article · Ecosystems and People
This research examines stakeholder perceptions regarding the potential reintroduction of the functionally extinct Knysna elephant population in South Africa. Using a targeted survey, the study analysed how individual values and beliefs shaped conservation expectations. The majority of respondents supported reintroducing elephants, motivated primarily by ecological, cultural, and moral values, whilst economic factors held less influence. Nevertheless, conflicts surfaced among opponents who raised moral concerns regarding animal welfare and habitat suitability. The findings also revealed a shifted baseline, where stakeholders, particularly those residing closest to the elephant range, showed low awareness of coexistence trade-offs and risks due to limited lived experience with elephants. Consequently, conservation strategies must combine social feasibility assessments with ecological evaluations early in the planning process, using inclusive engagement to recalibrate community expectations.
Reintroducing large wildlife into inhabited landscapes requires strong community backing alongside ecological viability. When local populations have lived without a species for generations, their expectations may not align with the practical demands of coexistence. Early assessment of public attitudes helps conservation managers anticipate welfare concerns, prevent human-wildlife conflict, and guide transparent discussions before committing resources to reintroduction programmes.
This research offers an applied social framework for conservation authorities, protected area managers, and environmental policy planners evaluating species reintroduction initiatives. While not a commercial product, the methodology informs decision-support protocols and structured stakeholder engagement programmes. It is an applied planning approach ready for immediate adoption by wildlife management bodies operating in human-modified landscapes.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
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.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2026.2709848
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
