Participatory approaches within development programs involving common-pool resources are intended to revive a community’s role in managing these resources. Certainly, to ensure the successful and equitable use of such resources, community participation is essential. However, in many cases, attempts at applying a participatory approach often fail to genuinely engage all subgroups within a community due to assumptions of homogeneity and a lack of understanding of the deep socio-political divisions between people. As a result, development programs can be plagued by these pre-existing power relations, potentially resulting in tokenistic community participation and the continuation of elite capture of natural resources to the same extent or worse than before a development program has begun. This in turn can negatively impact good governance and the fair distribution of a common pool resource. This paper explores the use of participatory approaches in water projects, assessing to what degree power relationships impact water management programs. Using a qualitative approach, the paper identifies key challenges of participatory water governance through case studies from Turkey, India, and Sri Lanka, exploring: lack of social trust, elite capture of participatory processes, power heterogeneity and imbalances at the micro-level, and a lack of inclusive participation in decision-making. Based on the analysis of these case studies, this paper argues that it is essential for participatory development interventions to understand socio-political power relations within a community—an inherently complex and contested space. The so-called “exit strategy” of a community project play a key role to decide the project sustainability that grants the “community ownership” of the project. Such an understanding can bring about greater success in development interventions attempting to address water-related issues.

Human–elephant conflict (HEC) is a severe and much-debated issue in Sri Lanka. An average of two hundred animals are intentionally killed, and seventy to eighty human casualties are counted each year. The Sri Lankan elephant (Elephas maximus maximus) is an endangered subspecies. The reported elephant mortality rates are high. On the other hand, human–elephant conflict also leads to hardship and trauma among rural populations. This research paper reviews causal explanations for HEC in Sri Lanka, tracing underlying narratives and connecting broader conservation theory and practical approaches. The paper discusses potential causes and contexts of HEC in Sri Lanka, including historical factors (i.e., colonial hunting and land-use changes), poaching, habitat loss due to population growth, crop-raiding behaviour, problem animals, and changes in agricultural production systems. The review concludes that socio-economic and cultural factors in HEC in Sri Lanka are poorly explained, and more research should focus on the underlying conditions of rural populations’ vulnerability.

Human–elephant conflict (HEC) is a serious social–ecological problem in Sri Lanka’s elephant range regions, as between 200 and 400 elephants have been killed annually over the last years, and more than 1200 people have died from the consequences of elephant encounters within a decade. Crop foraging causes economic damage to farming households. The study aims to understand factors driving vulnerability to HEC among the population. Employing a cross-communal multi-item large-N field survey (N = 651), authors were able to describe living conditions and perceptions of Sri Lankan villagers affected by HEC. By running a multiple regression analysis with correlated variables, the study is able to correlate independent variables to vulnerability, namely socio-economic conditions, environmental change and land-use, and awareness. Furthermore, a vulnerability map has been created, identifying Puttalam, Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, Matale, and Polonnaruwa districts as conflict hotspots. Private electric fences as a widespread protection measure were found to have unintended negative side-effects to non-protected households. The findings suggest the urgent need to upscale public policies mitigating the consequences of HEC on affected populations by reducing overall vulnerability to environmental hazards, including human–wildlife conflict.

Human-elephant conflict (HEC) in Sri Lanka has escalated over the recent years, with, on average, 300 elephant deaths annually and human casualties of around 90 per year. Employing field-based qualitative methods, this contribution identifies causes and contexts of human-elephant conflict in those parts of the Sri Lankan dry zone most severely affected. We have used field observations as well as semi-structured interviews with experts and affected villagers as primary data collection techniques. The findings show that (a) human-elephant conflicts are the result of land-use decisions, encroachment on elephant corridors, changes in agricultural production systems, and commercialization of land, and that (b) there is a deep division between the environmental knowledge and practices of rural people and the conservation governance provided by government authorities. Furthermore, both traditional and modern mitigation approaches fail to reign in HEC effectively. The insufficient implementation of HEC mitigation measures, and a severe disconnect between the needs and anxieties of rural people and conservation policies, render the management of human-wildlife interactions ineffective. This suggests a need for fundamental reform of elephant conservation policy in Sri Lanka.

There is a vivid scientific debate on how climate change affects stability, resilience, and conflict dynamics of human societies. Environmental security and collapse theory are theoretical approaches that claim severe negative impacts of climatic disasters on political stability, allegedly through the vector of food insecurity. Yet there is a disconnect between this work and the rich body of knowledge on food insecurity and society. The literature is fairly unanimous that (a) drought does not necessarily lead to famines, since (b) famines have a political context that is often more important than other factors; in addition, (c) famines and the distribution of suffering reflect social hierarchies within afflicted societies, and (d) even large-scale famines do not necessarily cause collapse of a polity’s functioning, as (e) food systems are highly interconnected and complex. As an illustrative case, the paper offers a longitudinal study of Malawi. By combining environmental history and analysis of Malawi’s idiosyncratic (post-)colonial politics, it discusses the possible connections between droughts, food insecurity, and political crises in the African country. The single-case study represents a puzzle for adherents of the “collapse” theory but highlights the complex political ecology of food crises in vulnerable societies. This has implications for a formulation of climate justice claims beyond catastrophism.