A spatially explicit assessment of factors shaping attitudes toward African elephant conservation.

Conservation plans that explicitly account for the social landscape where people and wildlife co‐occur can yield more effective and equitable conservation practices and outcomes. Yet, social data remain underutilized, often because social data are treated as aspatial or are analyzed with approaches that do not quantify uncertainty or address bias in self‐reported data. We conducted a survey (questionnaires) of 177 households in a multiuse landscape in the Kenya–Tanzania borderlands. In a mixed‐methods approach, we used Bayesian hierarchical models to quantify and map local attitudes toward African elephant (<italic>Loxodonta africana</italic>) conservation while accounting for response bias and then combined inference from attitude models with thematic analysis of open‐ended responses and cointerpretation of results with local communities to gain deeper understanding of what explains attitudes of people living with wildlife. Model estimates showed that believing elephants have sociocultural value increased the probability of respondents holding positive attitudes toward elephant conservation in general (mean increase = 0.31 [95% credible interval, CrI, 0.02–0.67]), but experiencing negative impacts from any wildlife species lowered the probability of respondents holding a positive attitude toward local elephant conservation (mean decrease = −0.20 [95% CrI −0.42 to 0.03]). Qualitative data revealed that safety and well‐being concerns related to the perceived threats that elephants pose to human lives and livelihoods, and limited incentives to support conservation on community and private lands lowered positive local attitude probabilities and contributed to negative perceptions of human–elephant coexistence. Our spatially explicit modeling approach revealed fine‐scale variation in drivers of conservation attitudes that can inform targeted conservation planning. Our results suggest that approaches focused on sustaining existing sociocultural values and relationships with wildlife, investing in well‐being, and implementing species‐agnostic approaches to wildlife impact mitigation could improve conservation outcomes in shared landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]