1 The burning of fields as demanded by the agricultural businesses in contract farming, which I highlight in this essay, is just one of many factors that go into the creation of the haze. Some additional factors include interest in foraging for a highly-valued, prized local mushroom that appears after the fires (see Mostafanezhad, Mary, ‘The materiality of air pollution: Urban political ecologies of tourism in Thailand’, Tourism Geographies 23, 4 [2020]: 1–18Google Scholar; Pukjira Chaemchuea, ‘Investigation into fire prevention techniques for use in Northern Thailand's Mae Ping National Park’ [PhD diss., Worcester Polytechnic Institute]; and Chankrajang, Thanyaporn, ‘State–community property-rights sharing in forests and its contributions to environmental outcomes: Evidence from Thailand's community forestry’, Journal of Development Economics 138 [2019]: 261–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar); hunters who set fires to flush out animals (see Adeleke, Adelowo et al., ‘Contributing factors and impacts of open burning in Thailand: Perspectives from farmers in Chiang Rai province, Thailand’, Journal of Health Research 31, 2 (2017): 159–67Google Scholar; and Tiyapairat, Yongyut and Sajor, Edsel E., ‘State simplification, heterogeneous causes of vegetation fires and implications on local haze management: Case study in Thailand’, Environment, development and sustainability 14 [2012]: 1047–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar); transboundary pollution (see Vichit-Vadakan, Nuntavarn and Vajanapoom, Nitaya, ‘Health impact from air pollution in Thailand: Current and future challenges’, Environmental Health Perspectives 119, 5 [2011]: 197–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Punsompong, Praphatsorn and Chantara, Somporn, ‘Identification of potential sources of PM10 pollution from biomass burning in northern Thailand using statistical analysis of trajectories’, Atmospheric Pollution Research 9, 6 [2018]: 1038–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and government agencies competing for authority and redistributing land use rights (see Gellert, Paul K., ‘The political economy of environmental degradation and climate disaster in Southeast Asia’, in The political economy of Southeast Asia: Politics and uneven development under hyperglobalisation [Cham: Springer, 2020], pp. 367–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pas-Ong, Suparb and Lebel, Louis, ‘Political transformation and the environment in Southeast Asia’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 42, 8 [2000]: 8–19Google Scholar).

Rumours of people and jurisdictions setting fires and spreading misinformation to sabotage each other, and a slew of other practical and perceptual problems, also contribute to the problem, along with population growth and increasing vehicle exhaust. These are all important issues to consider alongside this essay's emphasis on the cultural ideologies surrounding pressure from agricultural businesses to burn fields.

2 For discussions of the difficulties, see Luecha Ladachart, Manus Poothawee and Ladapa Ladachart, ‘Toward a place-based learning progression for haze pollution in the northern region of Thailand’, Cultural Studies of Science Education 15 (2020): 991–1017; P. Pochanart, ‘The present state of urban air pollution problems in Thailand's large cities: Cases of Bangkok, Chiang Mai, and Rayong’, Journal of Environmental Management 12, 1 (2016): 114–33; Daniel Murdiyarso et al., ‘Policy responses to complex environmental problems: Insights from a science–policy activity on transboundary haze from vegetation fires in Southeast Asia’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104, 1 (2004): 47–56; Mary Mostafanezhad and Olivier Evrard, ‘Environmental geopolitics of rumor: The sociality of uncertainty during Northern Thailand's smoky season’, in A research agenda for environmental geopolitics, ed. Shannon O'Lear (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2020), pp. 121–35.

Some proposed solutions include place-based learning on the topic in schools (Ladachart et al.) and state involvement, including the military, fire, and other new units with master plans and regulations criminalizing burning, especially at particular times of year (Pollution Control Department, 2005; http://infofile.pcd.go.th/air/air%5fOpenburning.pdf?CFID=1629110&CFTOKEN=16341544 (last accessed 2 Dec. 2021) (in Thai)); Pearmsak Makarabhirom, David Ganz and Surin Onprom, ‘Community involvement in fire management: Cases and recommendations for community-based fire management in Thailand’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Community Involvement in Fire Management, Bangkok, Thailand, ed. Peter Moore et al. (Bangkok: RAP Publications FAO; FireFight South East Asia, 2002), pp. 10–15; NGO advocates working through social media, and joint university research programmes. See, for example, ‘Silent Gen Y’, ‘Raks Mae Ping’, and ‘Kaew Suay Hom’: Liwa Pardthaisong, Phaothai Sin-ampol, Chanida Suwanprasit and Arisara Charoenpanyanet, ‘Haze pollution in Chiang Mai, Thailand: A road to resilience’, Procedia Engineering 212 (2018): 85–9. Chiang Mai University leads the ‘Research University Network for Climate Change and Disaster Management (RUN-CCDM)’, http://runccdm.weebly.com/ (last accessed 16 Feb. 2024).

3 ‘When smog became so severe [in 2015] that the Singapore Armed Forces sent two Chinook helicopters to help fight the fires, CP—which also sources for corn in Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam—was singled out for criticism. It denied responsibility for the haze, but ended farming contracts in Mae Chaem, a particularly notorious “hot spot” in Chiang Mai province … One of the farmers cut loose, Mr Chitnarong Chompootan, now sells his corn for 12 baht per kg instead of 16 baht. “We were the scapegoats”, he laments. “We were only responsible for 20 to 30 per cent of the smoke. The rest comes from elsewhere”.’ Tan Hui Yee, ‘S'pore sends 2 helicopters to help fight haze in Thai north’, Straits Times, 25 Jan. 2016, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spore-sends-2-helicopters-to-help-fight-haze-in-thai-north. Mae Chaem's farmers are dealing with the increase in maize production in various ways. See, for example, Sayamol Charoenratana Sayamol, Cholnapa Anukul and Peter M. Rosset, ‘Food sovereignty and food security: Livelihood strategies pursued by farmers during the maize monoculture boom in Northern Thailand’, Sustainability 13, 17 (2021): 9821.

4 Peter Kunstadter, ‘Subsistence agricultural economies of Lua’ and Karen hill farmers, Mae Sariang district, northwestern Thailand’, in Farmers in the forest: Economic development and marginal agriculture in Northern Thailand, ed. Peter Kunstadter, E.C. Chapman and Sanga Sabhasri (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press; East West Centre, 1978), pp. 74–133; F.G.B. Keen, ‘Land use’, in Highlanders of Thailand, ed. J. McKinnon and W. Bhruksasri (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 293–306; James D. Fahn, A land on fire: The environmental consequences of the Southeast Asian boom (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2003).

5 See Julia Cassaniti, Living Buddhism: Mind, self, and emotion in a Thai community (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015); Julia Cassaniti, ‘Encountering impermanence, crafting change: A case study of alcoholism and attachment’, in Impermanence: Exploring continuous change across cultures, ed. Haidy Geismar, Ton Otto and Cameron David Warner (London: UCL Press, 2022), pp. 65–82; Julia Cassaniti, ‘Toward a cultural psychology of impermanence in Thailand’, Ethos: Journal of Psychological Anthropology 34 (2006): 58–88; Julia Cassaniti and Tanya M. Luhrmann, ‘The cultural kindling of spiritual experiences’, Current Anthropology 55, 10 (2014): 333–43; Julia Cassaniti and Michael Chladek, ‘Aimless agency: Precarity and uncertainty among Buddhist novice monks in Thailand’, Ethos 50, 3 (2022): 315–31. To continue the use of pseudonyms for interlocutors from these past publications, and because a few farmers warned me that there could be retaliation for speaking out against the agribusinesses for this article, I have tried to keep informants anonymous. Vasuthep and Duang are real names as per the preference of these two interlocutors. All quotes from interviews with ethnic Thai informants are my translations from Thai and Northern Thai. Interviews conducted with Hmong, Karen, and Lawa informants were first translated into Thai by an interpreter and then from Thai to English by me, unless otherwise noted.

6 This increase parallels that of other regions in Thailand. As Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker point out, maize production has been on the rise since the 1950s, when it began to be used for animal feed in Taiwan, Japan, and elsewhere across Asia. Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker, Thailand: Economy and politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Its production has increased forty-fold since the 1950s.

7 Mae Chaem Development Model, 2019; https://thailand.opendevelopmentmekong.net/stories/the-mae-chaem-development-model/#return-note-5064-12 (last accessed 16 Feb. 2024).

8 ‘Between 2009 and 2011 and again in 2014, especially large amounts of land were converted from forest to agricultural land, largely to grow corn. The area used for corn production increased from 34,122 acres in 2009 to 41,698 acres in 2011 and further to 57,281 acres in 2013 Significantly, even this project, a self-declared local and government-led network with links to ‘Ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples development NGOs’, is heavily run by the agribusiness Charoen Pokphand (CP), discussed below.

9 Daniel Hayward refers to the situation in Mae Cham as ‘[a] cautionary tale’, ‘From maize to haze’, paper presented at the conference Haze and Social (in)Justice in Southeast Asia: Past Experience and What Next?’, Chiang Mai University, 29 July 2020; https://static1.squarespace.com/static/575fb39762cd94c2d69dc556/t/5f23cd96b1ec7d2b3875dfae/1596181931423/200729_DanielHayward.pdf (last accessed 16 Feb. 2024).

10 See Sukhpal Singh, ‘Role of the state in contract farming in Thailand: Experience and lessons’, ASEAN Economic Bulletin 22, 2 (2005): 217–28; see also Songsak Sriboonchitta and Aree Wiboonpoongse, ‘Overview of contract farming in Thailand: Lessons learned’, ADBI Discussion Paper 112 (Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2008).

11 Sukhpal Singh, ‘Contract farming system in Thailand’, Economic and Political Weekly (2005): 5578–86.

12 Wisanti Laohaudomchok et al., ‘Pesticide use in Thailand: Current situation, health risks, and gaps in research and policy’, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 27, 5 (2021): 1147–69.

13 Ibid.

14 Even when the fact of burning looks similar in many ways, its social meanings, practices, and even environmental effects have changed. ‘In the burning process,’ writes Yos Santasombat, ‘neighbors who have land adjacent to or near by also set fire to their plots simultaneously so as to help one another make the flames spread and burn extensively … [which helps to] accumulate calcium, phosphorous and potassium in the soil from residue of the burnt substances.’ Yos Santasombat, Biodiversity: Local knowledge and sustainable development (Chiang Mai: Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development, Chiang Mai University, 2003), p. 31. The burnt residue that used to be helpful to the soil is now seen as dangerous.

15 Santasombat, Biodiversity, p. 36.

16 See Cassaniti, Living Buddhism; and Julia Cassaniti and Tanya Luhrmann, ‘Encountering the supernatural: A phenomenological account of mind’, Religion and Society 2 (2011): 37–53.

17 Santasombat, ‘Biodiversity’, p. 172.

18 There is significant diversity in land management practices among different ethnic communities in upland Southeast Asia. The Lawa (Lua) and Karen are typically referred to as secondary-forest swiddeners, rotating fields rather than moving villages, while the Hmong, Lahu, Yao, Akha and Lasu are referred to as primary-forest swiddeners, farming an area of land over and over for a series of years, and then when nutrients are depleted, moving to a new area. See Peter Kunstadter, ‘Ecological modification and adaptation: An ethnobotanical view of Lua' swiddeners in northwestern Thailand’, The nature and status of ethnobotany, ed. Richard I. Ford, 2nd edn (Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1978), pp. 169–200; and Keen, ‘Land use’.

I focus on Lawa, Hmong, and Karen practices here because they are the main upland communities in Mae Chaem district; for an excellent summary of rituals related to spirits of the land in agricultural rituals among the Lahu, see Anthony R. Walker, ‘From spirits of the wilderness to lords of the place and guardians of the village and farmlands: Mountains and their spirits in traditional Lahu cosmography, belief, and ritual practice’, Anthropos 110, 1 (2015): 27–42.

19 Nils Bubandt, ‘Haunted geologies: Spirits, stones, and the necropolitics of the Anthropocene’, in Arts of living on a damaged planet: Ghosts and monsters of the Anthropocene, ed. Anna L. Tsing, Heather Anne Swanson, Elaine Gan and Nils Bubandt (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017), p. 135.

20 See Georges Condominas, From Lawa to Mon, from Saa' to Thai: Historical and anthropological aspects of Southeast Asian social spaces, trans. Stephanie Anderson, Maria Magannon and Gehan Wijeyewardene, Occasional Paper, Dept of Anthropology, Research School of Asian and Pacific Studies (Canberra: Australian National University, 1990). The exact number of Lawa and Lawa-identified people living in Thailand is uncertain. Some sources suggest the number to be closer to 60,000 (see, for example, https://pathsunwritten.com/lawa-culture-thailand/ (last accessed 16 Feb. 2024)).

21 In Lawa: Lua'nyia'hai bō hue tai, ka, Tai nyia'na bq hue tai hiao haeng. Kraisri Nimmanhaeminda, ‘The Lawa guardian spirits of Chiengmai, Journal of the Siam Society 55 (1967): 78, as cited in Michael R. Rhum, ‘The cosmology of power in Lanna’, Journal of the Siam Society 5 (1987): 94.

22 See Yoko Hayami, ‘Pagodas and prophets: Contesting sacred space and power among Buddhist Karen in Karen State’, Journal of Asian Studies 70, 4 (2011): 1083–105; see also Nicola Beth Tannenbaum, Nina A. Kammerer and Cornelia Ann Kammerer, Founders’ cults in Southeast Asia: Ancestors, polity, and identity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003).

23 Santasombat, Biodiversity, p. 205.

24 Ibid.

25 Personal communication.

26 Paiboon Hengsuwan, ‘Contradictions on the struggles over resources and contesting terrain of ethnic groups on the hill in protected area, Chom Thong, Chiang Mai’, paper for the International Conference on Politics of the Commons: Articulating Development and Strengthening Local Practices, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University, 2003, cited in Tim Forsyth and Andrew Walker, Forest guardians, forest destroyers: The politics of environmental knowledge in northern Thailand (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008).

27 Jacob R. Hickman, ‘Ancestral personhood and moral justification’, Anthropological Theory 14, 3 (2014): 317–35.

28 Julia L. Cassaniti and Jacob R. Hickman, ‘New directions in the anthropology of morality’, Anthropological Theory 14, 3 (2014): 251–62.

29 Julia Cassaniti and Usha Menon, Universalism without uniformity: Explorations in mind and culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 2017).

30 See, for example, Marisol de la Cadena, Earth beings: Ecologies of practice across Andean worlds (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015); Tsing et al, Arts of living on a damaged planet.

31 The use of pesticides has increased rapidly in the past ten years in Thailand. Laohaudomchok et al. (‘Pesticide use in Thailand’), in partnership with the Thai Ministry of Health and eight universities in Thailand, Laos and Indonesia, write that the overuse of pesticides is a major health problem in the country, and tie it to cash crop farming: ‘In Thailand, for example, there are indigenous ethnic minority groups living along the mountainous areas in the North and the West. These hill people comprise several local tribes including the Hmong (Meo), Mien (Yao), Lahu (Mu Ser), Akha (Egor), etc. Highland Hmong farmers have abandoned cultivation of subsistence crops and turned to chemical-intensive cultivation of non-narcotic permanent field cash crops. Like other Thai farmers, they apply pesticides by backpack and machine sprayers and by hand.’ I first noticed this connection in the early 2000s in Mae Chaem, when my Karen friend Thew mentioned his concern for his mother's health because of pesticides she uses to grow strawberries for sale in Bangkok and abroad. Although a thorough ethnohistory of the link between pesticide use and maize production is beyond the scope of this article, others have voiced similar concerns.

32 Tan Hui Yee, ‘Chiang Mai's headache: Corn-fed smoke haze’, Straits Times, 21 May, 2016.

33 See Kevin Hewison, ‘Crazy rich Thais: Thailand's capitalist class, 1980–2019’, Journal of Contemporary Asia 51, 2 (2021): 262–77.

34 In March 2024 Chiang Mai was cited as being the world's ‘worst-polluted city’ because of the seasonal haze: ‘Stretttha will not declare Chiang Mai a disaster zone to protect tourism', Bangkok Post, https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2760136/srettha-will-not-declare-chiang-mai-a-disaster-zone-to-protect-tourism (accessed 17 Mar. 2024).

35 Forsyth and Walker, Forest guardians, forest destroyers, p. 8.

36 Pingkaew Luangaramsri, Redefining nature: Karen ecological knowledge and the challenge to the modern conservation paradigm (Chennai: Earthworm, 2002).

37 Claudio O. Delang, ‘Deforestation in Northern Thailand: The result of Hmong farming practices or Thai development strategies?’, Society & Natural Resources 15, 6, (2002): 483–501. This attitude to swidden agriculture continues even if many studies show that the practice is environmentally sound, especially when population pressures are low. See, for example, ibid., p. 490; Forsyth and Walker, Forest guardians, forest destroyers; and Clifford Geertz, Agricultural involution: The processes of ecological change in Indonesia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963).

38 See, for example, Fahn, A land on fire; Nikolas Århem, ‘Forests, spirits and high modernist development: A study of cosmology and change among the Katuic peoples in the uplands of Laos and Vietnam’, PhD diss. (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2014); and Rachel Dunn, ‘Perspectives, problems, and pesticides: The discrepancies between institutional and local environmental conservation perspectives in Northern Thailand and the implications for natural resource management model development’ (PhD diss., Cornell University, 2012).

39 Delang, ‘Deforestation in Northern Thailand’, p. 484.

40 Thai PBS, 19 Mar. 2019; https://www.chiangmaicitylife.com/citynews/features/clean-air-white-paper/ (last accessed 15 Feb. 2024).

41 Arun Agrawal, ‘Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge’, Development and Change 26, 3 (1995): 413–39.

42 Bubandt, ‘Haunted geologies’, p. 125.

43 Links between CP and the military, royal family, and other members of the elite are difficult to document, but there is evidence of personal connections and ideological alignments. CP members often are present at military-political and royally sponsored events, and collaborate with the military and government in public projects. See, for example, Michael J. Montesano, ‘Thailand: A reckoning with history begins’, Southeast Asian Affairs 1 (2007): 309–99.

44 See, for example, Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, Buddhism and the spirit cults in north-east Thailand (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Erik W. Davis, Deathpower: Buddhism's ritual imagination in Cambodia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015); Århem, ‘Forests, spirits and high modernist development’.

45 I do not mean to suggest that Buddhist principles are fundamentally entwined with the kind of destructive agricultural practices supported by agribusiness, only that the agribusinesses can be seen to be making use of a civilisation/wilderness rhetoric that aligns them with a cosmologically powerful perspective of which Buddhism is also a part. Many perspectives on Buddhism and its relationship to environmental issues show it to offer much to the preservation of land. As Rojjana Klechaya and George Glasson point out, Buddhism as taught in schools throughout Thailand instructs that one should live with nature mindfully and respectfully. (Rojjana Klechaya and George Glasson, ‘Mindfulness and place-based education in Buddhist-oriented schools in Thailand’, in Weaving complementary knowledge systems and mindfulness to educate a literate citizenry for sustainable and healthy lives, ed. Malgorzata Powietrzynska and Kenneth Tobin [Rotterdam: Sense, 2017], pp. 159–70.) And Susan Darlington reports on activist monks in Nan province in Thailand who advocate a move away from maize farming in what they call a shift ‘from capitalist agriculture to dhammic agriculture’. (See Susan Darlington, ‘Buddhist integration of forest and farm in Northern Thailand’, Religions 10, 9 [2019]: 1–13.) Martin Seeger writes of the motivational force for environmental protection in Thai Buddhist approaches to forests as spiritual ‘training grounds’, (Martin Seeger, ‘Ideas and images of nature in Thai Buddhism: Continuity and change’, in Environmental and climate change in South and Southeast Asia, ed. Barbara Schuler: How are local cultures coping? [Leiden: Brill, 2014], p. 47.) Phra Paisan (cited in Seeger) suggests that there is complementarity in Thai Buddhism and the spirits of nature, and Pairin Jotisakulratana suggests that while early Buddhist myths in Thailand point to ongoing tensions between Buddhism and nature, such as one that says that ‘The death … of the goddess is caused by people valuing money over rice, and the Buddha claiming that he was greater than the Rice Mother’, they also instruct followers to ‘humbly respect nature’ and ‘help bring the rice back’ (Pairin Jotisakulratana, Mothers of all peoples: Goddesses of Thailand from prehistory until the present [San Francisco: California Institute of Integral Studies, 2012], pp. 142–3.) An emphasis on the co-construction of Buddhist and other spiritual traditions, rather than a separation of them, may represent a potentially constructive counter to the pernicious over-alignment of Buddhism with the Thai state.

46 Kamala Tiyavanich, Forest recollections: Wandering monks in twentieth-century Thailand (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1997); and Charles Hallisey, personal communication.

47 Julia Cassaniti, Remembering the present: Mindfulness in Buddhist Asia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018), p. 139.

48 Mostafanezhad and Evrard, ‘Environmental geopolitics of rumor’, p. 4.

49 Rhum, ‘The cosmology of power in Lanna’, p. 92.

50 Jason W. Moore, ‘The Capitalocene, part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis’, Journal of Peasant Studies 44, 3 (2017): 594.

51 Anna L. Tsing, ‘Natural resources and capitalist frontiers’, Economic and Political Weekly 38, 48 (2003): 5103.

52 Bubandt, ‘Haunted geologies’, p. 135.

53 See, for example, Kuyakanon, Riamsara, Diemberger, Hildegard, Diemberger, David Sneath, and Sneath, David, eds, Cosmopolitical ecologies across Asia: Places and practices of power in changing environments (London: Routledge, 2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stengers, Isabelle, Cosmopolitics I (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

54 See Cassaniti, Julia, ‘Up in smoke: Cosmopolitical ecologies and the disappearing spirits of the land in the haze crisis of Southeast Asia’, in Kuyakanon et al., Cosmopolitical ecologies across Asia, pp. 62–80Google Scholar; Tsing, Anna L., Mathews, Andrew S. and Bubandt, Nils, ‘Patchy Anthropocene: Landscape structure, multispecies history, and the retooling of anthropology’, Current Anthropology 60, 20 (2019): 186–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Forsyth, Tim, ‘Beyond narratives: Civic epistemologies and the coproduction of environmental knowledge and popular environmentalism in Thailand’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109, 2 (2019): 593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar, citing Miller, Clark A., ‘Civic epistemologies: Constituting knowledge and order in political communities’, Sociology Compass 2, 6 (2008): 1896–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Santasombat, ‘Biodiversity’, p. 209.

57 Forsyth, ‘Beyond narratives’, p. 593.

58 Pardthaisong et al., ‘Haze pollution in Chiang Mai’, p. 91.

59 The importance of local involvement is clear, but difficult to do in practice, as local organisations often work under the auspices of government and agribusinesses. Even the ‘Mae Chaem Model’ project, which claims to be a local advocacy group, is actually a state-directed project with substantial CP Group involvement. See British Council Newton Fund, University of York and Chiang Mai University, ‘Research brief: The Mae Chaem model: A new blueprint for sustainable rural development in Northern Thailand?’, 2019; https://www.york.ac.uk/media/yesi/yesinew2018/sustainablefood/The%20Mae%20Chaem%20Model-%20A%20new%20blueprint%20for%20sustainable%20rural%20development%20in%20northern%20Thailand.pdf. The project claims that the main problem is to end ‘irresponsible agricultural practices’ by farmers, and includes a quote from CP's vice president Apaichon Vacharasin about ‘the need for marketing mechanisms to boost public awareness’ (ibid.).

60 Raymond, Christopher M. et al., ‘Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services’, Ecological Economics 68, 5 (2009): 1301–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Darlington, ‘Buddhist integration of forest and farm’.

62 Paul, Andrew, Roth, Robin and Moo, Saw Sha Bwe, ‘Relational ontology and more-than-human agency in indigenous Karen conservation practice’, Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 4 (2021): 382CrossRefGoogle Scholar.