Next Article in Journal
Diversity in Burned Pinyon–Juniper Woodlands Across Fire and Soil Parent Material Gradients
Previous Article in Journal
Microbial Communities in Permafrost, Moraine and Deschampsia antarctica Rhizosphere Soils near Ecology Glacier (King George Island, Maritime Antarctic)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Common Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) Spatiotemporal Changes Based on Hunting Bag Data in Hungary
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 2
10.3390/d17020087
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Wildlife Fences to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Africa: A Literature Analysis

by
Jocelyn Weyala Burudi
1,2,3,*,
Eszter Tormáné Kovács
2 and
Krisztián Katona
3,*
1
Doctoral School of Environmental Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly Str. 1, H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
2
Department of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management, Institute for Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly Str. 1, H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
3
Department of Wildlife Biology and Management, Institute for Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly Str. 1, H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(2), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17020087
Submission received: 20 December 2024 / Revised: 16 January 2025 / Accepted: 22 January 2025 / Published: 25 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Wildlife Conflict across Landscapes—Second Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The deployment of wildlife fences in Africa serves as a crucial intervention to balance wildlife conservation with human safety and agricultural productivity. This review synthesizes current research and case studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of the implications, benefits, and drawbacks of wildlife fencing in Africa. Information was drawn from 54 articles selected through a thorough search of the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Results indicate that the primary reason for fencing was the mitigation of human–wildlife conflicts. Electric fences were the most commonly mentioned type, prominently used to protect agricultural lands from crop-raiding species. In addition, the prevention of livestock depredation and disease transmission was also an important driver for fencing. Elephants were the most studied species concerning wildlife fencing, and they caused the most damage to fences, creating pathways for other species to move beyond protected areas. Antelopes and large carnivores were also common targets for wildlife fences. Fences were found to be effective mainly against crop raiding particularly when well-maintained through frequent inspections for damages and permeability. Several authors documented challenges in fencing against primates, burrowers, and high-jumping species like leopards. The cost of fences varied depending on the materials, design, and maintenance, significantly impacting local communities near conservation areas. Despite their benefits, wildlife fences posed ecological challenges, such as habitat fragmentation and restricted animal movement, necessitating integrated management approaches that include wildlife corridors and crossing structures. This review provides insights for policymakers and conservationists to optimize the use of fences in the diverse environmental contexts of the African continent.

1. Introduction

Wildlife fences are used globally for various purposes, focusing primarily on mitigating human–wildlife conflicts, protecting agricultural lands, conserving wildlife [1,2], and ensuring road safety [3,4]. The specifics of their use can vary depending on regional wildlife and environmental conditions.
In Europe, fences have been used to prevent wildlife from entering the roadways, thus reducing the rate of road kills caused by motor collisions [5,6]. Farmers commonly use fences to protect agricultural lands from ungulates, such as deer and wild boar, to mitigate the negative impacts these animals can have on cultivated crops [7]. Farmers and livestock owners also use fences to protect livestock from carnivore attacks [8]. Furthermore, fences are used for the promotion of regeneration of forest areas and in conservation and habitat management [9].
Similar uses of wildlife fences have been recorded in America. Additionally, conservationists on the continent use the fences to protect and manage wildlife corridors that facilitate the free movement of wildlife species [10].
In Antarctica, the application of wildlife fencing is limited due to the unique environmental and regulatory context of the continent. Fencing has been primarily implemented around research stations [11].
In Asia, wildlife fences are widely used to prevent dangerous interactions between humans and large mammals such as elephants, tigers, and leopards. In countries like India and Sri Lanka, electric fences are commonly deployed to keep elephants out of agricultural areas and human settlements, significantly reducing incidents of crop raiding and property damage [12].
Similar to the other continents, fences in Australia have been used to keep animals such as kangaroos, wombats, and feral species away from urban areas and human habitats [13]. This helps reduce the risk of dangerous encounters and property damage. The Australian Dingo Barrier Fence, spanning 5614 km, holds the title of the world’s longest environmental barrier. Built in the 1950s to prevent the local apex predator, the dingo, from preying on grazing sheep, it has now become a significant hurdle for ecological restoration efforts in Australia’s arid regions [14].
The United Nations projections report of 2001 showed that the African human population has been rising over the decades and is projected to double by 2050 [15]. The population increase has resulted in the need for more space for human settlements. The natural areas that have been homes to wildlife have been converted to human-dominated landscapes, which leads to increased interactions between humans and wildlife. In order for humans to protect themselves against human–wildlife conflicts, they came up with mitigation measures, specifically fencing. Just like in other continents, fences have been applied in different parts of Africa. For example, in the border countries of the southern part of Africa, it was established to aid in the containment of foot and mouth disease [16]. They have also been widely used in the management of protected areas in various parts of the continent. Their materials range from simple and affordable ones to sophisticated and more expensive types, depending on the targeted species that need to be managed [17].
On the African continent, which will be our main area of focus, fences are widely spread, especially in Southern and East Africa [17]. This review paper aims to discover the reasons, methods, effectiveness, and generated problems of the use of wildlife fences in Africa based on their appearances in the reviewed articles. Our main questions were: (1) What are the most frequently mentioned reasons for wildlife fencing in Africa? (2) Which types of fences are used for the mitigation of human–wildlife conflicts? (3) How effective are the different types of fences reported to be in mitigating human–wildlife conflicts? (4) Which are the most targeted species in the publications related to wildlife fencing? (5) Among these species, which ones are considered effectively controlled by the fences? (6) What are the major causes of damage to fences listed in the articles?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Publication Search Criteria

This systematic review complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [18]. A systematic search was conducted using the Web of Science and Scopus databases with the following search string: (fenc* OR enclos* OR excl* OR barrier*) AND (wildlife OR game OR ungulate OR elephant OR antelope OR carnivores OR predators) AND (Algeria OR Angola OR Benin OR Botswana OR Burkina Faso OR Burundi OR Cameroon OR Cape Verde OR Central African Republic OR Chad OR Comoros OR Congo OR Côte d’Ivoire OR Djibouti OR Ethiopia OR Eritrea OR Gabon OR Gambia OR Ghana OR Guinea-Bissau OR Guinea OR Kenya OR Lesotho OR Liberia OR Libya OR Madagascar OR Malawi OR Mali OR Mauritania OR Mauritius OR Morocco OR Mozambique OR Namibia OR Niger OR Nigeria OR Rwanda OR Senegal OR Seychelles OR Sierra Leone OR Somalia OR São Tomé and Príncipe OR South Africa OR Sudan OR Tanzania OR Eswatini OR Togo OR Tunisia OR Uganda OR Zambia OR Zimbabwe).
The species selected for the search were defined on the one hand by prior local knowledge of the first author (J.W.B.) living on the continent regarding human–wildlife conflicts in Africa [19]. On the other hand, we also used some relevant review publications [20,21,22] as guidance to cover, by specific or more general taxonomic keywords, the most important conflict species whose effects can be controlled by fencing. The countries included in the search string were selected based on a preliminary search using Google, which confirmed the presence of wildlife in fenced protected areas and in the community areas around these regions of Africa. The search targeted titles, keywords, and abstracts in the selected databases. Eligible articles were required to be full-text, peer-reviewed publications in English, with a specific focus on wildlife fencing in Africa.
A comprehensive literature search identified 1202 scientific articles published from 1993 onward. The final systematic search was completed on 4 November 2024.
Further screening was carried out on the highlighted articles to check for duplicates and their relevance. The referencing software Zotero (version 6.0.36) was utilized to filter out unnecessary studies and find all the pertinent research that examined fencing. First, duplicate sources obtained from both databases were identified, and replications were removed. Next, the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the remaining articles underwent screening, in that order. The non-relevant papers were excluded, and a final list of included articles was created (Figure 1).

2.2. Data Extraction and Analysis

We collected information about the place and year of the study to obtain a spatiotemporal representation of the articles. From the selected set of articles, we extracted information related to our questions. We looked at the main reasons for the use of the specific fences, the types of fences used, and their effectiveness in the mitigation of wildlife-related conflicts. We identified the species that were mainly targeted by the fences. Furthermore, we extracted information on the effectiveness of fences in controlling the targeted species. We also reviewed fence permeability, the reasons for permeability, and the damages caused to fences based on the different types of materials and fence designs. Our study also scanned for information on the cost of setting up fences, their maintenance, and the advantages and disadvantages of fencing. The frequency of mentioning different types of information for the same question was calculated based on the total number of articles reviewed. For some questions, multiple answers were provided in the same articles, as in the case of the reasons for fencing or the types of fences. These will be indicated in the presentation of the results.

3. Results

3.1. Temporal and Spatial Representation of Publications

Our literature search results show that more studies on the use of wildlife fences in Africa have been carried out in recent years (2015–2023) compared to the previous years (1995–2014) (Figure 2).
The highest percentage of publications was from East Africa (57%), followed by South Africa (39%). West and Central Africa recorded the least number of articles (2% for both), while no publications were found from North Africa (Figure 3).

3.2. Reasons for Fencing

Various reasons for fencing were mentioned in the studies, some of which were directly related to human–wildlife conflicts, while others were reasons beyond this issue but important to mention due to their strong connection to wildlife management and the conflicts associated with it (Figure 4). According to our analysis, the main reason for fencing was the need to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts related to primates, large ungulates, and carnivores, primarily due to their crop raiding or livestock depredation [23,24,25,26]. The articles showed that fences were commonly used to control human-elephant conflicts in Kenya and Tanzania. Elephants received more coverage from the authors as they are among the most problematic species in the region [27,28,29,30,31,32]. In the Southern part of Africa, i.e., in Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa, veterinary fences were widely used to prevent the transmission of zoonotic diseases from wildlife to livestock, as revealed by our results [33,34,35]. The rise in fencing was also driven by competition for shared natural resources, as farmers strive to protect pasture for their livestock [36]. Moreover, wildlife fences were often installed along roads and highways to stop animals from crossing, which helped prevent accidents. This was especially crucial in regions where roads pass through or are close to natural habitats [37,38].
Additionally, there are reasons for fencing not directly related to human–wildlife conflicts. Human population growth has led to the expansion of residential, agricultural, and industrial areas, which encroach on natural habitats. To protect both human interests and wildlife, fencing was frequently used. For example, the area around the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Narok, Kenya experienced a population influx as a result of land subdivision, leading to extensive fencing to protect human settlements from wildlife and keep wildlife within the reserve [36]. In East Africa, one of the major reasons for fencing is the need to mark boundaries [36,39] for both protected areas and human settlements, to protect biodiversity [40], especially endangered species such as rhinos [41], and to preserve fragile vegetation areas [42]. Wildlife ranches, especially in South Africa, were fenced as owners protected the wildlife for hunting purposes and prevented them from escaping [43].
It was also reported that some large tracts of community lands were fenced for the purpose of creating wildlife conservancies, which were used to protect wildlife and eventually attract tourists who contributed to revenues of local communities [36,40]. Pastoralists used fences to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change by managing grazing lands more effectively through controlled and rotational grazing, which prevented overgrazing and supported vegetation regeneration. Fences also helped secure water sources, protecting them from overuse and contamination, which was critical during droughts.

3.3. Types of Fences

According to our literature synthesis, electric fences were the most commonly reported type across the continent [24,44], as illustrated in Figure 5. High-voltage electric fences have been particularly effective for deterring large animals such as elephants and lions from encroaching on agricultural lands and human settlements [28]. Based on the literature, we further categorized electric fences into veterinary (used against disease transmission between livestock and wildlife), predator-proof (to prevent livestock depredation), and game fences (to keep large ungulates in the protected areas). However, in most instances, the specific subtype was not clearly defined.
These were preceded by non-electric physical barriers, which included mesh/chain link fences. Mesh/chain link fences, made from woven wire, seemed excellent for containing smaller wildlife [45] and preventing predators from accessing livestock [44]. Additionally, boundary fences made of simple post and barbed wire, being more traditional, were used to secure private boundaries while still managing the movement of larger herbivores like antelopes or African buffalo within game reserves [46]. Boundary fences were a special category that was used to restrict the large-scale flow of wildlife, established, e.g., along national borders [47] or around expansive agricultural lands. Live fences, such as hedges, offered a sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative [31]. These fences were composed of densely planted thorny bushes or trees, which acted as a barrier. While effective and aesthetically pleasing, they required significant time to grow and establish. Beehive [48] and chili fences [49] were specifically used to deter elephants from crop farms.

3.4. Effectiveness of Fences

Our review revealed that fences designed to prevent herbivores from causing crop destruction were frequently reported to be effective in more than half of the cases. However, those aimed at preventing livestock depredation, the spread of zoonotic diseases, and various unspecified conflicts were generally declared ineffective in managing these issues (Figure 6).
The proportion of articles that indicate that fences were effective was quite similar to the proportion of those stating that fences were non-effective in controlling human–wildlife conflicts, especially when it comes to large species like elephants and digging species such as warthogs and porcupines. Some articles mention that fences could be effective; however, their effectiveness is dependent on several factors such as maintenance, type of materials used, durability, and environmental factors [50,51,52]. A large number of the articles lacked any data regarding the effectiveness of fences.

3.5. The Most Targeted Species by Fencing

In the analyzed studies, the elephant (47% of mentions) was the most targeted herbivore for wildlife fencing [27,28,32,48], followed by different species of antelopes (27%), especially the eland and springbok [52]; the carnivores (21%) came last. The main carnivore species that were studied by most authors were hyenas, leopards, and lions [26,44].

3.6. Species That Are Uncontrolled by Fences

Our findings show that most of the wildlife species were able to escape through fences, with different types of antelopes recorded for the most frequent fugitives (20%), followed by the elephants (16%) [23,53]. The digging species, like hyenas, porcupines, and aardvarks, were also stated to be hardly controllable by the fences [54].
Furthermore, our results reveal that the majority of the fences were highly permeable, with only three publications indicating that the fences in their study areas had been impermeable to wildlife species [32,49,55]. Small mammals, birds, and hippopotamuses were also reported as difficult to fence in or out [55].

3.7. Damage Caused to Fences

Elephants received the most mentions for fence damage across the continent [23,27,28]. In some extreme cases, the wildlife managers were forced to detusk the elephants to stop them from constantly damaging the fences using their tusks [56]. More fence damage was associated with the digging species [54], human-induced cases [57], environmental calamities [35], and, at last, poor maintenance [25], respectively, as illustrated in Figure 7.

3.8. Cost and Maintenance of Fences

Information on the cost and expenses used in putting up fences was quite limited, with only 15 out of the 54 articles providing some information on this topic. Nine stated that fencing was costly [23,24,31,32,36,50,52,58,59], while six found it to be cost-effective [30,48,49,60,61,62], depending on the type of material used for its construction.

4. Discussion

Our findings are derived from studies on wildlife fencing in Africa, though these studies were not always designed to address the same questions we posed. Consequently, researchers’ interests and topic preferences can introduce bias in the overall representation. For instance, elephants, being a charismatic species with significant economic and conservation value, tended to receive more research attention. Similarly, electric fences were often studied more extensively because they were easier to analyze on a large scale, unlike wire mesh/chain link fences, which were generally examined at a smaller scale. Additionally, the selection of keywords could also have some influence on the list of publications found. For example, some species, like lions or hyenas, were not directly named in our search but merged as predators or carnivores. Similarly, it is possible that we could find some additional papers on primates. Nevertheless, we focused on those species groups that were known to be mainly controlled by fencing. Despite these biases, the articles still allowed us to present an overview of the key factors frequently mentioned in fence establishment and management.
Through our results, we observed that the main reason reported for fencing in Africa was to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts, especially those associated with large mammals such as elephants and carnivores. The other reasons were to prevent poaching, protect habitats and endangered species, as well as to mark boundaries. Fences were used to direct wildlife into culverts and prevent them from crossing roadways, which reduces road kills. Comparable findings in Europe show that fences were commonly placed along roads and urban boundaries to prevent wildlife, such as deer and wolves, from wandering onto roads and urban settlements and causing accidents [63].
Our findings show that electric fences were the most commonly mentioned fences around Africa. The reason behind this might be that they are able to control most of the species as they pass a painful wave of electric shock through the animals, which makes them retreat. Similar findings have been recorded in Asian countries, where electric fences are a common way of mitigating human–wildlife conflicts [64]. Our literature synthesis results also indicated the extensive use of beehive fences across the continent, especially in the management of elephants. This finding is further backed up by studies from Thailand [65,66].
Further results show that local farmers who border protected areas used barbed wires and chain link fences to mark boundaries and protect their property from external intruders, especially wildlife. These types of fences were combined with live fences to make them more effective. Similar results were recorded by [67], who noted that farmers in Colombia used live fences for the conservation of biodiversity and for their subsequent benefits in terms of aesthetics, forage, and provision for wood. However, in both areas, these fences were rarely used as they require time to grow to maturity and can be easily damaged [68].
Based on our results, the ratio of the cases when fencing was considered to be effective or non-effective was similar. Fences erected for the prevention of crop raids were found to be more useful compared to those aimed at managing livestock depredation. Their effectiveness was highly dependent on fence maintenance and environmental factors. The electric fences that had vegetation overgrowth beneath the wire strands seemed to fail to function because the current flow was disrupted by the vegetation. A study from Germany recorded similar results that indicate that vegetation overgrowth was a major cause of the poor functioning of electric fences [69]. Based on the reviewed studies, electric fences seemed to be the most effective in controlling human–wildlife conflicts in Africa since they were able to restrain most wildlife species. Similarly, electric fences were found to be the most effective in controlling human–wildlife conflicts in Europe. They were used to control livestock depredation by wolves and to mitigate crop damage by deer [68]. However, it was evident on both continents that it is mandatory for fences to be combined with other mitigation methods to ensure their effectiveness [70].
Our literature review revealed that elephants are the most studied species in relation to wildlife fences. The reason behind this might be that they cause the biggest economic impact on human properties in the form of crop damage. Similarly, Asian elephants were a principal target on the Asian continent. Other species considered were antelopes, as they were easily attracted to crop farms, and carnivores that were attracted to livestock as easy prey. Comparable to Africa, where antelopes prompted farmers to fence off areas to avoid crop damage, in Asia, another antelope species (the saiga) was a major focus species for fencing to prevent disease transmission to livestock [71]. We also noted that many farmers had to dig deeper and insert mesh into the ground to prevent digging species, such as porcupines, from accessing their homesteads. Digging species easily dug through fences, especially in areas near water points. Meanwhile, in other cases, one had to raise the wire above the average normal height to try to deter carnivores such as leopards. Related observations were recorded in Saxony, Germany, where wolves were deterred from jumping over fences by increasing the initial height of the fence by 20–30 cm [72].
Our findings uncovered that fence damage in Africa was many times attributed to elephant destruction since these massive animals are able to adapt and figure out when and where to go through fences. They easily determine the weak points and push through until they break. Some were able to push down the post without making contact with electric wires. In areas where elephants destroyed fences, it became eminent that other species were able to easily go through the destroyed parts. Corresponding insights were shared by [64], who stated that fence damage in Asia was related to elephants to a great extent. Moreover, our results show that fence damage in Africa was also largely attributed to human activities, especially in the protected areas, as they scrambled for limited natural resources, i.e., pasture. Some locals had a negative perception of park fences, as they viewed them as barriers to water and pasture for their livestock and ended up breaking perimeter fences to obtain access to the protected area.
Wildlife fences, while designed to manage and protect animal populations, have had significant negative impacts on ecosystems. Fences greatly resulted in blocked migration corridors, leading to a loss of species connectivity [50]. Furthermore, there were reported cases of dwindling wildlife populations. For example, the wildebeest populations were drastically reduced in the Mara ecosystem in Kenya due to recent land subdivision, privatization, and the subsequent fencing [36]. There were cases of species entanglement in the fences, which made some animals more vulnerable to poachers [33]. In some areas, species richness was reduced as fences created ecological islands that could result in inbreeding. Fences had extreme human-induced adverse effects in areas that border human settlements due to constant disturbances, leading to behavioral changes in wildlife [39]. Fences have altered prey–predator relationships in protected areas by making prey easier to capture. Carnivores can easily trap prey against the fence, effectively preventing their escape [41]. Socially, fences have excluded local communities, particularly in Laikipia County, Kenya, where pastoralists have been barred from accessing areas they once used for grazing and watering their animals [51].
Wider use of new innovations such as virtual wildlife fences in wildlife management and conservation has become necessary and has been successfully applied in some parts of the world [73]. Unlike traditional physical barriers, virtual fences use technology to create invisible boundaries that can guide or deter animal movement. Those deterrents include emitting high-pitched noises that are unpleasant to the animals, flashing lights to startle and deter animals, and using collars that vibrate to signal the animal to change direction [74]. These would be more useful in Africa as well since they are more wildlife-friendly and sustainable.
Swing gates that have been implemented in South Africa can also be replicated in different conservation areas since they are more wildlife-friendly and are designed to allow the movement of wildlife while still controlling access and preventing unauthorized human entry or livestock movement [75]. The newly developed predator-proof butterfly fences, currently employed in some parks, could prove more beneficial across the continent. Their versatile design includes buried wire mesh, electrified butterfly outrigger stingers that extend above the fence to stop primates from jumping over, and electrified posts that deter elephants from knocking them down [26].

5. Conclusions

Based on the reviewed studies, fences have been widely used as a mitigation method across Africa for different purposes, the main one being to manage human–wildlife conflicts. They varied in design and material used for construction depending on the cost of the material and intended use. The fences ranged from simple and affordable ones, like live fences, to more sophisticated and expensive ones, i.e., electric fences.
Electric fences were reported to be widely used in the management of large problematic species such as elephants and carnivores. The effectiveness of these fences was, however, dependent on environmental factors, frequent maintenance, and the different wildlife species being managed.
Information on the cost of fencing was significantly lacking. Therefore, there is a need to research the cost and maintenance of fences and identify the stakeholder groups involved in funding their setup, which could help determine the long-term sustainability of wildlife fences.
In conclusion, it is recommended to use fencing together with other alternative conflict mitigation measures, but wildlife managers should continually work on improving current fence designs to ensure they protect humans and their properties while being wildlife-friendly with only a moderately negative ecological impact.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; methodology, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; software, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; formal analysis, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; investigation, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; data curation, J.W.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; writing—review and editing, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; visualization, J.W.B., K.K. and E.T.K.; supervision, K.K. and E.T.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The first author (J.W.B.) was supported by the Tempus Public Foundation through the Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship (SHE-099787-004/2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be requested from the authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Doctoral School of Environmental Sciences at the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE) and Tempus Public Foundation through the Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship that provided financial support towards the first author (J.W.B.).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Smith, D.; King, R.; Allen, B.L. Impacts of Exclusion Fencing on Target and Non-Target Fauna: A Global Review. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 1590–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pfeifer, M.; Packer, C.; Burton, A.C.; Garnett, S.T.; Loveridge, A.J.; MacNulty, D.; Platts, P.J. In Defense of Fences. Science 2014, 345, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Clevenger, A.P.; Chruszcz, B.; Gunson, K.E. Highway Mitigation Fencing Reduces Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2001, 29, 646–653. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jaeger, J.A.G.; Fahrig, L. Effects of Road Fencing on Population Persistence. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18, 1651–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Puky, M. Amphibian Mitigation Measures in Central-Europe; ICOET 2003 Proceedings; UC Davis Institute of the Environment: Davis, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 413–429. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5bb7k6t9 (accessed on 4 November 2024).
  6. Klar, N.; Herrmann, M.; Kramer-Schadt, S. Effects and Mitigation of Road Impacts on Individual Movement Behavior of Wildcats. J. Wildl. Manag. 2009, 73, 631–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Santilli, F.; Mazzoni della Stella, R. Electrical fencing of large farmland area to reduce crops damages by wild boars Sus scrofa. Agric. Mediterr. 2006, 136, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hansen, K.; Mettler, D.; Schiess, A. Effectiveness of fences at protecting livestock from wolves. CDPnews 2020, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carpio, A.J.; Apollonio, M.; Acevedo, P. Wild Ungulate Overabundance in Europe: Contexts, Causes, Monitoring and Management Recommendations. Mammal Rev. 2021, 51, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Beier, P.; Majka, D.; Newell, S.; Garding, E. Best Management Practices for Wildlife Corridors. North. Ariz. Univ. 2008, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hansom, J.D.; Gordon, J.E. Antarctic Environments and Resources: A Geographical Perspective; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 1–416. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernando, C.; Weston, M.A.; Corea, R.; Pahirana, K.; Rendall, A.R. Asian Elephant Movements between Natural and Human-Dominated Landscapes Mirror Patterns of Crop Damage in Sri Lanka. Oryx 2023, 57, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Forsyth, D.M. Using Exclusion Fencing to Manage Feral Deer Impacts in Australia; NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, for the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions: Canberra, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  14. Philip, J. The Dingo Barrier Fence: Presenting the Case to Decommission the World’s Longest Environmental Barrier in the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030. Biol. Futur. 2022, 73, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cohen, J.E. World Population in 2050: Assessing the Projections. In Proceedings of the Conference Series-Federal Reserve Bank of Boston; Federal Reserve Bank of Boston: Boston, MA, USA, 1998; Volume 46, pp. 83–113. [Google Scholar]
  16. van Dam, A.; van Engelen, W.; Müller-Mahn, D.; Agha, S.; Junglen, S.; Borgemeister, C.; Bollig, M. Complexities of Multispecies Coexistence: Animal Diseases and Diverging Modes of Ordering at the Wildlife–Livestock Interface in Southern Africa. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2024, 7, 353–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pekor, A.; Miller, J.R.; Flyman, M.V.; Kasiki, S.; Kesch, M.K.; Miller, S.M.; Uiseb, K.; Van der Merve, V.; Lindsey, P.A. Fencing Africa’s Protected Areas: Costs, Benefits, and Management Issues. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 229, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Burudi, J.; Katona, K.; Kovács, E.T. A Review of the Human Wildlife Conflicts around the Nairobi National Park, Kenya. Rev. Agric. Rural Dev. 2023, 12, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Oman, D.; Journals, C. Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Africa: A Preliminary Review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2024, 13, 6–14. [Google Scholar]
  21. Edet, D.; Ovat, O.D.; Suleiman, I.D. Human-Wildlife Conflict in Africa: A Review. In Proceedings of the 2nd Wildlife Society of Nigeria (WISON) Conference, Akure, Nigeria, 16–19 September 2018; pp. 196–207. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nicole, B.-F. An Assessment of the Human-Wildlife Conflict across Africa. In Wildlife Population Monitoring; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kesch, M.K.; Bauer, D.T.; Loveridge, A.J. Break on Through to the Other Side: The Effectiveness of Game Fencing to Mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflict. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 2015, 45, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Trinkel, M.; Fleischmann, P.H.; Slotow, R. Electrifying the Fence or Living with Consequences? Problem Animal Control Threatens the Long-Term Viability of a Free-Ranging Lion Population. J. Zool. 2017, 301, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. O’Neill, H.; Durant, S.; Strebel, S.; Woodroffe, R. Fencing Affects African Wild Dog Movement Patterns and Population Dynamics. Oryx 2022, 56, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dupuis-Desormeaux, M.; Kaaria, T.N.; Kinoti, J.; Paul, A.; Gilisho, S.; Kobia, F.; Onyango, R.; Chege, G.; Kimiti, D.; Mwololo, M.; et al. Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Communities Bordering a Savannah-Fenced Wildlife Conservancy. Afr. J. Ecol. 2023, 61, 628–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Thouless, C.R.; Sakwa, J. Shocking Elephants: Fences and Crop Raiders in Laikipia District, Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 1995, 72, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bonnington, C.; Grainger, M.; Dangerfield, S.; Fanning, E. The Influence of Electric Fences on Large Mammal Movements in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Afr. J. Ecol. 2010, 48, 280–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Osipova, L.; Okello, M.M.; Njumbi, S.J.; Ngene, S.; Western, D.; Hayward, M.W.; Balkenhol, N. Fencing Solves Human-Wildlife Conflict Locally but Shifts Problems Elsewhere: A Case Study Using Functional Connectivity Modelling of the African Elephant. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2673–2684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Scheijen, C.P.J.; Richards, S.A.; Smit, J.; Jones, T.; Nowak, K. Efficacy of Beehive Fences as Barriers to African Elephants: A Case Study in Tanzania. Oryx 2019, 53, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vezina, B.I.; Smith, R.J.; Tiller, L.N. A Neglected Aspect of Human-Elephant Conflict: Fence Damagby Elephants in the Trans Mara, Kenya. Pachyderm 2019, 2019, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Matata, M.T.; Kegamba, J.J.; Mremi, R.; Eustace, A. Electrified Fencing as a Mitigation Strategy for Human-Elephant Conflict in Western Serengeti: Community Perspectives. J. Nat. Conserv. 2022, 70, 126271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mbaiwa, J.; Mbaiwa, O. The Effects of Veterinary Fences on Wildlife Populations in Okavango Delta, Botswana. Int. J. Wilderness 2006, 12, 17–41. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jori, F.; Etter, E. Transmission of Foot and Mouth Disease at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface of the Kruger National Park, South Africa: Can the Risk Be Mitigated? Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 126, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mogotsi, K.; Kgosikoma, O.E.; Lubinda, K.F. Wildlife-Livestock Interface, Veterinary Cordon Fence Damage, Lack of Protection Zones, Livestock Theft and Owner Apathy: Complex Socio-Ecological Dynamics in Foot and Mouth Disease Control in Southern Africa. Pastoralism 2016, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Weldemichel, T.G.; Lein, H. “Fencing Is Our Last Stronghold before We Lose It All.” A Political Ecology of Fencing Around the Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Land Use Policy 2019, 87, 104075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eloff, P.; van Niekerk, A. Game, Fences and Motor Vehicle Accidents: Spatial Patterns in the Eastern Cape. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 2005, 35, 125–130. [Google Scholar]
  38. Collinson, W.J.; Davies-Mostert, H.T.; Davies-Mostert, W. Effects of Culverts and Roadside Fencing on the Rate of Roadkill of Small Terrestrial Vertebrates in Northern Limpopo, South Africa. Conserv. Evid. 2017, 14, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
  39. Massey, A.L.; King, A.A.; Foufopoulos, J. Fencing Protected Areas: A Long-Term Assessment of the Effects of Reserve Establishment and Fencing on African Mammalian Diversity. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 176, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Evans, L.A.; Adams, W.M. Fencing Elephants: The Hidden Politics of Wildlife Fencing in Laikipia, Kenya. Land Use Policy 2016, 51, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dupuis-Desormeaux, M.; Davidson, Z.; Pratt, L.; Mwololo, M.; MacDonald, S.E. Testing the Effects of Perimeter Fencing and Elephant Exclosures on Lion Predation Patterns in a Kenyan Wildlife Conservancy. PeerJ 2016, 4, e1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wilkinson, C.E.; McInturff, A.; Kelly, M.; Brashares, J.S. Quantifying Wildlife Responses to Conservation Fencing in East Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 256, 109071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Taylor, W.A.; Child, M.F.; Lindsey, P.A.; Nicholson, S.K.; Relton, C.; Davies-Mostert, H.T. South Africa’s Private Wildlife Ranches Protect Globally Significant Populations of Wild Ungulates. Biodivers. Conserv. 2021, 30, 4111–4135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Naha, D.; Periquet, S.; Kilian, J.W.; Kupferman, C.A.; Hoth-Hanssen, T.; Beasley, J.C. Fencing Affects Movement Patterns of Two Large Carnivores in Southern Africa. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1031321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hering, R.; Hauptfleisch, M.; Jago, M.; Smith, T.; Kramer-Schadt, S.; Stiegler, J.; Blaum, N. Don’t Stop Me Now: Managed Fence Gaps Could Allow Migratory Ungulates to Track Dynamic Resources and Reduce Fence Related Energy Loss. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 907079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Naidoo, R.; Du Preez, P.; Stuart-Hill, G.; Jago, M.; Wegmann, M. Home on the Range: Factors Explaining Partial Migration of African Buffalo in a Tropical Environment. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e36527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Naidoo, R.; Beytell, P.; Brennan, A.; Kilian, W.; McCulloch, G.; Stronza, A.; Taylor, R.; Tsholofelo, C.; Songhurst, A. Challenges to Elephant Connectivity From Border Fences in the World’s Largest Transfrontier Conservation Area. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2022, 3, 788133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. King, L.E.; Douglas-Hamilton, I.; Vollrath, F. Beehive Fences as Effective Deterrents for Crop-Raiding Elephants: Field Trials in Northern Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 2011, 49, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chang’a, A.; de Souza, N.; Muya, J.; Keyyu, J.; Mwakatobe, A.; Malugu, L.; Ndossi, H.P.; Konuche, J.; Omondi, R.; Mpinge, A.; et al. Scaling-up the Use of Chili Fences for Reducing Human-Elephant Conflict Across Landscapes in Tanzania. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2016, 9, 921–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ferguson, K.; Hanks, J. The Effects of Protected Area and Veterinary Fencing on Wildlife Conservation in Southern Africa. Parks 2012, 18, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Eden, M.; Ellis, E.; Bruyere, B.L. The Influence of Human-Elephant Conflict on Electric Fence Management and Perception Among Different Rural Communities in Laikipia County, Kenya. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2016, 21, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hering, R.; Hauptfleisch, M.; Kramer-Schadt, S.; Stiegler, J.; Blaum, N. Effects of Fences and Fence Gaps on the Movement Behavior of Three Southern African Antelope Species. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2022, 3, 959423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pirie, T.J.; Thomas, R.L.; Fellowes, M.D.E. Game Fence Presence and Permeability Influences the Local Movement and Distribution of South African Mammals. Afr. Zool. 2017, 52, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kesch, K.; Bauer, D.; Loveridge, A. Undermining Game Fences: Who Is Digging Holes in Kalahari Sands? Afr. J. Ecol. 2014, 52, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. González, L.M.; Montoto, F.G.D.; Mereck, T.; Alves, J.; Pereira, J.; De Larrinoa, P.F.; Maroto, A.; Bolonio, L.; El-Kadhir, N. Preventing Crop Raiding by the Vulnerable Common Hippopotamus Hippopotamus Amphibius in Guinea-Bissau. Oryx 2017, 51, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mutinda, M.; Chenge, G.; Gakuya, F.; Otiende, M.; Omondi, P.; Kasiki, S.; Soriguer, R.C.; Alasaad, S. Detusking Fence-Breaker Elephants as an Approach in Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jori, F.; Brahmbhatt, D.; Fosgate, G.T.; Thompson, P.N.; Budke, C.; Ward, M.P.; Ferguson, K.; Gummow, B. A Questionnaire-Based Evaluation of the Veterinary Cordon Fence Separating Wildlife and Livestock Along the Boundary of the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011, 100, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Schumann, M.; Schumann, B.; Dickman, A.; Watson, L.H.; Marker, L. Assessing the Use of Swing Gates in Game Fences as a Potential Non-Lethal Predator Exclusion Technique. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 2006, 36, 173–181. [Google Scholar]
  59. King, L.; Lawrence, A.; Douglas-Hamilton, I.; Vollrath, F. Beehive Fence Deters Crop-Raiding Elephants. Afr. J. Ecol. 2009, 47, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Goodier, R.; King, L. Bees v Elephants: From Chad to South Africa, Beehive Fences Deter African Elephants from Crops. Appropr. Technol. 2017, 44, 38–41. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kiffner, C.; Schaal, I.; Cass, L.; Peirce, K.; Sussman, O.; Grueser, A.; Wachtel, E.; Adams, H.; Clark, K.; König, H.; et al. Perceptions and Realities of Elephant Crop Raiding and Mitigation Methods. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021, 3, e372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. King, L.E.; Lala, F.; Nzumu, H.; Mwambingu, E.; Douglas-Hamilton, I. Beehive Fences as a Multidimensional Conflict-Mitigation Tool for Farmers Coexisting with Elephants. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Huijser, M.P.; Fairbank, E.R.; Camel-Means, W.; Graham, J.; Watson, V.; Basting, P.; Becker, D. Effectiveness of Short Sections of Wildlife Fencing and Crossing Structures along Highways in Reducing Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions and Providing Safe Crossing Opportunities for Large Mammals. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 197, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fernando, P.; Kumar, M.A.; Williams, A.C.; Wikramanayake, E.; Aziz, T.; Singh, S.M. Review of Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation Measures Practiced in South Asia; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dror, S.; Harich, F.; Duangphakdee, O.; Savini, T.; Pogány, Á.; Roberts, J.; Geheran, J.; Treydte, A.C. Are Asian Elephants Afraid of Honeybees? Experimental Studies in Northern Thailand. Mamm. Biol. 2020, 100, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. van de Water, A.; King, L.E.; Arkajak, R.; Arkajak, J.; van Doormaal, N.; Ceccarelli, V.; Sluiter, L.; Doornwaard, S.M.; Praet, V.; Owen, D.; et al. Beehive Fences as a Sustainable Local Solution to Human-Elephant Conflict in Thailand. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020, 2, e260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Morantes-Toloza, J.L.; Renjifo, L.M.; Morantes-Toloza, J.L.; Renjifo, L.M. Live Fences in Tropical Production Systems: A Global Review of Uses and Perceptions. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2018, 66, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Oliveira, T.; Treves, A.; Lopez-Bao, J.V.; Krofel, M. The Contribution of the LIFE Program to Mitigating Damages Caused by Large Carnivores in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 31, e01815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Brieger, F.; Strein, M. Wildlife Fencing at German Highways and Federal Roads—Requirements and Management Implications. Wildl. Biol. 2024, e01161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Reidy, M.M.; Campbell, T.A.; Hewitt, D.G. Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements. J. Wildl. Manag. 2008, 72, 1012–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Walker, R.; Blackburn, J. Biothreat Reduction and Economic Development: The Case of Animal Husbandry in Central Asia. Front. Public Health 2015, 3, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Reinhardt, I.; Rauer, G.; Kluth, G.; Kaczensky, P.; Knauer, F.; Wotschikowsky, U. Livestock Protection Methods Applicable for Germany—A Country Newly Recolonized by Wolves. Hystrix Ital. J. Mammal. 2011, 23, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Schillings, J.; Holohan, C.; Lively, F.; Arnott, G.; Russell, T. The Potential of Virtual Fencing Technology to Facilitate Sustainable Livestock Grazing Management. Animal 2024, 18, 101231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jachowski, D.S.; Slotow, R.; Millspaugh, J.J. Good Virtual Fences Make Good Neighbors: Opportunities for Conservation. Anim. Conserv. 2014, 17, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cunningham, P.L. Do Swing Gates Prevent Black-Backed Jackal from Entering Commercial Sheep Farms? Namib. J. Environ. 2019, 3, B-7. [Google Scholar]
Diversity 17 00087 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic review.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic review.
Diversity 17 00087 g001
Diversity 17 00087 g002
Figure 2. Number of publications per year (n = 54) in Africa focusing on wildlife fences.
Figure 2. Number of publications per year (n = 54) in Africa focusing on wildlife fences.
Diversity 17 00087 g002
Diversity 17 00087 g003
Figure 3. The distribution of research articles (n = 54) by countries that reported the use of wildlife fences as a mitigation method for human–wildlife conflicts.
Figure 3. The distribution of research articles (n = 54) by countries that reported the use of wildlife fences as a mitigation method for human–wildlife conflicts.
Diversity 17 00087 g003
Diversity 17 00087 g004
Figure 4. Frequency of the reasons for wildlife fencing in Africa based on the number of publications (n = 54). In some articles multiple reasons for fencing were mentioned. HWC: Human–Wildlife Conflict.
Figure 4. Frequency of the reasons for wildlife fencing in Africa based on the number of publications (n = 54). In some articles multiple reasons for fencing were mentioned. HWC: Human–Wildlife Conflict.
Diversity 17 00087 g004
Diversity 17 00087 g005
Figure 5. Frequency of utilization of the different types of fences in the mitigation of human–wildlife conflicts in Africa based on the number of publications (n = 54). Different colours distinguish the main varieties of fences. Bars representing electric fence types are marked in blue. In some articles, multiple types of fences were mentioned.
Figure 5. Frequency of utilization of the different types of fences in the mitigation of human–wildlife conflicts in Africa based on the number of publications (n = 54). Different colours distinguish the main varieties of fences. Bars representing electric fence types are marked in blue. In some articles, multiple types of fences were mentioned.
Diversity 17 00087 g005
Diversity 17 00087 g006
Figure 6. Effectiveness of fences in mitigating different types of conflicts related to wildlife in Africa based on the reviewed publications (n = 54) according to their conclusions.
Figure 6. Effectiveness of fences in mitigating different types of conflicts related to wildlife in Africa based on the reviewed publications (n = 54) according to their conclusions.
Diversity 17 00087 g006
Diversity 17 00087 g007
Figure 7. The frequency of damage to fences used for mitigating human–wildlife conflicts in Africa due to different factors based on the number of publications (n = 54).
Figure 7. The frequency of damage to fences used for mitigating human–wildlife conflicts in Africa due to different factors based on the number of publications (n = 54).
Diversity 17 00087 g007
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Burudi, J.W.; Tormáné Kovács, E.; Katona, K. Wildlife Fences to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Africa: A Literature Analysis. Diversity 2025, 17, 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17020087

AMA Style

Burudi JW, Tormáné Kovács E, Katona K. Wildlife Fences to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Africa: A Literature Analysis. Diversity. 2025; 17(2):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17020087

Chicago/Turabian Style

Burudi, Jocelyn Weyala, Eszter Tormáné Kovács, and Krisztián Katona. 2025. "Wildlife Fences to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Africa: A Literature Analysis" Diversity 17, no. 2: 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17020087

APA Style

Burudi, J. W., Tormáné Kovács, E., & Katona, K. (2025). Wildlife Fences to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Africa: A Literature Analysis. Diversity, 17(2), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17020087

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop