Show simple item record

Moving Away from Prescriptive Pachyderm Palliatives: Toward an Integrated Assessment of Farmer-Elephant Conflict in Gabon.

dc.contributor.authorWalker, Kendra L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-03T15:44:43Z
dc.date.availableNO_RESTRICTIONen_US
dc.date.available2010-06-03T15:44:43Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.submitteden_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75922
dc.description.abstractCrop‐raiding by elephants poses a large threat to farmers in central Africa, where agricultural self‐sufficiency is already low. Despite overwhelming consensus on the need to reduce crop‐raiding and decades of research invested, efforts have had little success. Such efforts typically involve prescriptive low‐tech protection methods at the level of the individual farm, assuming that rational farmers will adopt such methods once provided required knowledge and skills. However, the implicit assumption, that low‐tech methods are low‐cost, generally only holds if labor costs are not considered. Labor, especially that of young males, is a limiting factor in Gabonese agriculture. In the fifty years since independence, Gabon’s population has rapidly urbanized, from 14% of the population found in urban centers in 1960, to around 80% in 2003. Emigration to urban centers, primarily for schools and jobs, has left villages increasingly devoid of youth and young adults. The farming residents, at the average age of 52, are thus left with scarce labor resources, bringing to the forefront the issue of labor in farmers’ decision‐making. I develop a theoretical model to account for labor costs in addition to monetary costs when assessing costs and benefits of farm‐level protection. I test this model empirically with data from observations and interviews with 426 farmers in 36 villages in Gabon. Findings support the hypothesis that Gabonese farmers generally receive a higher net benefit from coping strategies, such as planting extra to compensate losses, than from known protection strategies. Because known protection strategies in Gabon are generally known to be relatively inefficient at keeping elephants out of farms, I then explore how efficient such strategies would need to be to be adoptable by farmers, and how much farmers are willing to pay, in terms of different kinds of costs, for efficient strategies. I find that farm‐level protection is unlikely to be a fruitful strategy for mitigating farmer‐elephant conflict under the conditions of current agricultural and social systems in Gabon. I conclude with recommendations for an Integrated Assessment to explore alternative strategies and to begin to develop the adaptive institutions and relationships necessary to implement lasting solutions.en_US
dc.format.extent1317795 bytes
dc.format.extent1373 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectFarmer-elephant Conflicten_US
dc.subjectFarmer Decision-makingen_US
dc.subjectGabonen_US
dc.subjectCentral Africaen_US
dc.subjectAgricultural Policyen_US
dc.subjectElephantsen_US
dc.titleMoving Away from Prescriptive Pachyderm Palliatives: Toward an Integrated Assessment of Farmer-Elephant Conflict in Gabon.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.thesisdegreenamePhDen_US
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineNatural Resources and Environmenten_US
dc.description.thesisdegreegrantorUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studiesen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberLow, Bobbi S.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberAgrawal, Arunen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberScavia, Donalden_US
dc.contributor.committeememberSimon, Carl P.en_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNatural Resources and Environmenten_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75922/1/klwalker_1.pdf
dc.owningcollnameDissertations and Theses (Ph.D. and Master's)


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.