Survey study reveals strong support for elephant reintroduction driven by moral and cultural values, highlighting the need to address shifted baselines and coexistence risks.
Successful species conservation requires balancing ecological feasibility with social acceptability, especially when reintroducing large species that interact with humans. Stakeholder values, beliefs, and perceptions are critical in shaping support for conservation initiatives and, ultimately, their long-term success. Using the functionally extinct Knysna elephant population in South Africa as a case study, we examine how stakeholders conceptualise elephant persistence. We conducted a targeted survey to assess stakeholders’ values, beliefs, and perceptions, analysing how these factors influenced their expectations for management – particularly their attitudes toward potential elephant reintroduction. Support for reintroduction was primarily driven by ecological, cultural, and moral values, with economic considerations playing a lesser role. However, value conflicts emerged, as opposition to reintroduction was often rooted in moral concerns about elephant welfare and perceived habitat unsuitability. While respondents predominantly supported elephant reintroduction, a shifted baseline emerged, underlain by limited experience with elephants in the landscape and a resulting low awareness of potential risks and coexistence trade-offs, particularly among those closest to the elephant range. These findings highlight the necessity of integrating ecological and social feasibility assessments early in the decision-making process, before committing to reintroduction. Engaging affected communities is crucial to ensuring that those potentially directly impacted by reintroduction are part of an informed, inclusive discussion. Engagements must also address shifted baselines, helping communities recalibrate expectations and understand coexistence realities. These critical insights for conservation planning highlight the need for transparent engagement and collaborative decision-making when evaluating species reintroductions in human-modified landscapes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moolman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: