achieved through inclusive strategies that address both direct and indirect effects, while balancing the needs of local communities with the ecological requirements of elephants. These findings underscore the need for a holistic re-evaluation of conservation strategies, extending beyond direct impacts to incorporate indirect effects. Mitigation strategies should be implemented at appropriate spatial scales, tailored to the specific challenges of each area. Potential measures include: a) Provision of adequate hostels and dormitories for pupils and students in areas prone to elephant attacks; b) Improved access to psychological and medical services for affected individuals and households; c) Provision of educational support, such as grants for children whose parent(s) are killed by elephants; and d) Provision of subsidies for affected households, including food and farm inputs, to offset crop losses while consolation payments are being processed. Funding: Animal Behaviour Research Unit (ABRU). \articletype Original Articles Conflict of Interests: None \articletype Original Articles Ethical standards: Research clearance was done at President’s Office, Regional Administration and Local Government, and further acquired a Research permit No: CST00000440-2024-01120 from Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTEC) through Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). Authors’ contributions: DBF : Design, data collection, analysis, result interpretation, and writing draft; VGN: Review and supervision; RMB: Review and supervision; RMJK : Results interpretation, review and Supervision. \articletype Original Articles 6. References Barua, M., Bhagwat, A.S., & Jadhav, S. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological conservation 157(2013):309-316. Bhuyan, C., Bora, C. & Das, M. (2023). Living with elephants; Comparative case study of Two Human-elephant conflict affected villages in Nagaon District of Assam. Northeastern Geographer 42(1&2)104-115. Chiyo, P. I., Cochrane, E. P., Naughton, L., & Basuta, G. I. (2005). Temporal patterns of crop raiding by elephants: a response to changes in forage quality or crop availability?. African Journal of Ecology , 43 (1), 48-55. Galley, W., & Anthony, P.B. (2024). Beyond Crop-Raiding: Unravelling the Broader Impacts of Human-Wildlife Conflict on Rural Communities. Environmental Management 74(2024):590–608. Glikman, J.A., Frank, B., Ruppert, K.A., Knox, J., Sponarski, C.C., Metcalf, E.C., Metcalf, A.L., & Marchini, S. (2021). Coexisting With Different Human-Wildlife Coexistence Perspectives. Front. Conserv. Sc2 (703174)6. Graham, M. D., Douglas‐Hamilton, I., Adams, W. M., & Lee, P. C. (2009). The movement of African elephants in a human‐dominated land‐use mosaic. Animal conservation , 12 (5), 445-455. Gunawansa, D.T., Perera, K., Apan, A., & Hettiarachchi, K.N. (2024). Identifying human elephant conflict hotspots through satellite remote sensing and GIS to support conflict mitigation, Remote Sensing Applications. Society and Environment,35(2024):17 Gunn, J., Hawkins, D., Barnes, R.F.W., Mofulu, F., Grant, R.A., & Norton, G.W. (2013). The Influence of lunar cycles on crop raiding elephants; Evidence for risk avoidance. African Journal of Ecology 52(2):129-137. Hennink, M.M., Kaiser, B.N., & Weber, M.B. (2019). What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research. Qual Health Res 29(10):1483-1496. Hoare, R. (2015). Lessons from 20 years of human–elephant conflict mitigation in Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 20 (4), 289-295.Khumalo, K.E. and Yung, L.A. (2015). Women, human – wildlife conflict, and CBNRM: Hidden impacts and Vulnerabilities in Kwandu Conservancy, Namibia. Conservation and Society , 13(3):232-243. Lohay, G.G., Weathers, T.C., Estes, A.B., McGrath, B.C., & Cavener, D.R. (2020). Genetic connectivity and population structure of African savanna elephants ( Loxodonta africana ) in Tanzania. Ecology and Evolution 10(2020):11069-11089. Malley, S.G., & Gorenflo, J.L. (2023). Shifts in the conflict-coexistence continuum: Exploring social-ecological determinants of human-elephant interactions. PLoS ONE 18(3): 25. Mamboleo, A.A., Doscher, C., & Paterson, A. (2021). A computational modelling approach to human-elephant interactions in the Bunda District, Tanzania. Ecological Modelling 443(2021) 109449. Manoa, O.D., Mwaura, F., Thenya, T., & Mukhovi, S. (2021). Comparative analysis of Time and Monetary opportunity costs of human wildlife conflict in Amboseli and Mt. Kenya Ecosystems. Current research in Environmental Sustainability 3(2021) 100103. Mayberry, L.A., Hovorka, J.A., & Evans, E.K. (2017). Well-being impacts of human elephant conflict in Khumaga, Botswana: Exploring visible and hidden dimensions. Conservation and Society 15(3): 280-291. Mayengo, G., Bwagalilo, F., & Kalumanga, E., V. (2017). Human Wildlife Conflicts to communities surrounding Mikumi National Park in Tanzania. A case of selected villages. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology. 2(4):1777-1784. Nyumba, T. O., Emenye, O. E., & Leader-Williams, N. (2020). Assessing impacts of Human elephant conflicts on human well-being: An empirical analysis of communities living with elephants around Maasai – Mara National Reserve in Kenya. PLoS ONE 15(9). Okello, M. M., Njumbi, S. J., Kiringe, J. W., & Isiiche, J. (2014). Prevalence and Severity of Current Human-Elephant Conflicts in Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya: Insights from the Field and Key Informants. Natural Resources, 05(09), 462–477. R Core Team. 2020. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org Accessed 10 February 2025. Sampson, C., Rodriguez, S.L., Leimgruber, P., Huang, Q., & Tonky, D. (2021). A quantitative assessment of the indirect impacts of Human elephant conflict. PLoS ONE. 16(7). Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., Smith, R. J., & Leader‐Williams, N. (2003). Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict. Journal of applied ecology , 40 (4), 667-677. Shaffer, J.L., Khadka, K., Van den Hoek, J., & Naithani, K. J. (2019). Human elephant conflicts: A review of current management strategies and future directions. Frontiers in ecology and evolution 6(235):12. Sydney, D. K., Mneney, P., Mkilindi, P.B.B., & Mbise, N. (2021). Seasonal and spatial vulnerability to agricultural damage by elephants in the western Serengeti, Tanzania. Oryx, 55(1):139-149. Songhurst, A., & Coulson, T. (2014). Exploring the effects of spatial autocorrelation when identifying key drivers of wildlife crop‐raiding. Ecology and evolution , 4 (5), 582-593. Susanto, P.C., Yuntina, L., Saribanon, E., Soehaditama, P.J., & Liana, E. (2024). Qualitative Method Concepts: Literature Review, Focus Group Discussion, Ethnography and Grounded Theory. Siber Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary 2(2)262-275. Uarkarn, C., Chaokronithong, K., & Sintao, N. (2021). Sample size Estimation using Yamane and Cochran and Krejcie and Morgan and Green formulas and Cohen Statistical power Analysis by G*power and Comparisons. Apheit International Journal, 10(2):76-87. Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 09 January 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords compromised safety elephant presence fear of elephant attack food insecurity restricted movement shifting places Authors Affiliations Deusdedith Fidelis 0000-0003-3944-9772 [email protected] Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 198 views 89 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Deusdedith Fidelis. Spatial distribution of indirect effects of human-elephant interactions around Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. Authorea . 09 January 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176796578.84933297/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.176796578.84933297/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe3949e0e0b41e2',t:'MTc3OTE5ODcyOQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();