Costs of coexistence: understanding the drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh
Open accessAbstract
Habitat degradation and fragmentation have heightened the importance of understanding human tolerance towards wildlife, as the fate of wildlife in multi-use landscapes depends on people's capacity for coexistence. We applied the wildlife tolerance model to examine drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh, interviewing local people in 17 villages. We used structural equation modelling to identify causal pathways in which elephant-related exposure, positive and negative interactions, costs and benefits (tangible and intangible) contributed to tolerance. Contrary to expectations, monetary costs were non-significant in shaping tolerance despite major impacts on livelihoods. Instead, intangible costs and intangible benefits were significant factors determining tolerance. Furthermore, reducing people's exposure to elephants would not necessarily affect tolerance, nor would increasing positive interactions. We discuss how the socio-economic and bio-cultural dynamics of local communities can explain these results, and demonstrate how our model can be used to incorporate such complexities into conservation decision-making. For instance, compensation schemes aim to recompense monetary losses and direct damages, to improve tolerance, whereas our results suggest a more effective approach would be to enhance resilience to non-monetary costs and improve perceived benefits. We conclude that future studies should pay increased attention to intangible costs and consider the less direct drivers of tolerance. Through repeated testing of universal models such as that presented here, broad trends may emerge that will facilitate the application of policies across contexts and landscapes.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Case studies of geographic areas with human-wildlife conflict show that empathy for animals and intangible benefits related to their existence is a greater predictor of community tolerance for those animals than monetary costs or benefits.
“case studies of geographic areas with human-wildlife conflict show that empathy for animals and intangible benefits related to their existence is a greater predictor of community tolerance for those animals than monetary costs or benefits (e.g., Kansky & Kidd, 2024; Saif et al., 2020).”
From Do elephants really never forget? What we know about elephant memory and a call for further investigation (2025) · cites this paper as Saif et al., 2020
The Discussion reports that intangible benefits increased tolerance of elephants in the Bangladesh case study, while tangible costs were not a significant driver. But the Methods say empathy was part of an inner model the study did not test, and the Results say tangible benefits were not analysed. The paper therefore cannot establish that empathy and intangible benefits were greater predictors than monetary costs or benefits. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001 · Cited by 2,906 · see citing works
Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication · doi:10.1109/tpc.2014.2312452 · Cited by 1,901 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- BABBIE, E. () The Practice of Social Research. th edition. Cengage Learning, Boston, USA.
- BULTE, E. & RONDEAU, D. () Research and management viewpoint: why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management, , -.
- BULTE, E. & RONDEAU, D. () Compensation for wildlife damages: habitat conversion, species preservation and local welfare. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, , -.
- DAVIES, T.E., WILSON, S., HAZARIKA, N., CHAKRABARTY, J., DAS, D., HODGSON, D.J. & ZIMMERMANN, A. () Effectiveness of intervention methods against crop-raiding elephants. Conservation Letters, , -.
- F.M. Angelici), pp. -. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
- HAIR, JR, J.F., HULT, G.T.M., RINGLE, C. & SARSTEDT, M. () A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.
- ISLAM, M., KHAN, M.M., KABIR, M., CHOWDHURY, M., FEEROZ, M. & BEGUM, S. () Man-elephant interactions in Bangladesh in . Bangladesh Journal of Life Science, , -.
- MARINO, A., BRASCHI, C., RICCI, S., SALVATORI, V. & CIUCCI, P. () Ex post and insurance-based compensation fail to increase tolerance for wolves in semi-agricultural landscapes of central Italy. European Journal of Wildlife Research, , -.
- MURADIAN, R., ARSEL, M., PELLEGRINI, L., ADAMAN, F., AGUILAR, B., AGARWAL, B. et al. () Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters, , -.
- PING, R. () Salesperson-employer relationships: salesperson responses to relationship problems and their antecedents. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, , -.
- POOLEY, S., BARUA, M., BEINART, W., DICKMAN, A., HOLMES, G., LORIMER, J. et al. () An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations. Conservation Biology, , -.
- SANTANGELI, A. & SUTHERLAND, W.J. () The financial return from measuring impact. Conservation Letters, , -.
- TAY, L. & DIENER, E. () Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , -.
- WONG, K.K.-K. () Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, , -.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kansky, R., & Kidd, M. (2024) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110588 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationHope, S. F., Willgohs, K. R., Dittakul, S., & Plotnik, J. M. (2025) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-024-00655-y · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Saif, O., Kansky, R., Palash, A., Kidd, M., & Knight, A. T.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- University of Dhaka (BD)
- Corresponding author
- Saif, Omar
- Venue
- Oryx
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019-03-19
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 603-611
- ISSN
- 0030-6053 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-3008
- OpenAlex
- W2924524834
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Oryx (publishedVersion)
- SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
- Keywords
- human-elephant coexistence, Asian elephant, wildlife tolerance, intangible costs, intangible benefits, human-wildlife interactions, livelihood impacts, compensation systems, rural communities, wildlife conservation policy, Bangladesh
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review