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. 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. 4. 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.

1. 野生动物与农户的共存往往充满挑战，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，NGOs）推出相关缓解措施。然而，仅通过物资供给、方法有效性演示或推广意愿，无法准确预测农户是否会实际采用这些措施。
2. 本研究采用民族志决策模型（Ethnographic Decision Models），旨在剖析农户如何通过决策选择采用或拒绝采用缓解大象啃食农作物的相关措施，同时探讨政府与非政府组织的行为如何助力或阻碍农户开展自我保护与作物防护工作。
3. 尽管农户在获得相关物资或有能力负担采购成本，且认可措施有效性的情况下，会产生采用相关措施的动机，但倘若他们认为某一措施存在安全隐患、或认为大象毁粮问题尚未达到严重程度、亦或是物资供给与收入水平不足，则仍不会采用该措施。若农户对某一措施缺乏认知与了解，则根本不会考虑使用该措施。政府部门与非政府组织可通过提供现金收入机会、物资支持与知识科普，助力农户缓解大象啃食农作物的问题。然而，农户实际获得的物资与他们期望采用的措施之间存在错配差距。
4. 一次性的物资投入无法推动缓解措施的可持续应用。我们认为，政府部门或非政府组织可通过推动物流体系（如道路与零售网络）建设，提升缓解物资的可获得性，以此增强农户的自主能动性。此外，我们还强调需通过促进社区内部共享缓解措施经验、提升农户对前景良好的野生动物友好型农耕（wildlife conscious farming）有效性的认知，以此赋能农户；尽管农户的反馈显示此类措施效果喜人，但目前仅有少数农户实际采用了相关技术。