Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mixed-method ethnographic study explores barriers to coexistence in farming communities interacting with elephants, highlighting broader conflicts.
Human‐wildlife coexistence (HW‐coexistence) is a central goal of conservation. However, efforts to achieve coexistence have largely focused on mitigating human‐wildlife conflict, while overlooking the underlying barriers to promote coexistence. We aimed to understand barriers to HW‐coexistence by focusing on farming communities interacting with elephants ( Elephas maximus maximus ) in Sri Lanka. A mixed‐method ethnographic study was conducted using participant observation, focus group discussions and transect walks in Walsapugala village in Southern Sri Lanka. In this study, socio‐political drivers, institutional and structural challenges and power and corruption were identified as themes of barriers to coexistence. Our results revealed that conflicts extend beyond farmer‐elephant interactions to encompass other wildlife species and wildlife governing authorities. Despite their importance in influencing barriers to coexistence, these conflicts have received limited attention in human‐wildlife interaction (HWI) literature. We argue that future research must move beyond an exclusive focus on isolated technical solutions for conflict mitigation. Instead, it should prioritise understanding the hidden barriers to coexistence, including the improper implementation of mitigation strategies driven by socio‐political drivers, institutional and structural challenges and issues of power and corruption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jayasinghe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: