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

1.     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 organisations (NGOs). However, provision of materials, demonstration of the effectiveness of methods or willingness to uptake a method do not predict uptake of methods.
2.     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.
3.     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. Metho...

1. 野生生物与农户的共存往往颇具挑战，甚至可能危及双方的生命安全，这促使各国政府与非政府组织（Non-Governmental Organisations，简称NGOs）推出各类缓解措施。然而，仅提供物资、展示方法的有效性，或是表达愿意采用某一方法的意愿，均无法准确预测农户是否会真正采纳该方法。
2. 本研究采用民族志决策模型（Ethnographic Decision Models），解析农户针对大象啃食农作物的问题，如何做出采纳或拒用缓解措施的决策，并剖析政府与非政府组织如何对农户保护自身及作物的能力产生影响——既可能提供支持，也可能造成阻碍。
3. 尽管农户在能够获取或负担得起所需物资，且认可措施有效性的情况下，会产生使用这些措施的动机，但倘若他们认为某一措施存在安全隐患、或是认为大象造成的危害并不严重，亦或是物资供应与收入无法满足需求，依旧不会选择使用该措施。