Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance: The Moderating Role of Media Attention
Next Article in Special Issue
Stoichiometric Characteristics of Abies georgei var. smithii Plants in Southeast Tibet
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Mechanism and Effectiveness of Digital Inclusive Finance to Drive Rural Industry Prosperity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Physiological Characteristics and Cold Resistance of Five Woody Plants in Treeline Ecotone of Sygera Mountains
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065033
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impacts of the Asian Elephants Damage on Farmer’s Livelihood Strategies in Pu’er and Xishuangbanna in China

by
Yuchen Du
,
Junfeng Chen
and
Yi Xie
*
School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5033; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065033
Submission received: 14 February 2023 / Revised: 5 March 2023 / Accepted: 10 March 2023 / Published: 12 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conservation and Sustainability of Forest Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The human–elephant conflict is a current issue that receives global attention and occurs in all elephant-distribution countries. This paper focuses on Pu′er and Xishuangbanna cities in the distribution area of Asian elephants in Yunnan Province. Based on two case studies, we collect basic information from local farmers regarding the severity of the damage caused by Asian elephants and the impact this has on their psychology. Based on the Logit model and modulation effect, we analyze the impact farmers’ livelihood capital on how they choose livelihood strategies in the distribution area and whether damage caused by Asian elephants and general conflict conditions can regulate this impact. The results show that the damage caused by Asian elephants and general conflict conditions is serious in the distribution area, but the number of farmers who choose to change their livelihood strategies is small. The damage caused by Asian elephants has a different modulation effect on farmers’ livelihood capital. In the future, we should be more considerate of the livelihood capital accumulation of local farmers in the process of protecting Asian elephants, with a view towards maintaining and improving the livelihoods of farmers.

1. Introduction

The human–elephant conflict (HEC) is described as “any interactions between humans and elephants which have negative effects on human social, economic or cultural life; on elephant conservation or the environment” [1]. HEC has prevailed in both Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and African elephant (Loxodonta africana) distribution range countries for decades [2], and this is mainly a result of damage caused by Asian elephants. It can lead to serious economic loss and personal safety risks as well as physical threats for the local community and has a substantially negative impact on elephant population conservation. This overshadows the achievement of Goal 1 for poverty alleviation and Goal 15 for biodiversity conservation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Thus, a better understanding of the causal relationship between damage caused by Asian elephants and the living development of rural people in the range of the affected counties is necessary as it will further contribute to supporting HEC alleviation and living development.
Damage caused by Asian elephants is rooted in the spatial overlap between humans and elephants [3,4]. The increasing number of rural populations in the Elephant Reserve has led to the restriction of original natural habitats and ecological corridors, which farmers turn into farmland to meet the farmers’ growing food demands [5]. In Tanzania, the number of highly and moderately suitable natural habitats for African elephants decreased by 22.4% and 8.1% between 1998 and 2018, with serious habitat fragmentation effects [6]. In the meantime, in China, due to successful elephant conservation campaigns, elephant populations have been increasing in number, e.g., from 150 to about 300 [7]. This creates the need for elephant troops to extend their living space and search for food, water and resting sites which leads to the frequent visits of elephants to living and production zones which have resulted in crop and property damage, and on some occasions, fatal accidents [8]. The visit of elephants to production zones is also triggered by food shortages in their natural environment that climate change and natural disasters, such as forest and grassland fires, have brought about in recent decades [9]. Nowadays, keeping elephants away from humans constitutes a priority and a non-lethal measure that has been widely used for this purpose is the use of fencing systems. The advantages of this measure include, but are not limited to, defending elephant migration corridors, translocating individual elephants to reduce damage to local people’s livelihood and enabling elephant survival. However, local people’s livelihood is still negatively affected by HEC due to weak financial capability that results in inadequate isolation measures in most range states [10].
Rural livelihood strategies are commonly understood as the set of activities that farmers pursue to ensure better living conditions for themselves and/or their dependents [11]. HEC impacts the livelihood of local farmers in a variety of ways, including direct threats to life and loss of productive assets such as livestock, subsistence crises and the time allocation of local labor. The frequent occurrence of damage caused by Asian elephants offsets local people’s efforts in living development by extending crop cultivation and forcing local people to reallocate adult labor in the family and to seek off-farm work for advancement [12,13]. Furthermore, a lot of scholars discuss the possibility of farmers making changes to their livelihood strategy after the impact of HEC, including adjusting their lifestyle, choosing different planting areas, building fences and taking additional measures of protection [14]. In areas that suffer from serious damage, dramatic changes in farmers’ livelihood strategies may be unavoidable [15]. Farmers’ selection of livelihood strategy depends on farmers’ dependence on agriculture [16] and farmers’ livelihood capital capacity [17]. Furthermore, indirect threats caused by elephants can also impose curfews in schools and areas of residency leading to social, cultural and economic accessibility obstacles to communities that are built around forests [18,19].
Livelihood outcomes are the outcomes or outputs of livelihood strategies. Livelihood examples may include income, increased welfare, reduced vulnerability, improved food security, sustainable use of natural resources, etc. [20]. The currently available literature stipulates the impact of HEC on farmers’ livelihood, referencing impactful factors such as employment [21], income [22] and the impact on demographic variables [23]. Overall, the research on farmers’ livelihood strategies and livelihood in the Asian elephant distribution area discusses the impact of HEC on farmers’ livelihood and the strategies they adopt. However, at present, it is not clear how HEC affects the farmers’ livelihood strategy selection. In addition, there are many studies discussing the impact of livelihood capital on farmers’ livelihood and the strategies adopted in this context, but the impact of EAC on this process has not been sufficiently explored yet.
China is also one of the countries with serious HEC. At present, China has achieved comprehensive poverty alleviation through targeted interventions and is in the stage of stabilizing and consolidating these achievements. The rapid economic development of societies around the elephant distribution areas in Asia has created more non-agricultural employment opportunities for farmers. Despite this, studies have shown that farmers in these areas still depend upon local natural resources to at least some extent [24]. In this case, the degree to which HEC is affecting farmers in their selection of livelihood strategies in the Asian elephant distribution areas is related to whether they can sustain a non-poverty status.
In this study, we used a binary logistic model and a modular effects model based on data from Pu’er and Xishuangbanna, which are the natural habitats of more than 90% of Asian elephants in China, to investigate whether damage caused by Asian elephants would have an impact on the livelihood strategies of farm households within the Asian elephants range, and whether Asian elephant damage has an impact on the livelihood capital status of farmers. This study is unique in that it uses the sustainable livelihoods framework established by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), which allows us to better understand the causal relationship between farmers’ livelihood capital and strategies in the Asian elephants range after considering the severe impact of damage caused by Asian elephants. Another unique element of this study is that it reveals the moderating effect of damage caused by Asian elephants on farmers’ livelihood strategies, which can serve as an important reference point for policy modification.

2. Conceptual Framework and Econometric Approach

2.1. Conceptual Framework Based on the Sustainable Livelihood Analysis Framework

The “World Conference on environment and development” held in the 1980s put forward the concept of sustainable livelihood, which is defined as “having sufficient food and cash reserves and liquidity to maintain sustainable living”. The concept of sustainable livelihood wants to explain what kind of living is sustainable. The DFID (2000) defines sustainable livelihood as the ability, capital and activities that people need to make a living. When people can cope with risks and can adjust their living to the challenges they face, restore it and further accumulate their wealth without causing damage to the environment, then their livelihoods are sustainable.
Based on the sustainable livelihood analysis framework, we investigate the livelihood strategies farmers in the damage distribution area of Asian elephants adopt based on the sustainable livelihood framework, and we create the analysis framework that is shown in Figure 1 (We have not yet discussed the dashed line part due to the limitation of the length of the article). In Figure 1, NC stands for Natural capital, HC stands for human capital, MC stands for material capital, FC stands for financial capital and SC stands for social capital. The livelihood strategy depends on the livelihood capital of farmers. Different livelihood strategies will bring over different living conditions for farmers [25]. The impact of Asian elephant damage due to the production and residency areas overlapping with the Asian elephant activity areas will affect the production and living conditions of local farmers. For example, the impact of Asian elephant damage on natural capital is reflected in the quantity and quality of farmers’ planted acreage. In that regard, the land surrounding the Asian elephants’ passing is difficult to cultivate. In the areas that are damaged by Asian elephants, equipment and infrastructure are negatively impacted, and the material capital of farmers is also negatively affected. To avoid the impact of the damages that are caused by Asian elephants, farmers adjust their livelihood strategies by borrowing funds from banks or relatives and friends, and this gradually reduces the accumulation of their livelihood capital and their anti-risk ability. This is not conducive to the improvement of farmers’ livelihood ability; it affects the selection of farmers’ livelihood strategies, resulting in the reduction of farmers’ resources.

2.2. Empirical Model Specification

2.2.1. Binary Logit Regression Analysis Method

The research subject of this paper is whether farmers in the Asian elephant distribution areas will change their livelihood strategies due to the number of accidents caused by Asian elephants. Binary logit is used to estimate the decision-making problem of “change” and “no change” of those farmers. The equation model is as follows:
P ( y i | X ) = P ( e v e n t ) P ( n o e v e n t ) = p 1 − p = exp ( β 0 + β i x i + ε i ) ( i = 1 , 2 , … , n )
where the dependent variable y i is the explained variable, indicating the probability of whether farmers change their livelihood strategy (change = 1, no change = 0). In addition,   X i is the explanatory variable, which is the N factors to be evaluated that influence farmers to change their livelihood strategies and   β i is the coefficient of the explanatory variable.
We mainly analyze the change in farmers’ livelihood strategy in the context of the damage caused by Asian elephants and take the change in livelihood strategy as the regression-dependent variable. Livelihood strategy is the way that farmers choose to use their own livelihood capital. Farmers select appropriate livelihood strategies, which can effectively help them achieve their goals. Livelihood strategies include production activities, investment strategies, birth arrangements, etc. Most scholars distinguish the farmers’ livelihood strategies according to the types of farmer activities. At first, Scoones (1998) divided the livelihood strategies of farmers in the Asian elephant distribution areas into agricultural intensification or expansion, livelihood diversification and migration, according to farmers’ investment in different capital and their response to different risks [26]. Dorward (2009), from the perspective of dynamic change, and based on the expectation of farmers’ self-development, divided the farmers’ livelihood strategies into maintenance, expansion and accumulation [27]. Jansen (2006) splits farmers’ livelihood strategies into livestock production, grain production, cash crop production and other categories according to the different allocation of family labor and the types of planting and breeding [28]. The research of Chinese scholars is mainly based on the source of economic income; that is, the amount of agricultural income and non-agricultural income in the total income. For example, according to the percentage of non-agricultural income in the total income, farmers are divided into pure farmers, agricultural households, non-agricultural households and non-farmers [29], as well as family planting, breeding, sideline. Different income sources, such as employment, divide farmers into two categories: agricultural professionals and non-agricultural professionals.

2.2.2. Modulation Effect

Modulation is an important concept in social science. It is also a significant method researchers use to explore the relationship between multiple variables. Damage caused by Asian elephants will cause property losses such as crops, livestock and farmers’ houses. To prevent Asian elephant damage, farmers will take corresponding protective measures, such as sound driving, nitrate pond, elephant-proof ditch, electric fence, etc. [30]. These measures require farmers to invest in materials purchase and equipment maintenance, which may strengthen the impact of farmers’ livelihood capital on their livelihood strategy selection. To reduce the multiple collinearities, the method of mean centering is adopted. The model of regulatory effect is as follows:
Y = i 0 + a X + b Z + c X Z + ε i ( i = 1 , 2 , … , n ) .

3. Data and Descriptive Statistics

3.1. Study Area

The case studies of the present paper are Pu’er and Xishuangbanna, which are two prefecture-level cities in Yunnan province of southwestern China. Xishuangbanna was once the only Chinese area where elephants lived before the beginning of the 1990s. Compared to Xishuangbanna, Pu’er is a new area where an elephant troop of four individuals initially migrated from Xishuangbanna in 1992. The longest elephant migration process in Xishuangbanna took place during 2007–2008. A recent report indicates that there were almost 280 elephants in Pu’er and Xishuangbanna in 2019. By the end of 2020, the long-term activities of Asian elephants will be expanded to 3 states/cities, 12 counties/districts and 55 townships/towns (source: Yunnan forestry and grassland Administration).
Our study areas for data collection were selected based on a systematic sampling method. First, we requested and received a name list for all 55 townships with HEC in these two prefecture cities. Then we selected 19 townships with elephant troops distribution. We investigated approximately 80 villages and randomly selected approximately 10 farmers from each village for investigation. Finally, we collected a total of 837 valid samples. Figure 2 shows the Asian elephants activity area, investigation area and the size and distribution of elephant groups in the investigation area.

3.2. Data Collection

The village-level investigation adopted a participatory survey method and semi-structured interview and was carried out in the form of a group interview. The specific research contents include village social population structure, land and other resources, farmers’ production and living standards, elephant damage, human–elephant conflict management measures and villagers’ participation and countermeasures and suggestions for human–elephant conflict management. The method of the structural interview was used in the investigation of farmers. The interview was mainly conducted for the head of household and collected information and feedback from other family members. In the absence of the head of the household, alternative surveys conducted on other key family personnel. The questionnaire information includes family sociodemographic information, resource endowment, economic status, level of elephant damage, protectiveness inclination toward elephants, elephant conflict management participation, etc.
Our research is divided into two parts which include pre-investigation and formal investigation processes. We arrived in Xishuangbanna in late December 2020 to start the pre-investigation process. In addition, we visited the management departments of Pu’er Forestry and Grass Administration, the Academy of Forestry Sciences and Xishuangbanna Forestry and Grass Administration. At the same time, we conducted field visits to Menglao Street Village, Kangping Town, Menghai County, Xishuangbanna Wild Elephant Valley, the Asian elephants food source base and Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve. We selected 40 managers from the above departments for key person interviews and interviewed 36 locals in communities around the reserve’s area, including people from local villages and Asian elephants testers.
Between July and September 2021, the author’s research team traveled to Xishuangbanna and Pu’er to conduct a formal farm research. Since most of the farmers interviewed were ethnic minority farmers, we invited staff from local nature reserves and wildlife conservation departments in Yunnan Province to address the problem of difficulty in communicating with local farmers using dialects.

3.3. Data Description

Based on the survey, we choose three variables as dependent variables to measure whether farmers choose to change their livelihood strategies, which can include a change in the number of farmers’ agricultural income in total income, whether farmers choose to change their planting structure, and whether farmers choose land outflow. Among them, the calculation method adopted in this study is to define whether a farmer changes their livelihood strategy based on the percentage of farmers’ agricultural income in their total income. Results show that if the average range of change in farmers’ agricultural income in 2018–2020 exceeds 20%, the farmers’ dependence on land is greater, with a value of 2. Accordingly, if the average range of change in farmers’ agricultural income in 2018–2020 is reduced by 20%, the farmers’ dependence on land is reduced, with a value of 0. Otherwise, the farmer maintains their living status, with a value of 1. If the farmers change their planting strategy or choose to sell their land, the value is 1; otherwise, it is 0.
According to DFID standards, livelihood capital is divided into human capital, natural capital, material capital, financial capital and social capital. Combined with the research on regional economic development and resource endowment, these five indicators can be elaborated as follows.
Human capital (L1) refers to people’s knowledge reserve, health status and labor ability [31]. The way to obtain more human capital is mainly through human resource investment, such as improving the comprehensive quality of workers through health, education and training. The amount of human capital directly affects the production capacity of farmers. According to the findings in the investigation area, variables include the health status of respondents and families, the amount of family labor, the degree of education and the number of government staff.
Natural capital (L2) refers to the natural resources used by farmers to sustain their living, such as land, animal and plant resources [32]. There are huge differences in natural capital among different regions, which are mainly affected by local terrain, climate and other factors. Farmers’ activity in the area of focus is mainly land planting and under-forest breeding. Therefore, variables in this part include per capita cultivated land area and per capita forest land area.
Material capital (L3) refers to the capital created by people through their labor, such as houses, production tools, etc. When families face livelihood risk, they can mortgage their material capital to survive the crisis [33]. The material capital can include variables such as the number of family houses, means of transportation, production machines and tools, etc.
Financial capital (L4) refers to savings and loans owned by farmers. To achieve sustainable livelihood, people need to use financial capital as an intermediary and a material form of supplement and exchange with other capital, to facilitate people to adopt different forms of livelihood. We measured L4 by whether the family in question had loans, and whether it obtained insurance compensation.
Social capital (L5) is the social resources that people can use, such as social connections, relationships networks, etc. [34]. Social capital is intangible, including norms, customs and rules. It also includes the contribution of social connections and interpersonal communication on livelihood. Good social habits form harmonious relationships within the community, which maintain good living conditions. We chose whether they are village cadres and Asian elephants monitors, as well as the degree of trust in friends, the degree of participation in village collective activities and other indicators.
According to the subjective weighting method, the five types of livelihood capital are equally important, so the weight is 0.2 [35]. The entropy method is used to assign the weight of the above specific indicators. The entropy method can effectively avoid the subjective impact of artificial weighting. The purpose of this method is to determine weights according to the dispersion degree of index data. The dispersion degree of the index carries increased weight [36]. According to the calculation results, each livelihood capital index is weighted, respectively. The assignment and weight of each index are shown in Table 1.
As the modulation variable, the damage caused by Asian elephants includes two parts. The first (X1 subjective Asian elephant damage) is farmers’ subjective evaluation of the damage caused by Asian Elephant, including six parts: food crop loss, cash crop loss, house loss, loss caused by entering the house, vehicle loss, personal injury and loss of missing work. The loss of farmers’ subjective evaluation is calculated by the entropy weight method to illustrate the subjective severity score of damage caused by Asian elephant. Numbers 1–5 show less serious, serious, more serious, very serious and especially serious, respectively. The second (X2 objective Asian elephant damage) is the actual size of economic losses caused by Asian elephants’ damage to farmers’ income. The distribution of the specific farm household data results is shown in Figure 3.

4. Results

Among the 837 households that were surveyed, 201 households chose to change their livelihood strategies, accounting for 24.01% of the total, while 27 households (3.23%) were measured by whether they chose to change the planting structure. In addition, 166 households, accounting for 19.83% of the total, were measured by whether they chose to sell their land. We found that the average age of farmers in the areas of study is about 46 years old and as they are affected by the damages caused by Asian elephants, they are more prone to health deprivation.
After the dependent and independent variables were determined, we used the logistic model in the Stata for regression. The results are shown in Table 2. For farmers whose agricultural income changes (Y1), material capital and social capital have a positive impact on their livelihood strategy selection. The change in the farmers’ livelihood strategies is positively related to the number of production goods they have and their local social activity.
They will adjust their dependence on the land according to the above livelihood capital components. For farmers who choose to change their planting structure, the human capital and the material capital have a positive impact on their livelihood strategy selection, and the results are significant. Farmers choose to change their livelihood strategy based on their accumulated knowledge, health status and labor ability, as well as the capital they create. They can make appropriate planting structure adjustments to obtain more income. For farmers who choose to sell their land, both natural capital and financial capital have a significantly negative impact on their choice.
Due to the decline of land quality, these farmers are more willing to sell their land, aiming to obtain income and accumulate funds through loans.
Table 3 shows the moderating effect of farmers’ subjective evaluation (X1). The changes in the amount of agricultural income and planting structure were not significant. For farmers who choose to sell their land, their subjective evaluation of damage caused by Asian elephants has a significant regulatory effect on their financial and social capital. Farmers’ subjective judgment of Asian elephant damage impact will not only strengthen the impact of financial capital on the selection of livelihood strategies but also weaken the impact of social capital. Farmers who choose to sell their land generally do not choose to continue to work in the village, which requires certain financial capital. Additionally, quitting agricultural work weakens their influence in the village; that is, it weakens their social capital.
Table 4 shows the moderating effect of economic losses caused by Asian elephant damage (X2). For farmers who change the amount of their agricultural income, X2 plays a significant role in moderating their natural capital and material capital. Damage caused by Asian elephants will strengthen the impact of natural capital on the livelihood strategy selection of such farmers; that is, it will strengthen their dependence on the land. At the same time, it will also weaken their dependence on material capital. The impact of Asian elephant damage on farmers with a change in planting structure is not significant. For land outflow farmers, X2 has a significant strengthening effect on natural capital. For such farmers, the destruction of land by Asian elephants will strengthen the impact of natural capital on the change of livelihood strategy.
After studying the modulation effects of subjective and objective damage caused by Asian elephants on different types of livelihood capital, we synthesize livelihood capital into a variable to investigate the regulatory effects of Asian elephant damage on livelihood capacity. The results show that (see Table 5) the objective damage has a positive effect on the Y1 change of the amount of agricultural income and Y3 land outflow, and the results are significant. This means that the losses caused by the Asian elephant damage, as a modulation variable, strengthen the impact of farmers’ livelihood capital on their selection of livelihood strategies. In other words, the damage caused by Asian elephants has a significant strengthening or promoting effect on the relationship between farmers’ livelihood capital and the livelihood strategies they adopt while, this has a significant positive modulation effect. The subjective damage has no significant modulation effect on the selection of farmers’ livelihood strategy.

5. Discussion

During our research in the Yunnan Province, we found that the continuous increase of environmental protection and the increase in the number of Asian elephants creates obstacles in keeping local people and elephants in two divided areas, and this will reduce the accumulation of livelihood capital of local farmers. The grazing of crops by Asian elephants will not only impact the financial situation of farmers, but also affect their safety and the protection of Asian elephants [37,38]. Generally, we keep people away from wild animals by establishing protected areas and creating ecological corridors, as well as connecting the scattered natural habitats of wild animals [39] by providing additional seasonal migration routes for elephants [40]. Another way to achieve this is to effectively prevent human–elephant conflict. Although these conservation measures are becoming more and more popular in Asia and Africa [41,42], it will put more pressure on farmers’ livelihood development and infrastructure construction in and around areas of elephant activity [43]. Frequent elephant activities can result in farmers’ inability to obtain cultivation land alongside elephant migration routes.
Regarding the damage caused by Asian elephants, this paper discusses the severity of Asian elephant damage in terms of farmers’ subjective judgment of losses and farmers’ objective actual losses. While deciding on the damage degree by Asian elephants, scholars usually choose to focus on that which is caused by Asian elephants to measure its severity [44]. We focused on the amount of damage caused by the Asian elephants as the basis for judging the degree of the damage. At the same time, we asked the surveyed farmers to decide upon the severity of each accident they witnessed, where accidents include the possible loss of food crops, cash, housing, vehicle loss, personal injury and loss of employment [45,46], to more comprehensively measure the impact of the Asian elephant damage.
Regarding the management of HEC, local farmers are mainly involved in the management process of human–elephant conflict by building isolation fences, constructing elephant-proof ditches, setting off firecrackers, lighting and establishing food source bases. Some of these measures need farmers’ investment, and the sunk cost of such investment [47,48] prevents them from choosing to change their livelihood strategies due to financial difficulties. Most farmers in the distribution area will not choose to change their livelihood strategies, while the Asian elephant damage will strengthen the impact of farmers’ livelihood capital accumulation and their decision to change their livelihood strategies.
Usually, age has a more obvious impact on farmers’ livelihoods. Few young people in the village choose to farm in rural areas, and most young people choose to work in cities. The farmers left behind generally have a low educational background and can only engage in some relatively simple planting and breeding work.
The unique geographical location of Yunnan Province limits the types of services that can be grown there, so it is difficult for farmers to change their cropping structure quickly to mitigate the losses caused by Asian elephants. Similarly, it is difficult to increase farmers’ income based on market demand. It is generally understood that the most effective ecological prevention measure is to plant peppers; studies suggest that the aroma of peppers can drive and deter Asian elephants [49]. At present, corn, tea, coffee and other crops are mainly planted in the survey areas. In comparison with the nutritional resources available in the natural habitats of Asian elephants, these crops have richer nutritional value and better taste. This results in Asian elephants visiting agricultural land for finding food [9]. The Asian elephants’ passing from the area of study will cause serious land damage and will have a great impact on farmers’ planting activities.
Yunnan Province has chosen to establish special planting bases to provide food for Asian elephants in order to protect them. This strategy can alleviate the problem of Asian elephants looking for food and entering farmers’ production and residential areas. Local farmers can maintain their livelihood by participating in the planting of food source bases, ensuring the accumulation of livelihood capital, effectively making up for the losses caused by Asian elephants to farmers, and weakening the willingness of farmers to change their livelihood strategies. However, with the increase in the population of Asian elephants, there is limited availability of food in the base; thus, Asian elephants visit nearby areas to feed [50]. Therefore, to further protect the role of food source bases and maintain the livelihood of farmers, the planting base areas and the quantity of food source bases should be appropriately expanded.
Regarding compensation for losses caused by Asian elephants, Yunnan Province has introduced and implemented compensation policies to compensate for the losses caused by Asian elephants. However, farmers are reluctant to change their livelihood strategies to enjoy support and compensation policies [51]. For cash crops damaged by Asian elephants, the United Insurance Company in Yunnan Province provides Asian elephants accident compensation insurance to affected farmers, and that has an impact on their willingness to change their livelihood strategies.
Due to the impact of COVID-19, our research cannot include all the distribution areas of Asian elephants in this study. To ensure the objectivity of data, we can only select villages in the distribution area through random sampling to conduct research. Through future research, we can continue improving the data to obtain better research results.

6. Conclusions

Based on the survey data, we explored whether farmers in the distribution area of Asian elephants in the Yunnan Province will change their livelihood strategies due to Asian elephant damage and whether the Asian elephant damage can modulate the relationship between farmers’ livelihood capital and their livelihood strategy selection. The results show that the selection of farmers’ livelihood strategy is related to their livelihood capital but is not significantly related to damage caused by Asian elephants. For the farmers whose agricultural income changes, their livelihood strategy selection is related to their material and social capital. The objective degree of Asian elephant damage will adjust the role of natural and material capital in the livelihood strategy selection. For farmers who change their planting structure, their livelihood strategy selection is related to human and material capital. In addition, the objective and subjective degree of Asian elephant damage has no significant regulatory effect on those farmers. For farmers who choose to sell their land, their livelihood strategy selection is related to natural and financial capital. The subjective degree of Asian elephant damage will regulate the role of financial and social capital, and the objective degree of Asian elephant damage will regulate the role of natural capital. The study found that in the process of animal protection, due to certain limitations in the livelihood capital, most farmers in the distribution area cannot change their livelihood strategies. Although their livelihood strategy selection will not be significantly affected by Asian elephant damage, it is difficult to adjust their livelihood strategy in time to deal with the increasingly serious HEC.
To achieve the coordinated development of Asian elephants species conservation and farmers’ livelihood, we should improve the quality of farmers’ livelihood capital and prevent and control Asian elephants accidents. On the one hand, we should integrate the wasteland within the area of Asian elephant activities; help farmers change the reasonable planting structure; improve the quality of farmers’ natural capital; strengthen farmers’ skills training and increase farmers’ human capital; enhance farmers’ social capital and strengthen communication and cooperation; support farmers’ household financial capital accumulation and improve the efficiency of farmers’ financial capital utilization. On the other hand, we should build Asian elephants’ food source base; improve the ecological environment of Asian elephants habitat; build buffer zones and other prevention and control measures; strengthen the construction of early warning system for Asian elephant activities; and, for farmers affected by Asian elephants accidents, we should raise the compensation standard for accidents.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.D. and J.C.; methodology, Y.D. and J.C.; formal analysis, Y.D. and J.C.; resources, Y.D. and J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.D.; writing—review and editing, Y.D. and J.C.; supervision, Y.X.; project administration, Y.X.; funding acquisition, Y.D. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Human-Elephant-Conflict of NFGA 20211135.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the study does not involve ethical related issues.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is not available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Parker, G.E.; Osborn, F.V.; Hoarse, R.E. Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation: A Training Course for Community-Based Approaches in Africa (Participant’s Manual). 2007. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=GB2013203085 (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  2. 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] [Green Version]
  3. Thouless, C.; Dublin, H.T.; Blanc, J.; Skinner, D.P.; Daniel, T.E.; Taylor, R.; Maisels, F.; Frederick, H.; Bouché, P. African Elephant Status Report 2016. Species Surviv. Comm. 2016, 60, 309. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nyhus, P.J. Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 143–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Woodroffe, R.; Thirgood, S.; Rabinowitz, A. People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-Existence? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ntukey, L.T.; Munishi, L.K.; Kohi, E.; Treydte, A.C. Land Use/Cover Change Reduces Elephant Habitat Suitability in the Wami Mbiki–Saadani Wildlife Corridor, Tanzania. Land 2022, 11, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhu, G.; Zheng, X.; Lv, T.; Jiang, G.; Tang, Y.; Li, Z.; Chen, M. Population dynamics of Asian elephant in Xishuangbanna Pu’er. For. Constr. 2019, 6, 85–90. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  8. Virtanen, P.; Macandza, V.; Goba, P.; Mourinho, J.; Roque, D.; Mamugy, F.; Langa, B. Assessing Tolerance for Wildlife: Human-Elephant Conflict in Chimanimani, Mozambique. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2021, 26, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hoare, R.E. Determinants of Human–Elephant Conflict in a Land-Use Mosaic. J. Appl. Ecol. 1999, 36, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xie, Y. Ecological Labeling and Wildlife Conservation: Citizens’ Perceptions of the Elephant Ivory-Labeling System in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kinsella, J.; Wilson, S.; De Jong, F.; Renting, H. Pluriactivity as a Livelihood Strategy in Irish Farm Households and Its Role in Rural Development. Sociol. Rural. 2000, 40, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Adams, W.M.; Hutton, J. People, Parks and Poverty. Conserv. Soc. 2007, 5, 147–183. [Google Scholar]
  13. Barua, M.; Bhagwat, S.A.; Jadhav, S. The Hidden Dimensions of Human–Wildlife Conflict: Health Impacts, Opportunity and Transaction Costs. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 157, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nyirenda, V.R.; Nkhata, B.A.; Tembo, O.; Siamundele, S. Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Sampson, C.; Leimgruber, P.; Rodriguez, S.; McEvoy, J.; Sotherden, E.; Tonkyn, D. Perception of Human–Elephant Conflict and Conservation Attitudes of Affected Communities in Myanmar. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2019, 12, 1940082919831242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Walker, K.L. Labor Costs and Crop Protection from Wildlife Predation: The Case of Elephants in Gabon. Agric. Econ. 2012, 43, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Graham, M.D.; Ochieng, T. Uptake and Performance of Farm-Based Measures for Reducing Crop Raiding by Elephants Loxodonta Africana among Smallholder Farms in Laikipia District, Kenya. Oryx 2008, 42, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Sitati, N.; Walpole, M.; Leader-Williams, N.; Stephenson, P.J. Human–Elephant Conflict: Do Elephants Contribute to Low Mean Grades in Schools within Elephant Ranges. IJBC 2012, 4, 614–620. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nyumba, T.O. Are Elephants Flagships or Battleships? Understanding Impacts of Human-Elephant Conflict on Human Wellbeing in Trans Mara District, Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Machimu, G.M.; Kayunze, K.A. Impact of Sugarcane Contract Farming Arrangements on Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihood Outcomes in Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. EAJ-SAS 2019, 1, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hinks, T.; Gruen, C. What Is the Structure of South African Happiness Equations? Evidence from Quality of Life Surveys. Soc. Indic. Res. 2007, 82, 311–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Rossouw, S.; Naudé, W. The Non-Economic Quality of Life on a Sub-National Level in South Africa. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 86, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Michalos, A.; Ferriss, A.L.; Easterlin, R.; Patrick, D.; Pavot, W. The Quality of Life (QOL) Research Movement: Past, Present, and Future. Soc. Indic. Res. 2006, 76, 343–466. [Google Scholar]
  24. Thant, Z.M.; May, R.; Røskaft, E. Pattern and Distribution of Human-Elephant Conflicts in Three Conflict-Prone Landscapes in Myanmar. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 25, e01411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chambers, R.; Conway, G. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  26. Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis; IDS Working Paper 72; IDS: Brighton, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dorward, A.; Anderson, S.; Bernal, Y.N.; Vera, E.S.; Rushton, J.; Pattison, J.; Paz, R. Hanging in, Stepping up and Stepping out: Livelihood Aspirations and Strategies of the Poor. Dev. Pract. 2009, 19, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jansen, H.G.; Pender, J.; Damon, A.; Wielemaker, W.; Schipper, R. Policies for Sustainable Development in the Hillside Areas of Honduras: A Quantitative Livelihoods Approach. Agric. Econ. 2006, 34, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yan, J.; Zhuo, R.; Xie, D.; Zhang, Y. Land use of farmers with different livelihood types—An Empirical Study of typical villages in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2010, 65, 1401–1410. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  30. Dhakal, B.; Thapa, B. Residents’ Perceptions of Human–Elephant Conflict: Case Study in Bahundangi, Nepal. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 461–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Diaz, A.-M.; Papo, S.; Rodriguez, A.; Smith, J.S. Antigenic Analysis of Rabies-Virus Isolates from Latin America and the Caribbean. Thai J. Vet. Med. Ser. B 1994, 41, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ashley, C.; Carney, D. Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience; Department for International Development: London, UK, 1999; ISBN 978-0-85003-419-6. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rakodi, C. A Capital Assets Framework for Analysing Household Livelihood Strategies: Implications for Policy. Dev. Policy 1999, 17, 315–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Durlauf, S.N.; Fafchamps, M. Empirical Studies of Social Capital: A Critical Survey. 2003. Available online: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cfd0256d-9409-4538-8fca-0e019df36ca7/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=wp2003-12.pdf&type_of_work=Working+paper (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  35. You Jun, Li Xiaobing Study on the mechanism of industrial poverty alleviation and benefit from the perspective of livelihood response—A case study of Weng’an county, Guizhou Province. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2019, 40, 185–192. (In Chinese)
  36. Chen, Z.; Xu, J.; Wu, W. Analysis on livelihood capital difference and livelihood satisfaction of different types of farmers in collective forest area. For. Econ. 2014, 36, 36–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nelson, A.; Bidwell, P.; Sillero-Zubiri, C. A Review of Human-Elephant Conflict Management Strategies. In People & Wildlife, A Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Born Free Foundation Partnership; 2003; Available online: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/85104052/00b7d529f54e5db014000000.pdf?1651141809=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DA_review_of_human_elephant_conflict_mana.pdf&Expires=1678531116&Signature=Muc~h4LEAL6oVXbYJupluXD9DsD2FaawMOfLbFSD9B (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  38. Dublin, H.T.; Hoare, R.E. Searching for Solutions: The Evolution of an Integrated Approach to Understanding and Mitigating Human–Elephant Conflict in Africa. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2004, 9, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hansen, A.J.; DeFries, R. Ecological Mechanisms Linking Protected Areas to Surrounding Lands. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17, 974–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Adams, T.S.F.; Chase, M.J.; Rogers, T.L.; Leggett, K.E.A. Taking the Elephant out of the Room and into the Corridor: Can Urban Corridors Work? Oryx 2017, 51, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pittiglio, C.; Skidmore, A.K.; van Gils, H.A.; McCall, M.K.; Prins, H.H. Smallholder Farms as Stepping Stone Corridors for Crop-Raiding Elephant in Northern Tanzania: Integration of Bayesian Expert System and Network Simulator. Ambio 2014, 43, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Puyravaud, J.-P.; Cushman, S.A.; Davidar, P.; Madappa, D. Predicting Landscape Connectivity for the Asian Elephant in Its Largest Remaining Subpopulation. Anim. Conserv. 2017, 20, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Thakholi, L. Modes of Land Control in Transfrontier Conservation Areas: A Case of Green Grabbing. Master’s Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  44. Chakraborty, K.; Mondal, J. Perceptions and Patterns of Human–Elephant Conflict at Barjora Block of Bankura District in West Bengal, India: Insights for Mitigation and Management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 547–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pant, G.; Dhakal, M.; Pradhan, N.M.B.; Leverington, F.; Hockings, M. Nature and Extent of Human–Elephant Elephas Maximus Conflict in Central Nepal. Oryx 2016, 50, 724–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Ayechew, B.; Tolcha, A. Assessment of Human-Wildlife Conflict in and Around Weyngus Forest, Dega Damot Woreda, West Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. IJSES 2020, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  47. O’Connell-Rodwell, C.E.; Rodwell, T.; Rice, M.; Hart, L.A. Living with the Modern Conservation Paradigm: Can Agricultural Communities Co-Exist with Elephants? A Five-Year Case Study in East Caprivi, Namibia. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 93, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Karidozo, M.; Osborn, F.V. Community Based Conflict Mitigation Trials: Results of Field Tests of Chilli as an Elephant Deterrent. JBES 2015, 3, 144. [Google Scholar]
  49. Le Bel, S.; La Grange, M.; Drouet, N. Repelling Elephants with a Chilli Pepper Gas Dispenser: Field Tests and Practical Use in Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe from 2009 to 2013. Pachyderm 2015, 56, 87–96. Available online: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/578356/1/578356.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  50. He, Q.; Wu, Z.; Zhou, W.; Dong, R. Perception and Attitudes of Local Communities towards Wild Elephant-Related Problems and Conservation in Xishuangbanna, Southwestern China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2011, 21, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rodrigues, A.S.; Andelman, S.J.; Bakarr, M.I.; Boitani, L.; Brooks, T.M.; Cowling, R.M.; Fishpool, L.D.; Da Fonseca, G.A.; Gaston, K.J.; Hoffmann, M. Effectiveness of the Global Protected Area Network in Representing Species Diversity. Nature 2004, 428, 640–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Sustainability 15 05033 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of Asian elephant damage on farmers’ livelihood strategies.
Figure 1. Effect of Asian elephant damage on farmers’ livelihood strategies.
Sustainability 15 05033 g001
Sustainability 15 05033 g002 550
Figure 2. AE Activity area and investigation area.
Figure 2. AE Activity area and investigation area.
Sustainability 15 05033 g002
Sustainability 15 05033 g003 550
Figure 3. Asian elephant damage.
Figure 3. Asian elephant damage.
Sustainability 15 05033 g003
Table
Table 1. Variable name and weight.
Table 1. Variable name and weight.
Variable NameVariable AssignmentWeight
Y1 Change amount of agricultural income0 = reduce dependence 1 = maintain the status 2 = strengthen dependence
Y2 Change planting structure0 = no change 1 = change
Y3 Land outflow0 = no change 1 = change
L1 Human capital
Health status1 = very good 2 = good 3 = general 4 = have ailment 5 = have serious disease0.28
Amount of labor force in household populationActual survey data0.07
Education level1 = primary school or below 2 = junior high school 3 = high school 4 = college 5 = master degree or above0.49
Village cadre1 = Yes 2 = Used to be 3 = No0.15
L2 Natural capital
Per capita cultivated land area Actual survey data0.51
Per capita Forest land area.Actual survey data0.49
L3 Material capital
The number of family housesActual survey data0.01
The number of transportationsActual survey data0.16
The number of production machines and toolsActual survey data0.83
L4 Finical capital
Having loans0 = no 1 = yes0.24
Having borrowings0 = no 1 = yes0.66
Obtained insurance0 = no 1 = yes0.10
L5 Social capital
Difficulty of borrowing from relatives and friends1 = a lot of 2 = many 3 = general 4 = less 5 = very seldom0.16
Degree of trust between relatives and friends1 = great trust 2 = trust 3 = general 4 = distrust 5 = very distrustful0.25
Degree of trust in villagers1 = great trust 2 = trust 3 = general 4 = distrust 5 = very distrustful0.08
Participation in collective, wedding and funeral activities1 = very high 2 = high 3 = general 4 = low 5 = very low0.24
Villagers’ help and communication1 = very high 2 = high 3 = general 4 = low 5 = very low0.27
X1 Subjective Asian elephant damage1 = least serious 2 = a little serious 3 = neutral 4 = serious 5 = very serious
X2 Objective Asian elephant damageActual survey data
Table
Table 2. Result of the relationship between livelihood strategy and livelihood capital.
Table 2. Result of the relationship between livelihood strategy and livelihood capital.
Livelihood Strategy SelectionY1 Change Amount of Agricultural IncomeY2 Change Planting StructureY3 Land Outflow
Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.
L1−0.23144820.18517050.7562473 **0.4760185−0.07135420.1933015
L20.00716860.0048823−0.02245440.0269552−0.010532 **0.0059167
L30.1918159 **0.11406150.4914612 **0.2874045−0.0221210.1198269
L40.28557330.23115920.26295590.6503415−0.6641393 ***0.2571226
L50.2855733 **0.1578424−0.08095220.46866020.12105870.1682161
Prod > chi20.000.090.02
Note: *** indicates significance level p < 0.01, ** indicates significance level p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Result of modulation effect of X1 on different types of livelihood capital.
Table 3. Result of modulation effect of X1 on different types of livelihood capital.
X1 Modulation EffectY1 Change Amount of Agricultural IncomeY2 Change Planting StructureY3 Land Outflow
Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.
L10.17840850.2840953−0.00060720.8455932−0.64949610.4143797
L2−0.00273940.0065161−0.0125070.04713690.00205280.0071788
L30.25817040.18179190.00913920.4833497−0.06180010.2510354
L40.23938230.3455573−0.57169051.1052451.129883 **0.4600167
L50.00304930.18371580.17803170.587834−0.4361593 *0.2533164
Prod > chi20.020.050.01
Note: ** indicates significance level p < 0.05, * indicates significance level p < 0.1.
Table
Table 4. Result of modulation effect of X2 on different types of livelihood capital.
Table 4. Result of modulation effect of X2 on different types of livelihood capital.
X2 Modulation EffectY1 Change Amount of Agricultural IncomeY2 Change Planting StructureY3 Land Outflow
Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.
L1−0.35192920.9356026−2.2829973.399837−0.60694490.7646385
L20.048185 **0.0250428−0.03960470.12187440.0592259 **0.0287386
L3−2.062123 ***0.7542621−1.6693172.334429−0.2500990.5613632
L4−0.42986870.71471740.57968351.279546−0.33321650.4855941
L5−0.13336880.5768970.64798881.8424150.08367770.3919103
Prod > chi20.000.060.03
Note: *** indicates significance level p < 0.01, ** indicates significance level p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Result of modulation effect on livelihood capacity.
Table 5. Result of modulation effect on livelihood capacity.
Modulation EffectY1 Change Amount of Agricultural IncomeY2 Change Planting StructureY3 Land Outflow
Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.Coef.Std. Err.
X1−0.03294670.033588−0.0327980.17920230.06224420.0484823
X20.2601678 **0.1042488−0.18363570.51626980.1912931 **0.0762499
Prod > chi20.000.090.02
Note: ** indicates significance level p < 0.05.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Du, Y.; Chen, J.; Xie, Y. The Impacts of the Asian Elephants Damage on Farmer’s Livelihood Strategies in Pu’er and Xishuangbanna in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5033. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065033

AMA Style

Du Y, Chen J, Xie Y. The Impacts of the Asian Elephants Damage on Farmer’s Livelihood Strategies in Pu’er and Xishuangbanna in China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5033. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065033

Chicago/Turabian Style

Du, Yuchen, Junfeng Chen, and Yi Xie. 2023. "The Impacts of the Asian Elephants Damage on Farmer’s Livelihood Strategies in Pu’er and Xishuangbanna in China" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5033. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065033

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop