Abstract
Human–elephant conflict (HEC) frequently results in human and elephant mortality, posing major social justice and conservation concerns across Asia and Africa. Although a variety of interventions have been introduced to mitigate HEC, rigorous evaluations of how they affect mortality are practically nonexistent. Using a 20‐year dataset from Sonitpur district in Assam, India, we examined whether organized guarding and short‐distance drives—which are used to manage HEC in several countries globally—led to a reduction in human and elephant mortality from conflict as intended. We controlled for changes in land use and economic development, spillover effects, and nonrandom selection of villages for intervention. Results on whether organized guarding provided protection against human death due to HEC were inconclusive. Contrary to expectations, the intervention was associated with an approximate 2.0–2.9 times increase in elephant mortality. Disaggregation based on cause of mortality suggested that elephants may be more likely to be killed accidentally in villages where organized guarding occurs. Data on crop damage by elephants were not available, and it is possible that antidepredation squads present a trade‐off that fosters greater crop protection at the expense of occasional elephant mortality. Our results highlight the indispensability of rigorous evaluations for finding solutions to human–wildlife conflict.