The Role of Alternative Crop Cultivation in Promoting Human-Elephant Coexistence: A Multidisciplinary Investigation in Thailand
<p>Study site. Top: Kuiburi National Park in southwestern Thailand borders the study site, Ruam Thai Village, where elephant activity was monitored in six test plots located within 125 m from the forest edge. Bottom: The 2020 test plot (1.7 rai/2640 sq m) contained 10 experimental crop species planted in equally sized sub-plots. The five 2021 test plots (0.5 rai/800 sq m) contained lemongrass and citronella. Pineapple was planted in all test plots for comparative analysis. The 2020 test plot and five 2021 test plots were monitored for 22 months and 12 months, respectively.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Harvesting and processing stages. (<b>a</b>) Mature citronella leaf yield is harvested from the 2020 test plot using a sickle. (<b>b</b>) Stalk yield is then unearthed, cleaned, and tied in bundles containing equal stalks in preparation for sale or replanting. (<b>c</b>) An industrial hydrodistillation machine is used to extract essential oil from leaf yield. (<b>d</b>) The essential oil, valuable, concentrated oil extracted from plant matter is separated from hydrosol, a diluted byproduct from the distillation process that can be used in cosmetic and aromatherapy products.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Crop elimination. In the 2020 test plot, pineapple elimination was primarily due to elephants, while alternative crop loss was mainly due to environmental threats such as drought, invertebrate depredation, and insect-transmitted diseases, though to a lesser extent. Elephants entered the plot on 64 nights and did not consume or uproot any experimental species, although some were eliminated by trampling. Pineapple was fully eliminated by elephants and lime, karonda and lemongrass did not experience elephant-caused elimination.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Elephant activity. Elephant dung and footprints in the 2020 test plot revealed that elephants navigated the plot using pathways and crop rows, infrequently trampling experimental crops despite the recurring presence of elephants in the plot. These observations differ from hypotheses set by farmers during the pre-planting Participatory Action Research (PAR) workshop, which reflected a widely held notion that elephants would eliminate just as much alternative crop yield by trampling and uprooting as they eliminate in pineapple plots by consumption.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Early adopter profile. The profile of an early adopter, a farmer most interested in elephant-friendly agriculture, is shaped by four parameters determined from the household survey responses. Farmers experience barriers and motivators in social, ecological and economic domains, and the presence and absence of both barriers and motivators affects interest in elephant-friendly agriculture. The interventions in each domain are key to minimizing the barriers and maximizing the motivators, so more farmers adopt and experience success, which contributes to the positive feedback loop that enables more widespread adoption. Barriers and motivators in bold were reported by the majority of participants.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Data Collection
2.2.1. Household Survey and Early Adopter Profile
2.2.2. Experiments to Assess Crop Elimination and Elephant Activity
2.2.3. Farmer Interview and Agro-Economic Viability
2.3. Statistical Analyses
2.3.1. Household Survey and Early Adopter Profile
2.3.2. Crop Elimination and Elephant Activity
2.3.3. Farmer Interview and Agro-Economic Viability
3. Results
3.1. Household Survey and Early Adopter Profile
3.2. Crop Elimination and Elephant Activity
3.3. Farmer Interview and Agro-Economic Viability
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Condition | Code |
Partly Consumed. Eliminated | PCE |
Partly Consumed. Intact | PCI |
Fully Consumed | FC |
Uprooted. Not consumed | UNC |
Trampled/Broken. Eliminated | TE |
Trampled/Broken. Intact | TI |
Missing | MI |
Eliminated. Drought | ED |
Eliminated. Invertebrate depredation | EP |
Eliminated. Other environmental threats | EE |
Disease | DI |
Health | Score |
Eliminated—completely dead/dried up, missing. | 1 |
Poor—withered, fallen/drooping, all leaves are dry. | 2 |
Average—standing, partially dry, no new growth. | 3 |
Good—green/new growth/shoots, some fruiting or flowering. | 4 |
Thriving—entire plant green, many shoots, fruiting, flowering. | 5 |
Maintenance | Hours |
Weeding, watering, mulching, applying fertilizer | |
Height | Centimeters |
From base of the plant to the top of the tallest leaf |
Appendix B
Category | Criteria | Score Descriptions | Score | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ecological | Elephant resilience | The two species that experienced the most elimination by elephants. | 1 | 2020 test plot data |
The two species that experienced some elimination by elephants. | 2 | |||
No elimination by elephants. | 3 | |||
Environmental resilience | >30% of the crops in the sub-plot were eliminated due to environmental threats. | 1 | 2020 test plot data | |
10–30% of the crops in the sub-plot were eliminated due to environmental threats. | 2 | |||
<10% of the crops in the sub-plot were eliminated due to environmental threats. | 3 | |||
Crop health | <3 average health. | 1 | 2020 test plot data | |
3–4 average health. | 2 | |||
4 or higher average health. | 3 | |||
Economic | Input requirements | Treatment is required to assist the crop’s growth and protect it from depredation. | 1 | 2020 test plot data, personal communication |
Treatment is required to assist the crop’s growth or protect it from depredation. | 2 | |||
Little or no treatment is required to assist the crop’s growth or protect it from depredation. | 3 | |||
Profit potential | Did not produce yield by the end of the study period. | 1 | 2020 test plot data | |
Produced yield, but overall, the sub-plot was not profitable by the end of the study period. | 2 | |||
Produced yield, and overall, the sub-plot was profitable by the end of the study period. | 3 | |||
Social | Labor investment | Requires weekly maintenance and treatment application. | 1 | 2020 test plot data, personal communication |
Requires monthly maintenance and treatment application. | 2 | |||
Requires maintenance and treatment application only a few times per year or not at all. | 3 | |||
Local familiarity | Cultivated in household gardens, likely a few individual crops for personal use or consumption. | 1 | Household survey, pineapple farmer interview | |
Cultivated at a commercial scale for sale to local shops and markets. | 2 | |||
Cultivated at a commercial scale for sale to factories, agro-industrial buyers, etc. | 3 |
Appendix C
Variables | Categories | Total (n = 239) | Not Interested (n = 119) | Interested (n = 120) | χ2 (p-Value) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elephant frequency | 1—Never | 8.4 (n = 20) | 7.9 (n = 19) | 0.4 (n = 1) | 23.1 (0.0003) |
2—Less than once per month | 27.2 (n = 65) | 15.1 (n = 36) | 12.1 (n = 29) | ||
3—Once per month | 18.8 (n = 45) | 8.8 (n = 21) | 10.0 (n = 24) | ||
4—Once per week | 19.2 (n = 46) | 7.1 (n = 17) | 12.1 (n = 29) | ||
5—Several times per week | 18.0 (n = 43) | 6.7 (n = 16) | 11.3 (n = 27) | ||
6—Every Night | 8.4 (n = 20) | 4.2 (n = 10) | 4.2 (n = 10) | ||
Benefits from elephants | 0—No | 64.4 (n = 154) | 36.0 (n = 86) | 28.5 (n = 68) | 5.7 (0.0170) |
1—Yes | 35.6 (n = 85) | 13.8 (n = 33) | 21.8 (n = 52) | ||
Total land (rai) | 1—(1–5) | 10.5 (n = 25) | 5.0 (n = 12) | 5.4 (n = 13) | 0.2 (0.9760) |
2—(6–10) | 43.1 (n = 103) | 22.2 (n = 53) | 20.9 (n = 50) | ||
3—(11–15) | 25.1 (n = 60) | 12.1 (n = 29) | 13.0 (n = 31) | ||
4 (>16) | 21.3 (n = 51) | 10.5 (n = 25) | 10.9 (n = 26) | ||
Age | 1—(18–35) | 10.5 (n = 25) | 7.5 (n = 18) | 2.9 (n = 7) | 8.9 (0.0647) |
2—(36–45) | 25.1 (n = 60) | 13.0 (n = 31) | 12.1 (n = 29) | ||
3—(46–55) | 34.7 (n = 83) | 13.8 (n = 33) | 20.9 (n = 50) | ||
4—(56–65) | 21.8 (n = 52) | 10.9 (n = 26) | 10.9 (n = 26) | ||
5—(66+) | 7.9 (n = 19) | 4.6 (n = 11) | 3.3 (n = 8) | ||
Gender | 0—Female | 43.5 (n = 104) | 21.8 (n = 52) | 21.8 (n = 52) | 0.0 (1.0000) |
1—Male | 56.5 (n = 135) | 28.0 (n = 67) | 28.5 (n = 68) |
Appendix D
Species | Planted | Eliminated | Eliminated: Elephants | Eliminated: Environmental Threats | Total Eliminated |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 test plot | |||||
Pineapple | 400 | 400 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% |
Mulberry | 112 | 59 | 1.8% | 50.9% | 52.7% |
Kaffir lime | 58 | 26 | 5.2% | 39.7% | 44.8% |
Lime | 24 | 7 | 0.0% | 29.2% | 29.2% |
Chili | 295 | 66 | 4.4% | 18.0% | 22.4% |
Karonda | 12 | 1 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 8.3% |
Citronella | 300 | 16 | 0.7% | 4.7% | 5.3% |
Lemongrass | 309 | 1 | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
2021 test plot #1 | |||||
Pineapple | 200 | 180 | 90.0% | 0.0% | 90.0% |
Lemongrass | 200 | 2 | 1.8% | 2.4% | 4.2% |
Citronella | 200 | 11 | 1.7% | 3.9% | 5.6% |
2021 test plot #2 | |||||
Pineapple | 200 | 200 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% |
Lemongrass | 200 | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.0% |
Citronella | 200 | 1 | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.5% |
2021 test plot #3 | |||||
Pineapple | 200 | 63 | 31.5% | 0.0% | 31.5% |
Lemongrass | 200 | 16 | 6.0% | 2.0% | 8.0% |
Citronella | 200 | 37 | 5.0% | 13.5% | 18.5% |
2021 test plot #4 | |||||
Pineapple | 200 | 165 | 82.5% | 0.0% | 82.5% |
Lemongrass | 200 | 10 | 2.0% | 3.0% | 5.0% |
Citronella | 200 | 1 | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.5% |
2021 test plot #5 | |||||
Pineapple | 200 | 200 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% |
Lemongrass | 200 | 12 | 1.0% | 5.0% | 6.0% |
Citronella | 200 | 6 | 1.0% | 2.0% | 3.0% |
Appendix E
Plot | Forest Edge (m) | Observation Nights | Approached | Approached (%) | Entered | Entered (%) | Caused Damage | Caused Damage (%) | Elephant Elimination: Pineapple | Elephant Elimination: Lemongrass | Elephant Elimination: Citronella |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 test plot: pineapple present | 20 | 263 | 108 | 41.1% | 51 | 19.4% | 22 | 8.4% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.7% |
2020 test plot: pineapple absent | 165 | 49 | 29.7% | 13 | 7.9% | 3 | 1.8% | NA | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
2020 test plot: total | 428 | 157 | 36.7% | 64 | 15.0% | 25 | 5.8% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.7% | |
2021: plot 1 | 55 | 365 | 115 | 31.5% | 43 | 11.8% | - | 90.0% | 1.8% | 1.7% | |
2021: plot 2 | 10 | 365 | 102 | 27.9% | 40 | 11.0% | - | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
2021: plot 3 | 10 | 365 | 121 | 33.2% | 26 | 7.1% | - | 31.5% | 6.0% | 5.0% | |
2021: plot 4 | 125 | 365 | 156 | 42.7% | 55 | 15.1% | - | 82.5% | 2.0% | 0.0% | |
2021: plot 5 | 10 | 365 | 163 | 44.7% | 69 | 18.9% | - | 100.0% | 1.0% | 1.0% |
References
- Menon, V.; Tiwari, S.K. Population status of Asian elephants Elephas maximus and key threats. Int. Zoo. Yearb. 2019, 53, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leimgruber, P.; Gagnon, J.B.; Wemmer, C.; Kelly, D.S.; Songer, M.A.; Selig, E.R. Fragmentation of Asia’s remaining wildlands: Implications for Asian elephant conservation. Anim. Conserv. 2003, 6, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Silva, S.; Wu, T.; Nyhus, P.; Weaver, A.; Thieme, A.; Johnson, J.; Wadey, J.; Mossbrucker, A.; Vu, T.; Neang, T.; et al. Land-use change is associated with multi-century loss of elephant ecosystems in Asia. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 5996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalam, T.; Baishya, H.K.; Smith, D. Lethal fence electrocution: A major threat to Asian elephants in Assam, India. SAGE J. 2018, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Water, A.; Matteson, K. Human-elephant conflict in western Thailand: Socio-economic drivers and potential mitigation strategies. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0194736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wongtawan, T. Wild elephant-human conflicts in Thailand: The analysis from the media (2014–2018). In Proceedings of the KUVIC 2019 Conference, Huahin, Thailand, 13–14 June 2019; p. 178. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, C.; Tiwari, S.K.; Goswami, V.R.; de Silva, S.; Kumar, A.; Baskaran, N.; Yoganand, K.; Menon, V. Elephas maximus. IUCN Red List. Threat. Species 2020, T7140A45818198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernando, P.; Pastorini, J. Range-wide status of Asian elephants. Gajah 2011, 35, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaffer, L.J.; Khadka, K.K.; Van Den Hoek, J.; Naithani, K.J. Human-elephant conflict: A review of current management strategies and future directions. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 6, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Water, A.; King, L.E.; Arkajak, R.; Arkajak, J.; van Doormaal, N.; Ceccarelli, V.; Sluiter, L.; Doornwaard, S.M.; Praet, V.; Owen, D.; et al. Beehive fences as a sustainable local solution to human-elephant conflict in Thailand. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, E.M.; Lahkar, B.P.; Subedi, N.; Nyirenda, V.R.; Lichtenfeld, L.L.; Jakoby, O. Does traditional and advanced guarding reduce crop losses due to wildlife? A comparative analysis from Africa and Asia. J. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 50, 125712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayward, M.W.; Kerley, G.I.H. Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Bol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pekor, A.; Miller, J.R.B.; Flyman, M.V.; Kasiki, S.; Kesch, M.K.; Miller, S.M.; Uiseb, K.; van der Merve, V.; Lindsey, P.A. Fencing Africa’s protected areas: Costs, benefits, and management issues. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 229, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kochprapa, P.; Savini, C.; Ngoprasert, D.; Savini, T.; Gale, G.A. Spatio-temporal dynamics of human−elephant conflict in a valley of pineapple plantations. Integr. Conserv. 2023, 2, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sitati, N.W.; Walpole, M.J. Assessing farm-based measures for mitigating human-elephant conflict in Transmara District, Kenya. Oryx 2006, 40, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampson, C.; Rodriguez, S.L.; Leimgruber, P.; Huang, Q.; Tonkyn, D. A quantitative assessment of the indirect impacts of human-elephant conflict. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiyo, P.I.; Cochrane, E.P.; Naughton, L.; Basuta, G.I. Temporal patterns of crop raiding by elephants: A response to changes in forage quality or crop availability? Afr. J. Ecol. 2005, 43, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webber, E.C.; Sereivathana, T.; Maltby, M.P.; Lee, P.C. Elephant crop-raiding and human-elephant conflict in Cambodia: Crop selection and seasonal timings of raids. Oryx 2011, 45, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukmasuang, R.; Phumpakphan, N.; Deungkae, P.; Chaiyarat, R.; Pla-Ard, M.; Khiowsree, N.; Charaspet, K.; Paansrri, P.; Noowong, J. Review: Status of wild elephant, conflict and conservation actions in Thailand. Biodiversitas 2024, 25, 1479–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parr, J.W.K.; Jitvijak, S.; Saranet, S.; Buathong, S. Exploratory co-management interventions in Kuiburi National Park, Central Thailand, including human-elephant conflict mitigation. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 7, 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiyo, P.I.; Lee, P.C.; Moss, C.J.; Archie, E.A.; Hollister-Smith, J.A.; Alberts, S.C. No risk, no gain: Effects of crop raiding and genetic diversity on body size in male elephants. Behav. Ecol. 2011, 22, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsika, T.A.; Adjetey, J.A.; Obopile, M.; Songhurst, A.C.; McCulloch, G.; Stronza, A. Alternative crops as a mitigation measure for elephant crop raiding in the eastern Okavango Panhandle. Pachyderm 2020, 61, 140–152. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S. In the era of climate change: Moving beyond conventional agriculture in Thailand. Asian J. Agric. Dev. 2021, 18, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherman, L.A.; Brye, K.R. Soil chemical property changes in response to long-term pineapple cultivation in Costa Rica. Agrosystems Geosci. Environ. 2019, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tawatsin, A.; Thavara, U.; Siriyasatien, P. Pesticides used in Thailand and toxic effects to human health. Med. Res. Arch. 2015, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Bayo, F. Impacts of agricultural pesticides on terrestrial ecosystems. In Ecological Impacts of Toxic Chemicals; Sánchez-Bayo, F., van den Brink, P.J., Mann, R.M., Eds.; Bentham Science Publishers: Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 2011; pp. 63–87. [Google Scholar]
- Gross, E.M.; McRobb, R.; Gross, J. Cultivating alternative crops reduces crop losses due to African elephants. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, E.M.; Drouet-Hoguet, N.; Subedi, N.; Gross, J. The potential of medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) to reduce crop damages by Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus). Crop Prot. 2017, 100, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henley, M.D.; Cook, R.M.; Bedetti, A.; Wilmot, J.; Roode, A.; Pereira, C.L.; Almeida, J.; Alverca, A. A phased approach to increase human tolerance in elephant corridors to link protected areas in southern Mozambique. Diversity 2023, 15, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, G.E.; Osborn, F.V. Investigating the potential for chilli (Capsicum annum) to reduce human-wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe. Oryx 2006, 40, 343–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, E.M.; Lahkar, B.P.; Subedi, N.; Nyirenda, V.R.; Lichtenfeld, L.L.; Jakoby, O. Seasonality, crop type and crop phenology influence crop damage by wildlife herbivores in Africa and Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 2029–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ly, C.; Hung, V.; Anh, N.C.; Bao, H.D.; Quoc, P.D.; Khanh, H.T.; Van Minh, N.; Cam, N.T.; Cuong, C.D. A pilot study of cultivating non-preferred crops to mitigate human-elephant conflict in the buffer zone of Yok Don National Park, Vietnam. Gajah 2020, 51, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
- Kansky, R.; Knight, A.T. Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in conflict with humans. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 179, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noga, S.R.; Kolawole, O.D.; Thakadu, O.; Masunga, G. Small farmers’ adoption behaviour: Uptake of elephant crop-raiding deterrent innovations in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2015, 7, 408–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogel, S.M.; Songhurst, A.C.; McCulloch, G.; Stronza, A. Understanding farmers’ reasons behind mitigation decisions is key in supporting their coexistence with wildlife. People Nat. 2022, 4, 1305–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, J.A.; Fleishman, E. Demonstration as a means to translate conservation science into practice. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gunaryadi, D.; Sugiyo; Hedges, S. Community-based human-elephant conflict mitigation: The value of an evidence-based approach in promoting the uptake of effective methods. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E.; Suri, T. Field Experiments in Developing Country Agriculture. Handb. Econ. Field Exp. 2017, 2, 427–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dedehayir, O.; Ortt, R.J.; Riverola, C.; Miralles, F. Innovators and early adopters in the diffusion of innovations: A literature review. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 21, 1740010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maynard, L.; Monroe, M.C.; Jacobson, S.K.; Savage, A. Maximizing biodiversity conservation through behavior change strategies. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020, 2, e193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Statistical Office of Thailand. Available online: https://www.nso.go.th/nsoweb/index/ (accessed on 26 October 2021).
- Srikrachang, M.; Srikosamatara, S. Elephant crop raiding problems and their solutions at Kui Buri National Park, southwestern Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 2005, 53, 87–109. [Google Scholar]
- Hemung, B.-O.; Sompholkrang, M.; Wongchai, A.; Chanshotikul, N.; Ueasin, N. Study of the potential of by-products from pineapple processing in Thailand: Review article. Int. J. Health Sci. 2022, 6, 12605–12615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bongsununt, S. Turn Failing Pineapple Farmers into Successful Exporters. The Nation. 2 July 2018. Available online: https://www.nationthailand.com/life/30349171 (accessed on 6 May 2024).
- Baum, F.; MacDougall, C.; Smith, D. Participatory action research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 854–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chansakao, S. Citronella Grass Production for Effectiveness of Volatile Oil. Ph.D. Thesis, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Tajidin, N.E.; Ahmad, S.H.; Rosenani, A.B.; Azimah, H.; Munirah, M. Chemical composition and citral content in lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) essential oil at three maturity stages. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beegle, K.; Carletto, C.; Himelein, K. Reliability of recall in agricultural data. J. Dev. Econ. 2011, 98, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahl, J.R.; Singh, A.K.; Lal, R.K.; Gupta, A.K. High-yielding improved varieties of medicinal and aromatic crops for enhanced income. In New Age Herbals: Resource, Quality and Pharmacognosy; Singh, B., Peter, K.V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parikh, J.K.; Desai, M.A. Hydrodistillation of essential oil from Cymbopogon flexuosus. Int. J. Food Eng. 2011, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021; Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Wany, A.; Jha, S.; Nigam, V.K.; Pandey, D.M. Chemical analysis and therapeutic uses of citronella oil from Cymbopogon winterianus: A short review. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2013, 1, 504–521. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304488601_Chemical_analysis_and_therapeutic_uses_of_citronella_oil_from_Cymbopogon_winterianus_A_short_review (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- de Silva, S.; Ruppert, K.; Knox, J.; Davis, E.O.; Weerathunga, U.S.; Glikman, J.A. Experiences and emotional responses of farming communities living with Asian Elephants in Southern Sri Lanka. Trees For. People 2023, 14, 100441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saif, O.; Kansky, R.; Palash, A.; Kidd, M.; Knight, A.T. Costs of coexistence: Understanding the drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh. Oryx 2020, 54, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malley, G.S.; Gorenflo, L.J. Shifts in the conflict-coexistence continuum: Exploring social-ecological determinants of human-elephant interactions. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0274155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nsonsi, F.; Heymans, J.C.; Diamouangana, J.; Breuer, T. Attitudes towards forest elephant conservation around a protected area in northern Congo. Conserv. Soc. 2017, 15, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montero Botey, M.; Soliño, M.; Perea, R.; Martínez-Jauregui, M. Let us give voice to local farmers: Preferences for farm-based strategies to enhance human-elephant coexistence in Africa. Animals 2024, 12, 1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kikon, D.; Barbora, S. The rehabilitation zone: Living with leopards and elephants in Assam. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2021, 4, 1121–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohd-Radzi, N.H.S.; Karuppannan, K.V.; Abdullah-Fauzi, N.A.F.; Mohd-Ridwan, A.R.; Othman, N.; Muhammad Abu Bakar, A.-L.; Gani, M.; Abdul-Razak, M.F.A.; Md-Zain, B.M. Determining the diet of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at human-elephant conflict areas in Peninsular Malaysia using DNA metabarcoding. Biodivers. Data J. 2022, 10, e89752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bal, P.; Nath, C.D.; Nanaya, K.M.; Kushalappa, C.G.; Garcia, C. Elephants also like coffee: Trends and drivers of human-elephant conflicts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47, 789–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nyirenda, V.; Myburgh, W.; Reilly, B. Predicting environmental factors influencing crop raiding by African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Luangwa Valley, eastern Zambia. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 6, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danquah, E.; Oppong, S.K. Food plants of forest elephants and their availability in the Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana. Pachyderm 2006, 40, 52–60. [Google Scholar]
- Dharmarathne, C.; Fernando, C.; Weerasinghe, C.; Corea, R. Project orange elephant is a conflict specific holistic approach to mitigating human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nazri, A.; Pebrian, D.E. Analysis of energy consumption in pineapple cultivation in Malaysia: A case study. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 25, 17–28. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313609026_Analysis_of_Energy_Consumption_in_Pineapple_Cultivation_in_Malaysia_A_Case_Study (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Hardman, C.J.; Harrison, D.P.G.; Shaw, P.J.; Nevard, T.D.; Hughes, B.; Potts, S.G.; Norris, K. Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: A comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amekawa, Y.; Hongsibsong, S.; Sawarng, N.; Gebre, G.G. Chili pepper farmers’ pesticide use and residues under Thailand’s Public Good Agricultural Practices standard: A case study in Chiang Mai Province. Collect. FAO Agric. 2023, 13, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharmeen, J.B.; Mahomoodally, F.M.; Zengin, G.; Maggi, F. Essential oils as natural sources of fragrance compounds for cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Molecules 2021, 26, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogra, M.V. Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 2008, 39, 1408–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyumba, T.O.; Emenye, O.E.; Leader-Williams, N. Assessing impacts of human-elephant conflict on human wellbeing: An empirical analysis of communities living with elephants around Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, E.; Jayasinghe, N.; Hilderink-Koopmanns, F.; Brooks, A.; Polet, G. A Future for All—The Need for Human-Wildlife Coexistence; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/a_future_for_all___the_need_for_human_willdife_coexistence.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Putra, R.E.; Permana, A.D.; Kinasih, I. Application of Asiatic honey bees (Apis cerana) and stingless bees (Trigona laeviceps) as pollinator agents of hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) at local Indonesia farm system. Psyche A J. Entemology 2014, 2, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branco, P.S.; Merkle, J.A.; Pringle, R.M.; King, L.; Long, R.A. An experimental test of community-based strategies for mitigating human-wildlife conflict around protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karidozo, M.; Osborn, F.V. Community based conflict mitigation trials: Results of field tests of chilli as an elephant deterrent. J. Biodivers. Endanger. Species 2015, 3, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pozo, R.A.; Coulson, T.; McCulloch, G.; Stronza, A.; Songhurst, A. Chilli-briquettes modify elephant temporal behaviour but not numbers. Oryx 2017, 53, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Effect | Baseline | Categories | Odds | 95% CI on Odds |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | - | - | 0.01 | (0.00, 0.09) * |
Elephant frequency | 1—Never | 2—Less than once per month | 17.8 | (3.25, 334.05) * |
3—Once per month | 19.92 | (3.52, 377.82) * | ||
4—Once per week | 31.28 | (5.43, 598.12) * | ||
5—Several times per week | 32.36 | (5.63, 618.40) * | ||
6—Nightly | 21.17 | (3.18, 427.92) * | ||
Benefits from elephants | No | Yes | 1.92 | (1.05, 3.57) * |
Age | 1—(18–35) | 2—(36–45) | 2.37 | (0.83, 7.27) |
3—(46–55) | 4.57 | (1.65, 13.78) * | ||
4—(56–65) | 2.6 | (0.89, 8.19) | ||
5—(66+) | 3.21 | (0.81, 13.48) |
Ecological | Economic | Social | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species | Elephant Resilience | Environmental Resilience | Crop Health | Input Requirements | Profit | Labor Investment | Local Familiarity | Total Score (Max 9) |
Lemongrass | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8.50 |
3.00 | 3.00 | 2.50 | ||||||
Citronella | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8.17 |
2.67 | 3.00 | 2.50 | ||||||
Chili | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5.67 |
1.67 | 2.00 | 2.00 | ||||||
Karonda | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5.50 |
3.00 | 1.00 | 1.50 | ||||||
Mulberry | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5.17 |
1.67 | 1.50 | 2.00 | ||||||
Lime | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.33 |
2.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
Kaffir lime | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.33 |
1.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Pineapple | Lemongrass | Citronella | |
---|---|---|---|
Investment/loss (per rai/crop cycle) | |||
Planting | 100.9 | 213.1 | 188.5 |
Maintenance | 161.7 | 81.9 | 49.1 |
Elephant deterrents (recurring and non-recurring) | 38.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Harvest | 49.3 | 98.3 | 98.3 |
Elephant-caused crop damage | 38.5 | 28.3 | 27.9 |
Total investment/loss | 388.8 | 421.6 | 363.9 |
Revenue (per rai/crop cycle) | |||
Fruit yield | 413.7 | - | - |
Shoot sales | 2.9 | - | - |
Stalk yield | - | 1490.3 | 989.6 |
Essential oil yield | - | 23.8 | 89.4 |
Total revenue | 416.6 | 1514.0 | 1079.0 |
Profit (per rai/crop cycle) | 27.8 | 1092.5 | 715.1 |
Average crop cycle (months) | 13.3 | 7.0 | 4.0 |
Profit (per rai/month) | 2.1 | 156.1 | 178.8 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Owen, A.; van de Water, A.; Sutthiboriban, N.; Tantipisanuh, N.; Sangthong, S.; Rajbhandari, A.; Matteson, K. The Role of Alternative Crop Cultivation in Promoting Human-Elephant Coexistence: A Multidisciplinary Investigation in Thailand. Diversity 2024, 16, 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090519
Owen A, van de Water A, Sutthiboriban N, Tantipisanuh N, Sangthong S, Rajbhandari A, Matteson K. The Role of Alternative Crop Cultivation in Promoting Human-Elephant Coexistence: A Multidisciplinary Investigation in Thailand. Diversity. 2024; 16(9):519. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090519
Chicago/Turabian StyleOwen, Ave, Antoinette van de Water, Natsuda Sutthiboriban, Naruemon Tantipisanuh, Samorn Sangthong, Alisha Rajbhandari, and Kevin Matteson. 2024. "The Role of Alternative Crop Cultivation in Promoting Human-Elephant Coexistence: A Multidisciplinary Investigation in Thailand" Diversity 16, no. 9: 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090519