Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict

Open access
Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., Smith, R. J., Leader‐Williams, N.·2003·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Human–elephant conflict (HEC) in Africa occurs wherever these two species coincide, and poses serious challenges to wildlife managers, local communities and elephants alike. Mitigation requires a detailed understanding of underlying patterns and processes. Although temporal patterns of HEC are relatively predictable, spatial variation has shown few universal trends, making it difficult to predict where conflict will take place. While this may be due to unpredictability in male elephant foraging behaviour (the male behaviour hypothesis) it may also be due to variations in the data resolution of earlier studies. This study tested the male behaviour and data resolution hypotheses using HEC data from a 1000‐km 2 unprotected elephant range adjacent to the Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. HEC incidents were divided into crop raiding and human deaths or injuries. Crop raiding was further subdivided into incidents involving only male elephants or family groups. A relatively fine‐resolution, systematic, grid‐based method was used to assign the locations of conflict incidents, and spatial relations with underlying variables were explored using correlation analysis and logistic regression. Crop raiding was clustered into distinct conflict zones. Both occurrence and intensity could be predicted on the basis of the area under cultivation and, for male elephant groups, proximity to major settlements. Conversely, incidents of elephant‐induced human injury and death were less predictable but were correlated with proximity to roads. A grid‐based geographical information system (GIS) with a 25‐km 2 resolution utilizing cost‐effective data sources, combined with simple statistical tools, was capable of identifying spatial predictors of HEC. At finer resolutions spatial autocorrelation compromised the analyses. Synthesis and applications. These results suggest that spatial correlates of HEC can be identified, regardless of the sex of the elephants involved. Moreover, the method described here is fully transferable to other sites for comparative analysis of HEC. Using these results to map vulnerability will enable the development and deployment of appropriate conflict mitigation strategies, such as guarding, early warning systems, barriers and deterrents. The utility of such methods and their strategic deployment should be assessed alongside alternative land‐use and livelihood strategies that limit cultivation within the elephant range.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00828.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., Smith, R. J., & Leader‐Williams, N.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-07-11
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
667-677
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2038843982
Cited by
317
References
37
FWCI
8.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00828.x
The paper
Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., Smith, R. J., & Leader‐Williams, N. (2003). Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00828.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.