Human – Elephant (Elephas maximus) Conflict in Southern India: People’s perception on conflict and elephant conservation in Coimbatore Forest Division

Ramkumar, K.; Ramakrishnan, B.; Saravanamuthu, R.

doi:10.20894/stet.116.007.002.002

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, installed barriers should be tested for their efficacy in deterring elephants away from human settlements. Moreover, the persistence of conflicts in an area affects attitudes and perceptions of local people toward wildlife and conservation efforts that heavily influence their willingness to engage in any conflict mitigation process (Ramkumar et al, 2013;Locke and Buckingham, 2016;Karanth and Kudalkar, 2017). However, recently, only a few studies have examined the social aspects of human-animal conflicts (Inskip and Zimmermann, 2009;Campbell-Smith et al, 2012;Sengupta et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of physical barriers in mitigating human–elephant negative interactions in North-East India

Das

Selvan

Lahkar³

et al. 2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical barriers, like solar fences, elephant-proof trenches, stone, or rubble walls, are installed as conflict mitigation interventions in India’s major Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) ranges. However, installations lacking a priori scientific assessment of site specificity for reducing elephant incursion in the human settlements often fail in the intended goals of the resource-intensive management interventions. Since humans are central to conflict issues, research focusing on social aspects is essential for devising solutions. Despite the use of barriers in the Golaghat district in Assam, human–elephant conflict (HEC) cases are increasing, which offers an opportunity to evaluate their efficacy. Optimized hotspot analysis of the historic HEC records from 2010 to 2019 was done to check the spatial extent of the conflict and its dispersion in the district. We also assessed the efficiency of a 4.2-km long solar fence and a 2-km long elephant-proof trench through generalized linear modeling. We evaluated the encounter rates of elephant signs and other site covariates at the barrier and non-barrier sites. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to assess the perception of local people on the barriers and overall HEC in their areas based on their willingness to pay (WTP) for maintenance of the barriers. The highest cases occurred between 2016 and 2017, making up 25% of the total conflict cases. It was noticed that the extent of these hotspots was concentrated, and there was no dispersion of the conflict to other areas. Furthermore, a significant difference in the encounter rates of elephant signs between barriers and no barrier sites was observed. Solar fenced areas showed relatively lower encounter rates than areas with the trench, suggesting better efficiency of solar fencing than trench in the landscape. In addition, only five out of seven explanatory variables, viz., the persistence of HEC cases, amount of ex-gratia compensation, time taken in getting compensation, change in elephant behavior (incursion), and crop-raiding frequency significantly explained people’s perception of the barrier and non-barrier sites. According to local people, physical barriers are essential in managing HEC; hence, installing and maintaining solar fences in the high conflict hotspots is crucial for this landscape.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of physical barriers in mitigating human–elephant negative interactions in North-East India

Das

Selvan

Lahkar³

et al. 2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, the measures of mitigation or conservation efforts should be locally appropriate. 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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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 responsibility in resolving HWC.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Nayak

swain

2022

Journal of Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 underrepresentation of local communities in the planning and implementation of mitigation strategies. However, engaging with local communities and considering their viewpoints 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, compassionate payment provisions, reasons for tolerance, and expectations. Attempts were made to understand the community viewpoints and offer implementable recommendations to improve human-elephant interactions by adopting more inclusive and participatory conservation practices.

show abstract

“…Therefore, researchers realized that the key to mitigate HEC and ensure conservation of elephants lies within the broader social milieu and communities associated, and the experience and impact of HEC varied across gender and ethnic diversities (Ogra, 2008; Khumalo & Yung, 2015; Thekaekara, 2016; Nsonsi, Heymans, Diamouangana, & Breuer, 2017; Ramkumar et al, 2013). In this connection, Piers Locke (2013) proposes ethno‐elephantology, a multidisciplinary approach that combines methodological perspectives from the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences to investigate the social, historical and ecological intersections of human and elephants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From fear to festivity: Multi‐stakeholder perspectives onhuman‐elephantconflict and coexistence in India

Nayak

swain

2020

J Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans and elephants have shared social, historical and ecological relations for ages. However, their interactions have not been as pleasant as one would like that to be. Although the problems associated with human‐elephant conflict (HEC) are widely known, the increasing rate and extent of conflicts suggest that improved strategies are required to promote their co‐existence. Several measures such as compensation for loss of lives and livelihood, deployment of deterrents, erection of fences to restrict the movements, promotion of conservation education to reduce antagonism, preservation of forests and habitation, etc. have been adopted extensively to mitigate human‐elephant conflict and foster coexistence. Despite persistent efforts, the problem refuses to wither away. Stakeholders' perceptions and attitudes also vary widely across the categories. Many studies show that the impacts of human‐elephant conflict penetrate far deeper than the immediate threats from each other. This paper attempts to understand the plurality of stakeholders' connect with elephants, their perceptions, effectiveness of existing mitigation strategies and future of their coexistence, drawing from empirical data. On the basis of inputs from key informants, focus group discussions among community members and Forest Department officials and field observations from one of the migratory elephant corridors of India, we locate mixed perspectives from various stakeholders and their experiences and responses to human‐elephant conflict which, as we envisage, will go a long way in designing participatory and community‐based mitigation strategies.

show abstract

Human – Elephant (Elephas maximus) Conflict in Southern India: People’s perception on conflict and elephant conservation in Coimbatore Forest Division

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Effectiveness of physical barriers in mitigating human–elephant negative interactions in North-East India

Effectiveness of physical barriers in mitigating human–elephant negative interactions in North-East India

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

From fear to festivity: Multi‐stakeholder perspectives onhuman‐elephantconflict and coexistence in India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About