Scientia Silvae Sinicae ›› 2023, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (10): 162-170.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20220252
• Research papers • Previous Articles
Yuxuan Hu1,2,Junfeng Chen1,Yi Xie1,*
Received:
2022-04-16
Online:
2023-10-25
Published:
2023-11-01
Contact:
Yi Xie
CLC Number:
Yuxuan Hu,Junfeng Chen,Yi Xie. Measures for Governing Human-Elephant Conflicts Based on Choice Experiment of Farmers in Xishuangbanna[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2023, 59(10): 162-170.
Table 1
Choice experiment properties and status levels"
变量 Variable | 定义 Definition | 属性水平 Attribute level |
选择特定常数ASC Select specific constant ASC | 选择特定常数变量,代表参与实验农户选择优化方案的基准效用 Selection of a specific constant variable to represent the benchmark utility of the farmers participating in the experiment to choose the optimization scheme | 是Yes 否No |
亚洲象肇事补偿 Asian elephant compensation for damage | 提高因亚洲象肇事导致的人身或经济损失的政府补偿比例 Enhancement of proportion of government compensation for personal or economic losses caused by elephant | 选择补偿50% Select compensation 50% 选择补偿80% Select compensation 80% |
修建栅栏 Build a fence | 采用物理手段将人象进行空间隔离 Isolation of elephant and human by physical means | 不修建栅栏No fences 修建栅栏Build fences |
移民搬迁 Immigration relocation | 将人象冲突严重区域的村寨在政府政策支持下搬迁至其他区域 Relocation of villages from areas with serious human-elephant conflicts to other regions supported by the government | 不搬迁No remove 搬迁Remove |
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant | 将肇事象从一个空间转移至另一个空间 Translocation of elephant causing accident from one area to another | 不转移No translocation 转移Translocation |
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment | 调整种植类型减少损失 Adjustment of vegetable plantation types to reduce losses | 不调整No adjustment 调整Adjustment |
Table 2
Choice experiment set"
选择集1 Selection 1 | 方案一 Option one | 方案二 Option two | 方案三 Option three |
亚洲象肇事补偿 Asian elephant compensation for damage | 80% | 50% | 维持现状 Maintain status quo |
修建栅栏Build a fence | 修建栅栏Build fences | 不修建栅栏No fences | |
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment | 不调整No adjustment | 不调整No adjustment | |
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant | 转移Translocation | 不转移No translocation | |
移民搬迁Immigration relocation | 不搬迁No remove | 搬迁Remove | |
选项(√)Option (√) |
Table 3
Meaning of variables and their basic descriptive statistics"
变量 Variable | 变量值 Variable value | 平均值 Mean value | 标准差 |
Standard deviation | |||
选择特定常数ASC Select specific constant ASC | 方案一或方案二=0,方案三(维持现状)=1 Scheme 1 or Scheme 2=0, Scheme 3 (maintain the status quo) = 1 | 0.33 | 0.47 |
亚洲象肇事补偿80% Asian elephant compensation for damage 80% | 选择补偿50%=0,选择补偿80%=1 Select compensation 50%=0, Select compensation 80%=1 | 0.33 | 0.07 |
修建栅栏 Build a fence | 不修建栅栏=0,修建栅栏=1 No fences=0,Build fences=1 | 0.41 | 0.42 |
移民搬迁 Immigration relocation | 不搬迁=0,搬迁=1 No Remove=0,Remove=1 | 0.22 | 0.42 |
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant | 不转移=0,转移=1 No translocation=0,Translocation=1 | 0.33 | 0.47 |
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment | 不调整=0,调整=1 No adjustment=0,Adjustment=1 | 0.39 | 0 .49 |
农户特征变量 Household characteristic variable | |||
性别 Gender | 0=女性,1=男性 0=Female,1=Male | 0.78 | 0.41 |
宗教信仰 Religion Faith | 0=无信仰,1=有信仰 0 = No faith,1 = Faith | 0.17 | 0 .38 |
劳动力数量 Amount of labor | 0=3人以下,1=3人及以上 0=Less than 3 people, 1=Not less than 3 person | 0.49 | 0.50 |
收入 Income | 1=5万以下,2=5万~10万,3=10万以上 1=Below 50 000,2=50 000-100 000, 3=More than 100 000 | 2.00 | 0.67 |
人象冲突 Human-elephant conflict | 0=没有冲突,1=有冲突 0= No conflicts,1=Conflict | 0.68 | 0.46 |
Table 4
Estimation results of mixed Logit model"
措施指标 Measure indicator | 基础模型 Basic model | 交叉模型 Intersection model | |||
系数 Coefficient | 标准误 Standard error | 系数 Coefficient | 标准误 Standard error | ||
ASC | 0.52*** | 0.14 | 1.73*** | 0 .34 | |
亚洲象肇事补偿80% Asian elephant compensation for damage 80% | 0.99*** | 0.17 | 0.89*** | 0 .17 | |
修建栅栏Build a fence | 0.45*** | 0 .11 | 0.45*** | 0.11 | |
移民搬迁Immigration relocation | ?0.46** | 0.20 | ?0.63*** | 0.20 | |
转移问题象Transfer problem elephant | 0.97*** | 0.15 | 1.06*** | 0.16 | |
种植结构调整Planting structure adjustment | 0.96*** | 0.11 | 0.69*** | 0 .17 | |
ASC_收入ASC_income | 0.70*** | 0 .20 | |||
ASC_信仰ASC_Faith | ?0.66*** | 0.25 | |||
ASC_性别ASC_Sex | ?0.06 | 0.22 | |||
ASC_劳动力ASC_Workforce | ?0.67** | 0.25 | |||
ASC_人象冲突ASC_Human-elephant conflict | ?0.97*** | 0.24 | |||
模型统计检验Model statistical testing | |||||
Likelihood | ?1 307.08 | ?1 268.59 | |||
Prob>chi2 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Table 5
Mixed regression results of household samples with different levels of income"
变量 Variable | 低等收入Low income | 中等收入Medium income | 高等收入High income | |||||
基础模型 Basic model | 交叉模型 Intersection model | 基础模型 Basic model | 交叉模型 Intersection model | 基础模型 Basic model | 交叉模型 Intersection model | |||
ASC | 0.17** (0.07) | 0.14 (0.12) | 0.32*** (0.04) | 0.41*** (0.07) | 0.55*** (0.06) | 0.90*** (0.10) | ||
亚洲象肇事补偿80% Asian elephant compensation for damage 80% | 0.25*** (0.06) | 0.25*** (0.06) | 0.34*** (0.04) | 0.34*** (0.04) | 0.39*** (0.05) | 0.39 (0.05) | ||
修建栅栏 Build a fence | ?0.08* (0.04) | ?0.08* (0.04) | 0.10*** (0.02) | 0.10*** (0.02) | 0.05 (0.03) | 0.05 (0.03) | ||
移民搬迁 Immigration relocation | ?0.08 (0.07) | ?0.08 (0.07) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.16** (0.06) | 0.16** (0.06) | ||
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant | 0.19*** (0.04) | 0.19*** (0.04) | 0.13*** (0.02) | 0.13*** (0.02) | 0.13*** (0.04) | .13*** (0.04) | ||
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment | .35*** (0.04) | .35*** (0.04) | .18*** (0.02) | .18*** (0.02) | .30*** (0.03) | .30*** (0.03) | ||
ASC_性别ASC_Sex | 0.02 (0.06) | 0.02 (0.03) | ?0.06 (0.05) | |||||
ASC_信仰ASC_Faith | ?0.00 (.08) | 0.11** (.04) | 0.07 (0.05) | |||||
ASC_劳动力ASC_Workforce | ?0.11** (0.05) | ?0.07* (0.03) | ?0.06 (0.04) | |||||
ASC_人象冲突 ASC_ Degree of human-elephant conflict | 0.04 (0.08) | ?0.12** (0.05) | ?0.33*** (0.07) | |||||
R2 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.14 | ||
F | 41.76 | 25.51 | 54.67 | 34.17 | 28.18 | 19.93 | ||
Prob > F | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
蔡 静, 蒋志刚. 人与大型兽类的冲突: 野生动物保护所面临的新挑战. 兽类学报, 2006, 26 (2): 183- 190. | |
Cai J, Jiang Z G. Human-large mammals conflicts: a new challenge of wildlife conservation. Acta Theriologica Sinica, 2006, 26 (2): 183- 190. | |
陈 鸣. 农户宅基地退出补偿偏好与异质性来源: 基于选择实验法的分析. 资源科学, 2021, 43 (7): 1467- 1478. | |
Chen M. Compensation preference and heterogeneity sources of homestead withdrawal of farming households: based on choice experiment method. Resources Science, 2021, 43 (7): 1467- 1478. | |
刀慧娟, 谭文斌. 新时代生态文明背景下野生动物生态补偿机制研究: 以西双版纳傣族自治州亚洲象肇事补偿为例. 北方民族大学学报, 2021, (3): 151- 156. | |
Dao H J, Tan W B. Mechanism of wildlife ecological compensation under the background of ecological civilization in the new era: a case of compensation for Asian elephant accident in Xishuangbanna Dai autonomous prefecture. Journal of North Minzu University (Philosophy and Social Science), 2021, (3): 151- 156. | |
郭贤明, 何謦成, 王兰新, 等. 西双版纳亚洲象食物源基地对缓解人象冲突的效应. 生态学杂志, 2012, 31 (12): 3133- 3137. | |
Guo X M, He Q C, Wang L X, et al. Effects of Asian elephant food source base on the mitigation of human-elephant conflict in Xishuangbanna of Yunnan Province, Southwest China. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2012, 31 (12): 3133- 3137. | |
韩洪云, 喻永红. 退耕还林的环境价值及政策可持续性: 以重庆万州为例. 中国农村经济, 2012, (11): 44- 55. | |
Han H Y, Yu Y H. Environmental value and policy sustainability of returning farmland to forests: a case study of Wanzhou, Chongqing. Chinese Rural Economy, 2012, (11): 44- 55. | |
胡柳娟. 现阶段官僚主义的发生逻辑、表现形式及治理对策. 理论视野, 2022, (1): 80- 85. | |
Hu L J. Current bureaucracy in China today: origination, manifestation, and countermeasures. Theoretical Horizon, 2022, (1): 80- 85. | |
胡宇轩, 杜宇晨, 陈俊峰, 等. 我国人象冲突演变历程的回顾与展望. 野生动物学报, 2022, 43 (3): 830- 835. | |
Hu Y X, Du Y C, Chen J F, et al. Evolution process of human-elephant conflict in China: retrospect and prospect. Chinese Journal of Wildlife, 2022, 43 (3): 830- 835. | |
胡宇轩, 张忠义, 杜宇晨, 等. 人象冲突的国内外研究进展及展望: 基于亚洲象对人的负面影响分析. 北京林业大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 20 (2): 72- 79. | |
Hu Y X, Zhang Z Y, Du Y C, et al. Research progress and prospects of human-elephant conflict at home and abroad. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (Social Sciences), 2021, 20 (2): 72- 79. | |
李雯雯. 2017. 西双版纳人象冲突风险评估研究. 昆明: 云南财经大学. | |
Li W W. 2017. Risk assessment of human-elephant conflict in Xishuangbanna. Kunming: Yunnan University of Finance and Economics.[in Chinese] | |
刘 欣. 2012. 基于亚洲象保护的我国野生动物损害补偿机制研究. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学. | |
Liu X. 2012. Wildlife damage compensation mechanism based on conservation of Asian elephants in China. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University.[in Chinese] | |
刘金龙, 徐拓远, 则 得. 自然保护区“封闭式”保护合理性研究: 西双版纳亚洲象肇事事件反思. 林业经济问题, 2020, 40 (1): 1- 7. | |
Liu J L, Xu T Y, Ze D. Study on the rationality of“closed”protection model in nature reserve: reflections on the incidents of the Asian elephants in Xishuangbanna. Problems of Forestry Economics, 2020, 40 (1): 1- 7. | |
檀学文. 中国移民扶贫70年变迁研究. 中国农村经济, 2019, (8): 2- 19. | |
Tan X W. The evolvement of poverty alleviation for resettled people in 70 years: from 1949 to 2019. Chinese Rural Economy, 2019, (8): 2- 19. | |
谭永忠, 王庆曰, 陈 佳, 等. 耕地资源非市场价值评价方法的研究进展与述评. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27 (5): 883- 892. | |
Tan Y Z, Wang Q Y, Chen J, et al. Research progress and review on non-market value evaluation methods of farmland resource. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012, 27 (5): 883- 892. | |
王 方, 郑 璇, 马 杰, 等. 无人机技术在中国野生亚洲象调查研究及监测中的应用. 林业建设, 2019, (6): 38- 44. | |
Wang F, Zheng X, Ma J, et al. Usage of unmanned aerial vehicle technology in investigation and monitoring of wild Asian elephant’s population and distribution in China. Forestry Construction, 2019, (6): 38- 44. | |
王亚华, 舒全峰. 2021. 公共事物治理的集体行动研究评述与展望. 中国人口·资源与环境, 31(4): 118-131. | |
Wang Y H, Shu Q F. 2021. Review and prospect of collective action studies on commons governance. China Population, Resources and Environment, 31(4): 118−131.[in Chinese] | |
尹文嘉. 整体治理的现实困境与路径选择. 华东经济管理, 2010, 24 (1): 129- 132. | |
Yin W J. The practical difficulty of the holistic governance and it’s path selection. East China Economic Management, 2010, 24 (1): 129- 132. | |
喻永红, 张志坚, 刘耀森. 农业生态保护政策目标的农民偏好及其生态保护参与行为: 基于重庆十区县的农户选择实验分析. 中国农村观察, 2021, (1): 85- 105. | |
Yu Y H, Zhang Z J, Liu Y S. Farmers’preferences for agro-ecological protection policy goals and their participation behaviors: evidence from choice experimental analysis of farmers from ten districts(counties) in Chongqing. China Rural Survey, 2021, (1): 85- 105. | |
俞振宁, 谭永忠, 茅铭芝, 等. 重金属污染耕地治理式休耕补偿政策: 农户选择实验及影响因素分析. 中国农村经济, 2018, (2): 109- 125. | |
Yu Z N, Tan Y Z, Mao M Z, et al. The subsidy policies on fallow of farmland contaminated with heavy metals: a farmers’ choice experiment and influencing factors analysis. Chinese Rural Economy, 2018, (2): 109- 125. | |
曾令发. 整体型治理的行动逻辑. 中国行政管理, 2010, (1): 110- 114. | |
Zeng L F. Action logic of holistic governance. Chinese Public Administration, 2010, (1): 110- 114. | |
张 立. 2018. 中国亚洲象保护研究. 北京: 科学出版社. | |
Zhang L. 2018. Research on Asian elephant conservation in China. Beijing: Science Press.[in Chinese] | |
张馨予, 胡宇轩, 张忠义, 等. 中国公众的国际野生动物保护意愿调查: 以非洲象为例. 生物多样性, 2021, 29 (10): 1358- 1368.
doi: 10.17520/biods.2021082 |
|
Zhang X Y, Hu Y X, Zhang Z Y, et al. Chinese public willingness of international wildlife conservation: a case study of African elephant. Biodiversity Science, 2021, 29 (10): 1358- 1368.
doi: 10.17520/biods.2021082 |
|
赵 宇, 金 崑. 亚洲象分布、数量、栖息地状况及种群管理. 世界林业研究, 2018, 31 (2): 25- 30. | |
Zhao Y, Kun J. Distribution, population, habitat status and population management of Asian elephant. World Forestry Research, 2018, 31 (2): 25- 30. | |
朱战国, 董 鑫, 张 彤. 农产品生态系统价值的标签化策略: 基于选择实验法的实证分析. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 22 (1): 160- 171. | |
Zhu Z G, Dong X, Zhang T. Labeling strategy of ecosystem value of agricultural products: an empirical analysis based on choice experiment. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 22 (1): 160- 171. | |
Ayechew B, Tolcha A. Assessment of human-wildlife conflict in and around Weyngus Forest, Dega Damot Woreda, West Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Science, 2020, 4, 1- 10. | |
Chang'A A, de Souza N, Muya J, et al. Scaling-up the use of chili fences for reducing human-elephant conflict across landscapes in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 2016, 9 (2): 921- 930.
doi: 10.1177/194008291600900220 |
|
Chen S, Yi Z F, Campos-Arceiz A, et al. Developing a spatially-explicit, sustainable and risk-based insurance scheme to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Biological Conservation, 2013, 168, 31- 39.
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.017 |
|
Dhakal B, Thapa B. 2019. Residents’ perceptions of human-elephant conflict: case study in Bahundangi, Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21(1): 461−481. | |
Fentaw T, Duba J. Human-wildlife conflict among the pastoral communities of southern rangelands of Ethiopia: the case of yabello protected area. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2017, 20 (2): 198- 206. | |
Hoare R E. Lessons from 15 years of human-elephant conflict mitigation: management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in Africa. Pachyderm, 2012, 51, 60- 74. | |
Kansky R, Kidd M, Fischer J. 2020. Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage-causing wildlife? Conservation Science and Practice, 3(3): 262. | |
Khai H V, Yabe M. Choice modeling: assessing the non-market environmental values of the biodiversity conservation of swamp forest in Vietnam. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 2014, 5, 1- 8.
doi: 10.1186/2251-6832-5-1 |
|
King L, Pardo M, Weerathunga S, et al. Wild Sri Lankan elephants retreat from the sound of disturbed Asian honey bees. Current Biology, 2018, 28 (2): R64- R65.
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.018 |
|
Lancaster K J. 1976. A new approach to consumer theory. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 106−107. | |
Lee P C, Graham M D. African elephants Loxodonta africana and human-elephant interactions: implications for conservation . International Zoo Yearbook, 2006, 40 (1): 9- 19.
doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00009.x |
|
Liu P, Wen H, Harich F K, et al. Conflict between conservation and development: cash forest encroachment in Asian elephant distributions. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7 (1): 442- 449.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00575-0 |
|
Meyerhoff J, Liebe U. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Economics, 2009, 85 (3): 515- 528.
doi: 10.3368/le.85.3.515 |
|
Nyhus P J. Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2016, 41, 143- 171.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634 |
|
Seip K, Strand J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: a contingent valuation study with real payment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1992, 2 (1): 91- 106.
doi: 10.1007/BF00324691 |
|
Su K W, Ren J, Yang J, et al. Human-elephant conflicts and villagers’ attitudes and knowledge in the Xishuangbanna nature reserve, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17 (23): 8910.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238910 |
|
Wang S K, Cai Z, Hu Y X, et al. Chinese resident preferences for African elephant conservation: choice experiment. Diversity, 2020a, 12 (12): 453.
doi: 10.3390/d12120453 |
|
Wang Z H, Li Z L, Tang Y J, et al. China’s dams isolate Asian elephants. Science, 2020b, 367 (6476): 373- 374. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||