Proportion of attempted elephant raids repelled by villagers using voluntary community-based crop protection methods (‘conventional’ methods) for 16 villages in Phase 3.

<p>Proportion of attempted elephant raids repelled by villagers using voluntary community-based crop protection methods (‘conventional’ methods) for 16 villages in Phase 3.</p

Comparison of the effectiveness of the two different crop protection systems tested: Community-based crop-guarding with conventional tools (at the ‘conventional’ sites) and community-based crop-guarding with chili-grease fences and trip-wire triggered sirens (the ‘chili-and-sirens’ sites) in Phases 1 and 2.

<p>Comparison of the effectiveness of the two different crop protection systems tested: Community-based crop-guarding with conventional tools (at the ‘conventional’ sites) and community-based crop-guarding with chili-grease fences and trip-wire triggered sirens (the ‘chili-and-sirens’ sites) in Phases 1 and 2.</p

Support provided by the HEC project to villagers during the three project phases discussed in the text.

<p>Support provided by the HEC project to villagers during the three project phases discussed in the text.</p

Crop protection methods used in the ‘conventional’ sites and the ‘chili-and-sirens’ sites in Phases 1 and 2.

<p>Crop protection methods used in the ‘conventional’ sites and the ‘chili-and-sirens’ sites in Phases 1 and 2.</p

Project area in and around Way Kambas National Park (WKNP), Sumatra, Indonesia.

<p>The top right panel depicts the island of Sumatra in relation to Peninsular Malaysia and Java, with the study area in a box. The left panel depicts the boxed area in greater detail with remaining forest cover shown in green. The bottom right panel shows WKNP and the 16 villages mentioned in the text. Figure used by permission of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), original copyright owner [original copyright year 2007], under a CC BY license.</p

Sumatran tiger site occupancy () and density () estimates for the best model, averaged for each study area.

<p>The two right-most columns show the estimates conditional to the data observed. Standard errors are shown in brackets.</p

Summary of Sumatra-wide field survey effort for each landscape.

<p>*I = global priority; II = regional priority; III = long-term priority.</p>1<p>Kerinci Seblat National Park and Batang Hari Protection Forest and their surrounding forests.</p>2<p>Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park and Bukit Balai Rejang Selatan.</p>3<p>Pasir Pangaraian, Giam Siak, Duri, Balaraja, Tapung.</p>4<p>Tesso Nilo, Bukit Bungkuk, Bukit Rimbang-Baling, Bukit Batabuh, Bukit Tigapuluh, Kerumutan.</p>5<p>Dangku, Bukit Duabelas, Berbak.</p

Estimated Sumatran tiger site occupancy and sites with actual indirect tiger sign detections (black dots).

<p>Estimated Sumatran tiger site occupancy and sites with actual indirect tiger sign detections (black dots).</p