Human–elephant interaction: Community perspectives on conflict mitigation and conservation mechanisms

• Published date: 01 February 2023
• Author: Medha Nayak,Pranaya Kumar Swain
• Date: 01 February 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2820

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Human–elephant interaction: Community perspectives

on conflict mitigation and conservation mechanisms

Medha Nayak | Pranaya Kumar Swain

School of Humanities and Social Sciences,

National Institute of Science Education and

Research, An OCC of Homi Bhabha National

Institute, Bhubaneswar, Jatni, Odisha, India

Correspondence

Pranaya Kumar Swain, School of Humanities

and Social Sciences, National Institute of

Science Education and Research, An OCC of

Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bhubaneswar,

Jatni, Odisha 752050, India.

Email: pranay@niser.ac.in

The instances of human–elephant conflict (HEC) are becoming pervasive in elephant

range areas across the globe. One of the primary reasons is the exclusion and under-

representation of local communities in the planning and implementation of mitigation

strategies. However, engaging with local communities and considering their view-

points are vital for the success of conflict mitigation and conservation efforts. This

qualitative study was undertaken to gain a reasonably comprehensive understanding

of the local community's perspectives concerning elephants in the Balasore district of

Odisha, a state along the Eastern coast of India. Qualitative data obtained primarily

through focus group discussions were analyzed using MAXQDA 2020 to perform

thematic analysis of participants' narratives. Six common themes emerged from the

study: exposure and experiences with elephants, the efficacy of deterrents, compas-

sionate payment provisions, reasons for tolerance, and expectations. Attempts were

made to understand the community viewpoints and offer implementable recommen-

dations to improve human–elephant interactions by adopting more inclusive and par-

ticipatory conservation practices.

KEYWORDS

Asian elephants, conflict mitigation, elephant conservation, focus group discussion,

participatory approach

1|INTRODUCTION

1.1 |Human–elephant interaction

In recent years, hostilities between humans and elephants have fre-

quently made headlines in Odisha, an Eastern Indian state. Almost

every day, one, two, or more deaths of humans or elephants appear in

the local newspapers and electronic media, making conflict visible

even to people beyond elephant ranges. Some compilations in media

reports share that between the years 2014 and 2019, there have been

379 elephant deaths due to various reasons, including poaching and

accidents, while elephants were responsible for 412 human deaths

and 310 human injuries (Maharana, 2019; Senapati, 2020). Many

studies have stated that the rise in human–elephant conflict (HEC) is a

result of inappropriate land-use practices, such as permanent human

settlements, growing food crops adjacent to elephant rangelands, deg-

radation or fragmentation of habitat, blocked traditional routes, and

limited access to water (Fernando et al., 2008; Krishnan et al., 2019;

Lenin & Sukumar, 2011; Treves et al., 2006; Kumar, Vijayakrishnan &

Singh, 2018, Naughton-Treves & Treves, 2005). Whether the ele-

phants are pushed out of their habitat or attracted to the habitation

area, they eat and trample over crops, damage houses attempting to

reach their preferred food, and sometimes cause human casualty/

injury in accidental encounters. In such circumstances, elephants also

fall prey to people's retaliation, get electrocuted, or face fatal acci-

dents on roadways and railway tracks (Lenin & Sukumar, 2011;

Nayak & Swain, 2021).

1.2 |People's perceptions and elephant

conservation

In elephant range countries across Africa and Asia, the local communi-

ties have been regarded as the main force of elephant conservation

Received: 2 December 2020 Revised: 8 May 2022 Accepted: 12 May 2022

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2820

J Public Affairs. 2023;23:e2820. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1of16

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2820

(Qingcheg et al., 2011; van de Water & Matteson, 2018) as they

belong to strong influence and high power groups on the stakeholder

matrix of HEC (Bibby & Alder, 2003). Identifying and understanding

their perceptions and practices is vital as decoding such inter-species

relationships is essential to develop suggestive and reformative mea-

sures to mitigate HEC and improve human–elephant interactions.

“The HEC mitigation strategies need to become more holistic,

inclusive and participatory unlike the one-size-fits-all solutions cur-

rently in practice,”suggest Thekaekara and Thornton (2016). What

people perceive as a solution in one place might be disregarded in

another, and what might have worked somewhere might have a

completely different effect elsewhere (WWF, 2008). Hence, the mea-

sures of mitigation or conservation efforts should be locally appropri-

ate. For this purpose, it is also essential to integrate local meanings

and concerns related to elephants (Ogra, 2009; Ramkumar

et al., 2013) as they vary across different ethnic communities, as

brought out by Thekaekara and Thornton (2016) in their study in

South India. To add more perspectives, there has been an increase

in studies worldwide that consider local people's views. For instance,

in India, Ramkumar et al. (2013), in their research in Coimbatore, elicit

responses on the status of crop depredation by elephants, causes of

HEC, mitigating measures, and attitude towards conservation.

Ogra (2009) discusses with her respondents residing near Rajaji

National Park in Uttarakhand, India, about coexistence with animals,

solutions to human–wildlife conflict (HWC), compensation provision,

willingness to participate in the management of HWC, and responsi-

bility in resolving HWC. Similarly, Chakraborty and Mondal (2013)

have highlighted local people's growing dissatisfaction among the

HEC victims in West Bengal, India, as they sometimes attempt to kill

or injure elephants brutally.

Historically, animals have provided humans with nutrition, work-

force, and companionship for millennia, and thus they have an agency

in building society. At the same time, the presence of humans has had

a significant influence on the lives and behavior of animals. Social

environments have emerged from such interaction between humans,

animals, and the physical environment that co-exist and form an entity

with highly complicated interrelations. So, by acknowledging and

focusing on the fact that humans and animals co-exist alongside each

other, the interspecies narratives attempt to capture the reciprocating

interactions that shape everyday lives, with an emphasis on exploring

the agency of non-human animals within those interactions (Keil,

2016). Human–elephant interaction is one of the most predominant

among such interactions between the human and non-human actors,

forging both harmonious coexistence and conflict. HEC has been

widely researched from an array of theoretical lenses. Social scientists,

ecologists, policymakers, and so forth, have begun to acknowledge

the agency of animals in research and focus on their presence and

effect. Many research studies have invoked the actor-network theory

(Latour, 1999) that leans on the social relations of individual human

actors—their frequency, distribution, homogeneity, and proximity

with the non-human entities, wildlife tolerance model (Kansky

et al., 2016; Terada et al., 2021) that defines “tolerance”as “the

ability and willingness of an individual to absorb the extra potential

or actual costs of living with wildlife,”more-than-human geography of -

human–elephant interaction that influences “social”outcomes

(de Silva & Srinivasan, 2019;Lorimer,2007),andsoforth,togaininsights

into the socio-cultural aspects of HEC. Tolerance is also used in various

contexts in conservation literature (Knox et al., 2021). The perceived

costs and benefits resulting from wildlife in the vicinity have been identi-

fied as significant factors in determining tolerance towards wildlife

(Kansky & Knight, 2014). Here, costs include direct monetary losses and

indirect costs perceived by the affected people, such as the psychologi-

cal costs of fear and risk (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014;Kansky&

Knight, 2014). Ecologists, who used to prefer studying species in their

“natural”environment, now look into the interconnectedness between

human and non-human species (Li & von Essen, 2020).

Concerning the study of human–elephant relations, anthropolo-

gists like Piers Locke (2013) propose “ethno-elephantology,”a multi-

disciplinary approach that combines methodological perspectives

from the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences to investi-

gate the social, historical, and ecological intersections of human and

elephants. Drawing from these theoretical approaches, this study sets

out to appreciate human actors in the context of non-human (ele-

phants in this case) agency in a social environment. In doing so, it also

attempts to understand the direct and indirect issues resulting from

HEC as perceived by the people in the study area and the evidence

and reasons for their tolerance or lack of it towards elephants.

1.3 |Intent of the study

Only a few studies in the context of Odisha have attempted to record

perceptions of local communities (Guru & Das, 2021; Mishra

et al., 2013; Sar & Lahiri-Choudhury, 2009; Swain, 2004), whereas

another few have focused on the ecology of elephants (Khuntia &

Mohanty, 2013; Mishra et al., 2015; Mohapatra et al., 2013; Palei

et al., 2013; Sukumar et al., 2018). The existing studies have mainly

concentrated on specific aspects of the issue, like views on elephant

depredation or the cost of elephant problems. However, they have

not adequately captured a comprehensive picture. The methodology

adopted is usually quantitative, which limits the scope of research and

does not provide sufficient insights and explanations for responses,

unlike that of Ogra (2009), who resorts to mixed-method approaches.

Therefore, since the human dimensions have remained understudied

in Odisha, this paper draws upon sociological approaches for under-

standing local communities' perceptions of elephants. We envisage

that it would facilitate more profound insights into the scope of inter-

species coexistence and conservation.

2|THE PRESENT STUDY

2.1 |Study area

Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary in the Balasore district of Odisha (Figure 1)

harbors 97 elephants in its 282 sq. km area, as per the Elephant

2of16 NAYAK AND SWAIN