Elephants, people and conservation: re-examining conservation interventions and human-elephant interactions through multispecies ethnography in the so

背景：在坦桑尼亚和肯尼亚，过去和现在的保护工作一直侧重于通过排他的做法和划定人与野生动物空间之间的界限来管理人类与野生动物的相互作用（HWI） （Barua, 2014）。这种边界是通过建立各种形式的保护区（野生动物走廊、社区保护区等）来再现的，这些保护区从根本上改变了当地人与环境和野生动物的关系，并代表了与人分离的“自然”（Khumalo & Yung, 2015）。这些通常不包括以农业为基础的社区、牲畜和相关生计活动，并需要进行立法修改，以规范当地社区的行为和文化习俗（mass<s:1>， 2016年）。此外，这些政策和做法所导致的社会经济和政治格局，以及管理这些政策和做法的机构，助长了人与野生动物之间的冲突（HWC） （Anthony et al., 2010）。野生动物，特别是范围广泛的物种，经常跨越制度和物理边界（如电围栏），与农村社区发生冲突，威胁到人们的福祉和生计（Gupta, 2013）。此外，人与野生动物之间的界限造成了当地社区对有魅力的巨型动物的负面看法，这些巨型动物被视为比当地人具有政治、经济或土地利用优势（Lee & Graham, 2006）。缓解冲突的战略主要涉及扩大保护区、野生动物威慑和围栏、动物迁移和人员重新安置、选择性淘汰以及对野生动物对人类造成的损失（例如大象践踏牲畜或伤害/杀死人）进行金钱赔偿（Lee和Graham， 2006年）。所有这些措施都基于野生动物不属于人类住区以及荒野繁殖的延续（de Silva & Srinivasan, 2019； Boonman-Berson等人，2016）。近年来，在肯尼亚南部和坦桑尼亚北部的边境地带，两国建立了一个不断扩大的野生动物走廊网络和以社区为基础的保护区，使野生动物能够在国家和国家公园之间迁徙。虽然这些保护干预措施被描述为为当地社区带来利益的“双赢”解决方案，但研究表明，这些不太可能为当地人带来净经济收益（例如Noe和Kangalawe, 2015； Benjaminsen和Svarstad, 2010； Igoe和Croucher， 2007）。相反，这些往往导致丧失传统的土地权利和剥夺当地社区的权力，从而产生更多反对保护的声音。由这些情况引起的当地社区的愤怒和沮丧往往转化为对野生动物的报复性杀戮，作为对政府法规的从属抵抗形式（Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010; Holmes, 2007）。因此，为非人类自然划定单独区域的方法不仅因其社会影响而存在问题，而且从根本上存在缺陷，因为它们从根本上改变了人类与野生动物之间的长期关系及其共存方式（de Silva & Srinivasan, 2019）。与此同时，旨在将野生动物限制在有限空间的保护干预措施被证明是不够的，因为广泛的物种继续侵入人类空间，面临着作为报复行为、自卫行为或被当地野生动物管理当局作为“问题动物”杀死的危险（de Silva & Srinivasan, 2019; Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010）。

Background: In Tanzania and Kenya, past and present conservation endeavours have been focused on managing human-wildlife interactions (HWI) through exclusionary practices and delineating boundaries between spaces for people and wildlife (Barua, 2014). Such boundaries are reproduced through the establishment of protected areas of various form (wildlife corridors, community-based conservation areas etc.) that essentially alter the relationship that local people have with their environment and wildlife and represent 'nature' as separated from people (Khumalo & Yung, 2015). Often these are established excluding agricultural-based communities, livestock, and related livelihood activities, and entail legislative changes that regulate local communities' behaviours and cultural practices (Massé, 2016). Further, the socio-economic and political landscapes resulting from such policies and practices, and the institutions designed to manage them, drive conflicts between people and wildlife (HWC) (Anthony et al., 2010). Wildlife, particularly wide-ranging species, regularly cross institutional and physical (e.g. electric fences) boundaries coming into conflict with rural communities, threatening people's wellbeing and livelihoods (Gupta, 2013). Additionally, the creation of boundaries between people and wildlife contributes to negative perceptions of local communities towards charismatic megafauna, which are seen as having a political, economic or land-use advantage over local people (Lee & Graham, 2006). Conflict mitigation strategies have been mostly concerned with expanding protected areas, wildlife deterrents and fences, translocations of animals and relocation of people, selective culling, and monetary compensation for losses inflicted by wildlife to people (e.g. elephants trampling livestock or injuring/killing people) (Lee & Graham, 2006). All of these measures are based on the idea that wildlife does not belong in human settlements and on the continuation of a reproduction of wilderness (de Silva & Srinivasan, 2019; Boonman-Berson et al., 2016). In recent years, along the southern Kenya and northern Tanzania borderland landscape, both countries have established a growing network of wildlife corridors and community-based protected areas to allow for wildlife movement between countries and national parks. While these conservation interventions are depicted as "win-win" solutions that generate benefits for local communities, studies show that these are unlikely to generate net economic gains for local people (e.g. Noe & Kangalawe, 2015; Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010; Igoe & Croucher, 2007). Instead, these often resulted in the loss of customary land rights and disempowerment of local communities, and consequently produced more opposition to conservation. Anger and frustration of local communities caused by these circumstances often translate into retaliatory killings of wildlife as forms of subordinate resistance towards the government's regulations (Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010; Holmes, 2007). As such, approaches that demarcate separate areas for nonhuman nature are not only problematic for their social impacts but also fundamentally flawed, as they essentially alter the longstanding relationship between people and wildlife and their ways of coexisting (de Silva & Srinivasan, 2019). Simultaneously, conservation interventions that aim to constrain wildlife to bound spaces proved inadequate, since wide-ranging species continues to trespass into human spaces facing the danger of being killed as an act of retaliation, in self-defence, or as "problem animals" by local wildlife management authorities (de Silva & Srinivasan, 2019; Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010).