Cherishing Human-Elephant Landscapes with GIS-LBS: A LUCIS-Based Negotiation Framework for Human-Elephant Coexistence in Sri Lanka

Abenayake, Chethika and Jayasinghe, Amila and Lahiru, Kaveesha and Sankalpa, Sandaruwan and Diwyanjali, Gayesha and Kangara, Sandali and De Silva, Chathura and Retscher, Günther and Gabela Majic, Jelena (2026) Cherishing Human-Elephant Landscapes with GIS-LBS: A LUCIS-Based Negotiation Framework for Human-Elephant Coexistence in Sri Lanka. EVERYBODY PLANS ... SOMETIMES. Cherish Heritage, Plan Now, Create a Better Future! Proceedings of REAL CORP 2026, 31st International Conference on Urban Development, Regional Planning and Information Society. pp. 217-222. ISSN 2521-3938

Text (Cherishing Human-Elephant Landscapes with GIS-LBS: A LUCIS-Based Negotiation Framework for Human-Elephant Coexistence in Sri Lanka) CORP2026_5.pdf - Published Version Download (1MB)

Abstract

Conflicts over land and ecological heritage increasingly require planners to treat plans not as fixed blueprints but as negotiated agreements over space, values, and future risk. Collaborative and communicative planning traditions emphasise that durable spatial decisions emerge through iterative bargaining – where maps, scenarios, and design proposals act as shared “boundary objects” that help parties externalise trade-offs and explore mutually beneficial solutions (HEALEY, 2020; BAR-SINAI, 2013). However, while negotiation is widely discussed in planning theory, it is still weakly operationalised in everyday practice, especially in multi-stakeholder settings shaped by power asymmetries, competing mandates, and contested evidence (RUMING, 2012; KARTZIOS et al., 2022). A further challenge is that many land–ecology conflicts behave as complex systems: outcomes emerge from interacting processes, feedback loops, and adaptation across actors and environments, often producing nonlinear change and shifting hotspots over time. In urban science and complexity perspectives suggest that such contested socio-ecological landscapes require an Urban Informatics stance – integrating big data, sensing, and computing to support dynamic, evidence-updated decision-support systems and applications, rather than relying solely on conventional land-use allocation logic and periodic plan revisions (BATTY, 2013; SHI, GOODCHILD, BATTY et al., 2021). Methodologically, many planning support tools remain oriented toward spatial optimisation or impact assessment, rather than negotiation itself. Multi-criteria frameworks (e.g., AHP) can formalise stakeholder priorities, yet weights often remain expert-driven and opaque. Game-theoretic approaches offer a complementary lens by representing stakeholders as strategic actors with distinct objectives and utilities, enabling systematic testing of stability (e.g., near-equilibrium outcomes) and efficiency (e.g., Pareto- improving compromises) across alternative spatial strategies (ZARREH & GROGAN, 2025). Importantly, negotiation-oriented modelling must remain participatory and transparent, supporting learning and trust rather than acting as a technocratic “black box” (CUHADAR, 2004). Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) in Sri Lanka is a particularly urgent arena for such negotiation-capable, informatics-oriented planning support. HEC is not only a conservation challenge but also a land-use and spatial justice problem in mixed agricultural–settlement landscapes that overlap elephant home ranges and corridors (GUNAWANSA et al., 2023). These landscapes are continuously reshaped by cultivation cycles, settlement expansion, infrastructure, and seasonal resource conditions – interacting with elephant movement to create persistent yet evolving conflict patterns – thereby reinforcing the need for dynamic, evidence-driven planning beyond static master-plan prescriptions. This paper advances a GIS-LBS–enabled negotiation framework that couples (i) LUCIS-based suitability and conflict mapping (CARR & ZWICK, 2007) with (ii) LBS-derived GPS elephant movement as an empirical validation lens, and (iii) game-theoretic analysis to evaluate negotiated outcomes across three strategy families: coexistence, partial separation, and full separation. By explicitly linking spatial modelling, movement evidence, and negotiation analytics, the framework provides a transparent basis to “cherish heritage” through evidence-based, politically feasible landscape sharing – supported by adaptive, data-informed planning applications – rather than purely separation-oriented interventions.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Spatial Planning, Landuse Conflict, Human-Elephant Coexistence, Geographic Information System, Participatory Planning and Negosation
Subjects:	G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > G Geography (General) H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor
Depositing User:	The CORP Team
Date Deposited:	07 Apr 2026 19:48
Last Modified:	07 Apr 2026 19:54
URI:	http://repository.corp.at/id/eprint/1339

Actions (login required)

View Item