TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding farmers' reasons behind mitigation decisions is key in supporting their coexistence with wildlife

AU - Vogel, Susanne Marieke

AU - Songhurst, Anna Catherine

AU - McCulloch, Graham

AU - Stronza, Amanda

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

PY - 2022/10

Y1 - 2022/10

N2 - Coexistence between wildlife and farmers can be challenging and can endanger the lives of both, prompting the provisioning of mitigation methods by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). However, provision of materials, demonstration of the effectiveness of methods or willingness to uptake a method do not predict uptake of methods. We used ethnographic decision models to understand how farmers' work through the decisions of uptake or non-uptake of methods to mitigate crop consumption by elephants, and how the government and NGOs can either enable or impede the ability of farmers to protect themselves and their crops. While farmers were motivated to use methods if they received or could afford to buy materials and they believed in the effectiveness of the methods, they still did not use them if they considered a method to be dangerous, or issues with elephants not to be severe enough, or when the supply of materials or income was not sufficient. Methods were not even considered by farmers if they lacked awareness or knowledge of the method. Government departments and NGOs enabled farmers to mitigate elephant crop consumption by providing opportunities for cash income, and providing materials and knowledge. Yet, there was disparity between the materials farmers received and methods they wished to adopt. One-off inputs of materials did not result in sustainable use of mitigation methods. We see an opportunity for governmental departments or NGOs to stimulate logistics (e.g. roads and retail) to increase availability of mitigation materials since this promoted farmer autonomy. We also highlight the importance of empowering farmers by facilitating within community sharing of mitigation ideas and increasing knowledge about the effectiveness of promising wildlife conscious farming, as despite promising farmer testimonies, only a few farmers used these techniques. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

AB - Coexistence between wildlife and farmers can be challenging and can endanger the lives of both, prompting the provisioning of mitigation methods by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). However, provision of materials, demonstration of the effectiveness of methods or willingness to uptake a method do not predict uptake of methods. We used ethnographic decision models to understand how farmers' work through the decisions of uptake or non-uptake of methods to mitigate crop consumption by elephants, and how the government and NGOs can either enable or impede the ability of farmers to protect themselves and their crops. While farmers were motivated to use methods if they received or could afford to buy materials and they believed in the effectiveness of the methods, they still did not use them if they considered a method to be dangerous, or issues with elephants not to be severe enough, or when the supply of materials or income was not sufficient. Methods were not even considered by farmers if they lacked awareness or knowledge of the method. Government departments and NGOs enabled farmers to mitigate elephant crop consumption by providing opportunities for cash income, and providing materials and knowledge. Yet, there was disparity between the materials farmers received and methods they wished to adopt. One-off inputs of materials did not result in sustainable use of mitigation methods. We see an opportunity for governmental departments or NGOs to stimulate logistics (e.g. roads and retail) to increase availability of mitigation materials since this promoted farmer autonomy. We also highlight the importance of empowering farmers by facilitating within community sharing of mitigation ideas and increasing knowledge about the effectiveness of promising wildlife conscious farming, as despite promising farmer testimonies, only a few farmers used these techniques. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

KW - crop consumption

KW - ethnographic decision model

KW - human–elephant coexistence

KW - wildlife conscious farming

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137217201&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pan3.10397

DO - 10.1002/pan3.10397

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85137217201

VL - 4

SP - 1305

EP - 1318

JO - People and Nature

JF - People and Nature

SN - 2575-8314

IS - 5

ER -