Coexistence and Culture: Understanding Human Diversity and Tolerance in Human-Elephant Interactions

Tarsh Thekaekara,Thomas F Thornton,Shonil A Bhagwat

doi:10.3389/fcosc.2021.735929

Tarsh Thekaekara, Thomas F Thornton + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.735929

Copy DOI

Abstract

There is a growing recognition of the importance of conservation beyond protected areas, in spaces of human-wildlife coexistence. Negative human-wildlife interactions are a key challenge, but a better understanding of the forms of tolerance and mutual accommodation would be useful for coadaptation toward coexistence. To date, however, studies of human-wildlife often have been limited by a largely quantified positivist epistemology, which elides the diverse cultural and ecological contexts which enable tolerance and coexistence between humans and wildlife to develop and adhere. In Gudalur, a plantation landscape in South India, about 150 elephants share space with a quarter of a million people. Using a quantified survey coupled with ethnographic fieldwork, we aim to better understand human diversity and tolerance of elephants that allows for coexistence. We find a marked difference between communities, with ethnicity being a better predictor of tolerance than the more tangible socio-economic or geographic variables such as income, education, land holding or cropping patterns. Using qualitative data, we identify three socio-cultural variables that are relevant to tolerance–a shared history of living with elephants, mode of subsistence and type of agricultural crops, and most importantly, ontology or the fundamental understanding of “what is an elephant?” Hunter-gatherer conceptualisations of elephants as “other-than-human persons” prove to be the ontological stance best suited to coexistence, as it allows for elephant individuality and interpersonal negotiations of shared space, which is limited in other world-views, including the worshiping of elephants as Ganesha, the elephant headed deity in the Hindu Pantheon. Having identified some important differences among ethnic communities in human-elephant interactions, we consider the implications of the research for improving the management and practice of human-wildlife coexistence not only in the Nilgiri region but within the broader context of conservation and development.

Highlights

Protected areas (PAs) have formed the backbone of nature conservation, but there is a growing move to look beyond the PAs, taking larger landscape level approaches that incorporate multiple land use types and integrate the needs of wildlife and people (e.g., Jonas et al, 2014; Moola and Roth, 2019)
human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in this early definition was primarily about the negative impact people and wildlife had on each other since there was an inherent competition for space and resources, but the term has since been criticized as these negative impacts do not constitute “conflict” in the dictionary sense of the term with people and wildlife as conscious antagonists (Peterson et al, 2010)
This burgeoning literature is largely comprised of case studies from different parts of the world, documenting instances of HWC and the negative impacts on either wildlife or people, often attempting to quantify the economic, ecological and sometimes the social damage caused by these negative interactions

Summary

Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) have formed the backbone of nature conservation, but there is a growing move to look beyond the PAs, taking larger landscape level approaches that incorporate multiple land use types and integrate the needs of wildlife and people (e.g., Jonas et al, 2014; Moola and Roth, 2019) This is relevant for large mammals whose home ranges do not correspond with or are often larger than the designated reserves (Douglas-Hamilton et al, 2005). The majority of studies tagged with HWC refer to conflict between different groups of people with differing opinions about conservation, termed “conservation conflict” (Redpath et al, 2015) Despite this problematic framing of HWC, the literature continues to grow; there are over 59,000 journal articles with “human-wildlife conflict” as a key phrase as of 2021, growing at about five papers a week. This burgeoning literature is largely comprised of case studies from different parts of the world, documenting instances of HWC and the negative impacts on either wildlife or people, often attempting to quantify the economic, ecological and sometimes the social damage caused by these negative interactions

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion