Our projects have a strong focus on the development of a mutually beneficial human-elephant coexistence strategy and its implementation. Research into this has led to the several scientific publications.
Publications
- Owen, A., van de Water, A., Sutthiboriban, N., Tantipisanuh, N., Sangthong, S., Rajbhandari, A., & Matteson, K. (2024). The Role of Alternative Crop Cultivation in Promoting Human-Elephant Coexistence: A Multidisciplinary Investigation in Thailand. Diversity, 16(9), Article 9.
- Van de Water, A., Garaï, M. E., Burnett, M. M., Henley, M., Di Minin, E., Streicher, J. P., Bates, L. A., & Slotow, R. (2024). Integrating a “One Well-being” approach in elephant conservation: Evaluating consequences of management interventions. Ecology and Society, 29(3).
- Van de Water, A., Henley, M. D., Bates, L., & Slotow, R. (2022). The value of elephants: A pluralistic approach. Ecosystem Services, 58(101488).
- Van de Water, A., Di Minin, E., & Slotow, R. (2022). Human-elephant Coexistence Through Aligning Conservation with Societal Aspirations. Global Ecology and Conservation, e02165.
- Van de Water, A., King, L. E., Arkajak, R., Arkajak, J., Doormaal, N. van, Ceccarelli, V., Sluiter, L., Doornwaard, S. M., Praet, V., Owen, D., & Matteson, K. (2020). Beehive fences as a sustainable local solution to human-elephant conflict in Thailand. Conservation Science and Practice, e260.
- Van de Water, A., Henley, M., Bates, L., & Slotow, R. (2020). Future of Thailand’s captive elephants. Animal Sentience, 5(28).
- Van de Water, A., & Matteson, K. (2018). Human-elephant conflict in western Thailand. Socio-economic drivers and potential mitigation strategies. PLoS ONE 13(6): e0194736.
- Van de Water, A., & Nulibol, D. (2013). Restoring habitat for the Bornean elephant. The History Bulletin of the Siam Society, 59(1): 1–4.
- Van de Water, A., & Sluiter, L. (2009). The Great Elephant Escape. Silkworms Books. Chiang Mai, Thailand.
- Van de Water, A., & Sluiter, L. (2006). Thaise olifanten van de straat. Bzztôh Publishers. The Hague, the Netherlands.
Through a unique approach of engaging with people living with elephants, we are developing a holistic conservation model that reconciles conservation and human well-being goals, aiming for social justice, equality and social upliftment. Because we believe in coexistence solutions that contribute to the happiness of elephants and people.
Through questionnaires, interviews and participatory workshops and by practically working together with people living with elephants, we aim to:
- understand the variables that influence people’s attitudes towards elephants, and the prerequisites of human-elephant coexistence.
- enable change by developing a holistic mutually beneficial human-elephant coexistence strategy.
Some results
- Most farmers (91%) in Ruam Thai Village faced negative impacts from nearby elephants, and half were interested in alternative crops. Those with frequent encounters and a balanced view of these interactions were more open to trying new crops. In trials, elephants destroyed over 80% of pineapples but only max 6% of alternative crops. Lemongrass and citronella were identified as the most suitable crops (Owen et al., 2024).
- Our analysis identified 250 consequences of elephant management interventions, revealing that while 93.4% of direct intentional consequences were beneficial, the majority of direct unintentional and indirect consequences were harmful (96.9% and 75.4%, respectively). These interventions generally supported environmental well-being but often negatively impacted animal and human well-being, highlighting a conflict among well-being dimensions. This underscores the importance of integrating human and animal well-being into elephant management strategies. Our approach promotes ethical conservation practices and multidisciplinary collaboration to tackle socio-ecological vulnerabilities, aligning with global goals for sustainable and equitable wildlife management (Van de Water et al., 2024).
- We identified 90 benefits elephants offer to humans and nature. By integrating moral values and feedback into valuation systems, we enhance equity and the common good. Conservation becomes more manageable when we consider and balance the diverse values of all people. Recognising local needs and values leads to more sustainable and fair conservation practices.
- Our study in Chanthaburi demonstrated that beehive fencing is a holistic solution for human-elephant coexistence, effectively deterring over 80% of individual elephants and 60% of elephant groups. Additionally, this method offers significant benefits, including extra income, enhanced pride, skills development, and improved well-being (Van de Water et al., 2020).
- Our research in Kanchanaburi showed that those who gained benefits from living near wild elephants were more tolerant towards them. We found that it was not just financial benefits that drive positive attitudes: benefits like community development, feelings of pride and satisfaction also have a strong influence on attitudes (Van de Water & Matteson, 2018).
The One Well-being Framework integrates the collective well-being of humans, animals, and the environment. Human well-being is assessed through material, subjective, and relational factors; animal well-being via basic health, natural living, and affective states, and environmental well-being by ecological function, service provision, biodiversity risk, and resilience. Consequences of management intervention are classified as direct intentional, unintentional, and indirect effects, classifying each outcome as either beneficial or harmful.
A visual representation of a pluralist elephant valuation system. The multidimensional relationships among four overlapping valuation concepts (intrinsic, instrumental, relational, and moral) are shown above the 16 services, benefits, and values categories. The services, benefits and values associated with elephant conservation are further classified as mainly secular (green background), partly secular/partly sacred (white background), and mainly sacred (orange background).
