Participatory modelling in Kenya 41 One reason why conservation organizations managing


negative human–elephant interactions are challenged is that they may not fully understand the extent of the conflict, how local communities conceptualize the problem, or how it varies dependent on local context (Waylen et al., 2010; Kansky & Knight, 2014). To overcome these challenges, practitioners are increasingly using participatory processes with stakeholders that can provide unique insights into local ecological knowledge when offered with free, prior and informed consent (UN, 2007; Buchholtz et al., 2020; König et al., 2021; Jessen et al., 2022). Participatory model- ling using fuzzy cognitive mapping is an approach that aids in creating a shared knowledge space as stakeholders share parts of their mental models (Biggs et al., 2011; Gray et al., 2012). Mental models are the individual cognitive constructs of how someone views the world or a specific issue (Johnson-Laird, 1986) and can be used in systems thinking. Developing individual or shared mental models has helped demonstrate marked differences between the knowledge and perceptions of stakeholders and wildlife managers re- garding an ecological system, and has facilitated the creation of potential solutions to environmental challenges (Moon et al., 2019; LaMere et al., 2020). However, the technique has rarely been used to evaluate the multi-dimensional rela- tionships present in human–wildlife conflicts (but see Mosimane et al., 2014; Nyaki et al., 2014). Here we adopt a biocultural approach to understanding


human–elephant conflict. Biocultural approaches to con- servation emphasize cultural perspectives of local people, recognizing how ecological and human health are interconnected (Gavin et al., 2015; Sterling et al., 2017). Evaluating programme effectiveness is an important part of creating long-term solutions, and a biocultural approach can help identify locally relevant and qualitative indicators (Dacks et al., 2019; DeRoy et al., 2019). In the case of negative interactions with elephants, understanding how farmers conceptualize the connections, interactions and causes of the conflict can lead to co-creation of solutions. However, these aspects are generally little understood, leaving the causes and consequences of some interactions unaddressed (Gavin et al., 2015; Bridgewater & Rotherham, 2019). Community views on negative human–elephant inter-


actions need to be incorporated to advance current man- agement strategies (IUCN, 2023). Our overarching goal was to develop a systems view (a holistic examination of the interplay of different components of a system) of human–elephant conflicts amongst rural communities in the Tsavo Ecosystem of Kenya, to inform policy and management. To address this goal, our objectives were to evaluate stakeholder participatory models to under- stand how farmers conceptualize conflict, determine if locally novel or underrepresented system components were present, and evaluate if there were indicators that would be useful in assessing mitigation programmes. We


expected that variables unfamiliar to conservation practition- ers would emerge from the mental models based on the ex- pertise of local ecosystem actors.


Study area


The Kasigau Wildlife Corridor of Kenya lies between Tsavo East and West National Parks in south-eastern Kenya in the Greater Tsavo Ecosystemand contains 14 community-owned ranches. The region is home to the country’s largest and growing population of c. 15,000 African savannah elephants Loxodonta africana (Waweru et al., 2021). The elephants use the wildlife corridor to transit between the parks. Rukinga Wildlife Sanctuary, operated by Wildlife Works, is one of the largest Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) carbon offset projects, and part of the corridor’s 14 ranches. This area is home to almost 120,000 people, and the high number of villages, farms and nomadic pastoralists create many opportunities for human–wildlife interactions. Community outreach by Wildlife Works has been prevalent in this area, making it ideal for engagement. Most areas outside the Sanctuary are smallholder farms, with maize being the predominant crop. Almost half of the villagers in this area use basic deterrents such as guarding crops, lighting fires or scaring crop-foraging wildlife away with loud noises. Fewfarmers usemoremodern and effective deterrents such as electric, beehive,metal or chili fences (VonHagen et al., 2023).We selected six communities surrounding Rukinga Wildlife Sanctuary as the focus of the study: Itinyi and Kombomboro (combined because of their small population size and geographical proximity, hereafter referred to as Itinyi), Bungule, Miasenyi, Kisimenyi, Buguta and Makwasinyi (Fig. 1). The key criteria for selecting these villages were adjacency to the Sanctuary and that they were predominantly comprised of farming households experiencing crop foraging by elephants.


Methods


We conducted participatory modelling sessions in con- junction with social surveys (Von Hagen et al., 2023)in the six villages. We hired and trained a local facilitator to conduct the sessions. Chiefs, elders and the facilitator to- gether identified 30–35 farmers fromeach village to partic- ipate in the survey sessions, selecting people who were known to frequently experience interactions with elephants. Approximately half of the participants were men and half women, as women are at least equally responsible for farm- ing duties in the area. We then reduced this cohort to 12–15 participants per village, which is the optimal number for modelling sessions (Phillips & Phillips, 1993; Nyaki et al., 2014). To maintain sample independence, only one person per household participated, resulting in a total sample size of 77 villagers (39 men, 38 women; Supplementary


Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 40–49 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000449


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140