Perceived Effects of Elephants ( Loxodonta africana Cuvier) Presence and Impacts on Ecosystem Services Supply in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve,West Africa

Abstract

Information on how biotic factors influence delivery of ecosystem services (ES) in natural systems is important for holistic landscape management. In this study, we assessed the perceived effects of elephants’ presence on ES supply in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve in West Africa. A total of 112 respondents, including riparian communities and reserve officials, were interviewed. First, we used ranking techniques based on stakeholders’ perceptions to evaluate differences in perceived importance of ES. Second, we assessed the perceived impact of elephants on ES supply from both direction and intensity perspective. Third, we assessed the economic importance of threatened ESs and elephants’ damages related economic losses incurred by households. Twenty-seven ES were enumerated, 13 provisioning ES, 12 cultural ES, and two from the regulating and maintenance ES category. Provisioning ES were perceived as the most important although not significantly different from other categories. PES were also found to be most affected negatively by elephants’ impacts. However, elephants’ presence increased supply of cultural ES. The average cost of the losses due to elephants’ negative impacts ranged from $174.80 to $586.05 per year and per victim household. These results were discussed in relation to management actions necessary to facilitate coexistence between elephant and local populations.

Keywords

biotic disturbances ecosystem services perceptions economic valuation protected areas

Introduction

Ecosystems provide various services that contribute to human well-being and development of local and national economies (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Schägner, Brander, Maes, & Hartje, 2013; The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2010). Because ecosystem services (ES) generate high economic, ecological, and social values for stakeholders at different scales (Grilli, Nikodinoska, Paletto, & De Meo, 2015; Mensah, Veldtman, Assogbadjo, et al., 2017), assessing ES importance and economic value is important for useful and sustainable management of both natural and human made systems (Grilli et al., 2015; Iniesta-Arandia, García-Llorente, Aguilera, Montes, & Martín-López, 2014; Mensah, Veldtman, Assogbadjo, et al., 2017; Palomo, Martín-López, Potschin, Haines-Young, & Montes, 2013).

Many ecosystems, including protected areas, are reportedly been degraded, along with their ecological properties, processes, and functioning (Brodie, Post, Watson, & Berger, 2012; Ehrlich & Mooney, 1983; Schmitz, Post, Burns, & Johnston, 2003) and subsequent supply of services (De Groot et al., 2012; Ehrlich & Mooney, 1983; Ochoa & Urbina-Cardona, 2017). In turn, the loss of ES increasingly affects countries’ economy (Pelicice, 2019). Protected areas are potential hotspots for multiple ecosystem functions and services (Chape, Harrison, Spalding, & Lysenko, 2005; Palomo, Martín-López, Zorrilla-Miras, García Del Am, & Montes, 2014). Their management should aim at maintaining healthy and resilient systems that can sustain delivery of a wide range of ES in the long term (Smith et al., 2017). However, in protected areas, multifunctionality and delivery of multiple ES are often underlooked in management plans (Jacobs, Burkhard, Van Daele, Staes, & Schneiders, 2015; Tallis & Polasky, 2009), and management strategies to increase one service often have negative impacts on other services (Smith et al., 2017). In addition, few management plans take into account occurrence of natural hazards (Smith et al., 2017) and ecosystem disservices (Shackleton et al., 2016). As a result, these systems lack risk mitigation plans, either for anthropogenic (climate change, fire, pollution, etc.) or environmental effects (e.g., overcapacity of charge of ecosystems with regard to large mammals’ herbivores browsing).

Previous studies revealed that factors such as mammals’ herbivory affect trees dynamic, ecosystem functioning, and services delivery (Asner & Levick, 2012; Brodie et al., 2012; Dublin, Sinclair, & McGlade, 1990; Field, 1971; Guldemond & van Aarde, 2008). However, studies on how biotic attributes inﬂuence the ecosystem capacity to supply different ES are still needed (Maseyk, Mackay, Possingham, Dominati, & Buckley, 2017; Smith et al., 2017). For example, there is less information on the eﬀects of mammalian herbivores on diversity–ecosystem function relationships in established tree stands (Muiruri, Milligan, Morath, & Koricheva, 2015). Equally, it would be valuable to determine how current diversity loss due to natural and anthropogenic drivers simultaneously inﬂuences the supply of ES (Byrnes et al., 2014). Such information is crucial for long-term management strategies that promote biodiversity conservation (Mace, Norris, & Fitter, 2012; Smith et al., 2017) and sustainable ES supply (Palomo et al., 2013).

In West Africa, the Pendjari Biosphere is a nature reserve with a huge potential for ES supply. It is listed as a World Heritage Site. Several ecological studies were conducted in line with its potential for medicinal resources (Dossou-Yovo, Vodouhe, & Sinsin, 2014), biodiversity conservation, and plant dynamics (Atanasso et al., 2019; Azihou, Glèlè Kakaï, Bellefontaine, & Sinsin, 2013; Kiansi, 2011; Mensah et al., 2016; Vodouhê, Coulibaly, Adégbidi, & Sinsin, 2010). Recent studies also reported the potential damages caused by elephants in the Pendjari Biosphere reserve (Kassa et al., 2014; Salako et al., 2015). However, we lack information about its potential for ES supply. In this study, three hypotheses were explored on current ES supply in Pendjari Biosphere Reserve in Benin and related to (a) the ES supply and importance; (b) elephants presence and impacts on ES, as perceived by local stakeholders; and (c) economic importance of threatened ESs and elephants’ damages related economic losses.

Analytical methods for testing such hypotheses require decades of monitoring natural ecosystems (Birkhofer et al., 2015; Martin, 2007). On the other hand, there is increasing interest in combining local knowledge and empirical evidence for in ES valuation surveys (Cowling et al., 2008; Palomo et al., 2014). Stakeholders’ perception assessment of ES is useful to evaluate the current supply of ES as it is based on experiential knowledge on the distribution of landscape services and of nonmaterial beneﬁts provided to humans (Fagerholm, Käyhkӧ, Ndumbaro, & Khamis, 2012). Participative ES assessment has further advantage to increase awareness of nature beneﬁts, foster empowerment, and incorporate local knowledge into management decisions (Fagerholm et al., 2012; Mensah, Veldtman, Assogbadjo, et al., 2017; Palomo et al., 2014).

The aim of this study, therefore, was to understand how elephants’ presence and damages, as perceived by local people, influence ES supply in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve in Benin. The specific objectives were to (a) determine the importance value of ES categories, (b) assess the reserve manager’s and local people’s perception of elephants presence and impacts on ES, and (c) assess the economic importance of threatened ESs and elephants’ damages related economic losses. For classification of ES, we adopted the Common International Classiﬁcation for Ecosystem Services (CICES), proposed by the European Environment Agency (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2013).

Methods

Study Area

The study was carried out in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve located in the Sudanian zone in the north-west part of the Republic of Benin, West Africa (10°40′–11°28′N and 0°57′–2°10′E; Figure 1). It covers a total area of 4,661.4 km² and included the Pendjari National Park (PNP: 2,660.4 km²), the Pendjari Hunting Zone (ZCP: 1,750 km²), and the Konkombri Hunting Area (ZCK: 251 km²) (Kiansi, 2011). Pendjari Biosphere Reserve was declared a Game Reserve in 1954, upgraded to a National Park in 1961, and became a Biosphere Reserve in 1986 (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2002). Recent studies in the Biosphere Reserve revealed that the elephant population increased from 826 individuals between 1985 and 1991 to 869 individuals between 2005 and 2010 (Bouché et al., 2011) and has reached a total of 1,719 in 2015 (Bouché, Frederick, & Kohi, 2015). This increase of elephant individuals number is related to the availability of suitable habitats and the recent efforts to reduce poaching in the Biosphere Reserve (Bouché et al., 2015). In addition, two subspecies of the African elephant (Loxodonta africana) have been identified in the Biopshere Reserve (Mondol, Moltke, Keigwin, Brown, Stephens, & Wasser, 2015): the forest elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) and the hybrids (no scientific names proposed). Thus, the name Loxodonta africana (African elephant) was adopted to describe both the forest elephants and the hybrids in the study area.

Figure 1.

Maps showing the location of the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve and the surrounding villages where the survey was concucted.

The vegetation in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve is dominated by the Sudanian regional centre of endemism plant species (White, 1983) with a mosaic of savannas ecosystems (grasslands, shrublands, and wooded savannas) interspersed with forest ecosystems (woodlands, gallery forests, riparian forests and dry forests) (Sokpon et al., 2001). Annual rainfall averages 900 to 1,000 mm, with a unimodal pattern (from May to November). Soils are mainly ferruginous.

In 2014, about 188,633 inhabitants are estimated to be living around the reserve (Recensement Général de la Population et de l’Habitation 4, 2015). The prime activity of these populations is subsistence and smallholder farming, which includes crops and staple foods such as yams, maize, sorghum, cowpea, groundnuts, and rice (Centre National de Gestion des Reserves et Faunes, 2005). The buffer zone is also used for cattle grazing and is prominent source of ﬁrewood for commercial and domestic use (Sinsin, Tehou, Daouda, & Saidou, 2002).

Sampling and Data Collection

Expert knowledge—for example, provided by reserve managers—is often used to gather information on the potential for ES supply (Cowling et al., 2008; Pereira et al., 2005; Paletto, Giacovelli, Grilli, Balest, & De Meo, 2014; Palomo et al., 2013; Ricaurte et al., 2017; Sieber, 2006). Semistructured or focus group interviews are also often used (Bryan et al., 2010; Campagne, Roche, & Salles, 2018; Palomo et al., 2013; Ricaurte et al., 2017). Sample size is a key determinant that influences outputs from socioecological studies (Dagnelie, 1998). In case a limited number of individuals have knowledge on the subject, the sample size is often estimated by sampling as much as possible, a representative number (Gaoue & Ticktin, 2009; Palomo et al., 2013; Ricaurte et al., 2017). In this study, a preliminary stakeholder interview with the Biosphere Reserve managers and local authorities revealed six occupational groups of informants that have knowledge on ES and trends in their supply. The interviewees were identified following authorization of the Reserve managers and local authorities. In total, 112 informants (88% men and 12% women) were selected through nonproportional quota sampling (Cast et al., 2008; Raymond et al., 2009): Reserve administrators (10.8%), eco-rangers (9.9%), nontimber forest products (NTFP) processors (10.8%), tourism guides (14.3%), para-ecologists (13.4%) and local professional hunters (41.1%). The skew in the percentage of men versus woman interviewees was due to the professional categories in consideration; less women (as compared with men) generally work as eco-rangers, reserve administrators, tourism guides, para-ecologists and professional hunters. The focus on local people and Reserve managers that have long term experience in the Biosphere Reserve as informants was to make findings more relevant and accurate.

For the interview, a questionnaire was designed and administered to each respondent separately. The data collection took place from June to October 2017, with support from local guides. Each interviewee was presented with a list of the ES and related benefits derived from the Biosphere Reserve, and rated them from the most important to the least important. The trends in ES supply (decreased, increased, and constant) and the nature of the impacts (positive, negative impact, and not clear) of elephants on each ES as perceived by interviewees was recorded.

To assess the economic importance of threatened ESs, six products derived from ES were identified and recognized as of high economic importance for local people. They include shea butter (a butter from Vitellaria paradoxa fruit), tamarind ball (Tamarindus indica fruits’ balls), Balanites oil (oil produced from Balanites aegyptiaca seed), Parkia mustard (Parkia biglobosa fruits’ mustard), Detarium powder (Detarium microcarpum fruits’ powder), and artwork (Table 1). According to interviewees, these ES benefits were affected by elephants’ damages. We therefore collected from 12 Nontimber Forest Products processors, information on the amount of each Nontimber Forest Products transformed per year, the quantity of raw materials, the price of each ES benefits on the local market, the transport and workforce cost. To determine elephants’ damages related economic losses, we collectedinformation on the amount of cropping systems affected, the expected yield, and the corresponding income from victim households. A total of 32 victim households were interviewed using semistructured interviews. The expected yield per hectare of each ES was determined, based on the area covered by the field crops being affected, as well as the average yield of the same crop provided by farmers whose field crops were not affected in the same locality and over the same period of elephants’ damages.

Table 1.

Perceived Benefits of Five Important Ecosystem Services in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve.

Ecosystem services	Benefits	Description	Type of damage
Shea nut	Shea butter	Fat extracted from Vittelaria paradoxa dried walnuts	break of trees and branches
Tamarind fruit	Tamarind balls	Traditional balls obtained from the Tamarind pulp	break of trees and branches
Balanites aegyptiaca seeds	Balanites oil	Vegetable oil extracted from Balanites aegyptiaca seeds	break of trees and branches
Parkia biglobosa seeds	Parkia mustard	Product obtained by processing the pods of the dry grains of tree	break of trees and branches
Detarium microcarpum fruits	Detarium powder	Dry powder obtained after rapping endocarp of dry seeds	break of trees and branches
Diverse hardwood trees and Raphia sudanica palm	Artwork	Animals handcrafts and key ring, chairs and tables made from Raphia sudanica	break of trees and branches

Data Analysis

Social importance of ES has largely been assessed through stakeholders’ perception (Grilli et al., 2015; Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014; Mensah, Veldtman, Assogbadjo, et al., 2017; Palomo et al., 2013; Ricaurte et al., 2017). Likert-type scale and scoring approach has been adopted by these authors to identify the most important ES delivered by ecosystem (Palomo et al., 2013; Ricaurte et al., 2017). Here, we used the scoring method (Martín-López et al., 2012), and assessed riparian communities and Reserve managers perceived importance of ES category by constructing a data matrix for ES scores given by the interviewees. An importance value index of the categories of ES was calculated afterward using the equation later (Equation 1, adapted from Ricaurte et al., 2017).

{Iimp}_{ESc} = \frac{\sum_{ES i = 1}^{n} mean score ES i}{n}

(1)

where

{Iimp}_{ESc}

is index of importance of ES category (ESc), ESi is the ith ES of a given ES category and n is the number of ES cited per category. The ESc with the highest

Iimp

value was therefore considered as the most important (Mensah, Veldtman, Assogbadjo, et al., 2017). Due to the nature of the response variable (rank), we tested for significant differences in

Iimp

values among ES categories using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test.

We next evaluated the perceived impact of elephants’ presence on ES supply. Specifically, we assessed the local perception of the level of impacts of elephants by computing for each ES category, the potential impact index (Equation 2, adapted from Ricaurte et al., 2017):

{IPImp}_{ESc} = \sum_{ES = 1}^{n} \frac{Mean impact score on ES i}{n}

(2)

where

{IPImp}_{SEc}

is index of potential impact on ESc. The perceived impact was computed separately for positive and negative impacts of elephant damages.

{IPImp}_{SEc}

is always positive, but we added negative signs to values for negative effect of each driver. The ESc with the high

IPImp

was considered as the most threatened. Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to compare among ES categories the perceived impact of elephants’ damages. Following a previous approach in participatory assessment of trends in ES supply over time with regard to environmental drivers (Palomo et al., 2013), we also assessed the nature of the impacts (positive, negative impact, and not clear) of elephants on each ES, as well as the trends in ES supply (decreased, increased, and constant) as perceived by interviewees. For each ES, we computed the relative frequency of citation for each category of trend and nature of impacts. Then, the category of trends and the nature of the impacts which received the high score were used to characterize the trend and the nature of impacts of elephant on the targeted ES.

To assess the economic importance of threatened ESs, gross annual income and profits from shea butter, tamarind balls, Balanites oil, Parkia mustard, Detarium powder, and artwork were computed using the following equations (Bublot, 1965):

\begin{array}{l} Gross annual income = Gross production \\ - Cost of items paid from production \end{array}

(3)

\begin{array}{l} Profit = Gross annual income \\ - estimated cost of nonpaid \\ items used for production \end{array}

(4)

Both gross annual income and profits were compared using an analysis of variance to determine which products mostly contribute to community well-being.

Finally, we estimated the economic losses due to elephants’ negative impacts on crops and shea butter trees grown by farmers. For each crop, the annual size of farm negatively affected, the corresponding annual yield and income were computed for victim households over last 5 years. Analysis of variance and multiple comparison tests were performed to compare for each crop, the cultivated land sizes and corresponding yields to analyze the severity of damages per crop. The income losses per crop were compared using Kruskal–Wallis test as the data did not meet both normal distribution and homoscedasticity assumptions.

Results

Perceived Importance of ES in Pendjari Biosphere Reserve

Overall, the three ES categories (provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural), as defined by the CICES, were recognized by local populations and reserve managers (Figure 2). There was no significant difference in the importance value among ES categories (χ² = 0.679; p = .712; Figure 2). The mean importance values were 4.16 ± 0.96, 3.88 ± 1.36, and 3.54 ± 1.08, respectively, for provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural ES. Provisioning ES category had the highest number of services (13), followed by cultural ES category (12) and regulating and maintenance ES category (Figure 2). Among the provisioning ES, edible fruits were the most important, followed by fish, firewood, and timber, while fodder was perceived as the least important (Figure 2(a)). Job was perceived as most important among cultural ES, followed by sport hunting, nature tourism, development projects facilities, while artwork was considered as the least important globally (Figure 2(b)). For the regulating and maintenance ES category, habitat was perceived as more important than climate regulation (Figure 2(c)).

Figure 2.

Perceived importance of ecosystem services of Pendjari Biosphere Reserve. The Common International Classiﬁcation for Ecosystem Services (CICES) was adopted for categorization of ES (χ² = 0.679; p = .712).

Perceived Impact of Elephants on ES

All participants reported increased elephants’ pressure over last three decades. The perceived potential impacts of elephants on each ES category are summarized in Figure 3. For absolute value of the indices, there were significant differences of elephant’s impacts among the three ES categories (χ² = 0.482, p < .05; Figure 3). The highest and positive elephant’s impact was observed for cultural services (66.11), followed by negative impact on regulating and maintenance (54.5), and provisioning ES (39.43).

Figure 3.

Perceived impact of elephants on ES categories in Pendjari Biosphere Reserve; Provisioning = Provisioning ES, Regulating and maintenance = Regulating and maintenance ES and Cultural = Cultural ES (χ² = 0.482, p < .05).

While analyzing the direction of elephants’ impacts on specific ES, we found negative effects on the supply of regulating and maintenance, and provisioning ESs except for supply of firewood, roofing grasses, and fodder (Table 2). Analysis of current supply trends revealed that edible fruits, fish, timber, animals’ outputs, as well as regulating and maintenance ES are decreasing in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve (Table 2).

Table 2.

Nature of the Effects of Elephants’ Impacts on Ecosystem Services in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve.

Note. + = positive impact; − = negative impact of the driver; * = not clear; red arrow = decrease of ES supply; gray arrow = no change in ES supply; green arrow = increasing supply of ES; ES = ecosystem services.

For cultural ESs, elephants’ presence influenced positively nature tourism, environmental education, scientific knowledge, artwork, spiritual or sacred, and cultural union but negatively affected aesthetic beauty of landscape.

Economic Value and Monetary Losses of ES Benefits Threatened by Elephants

The results of analysis of variance on gross annual income and profit made from production and sale of the six benefits (shea butter, tamarind balls, Balanites oil, Parkia mustard, Detarium powder, and artwork) revealed significant difference (F value = 2.081, p < .005) (Table 3). Artwork provided the highest profit per year (on average $2,497.11/year), followed by shea butter ($158.56/year), Balanites oil ($75.03/year), and Parkia mustard ($60.50/year) (Table 3). Tamarind balls and Detarium powder provided the lowest gross annual income and profit.

Table 3.

Gross Annual Income and Profit of Benefits From the Most Important Ecosystem Services Threatened for Riparian.

ES benefits	Gross annual income ($)		Profit ($)
ES benefits	Mean	CV (%)	Mean	CV (%)
Artwork	2,675.47	28.28	2,497.11	28.28
Shea butter	163.91	129.54	158.56	128.53
Balanites oil	76.36	100.32	75.03	100.20
Tamarind balls	53.51	60.09	53.21	60.67
Parkia mustard	61.09	150.19	60.50	149.36
Detarium powder	29.43	81.42	22.30	84.85
Probability	0.010	—	0.009	—

Note. CV = coefficient of variation.

Most affected crops per victim household were rice (1,866.66 kg/ha/year), maize (1,587.75 kg/ha/year), yam (1,600 kg/ha/year), cotton (1,000 kg/ha/year), and sorghum (705.71 kg/ha/year) (Table 3). Shea nuts are also affected up to an average of 491.66 kg of loss per hectare and per year. The average cost of losses varied between $174.80 and $586.05 per year and per victim household, respectively, for yam and sorghum (Table 4).

Table 4.

Annual Losses of Crops Per Household Due Elephants’ Damages.

	Cultivated area (ha/year)		Yield (kg/ha/year)		loss ($)
	Mean	CV (%)	Mean	CV (%)	Mean	CV (%)
Cotton	1.60^ab	68.64	1,000^bc	68.643	463.75	85.36
Yam	1.16^ab	184.78	1,600^ab	184.775	174.80	61.39
Shea	2.00^a	0.00	491.66^d	22.93	279.44	22.42
Corn	1.57^ab	119.66	1,587.75^ab	119.65	354.00	127.58
Rice	0.25^b	58.77	1,866.66^a	32.73	175.39	22.93
Sorghum	1.54^ab	104.84	705.71^c	63.51	586.05	116.43
Probability	0.039	–	0.000	–	0.144	–

Note. CV = coefficient of variation. Mean in each column with same letters are not significantly different.

Discussion

The Pendjari Biosphere Reserve provides important ES to local population and international tourists and research industry. These include provisioning ES (13), regulating and maintenance ES (02), and cultural ES (12) (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2013; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), following CICES classification (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2013).

Perceived importance values were 4.16 ± 0.96, 3.88 ± 1.36, and 3.54 ± 1.08, respectively, for provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural ES, indicating that the three categories were perceived as almost important by participants. Indeed, interviewees were mainly local people and reserve managers’ representatives with long experience on use and management of ES provided by the reserve. Thus, their perception on ES is indicative of the potential of the Biosphere Reserve for ES supply. Contrary to previous studies that revealed that provisioning and regulating and maintenance ES are the most important in natural stands (Gallo & Rodriguez, 2010; Mwakaje, 2009; Ricaurte et al., 2017), riparian people and reserve managers’ representatives of Pendjari Biosphere Reserve indicated that local communities benefit from each ES category and differences may be among individual ES. Further analyses indicated that edible fruits were the most important, followed by fishes, firewood, timber, medicinal plants, and cultivated crops. Consistently, participants indicated that wild edible fruits contribute to human diet and household income. For example, seeds from fruits of the Balanites aegyptiaca are processed by local people to make oil for domestic and commercial purposes. Freshwaters are located in the Biosphere Reserve, and therefore are also protected from overexploitation, according to interviewees. However, every 2 years, local people are granted permission to fish in some surrounding ponds to supplement their diet.

Among cultural ES, job facilities were perceived as the most important, followed by sport hunting, nature tourism. The Biosphere Reserve provides considerable job opportunities. Most of the rangers, local guides, and reserve managers are drawn from locally available workforce. On annual basis, venison and other products from sport hunting, as well as 30% of nature tourism gross incomes are distributed among neighboring villages. Artwork was not perceived as important probably because it is a specific income generating activity for craftsmen, and local people not involved in the woodwork would probably underestimate its contribution to household income. Woodworking has been shown to be a source of income, employment and rural development (Lähtinen, 2007), and the discussion with craftsmen revealed that artwork is a high-income generating activity.

There are components in the ecosystems that sometimes limit the benefits and provide disservices to humans (Campagne et al., 2018; Kareiva, Watts, McDonald, & Boucher, 2007; Lyytimäki, Petersen, Normander, & Bezák, 2008). This study revealed that elephants’ presence in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve provides both ES and disservices for local and international communities. Elephants damages often turn woody habitats into herbaceous savannas (Dublin et al., 1990; Guldemond & van Aarde, 2008; Waithaka, 1993), affecting the ecosystem integrity and capacity to provide services (Ehrlich & Mooney, 1983). Elephants were reported to affect negatively the supply of regulating and maintenance services and most provisioning services. The indices of perceived potential negative impact of elephants’ damages were 39.43, 54.5, and 33.88, respectively, for provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural ES (Figure 3). While according to informants, habitat destruction due to elephants browsing has led to erosion of several areas within and outside the reserve, it should also be taken into account that tree fall and breakage caused by elephants make timber and firewood available for local people, fodder for livestock, roofing grasses for traditional house construction especially in the areas they have access to. On the other hand, elephants’ presence was perceived to enhance supply of 6 cultural ES out of the 12 that were enumerated (perceived positive impact equal to 66.11). According to interviewees, elephant presence and increase in the Biosphere Reserve have contributed to grow business around activities such as nature tourism, environmental education, scientific knowledge, artwork, spiritual services, and cultural union. The role of elephants and other big fauna in the nature tourism has been documented in recent studies. Wildlife tourism is a key component for local and national economies in developing countries (Arbieu, Grünewalda, Martín-López, Schleuninga, & Böhning-Gaesea, 2017; Balmford et al., 2015; Naidoo et al., 2011). African protected areas harbor a unique diversity of large mammal species that attract millions of local and international tourists each year (Arbieu et al., 2017; Balmford et al., 2015; Lindsey, Alexander, Mills, Romanach, & Woodroffe, 2007). For local people and Reserve managers, elephants and lions are key species of attraction for tourists during their visit to the Biosphere Reserve. These perceptions align with studies that showed that elephants are among the most desired of African wildlife species for tourist viewing (Di Minin, Fraser, Slotow, & MacMillan, 2013; Lindsey et al., 2007; Naidoo, Fisher, Manica, & Balmford, 2016). Participants further mentioned that elephants’ presence in specific place is sign of great spiritual importance of that place. This belief aligns with previous studies that showed presence of elephants in a given region is associated with power and royalty and used as clan totems and names (Twine & Magome, 2007).

The results of the economic value of benefits from threatened ES and losses due to elephants’ damages showed that benefits from ES contribute significantly to the well-being of populations. Artwork, shea butter, tamarind balls, Balanites oil, Parkia mustard, and Detarium powder were found to be important sources of income for local populations. There were significant differences in the gross annual income among ES benefits. Artworks provided the highest profit per year to local population, followed by shea butter, Balanites oil, and Parkia mustard. These results indicate the financial contribution of benefits from ESs to the communities’ household income (Assogbadjo et al., 2012; Boffa, 1999; Sinare & Gordon, 2015). These products are often used for domestic purpose (health care and foods) but are also marketable commodities that generate income for pupils tuitions fees and other local businesses. However, increased density of elephants negatively affects some of these benefits. Our results showed that the average cost of losses due to impact of elephants, varied between $174.80 and $586.05 per year per victim household, respectively, for yam and sorghum. However, the contribution of the Biosphere Reserve to local development through job creation, local trade, cultural union, and sharing of revenue from tourism (30% of total tourism income) for improvement of facilities in the villages under direction of eco-development committee’s administration makes it possible for local people to sustain elephants’ damages, due to trade-offs between gains and losses. The contribution of protected areas to socioeconomic development of surrounding communities has been addressed in other countries. For example, Sinha, Qureshi, Uniyal, and Sen (2012) found out that wildlife tourism contributed considerably to enhanced communities livelihoods in Kanha tiger Reserve in India. Given the current state of elephants’ damages in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, further management policies must be taken to better manage elephants impacts on communities’ livelihoods.

Implications for Conservation

As part of efforts to preserve diversity and sustainable supply of ES in the Biosphere Reserves while promoting local economic development of surrounding communities, this study assessed the perceived importance, economic value, and elephants’ effects on supply of a wide range of ESs in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve in West Africa. Twenty-seven ESs are perceived by local people and Reserve managers as the most important. Differences were, however, observed within each category of ES. Most of provisioning and regulating/maintenance ES are negatively affected by elephants’ disturbances. However, elephants’ presence in the Biosphere Reserve is positively correlated with supply of most cultural ESs. Artwork was perceived as least important by interviewees, although few craftsmen involved in the woodwork indicated that it contributes substantially to the annual income. Apart from artwork, other benefits such shea butter, Balanites oil and Parkia mustard are used for domestic purpose (health care, and foods), and as marketable commodities that generate income for local businesses.

The outputs of this study are relevant for management actions that sustain the supply of ES and facilitate coexistence between elephant and local populations. Due to the spatial context (proximity with agricultural fields) leading to increased negative elephants’ impacts, we suggest that remote or distant farms that are often exposed to elephant activities be protected or fenced with metallic barriers. However, because fencing agricultural fields that are too close to protected areas can be viewed as controversial practices in management of wildlife and human coexistence (Vanak, Thaker, & Slotow, 2010; Pekor et al., 2019), we suggest promotion of beekeeping and chili production activities on these farms. Keeping bees has been proven effective against crops raiding by elephants in Kenya (King, Lawrence, Douglas-Hamilton, & Vollrath, 2016). Honey bee hives can be, for example, placed close to the farms. Similarly, important bee plants can also be planted to attract and maintain honey bees (Mensah, Veldtman, & Seifert, 2017). The beekeeping activities will not only provide income to local people through honey production but also contribute to sustain pollinator diversity in the surrounding environments, thereby promoting delivery of pollination services to farms and fruit fields and trees. Another suggested action includes local production of chili pepper in the margin fields surrounding the Biosphere Reserve, not only for commercialization but also for coping with increasing presence of elephant populations in crops fields (Chang'a et al., 2016).

Finally, participative conservation should be promoted, and local communities taken into account in the sharing of the benefits and economic returns from touristic activities in the Reserve. Sharing of the economic returns will contribute not only to promote elephant conservation but also to offset the cost of managing negative interactions between elephants and riparian communities, for example, by supporting the fencing of vulnerable farming areas. We also recommend that future studies investigate climate change and elephants’ disturbances effects on the ES hotspots in the Biosphere Reserve, as well as the conservation status of the wild edible tree species in the reserve.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the participants including the former administration board of the Biosphere Reserve for logistical support and participation in this survey.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) received ﬁnancial support from Laboratory of Applied Ecology and Laboratory of Biomathematics and Forest Estimations of University of Abomey-Calavi.

References

Arbieu

Grünewalda

Martín-López

Schleuninga

Böhning-Gaesea

(2017). Mismatches between supply and demand in wildlife tourism: Insights for assessing cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 78, 282–291.

Asner

G. P.

Levick

S. R.

(2012). Landscape-scale effects of herbivores on tree fall in African savannas. Ecology Letters, 15, 1211–1217.

Assogbadjo

A. E.

Glèlè Kakaï

Vodouhê

F. G.

Djagoun

C. A. M. S.

Codjia

J. T. C.

Sinsin

(2012). Biodiversity and socioeconomic factors supporting farmers’ choice of wild edible trees in the agroforestry systems of Benin (West Africa). Forest Policy and Economics, 14(1), 41–49.

Atanasso

J. A.

Mensah

Azihou

A. F.

Djossa

B. A.

Glèlè Kakaï

Assogbadjo

A. E.

(2019). Heterospecific Tree density and environmental factors affect Afzelia africana Sm. population structure in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, West Africa: Implications for management and restoration. Tropical Conservation Science, 12, 1–12.

Azihou

A. F.

Glèlè Kakaï

Bellefontaine

Sinsin

(2013). Distribution of tree species along a gallery forest- savanna gradient: Patterns, overlaps and ecological thresholds. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 29, 25–37.

Balmford

Green

J. M. H.

Anderson

Beresford

Huang

Naidoo

, … Manica

(2015). Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biology, 13, e1002074.

Birkhofer

Diehl

Andersson

Ekroos

Früh-Müller

, Machnikowski, … Smith

H. G.

(2015). Ecosystem services-current challenges and opportunities for ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2, 1–12.

Boffa

J. M.

(1999). Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa (FAO Conservation Guide 34). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Bouché

Douglas-Hamilton

Wittemyer

Nianogo

A. J.

Doucet

J. L.

Lejeune

Vermeulen

(2011). Will elephants soon disappear from West African Savannahs? PLoS ONE, 6, e20619.

10.

Bouché

Frederick

Kohi

(2015). Inventaire aérien de l’écosystème W-Arly-Pendjari Juin 2015 [Aerial inventory of the W-Arly-Pendjari ecosystem-June 2015]. Final report, 64.

11.

Brodie

Post

Watson

Berger

(2012). Climate change intensiﬁcation of herbivore impacts on tree recruitment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 1366–1370.

12.

Bryan

B. A.

Raymond

C. M.

Crossman

N. D.

Macdonald

D. H.

(2010). Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 111–122.

13.

Bublot

(1965). L’Exploitation agricole, economie-gestion-analyse. Louvain, Belgium: Editions Nauwelaerts.

14.

Byrnes

J. E. K.

Gamfeldt

Isbell

Lefcheck

J. S.

Griffin

J. N.

Hector

, … Duffy

J. E.

(2014). Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: Challenges and solutions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 111–124.

15.

Campagne

C. S.

Roche

P. K.

Salles

J. M.

(2018). Looking into Pandora’s Box: Ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 30, 126–136.

16.

Cast

MacDonald

D. H.

Grandgirard

Kalivas

Strathearn

Sanderson

, … Frahm

(2008). South Australian Murray Darling Basin environmental values report. Adelaide, Australia: CSIRO. Retrieved from http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/2008/wfhc-MDB-Environmental-Values.pdf

17.

Centre National de Gestion des Reserves et Faunes. (2005). Parc National de la Pendjari, Bénin: Plan d’aménagement participatif et de Gestion 2004–2013 [Pendjari National Park, Benin: Participatory Management Plan 2004-2013]. Cotonou, Benin: CENAGREF/GTZ.

18.

Chang'a

Souza de

Muya

Keyyu

Mwakatobe

Malugu

, … Hahn

(2016). Scaling-up the use of chili fences for reducing human-elephant conflict across landscapes in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 9(2), 921–930.

19.

Chape

Harrison

Spalding

Lysenko

(2005). Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 360 (1454), 443–455.

20.

Cowling

R. M.

Egoh

Knight

A. T.

O’Farrell

P. J.

Reyers

Rouget

, … Wilhelm-Rechman

(2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105 (28), 9483–9488.

21.

Dagnelie

(1998). Statistiques théoriques et appliquées [Theoretical and applied statistics]. Paris, France: De Boeck & Larcier S. A.

22.

De Groot

R. S.

Brander

van der Ploeg

Costanza

Bernard

Braat

, … van Beukering

(2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50–61.

23.

Di Minin

Fraser

Slotow

MacMillan

D. C.

(2013). Understanding heterogeneous preference of tourists for big game species: Implications for conservation and management. Animal Conservation, 16, 249–258.

24.

Dossou-Yovo

H. O.

Vodouhe

F. G.

Sinsin

(2014). Assessment of the medicinal uses of plant species found on termitaria in the Pendjari biosphere reserve in Benin. Journal of Medicinal Plant Research, 8(8), 368–377.

25.

Dublin

H. T.

Sinclair

McGlade

(1990). Elephants and fire as causes of multiple stable states in the Serengeti-Mara Woodlands. Journal of Animal Ecology, 59, 1147–1164.

26.

Ehrlich

P. R.

Mooney

H. A.

(1983). Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience, 33(4), 248–254.

27.

Fagerholm

Käyhkӧ

Ndumbaro

Khamis

(2012). Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments-mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421–433.

28.

Field

C. R.

(1971). Elephant ecology in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 9, 99–123.

29.

Gallo

Rodriguez

(2010). Wetlands and Livelihoods in the Lower Basin of the RíoPaz. Wetlands International, Panamá.

30.

Gaoue

G. G.

Ticktin

(2009). Fulani knowledge of the ecological impacts of Khaya senegalensis (Meliaceae) foliage harvest in Benin and its implications for sustainable harvest. Economic Botany, 63(3), 256–270.

31.

Grilli

Nikodinoska

Paletto

De Meo

(2015). Stakeholders’ preferences and economic value of forest ecosystem services: An example in the Italian Alps. Baltic Forestry, 21(2), 298–307.

32.

Guldemond

van Aarde

(2008). A meta‐analysis of the impact of African elephants on savanna vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(4), 892–899.

33.

Haines-Young

R. H.

Potschin

M. B.

(2013). CICES V4.3 – Revised report prepared following consultation on CICES Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Report to the European Environment Agency

34.

Iniesta-Arandia

García-Llorente

Aguilera

P. A.

Montes

Martín-López

(2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: Uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecological Economics, 108, 36–48.

35.

International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2002). Evaluation of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the world heritage list (Report to the World Heritage Committee Twenty–Sixth Session 24–29 June 2002, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 9–17). Gland, Switzerland: Author.

36.

Jacobs

Burkhard

Van Daele

Staes

Schneiders

(2015). The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 295, 21–30.

37.

Kareiva

Watts

McDonald

Boucher

(2007). Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science, 316(5833), 1866–1869.

38.

Kassa

B. D.

Fandohan

Azihou

A. F.

Assogbadjo

E. A.

Oduor

A. M. O.

Kidjo

F. C.

, … Glele Kakai

(2014). Survey of Loxodonta africana (Elephantidae)-caused bark injury on Adansonia digitata (Malavaceae) within Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, Benin, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. African Journal of Ecology, 52(4), 385–394.

39.

Kiansi

(2011). Cogestion de la Réserve de Biosphère de la Pendjari: Approche concertée pour la conservation de la biodiversité et le développement économique local (Thèse de Doctorat Unique) Co-management of the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve: A Concerted Approach for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Local Economic Development (Doctoral Dissertation). Université d’Abomey-Calavi, Benin.

40.

King

L. E.

Lawrence

Douglas-Hamilton

Vollrath

(2009). Beehive fence deters crop-raiding elephants. African Journal of Ecology, 47, 131–137.

41.

Lähtinen

(2007). Linking resource-based view with business economics of woodworking industry: Earlier findings and future insights. Silva Fennica, 41(1), 149–165.

42.

Lindsey

P. A.

Alexander

Mills

M. G. L.

Romanach

Woodroffe

(2007). Wildlife viewing preferences of visitors to protected areas in South Africa: Implications for the role of ecotourism in conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6, 19–33.

43.

Lyytimäki

Petersen

L. K.

Normander

Bezák

(2008). Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environmental Sciences, 5(3), 161–172.

44.

Mace

G. M.

Norris

Fitter

A. H.

(2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 19–26.

45.

Martin

T. E.

(2007). Climate correlates of 20 years of trophic changes in a high-/elevation riparian system. Ecology, 88(2), 367–380.

46.

Martín-López

Iniesta-Arandia

García-Llorente

Palomo

Casado-Arzuaga

García Del Amo

, … Montes

(2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7(6), 38970.

47.

Maseyk

F. J. F.

Mackay

A. D.

Possingham

H. P.

Dominati

E. J.

Buckley

Y. M.

(2017). Managing natural capital stocks for the provision of ecosystem services. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 211–220.

48.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

49.

Mensah

Houéhanou

D. T.

Assogbadjo

A. E.

Anyomi

Ouedraogo

Glèlè Kakaï

(2016). Latitudinal variation in the woody species diversity of Afzelia africana Sm. habitats in West Africa. Tropical Ecology, 57(4), 717–726.

50.

Mensah

Veldtman

Assogbadjo

A. E.

Ham

Glèlè Kakaï

Seifert

(2017). Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: A case study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa. Ecosystem Services, 23, 1–8.

51.

Mensah

Veldtman

Seifert

(2017). Potential supply of floral resources to managed honey bees in natural mistbelt forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 189, 160–167.

52.

Mondol

Moltke

Hart

Keigwin

Brown

Stephens

Wasser

S. K.

(2015). New evidence for hybrid zones of forest and savanna elephants in Central and West Africa. Molecular Ecology, 24(24), 6134–6147.

53.

Muiruri

E. W.

Milligan

H. T.

Morath

Koricheva

(2015). Moose browsing alters tree diversity effects on birch growth and insect herbivory. Functional Ecology, 29(5), 724–735.

54.

Mwakaje

A. G.

(2009). Wetlands, livelihoods and sustainability in Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, 47, 179–184.

55.

Naidoo

Stuart-Hill

Weaver

L. C.

Tagg

Davis

Davidson

(2011). Effect of diversity of large wildlife species on ﬁnancial beneﬁts to local communities in Northwest Namibia. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(2), 321–335.

56.

Naidoo

Fisher

Manica

Balmford

(2016). Estimating economic losses to tourism in Africa from the illegal killing of elephants. Nature Communications, 7, 13379–13310.

57.

Ochoa

Urbina-Cardona

(2017). Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reﬂections and future challenges. Ecosystem Services, 26, 155–169.

58.

Paletto

Giacovelli

Grilli

Balest

De Meo

(2014). Stakeholders’ preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: A comparative analysis in Italy. Journal of Forest Science, 60(11), 472–483.

59.

Palomo

Martín-López

Potschin

Haines-Young

Montes

(2013). National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service ﬂows. Ecosystem Services, 4, 104–116.

60.

Palomo

Martín-López

Zorrilla-Miras

García Del Am

Montes

(2014). Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Donãna National Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Regional Environmental Change, 4(1), 14237.

61.

Pekor

Miller

J. R. B.

Flyman

M. V.

Kasiki

Kesch

M. K.

Miller

S. M.

, … Lindsey

P. A.

(2019). Fencing Africa's protected areas: Costs, beneﬁts, and management issues. Biological Conservation, 229, 67–75.

62.

Pelicice

F. M.

(2019). Weak democracies, failed policies, and the demise of ecosystems in poor and developing nations. Tropical Conservation Science, 12, 1–9.

63.

Pereira

H. M.

Reyers

Watanabe

Bohensky

Foale

Palm

, … Gomes

(2005). Condition and trends of ecosystem services and biodiversity. In Capistrano

Samper

Lee

M. J.

Raudsepp-Hearne

(Eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being: Multi scale assessments (pp. 171–203). Washington, DC: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

64.

Raymond

C. M.

Bryan

B. A.

MacDonald

D. H.

Cast

Strathearn

Grandgirard

Kalivas

(2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68, 1301–1315.

65.

Recensement Général de la Population et de l’Habitation 4. (2015). Quatrième Recensement Général de la Population et de l’Habitation au Bénin [Fourth General Census of Population and Housing in Benin]. Cotonou, République du Bénin: Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Economique, direction des études démographiques.

66.

Ricaurte

L. F.

Olaya-Rodriguez

M. H.

Cepeda-Valencia

Lara

Arroyave-Suarez

Finlayson

C. M.

Palomo

(2017). Future impacts of drivers of change on wetland ecosystem services in colombia. Global Environmental Change, 44, 156–169.

67.

Salako

V. K.

Azihou

A. F.

Assogbadjo

A. E.

Houehanou

T. D.

Kassa

B. D.

Glèlè Kakaï

R. L.

(2015). Elephant-induced damage drives spatial isolation of thendioecious palm Borassus aethiopum Mart. (Arecaceae) in the Pendjari National Park. Benin. African Journal of Ecology, 54, 9–19.

68.

Shackleton

C. M.

Ruwanza

Sinasson Sanni

G. K.

Bennett

De Lacy

Modipa

, … Thondhlana

(2016). Unpacking Pandora’s box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems, 19(4), 587–600.

69.

Schägner

J. P.

Brander

Maes

Hartje

(2013). Mapping ecosystem services’ values: Current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services, 4, 33–46.

70.

Schmitz

O. J.

Post

Burns

C. E.

Johnston

K. M.

(2003). Ecosystem responses to global climate change: Moving beyond color mapping. Bioscience, 53, 1199–1205.

71.

Sieber

(2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507.

72.

Sinare

Gordon

L. J.

(2015). Ecosystem services from woody vegetation on agricultural lands in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 186–199.

73.

Sinha

B. C.

Qureshi

Uniyal

V. K.

Sen

(2012). Economics of wildlife tourism-contribution to livelihoods of communities around Kanha tiger reserve, India. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(3), 207–218.

74.

Sinsin

Tehou

A. C.

Daouda

Saidou

(2002). Abundance and species richness of larger mammals in Pendjari National Park in Benin. Mammalia, 66, 369–380.

75.

Smith

A. C.

Harrison

P. A.

Pérez Soba

Archaux

Blicharska

Egoh

B. N.

, … Wyllie de Echeverria

(2017). How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 26, 111–126.

76.

Sokpon

Biaou

H. S.

Gaoue

O. G.

Hunhyet

O. K.

Ouinsavi

Barbier

(2001). Inventaire et caractérisation des formations végétales du parc national de la Pendjari, Zones cynégétiques de la Pendjari et de l’Atacora (Region de Konkombri) [Inventory and characterization of vegetation in the Pendjari National Park, Pendjari and Atacora Hunting Zones]. Godomey, République du Benin: Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey Calavi.

77.

Tallis

Polasky

(2009). Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162, 265–283.

78.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations, London. Washington DC: Earthscan.

79.

Twine

Magome

(2007). Interactions between elephants and people. In Scholes

R. J.

Mennel

K. G.

(Eds.), Elephant management: A scientific assessment of South Africa (pp. 206–240). Johannesburg, South Africa: Witwatersrand University Press.

80.

Vanak

A. T.

Thaker

Slotow

(2010). Do fences create an edge-eﬀect on the movement patterns of a highly mobile mega-herbivore? Biological Conservation, 143, 2631–2637.

81.

Vodouhê

F. G.

Coulibaly

Adégbidi

Sinsin

(2010). Community perception of biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin. Forest Policy Economics, 12, 505–512.

82.

Waithaka

J. M.

(1993). The impact of elephant density on biodiversity in different eco-climatic zones in Kenya. Pachyderm, 16, 86–87.

83.

White

(1983). The vegetation of Africa, a descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO. UNESCO, Natural Resources Research, 20, 1–356.