提供者:Resilliance联盟内容:文本/平原;charset = " utf - 8 " TY -的A1 Kamdar Arjun A1 - Baishya Hiten Kumar A1 - Nagendra Harini A1 - Ratnam Jayashree A1 -史密斯,大卫A1 - Sekar Nitin TI - Human-elephant冲突缓解公共利益:栅栏的维护是由什么决定的?N2 - - - - - - -人类和大象之间的相互作用是造成严重后果,导致生命损失和在两个物种的生活质量恶化。减少human-elephant冲突(HEC)是必不可少的大象保护以及社会正义。非致命电篱笆周围放置村或社区是一个广泛使用的干预以减轻HEC。这样的壁垒作为非排他性和non-subtractable resources-i.e。、公共产品必须由受益人或集体维护状态。尽管是相当有效的维护,大多数印度东北部的栅栏凋敝。这导致我们的核心问题:为什么有些栅栏维护管理不善和其他人?使用定性比较分析我们研究了19个这样的栅栏,奥斯特罗姆的生态系统框架,和扎根理论的方法,结合定性社会科学工具。 We found that, contrary to our hypothesis, the functionality of fences cannot be predicted based on the design of the fence, whether or not the community made cash payments, or ethnic homogeneity or leadership in the village. Instead, we found there are three potential pathways of maintenance: (1) a community maintainer, (2) the community self-organizes, and (3) the Forest Department. Maintenance occurs when there is a congruence between perceived costs and benefits for the entity responsible for fence maintenance. These costs and benefits are diverse, including not just material benefits but intangibles like goodwill, sense of safety, social standing, and a feeling of fairness. We highlight these factors and provide recommendations for practitioners and policy. JO - Ecology and Society PB - The Resilience Alliance Y1 - 2022 P1 - 2022 VL - 27 IS - 3 C7 - 24 UR - //www.dpl-cld.com/vol27/iss3/art24/ DO - 10.5751/ES-13271-270324 KW - collective action problem KW - fence maintenance KW - grounded theory KW - human–elephant conflict KW - India KW - non-lethal fences KW - public good KW - qualitative comparative analysis KW - social-ecological systems ER -