The Elephant Dilemma: A Long-term Perspective on the Management of African Savannas - Biodiversity Conservation and Environmental Change - page 27

Socially
Desirable State
(User Group 1)

Undesirable
State 2
(Unstable)

Socially
Desirable State
(Both User
Groups)

Ecological Threshold

Management Threshold
(TPC)

Undesirable
State 1
(Stable)

Socially
Desirable State
(User Group 2)

Tr ee Density

Undesirable
State 2
(Unstable)

Socially
Desirable State
(Inside of Park)

Ecological Threshold

Management Threshold
(TPC)

Socially
Desirable State
(Outside of
Park)

Undesirable
State 1
(Stable)

Tr ee Density

Figure 2.6 Framework for deciding thresholds of potential concern (TPCs) for elephant habitat, taking
into account ecological and management thresholds, as well as social preferences. In scenario (a), the
stakeholders can agree on a range of population sizes and tree densities that are mutually acceptable. In
scenario (b), the user groups inside and outside of the park prefer different options and decide on differ-
ent TPCs. Inspired by (Rogers and Biggs 1999, Biggs and Rogers 2003, Gillson and Marchant 2014).
Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.

herbivory, before ecological thresholds are crossed. A management TPC is thus more con-
servative than the ecological TPC.
Within this envelope of ecologically desirable and manageably feasible tree cover, the needs
of different user groups can be accommodated, either by finding mutually acceptable thresh-
olds, or be defining different thresholds appropriate to local context—for example inside and