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，过去和现在的保护努力一直侧重于通过排他性做法管理人与野生动物的互动，并划定人与野生动物空间之间的边界(Barua，2014)。通过建立各种形式的保护区(野生动物走廊、以社区为基础的保护区等)来复制这种边界。这从根本上改变了当地人与他们的环境和野生动物的关系，并代表了与人分开的“自然”(Khumalo&Yung，2015)。这些活动通常不包括以农业为基础的社区、牲畜和相关的生计活动，并需要进行立法改革，以规范当地社区的行为和文化习俗(Massé，2016)。此外，这些政策和做法所产生的社会经济和政治格局以及旨在管理它们的机构，导致了人与野生动物之间的冲突(HWC)(Anthony等人，2010年)。野生动物，特别是范围广泛的物种，经常跨越机构和物理(例如电子栅栏)边界，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线的建立导致了当地社区对极具魅力的大型动物的负面看法，这些动物被视为比当地人具有政治、经济或土地使用优势(Lee&Graham，2006)。缓解冲突战略主要涉及扩大保护区、野生动物威慑和围栏、动物迁移和人的重新安置、选择性扑杀以及对野生动物给人类造成的损失(例如大象践踏牲畜或伤害/杀害人)进行金钱补偿(Lee&Graham，2006)。所有这些措施都基于这样一种观点，即野生动物不属于人类住区，并基于荒野的继续繁衍(de Silva&Srinivesan，2019；Boonman-Berson等人，2016)。近年来，在肯尼亚南部和坦桑尼亚北部边境地区，两国都建立了越来越多的野生动物走廊和社区保护区网络，以允许野生动物在国家和国家公园之间流动。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，这些措施不太可能为当地人民带来净经济收益(例如，Noe&Kangalawe，2015；Benjaminsen&Svarstad，2010；Igoe&Croucher，2007)。相反，这些往往导致失去传统的土地权，剥夺当地社区的权力，因此产生了更多对保护的反对。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，为非人类本性划分不同区域的方法不仅在社会影响方面有问题，而且从根本上也是有缺陷的，因为它们从根本上改变了人与野生动物之间的长期关系及其共存方式(de Silva&Srinivesan，2019年)。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，因为范围广泛的物种继续侵入人类空间，面临着作为报复行为、自卫或被当地野生动物管理当局作为“问题动物”而被杀害的危险(de Silva&Sriniventan，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).