Human-Elephant Conflict and Poaching in Myanmar Christie Lynn Sampson Clemson University, Csampso@Clemson.Edu

Home , Barua (Bangladesh), Taikkyi Township

Clemson University TigerPrints

All Dissertations Dissertations

8-2018 Living with Giants: Human-Elephant Conflict and Poaching in Myanmar Christie Lynn Sampson Clemson University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations

Recommended Citation Sampson, Christie Lynn, "Living with Giants: Human-Elephant Conflict and Poaching in Myanmar" (2018). All Dissertations. 2189. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2189

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIVING WITH GIANTS: HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT AND POACHING IN MYANMAR

A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Biological Sciences

by Christie Lynn Sampson August 2018

Accepted by: Dr. Saara DeWalt, Committee Chair Dr. David Tonkyn Dr. Shari Rodriguez Dr. Peter Leimgruber Dr. Catherine Mobley Dr. David Jachowski ABSTRACT

To address both the impacts of poaching on the wildlife and human populations and create effective conservation policy, conservation efforts must engage communities and include their views as stakeholders in the development of the policy. The involvement of local people has been shown to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of conservation efforts. However, to appropriately engage local people, the government and conservationists must understand their experiences with wildlife, and how local communities’ experiences with human-wildlife conflict and poaching influence their willingness to support wildlife conservation programs. Using the Asian elephant as an example, we developed what we consider to be a more realistic, theoretical model linking changes to elephant populations with conservation interventions and human welfare that includes negative feedback loops. We then designed a series of studies to illustrate and test some of these links at several field sites across Myanmar. This dissertation outlines the discovery of the extent and nature of elephant poaching in

Myanmar, and presents results from interviews with people in rural and urban communities to assess their attitudes towards human-elephant conflict (HEC) and elephant conservation, their perceptions of poaching in Myanmar, and the direct impacts and indirect impacts of HEC that they experience. This theoretical model can be used to guide government and research organizations in the field of wildlife conservation and help to develop more effective and sustainable conservation programs.

ii DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends for their constant support and to my dogs Ellie Mae and Beowulf who missed many a walk while I was writing this monster.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to all of the people who have worked with me in the field especially

U Khin Muang Gyi, and H.K. Janaka for their guidance and making sure I survived the field work. And a special thanks to my parents who took care of my dogs while I was off working halfway around the world for months on end.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ...... i

ABSTRACT ...... ii

DEDICATION ...... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Problem statement ...... 1 Justification ...... 2 Study area...... 6 References ...... 8

II. NEW ELEPHANT CRISIS IN ASIA- EARLY WARNING SIGNS FROM MYANMAR ...... 11

Abstract ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11 Methods...... 12 Results ...... 15 Discussion ...... 15 Supporting Information ...... 21 Acknowledgements ...... 21 Authors Contributions ...... 22 References ...... 22

v Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

III. DIFFERENCES IN RURAL AND URBAN VIEWS ON WILDLIFE, CONSERVATION, AND POACHING ...... 24

Abstract ...... 24 Introduction ...... 25 Methods...... 27 Results ...... 31 Discussion ...... 39 Conclusions ...... 46 References ...... 47

IV. PERCEPTIONS OF HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT AND CONSERVATION ATTITUDES OF RURAL COMMUNITIES...... 53

Abstract ...... 53 Introduction ...... 54 Methods...... 57 Survey results ...... 62 Discussion ...... 68 Conclusions ...... 75 References ...... 76

V. A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE INDIRECT IMPACTS OF HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT ...... 81

Abstract ...... 81 Introduction ...... 82 Methods...... 85 Results ...... 90 Discussion ...... 99 Conclusions ...... 106 References ...... 108

VI. CONCLUSIONS...... 115 References ...... 124

vi Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

APPENDICES ...... 126

A: Chapter 3.1 ...... 127 B: Chapter 3.2 ...... 128 C: Chapter 4.1 ...... 131

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Collared elephant status...... 15

3.1 Summary of questions asked during interview for each section of the poaching perceptions survey...... 28

3.2 Summary of yes/no responses to statements about benefits provided by elephant populations ...... 34

3.3 Summary of true/false responses to statement with to elephant conservation status knowledge questions ...... 35

3.4 Summary of yes/no responses to experiences with poaching ...... 38

4.1 Obstacles to improving the lives of farmers and non-farmers in Taikkyi and Hlegu Townships...... 63

5.1 Elephant knowledge (Likert) ...... 91

5.2 Elephant knowledge (True/false)...... 92

5.3 Beliefs about human-elephant conflict ...... 93

5.4 Fear versus expectation of HEC events ...... 97

5.5 Indirect impacts of HEC ...... 98

5.6 Elephant conservation attitudes ...... 99

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Locations of the study regions in Myanmar ...... 7

2.1 Locations of the study sites in Myanmar ...... 13

2.2 Locations of elephant deaths and disappearances in Myanmar ...... 16

2.3 Elephant 201601 ...... 17

2.4 Skinned elephant carcass ...... 18

2.5 Poaching for elephant body parts ...... 19

2.6 Bago Yoma elephant population survival estimation ...... 20

3.1 Wildlife values of rural and urban participants ...... 32

3.2 Rural and urban participant attitudes towards elephants ...... 33

3.3 Perceptions of rural and urban in participants of the costs and benefits of elephants ...... 34

3.4 Summary of responses to question “What has happened to the elephant population over the past five years?” ...... 36

3.5 Summary of responses to question “Which of the following you think is the greatest threat to wild elephants?” ...... 36

3.6 Motivations to comply with wildlife laws ...... 37

3.7 Summary of responses to the multiple choice question “What elephant body parts are taken by poachers?” ...... 38

ix List of Figures (Continued)

Figure Page

4.1 Locations of the study sites in Myanmar ...... 59

4.2 The percentage of each landcover type within the buffer ...... 65

4.3 The percentage of each resource type within the buffer ...... 66

5.1 Locations of the study sites in Myanmar ...... 88

6.1 Theoretical feedback loop between changes in conserved species population and human welfare ...... 117

x CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Problem statement

The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) range has been reduced from approximately 2.87 million km2 in the early 1900s to approximately 620,000 km2 fragmented over 13 countries in the early 2000s (Fernando & Leimgruber 2011). While it is evident that the number of elephants has decreased, and the species remains endangered (IUCN et al. 2008) with an estimated population of 30,000-50,000 (Shoshani

& Eisenberg 1982, Sukumar 1989, Santiapillai & Jackson 1990), these numbers are based on expert guesses not systematic surveys. Despite recent efforts to improve population estimates (de Silva et al. 2011), accurate global information is currently unavailable.

Habitat loss and human-elephant conflict (HEC) pose some of the greatest threats to the survival of the Asian elephant (Sukumar 1989, 2003, Fernando et al. 2005,

Fernando & Leimgruber 2011). As elephant habitat is increasingly developed for agriculture and other human uses (Flint 1994, Koh & Wilcove 2008), HEC rates rise, with detrimental consequences for both elephant and human populations (Leimgruber et al. 2003, Sodhi et al. 2004). These consequences can lead to broad-scale elephant population declines and extirpations in local areas. In Myanmar, the HEC mitigation strategies used by wildlife officials (e.g., elephant drives and translocations) have proven ineffective at reducing or preventing HEC (pers. comm. Zaw Min Oo). As a result, local communities suffer both direct costs (i.e., crop loss, injury or death to humans or livestock), and indirect costs (e.g., increased stress and fear, inability to travel safely to

1 reach educational opportunities and receive medical care). Local communities often resort to HEC mitigation strategies that exacerbate HEC (e.g., AC electric fences, fire crackers to drive away elephants; Fernando et al. 2008). Previous research on other animal species involved in human-wildlife conflict suggests that continued conflict can increase the tolerance and incidence of poaching (Fenio 2014, Kansky et al. 2016). This, along with sustained agricultural expansion and habitat fragmentation, could lead to further declines in Myanmar’s elephant population.

Justification

In Myanmar, the wild elephant population has dropped from approximately

10,000 individuals in the 1940s (Santiapillai & Jackson 1990, Leimgruber & Wemmer

2004, IUCN et al. 2008, Leimgruber et al. 2008, 2011) to as few as 2,000 today. This decline has been attributed to the live capture of elephants to bolster captive populations

(Leimgruber et al. 2008, 2011), the illegal trade in live elephants (Nijman 2010), and habitat loss (Leimgruber et al. 2011). Myanmar’s continued development will likely further expand agricultural areas and increase HEC which may lead to further declines in the elephant populations. As a result, comprehensive efforts to conserve wild elephants in Myanmar must include efforts to understand, reduce and mitigate the effects of HEC.

The severity and impacts of HEC are directly related to the location, social status and culture of the communities concerned, that contribute to HEC being a complex problem involving socio-economic and political considerations, as well as ecological issues

(Fernando et al. 2005, Fernando & Leimgruber 2011). In addition, the variation of types and severity of conflict events, from the disturbance of daily activities, to occurrences of

2 crop raiding and property damage, or even injury or death of people and elephants (Hoare

2000), make finding a one-size-fits-all solution highly unlikely (Osborn & Parker 2003).

As such, comprehensive research to improve HEC mitigation strategies and elephant conservation must include aspects that have yet to be addressed in Myanmar, namely the socio-economic and human dimensions of HEC and elephant poaching.

My dissertation outlines the discovery of the extent and nature of elephant poaching in Myanmar (Chapter 2) and presents results from interviews with people in rural and urban communities to assess their attitudes towards HEC and elephant conservation, their perceptions of poaching in Myanmar (Chapter 3), and the direct impacts (Chapter 4) and indirect impacts (Chapter 5) of HEC that they experience. I will briefly summarize each chapter below.

Chapter 2: This research was originally intended to understand the drivers of elephant movement and differences in elephant habitat use during different seasons in

Myanmar using satellite-GPS collars. Instead, it revealed the extremely high rate of poaching occurring in the country and highlighted the growing practice of killing elephants for products other than ivory. While the sale of non-ivory elephant body parts

(i.e., skin, genitals, trunks, legs) has been documented in Asia for decades (Nijman 2010,

Nijman & Shepherd 2014), the magnitude of the poaching for these products in Myanmar was previously unknown. This discovery not only sparked responses by the Myanmar government, but also spurred the creation of a national campaign by the World Wildlife

Fund, which shared anti-poaching messaging with approximately 25 million people in support of elephant conservation.

3 Chapter 3: In light of the discovery of the level of poaching occurring in

Myanmar, I worked with researchers from San Diego Zoo Global to use a survey to evaluate and compare urban and rural citizens’ wildlife values, attitudes towards elephants, motivations to comply with laws governing wildlife, and perceptions of and experiences with elephant poachers. Most poaching studies focus on the danger poaching presents to the conservation of threatened and endangered species; few address the threat that this practice also poses to human populations (WWF/Dalberg 2012). Rural and urban communities are two groups that may experience a rise in violence and criminal activity as a result of increased poaching (Brashares et al. 2014). Understanding how the people of Myanmar view poaching can help authorities to create targeted educational outreach projects that ensure all citizens are aware of wildlife protection laws and the importance of elephants for maintaining the ecosystem health that benefits humans and wildlife in

Myanmar. In addition, determining the social consequences of poaching activity can provide the government with critical information regarding where to invest resources to combat any increased violence and criminal activity people are facing, and develop anti- poaching strategies that protect both elephants and people.

Chapter 4: The project described in Chapter 4 was designed to assess attitudes toward elephant conservation and the severity and types of direct impacts (i.e., crop loss, injury and death of people and livestock) from HEC that local communities’ experience.

The goal of this chapter was to gather information the Myanmar government and elephant conservation agencies working in the country could use to develop more effective mitigation policies to reduce HEC. Previous research has shown conclusively

4 that involving local communities in the development of conservation projects can help ensure that such programs are effective and sustainable (Carter et al. 2012, Bruskotter &

Wilson 2013, Ripple et al. 2014, Treves & Bruskotter 2014). However, engaging rural communities to assist in developing and conducting such conservation efforts can be difficult without an adequate understanding of the complexities of the HEC issues they face (Borgerhoff Mulder & Coppolillo 2005). This project was developed to assess HEC situation in the Bago Yoma, and to identify some of the drivers of HEC in rural

Myanmar. Government and research agencies involved in elephant management will use this information to create targeted mitigation plans that include this stakeholder input, such as the creation of a pilot electric fencing project utilizing DC current).

Chapter 5: During the study described in Chapter 4, it became apparent that the survey only addressed the direct impacts of HEC and did not take into account the indirect impacts that might contribute significantly to local communities’ willingness to conserve elephants. Indirect impacts include the hidden costs of HEC including resources lost to uncompensated activities such as guarding crops, psychological stress from living alongside a dangerous animal, and time and resources lost to pursuing compensation for crop damages (Jadhav & Barua 2012, Barua et al. 2013). Indirect costs of HEC are difficult to quantify, but are critical to assess in order to gain fully understand the impact of HEC on affected communities (Hoare 2015). Chapter 5 details a study to measure indirect impacts of HEC and the results from the pilot field season. These insights will contribute to the Myanmar government’s ability to determine what support programs are most needed in communities facing HEC, for example increased physical or mental

5 health care services. Taken together, these chapters describe an effort to measure the current threat to wild elephants in Myanmar, and the interactions and perceptions of the human communities there with these animals, which ultimately may determine whether and how this endangered species may be conserved.

Study area

The primary study sites for my dissertation research were Taikkyi and Hlegu townships, located in the southern Bago Yoma mountain range in central Myanmar (Figure 1). This region was identified by the Myanmar government as an HEC hotspot. The Bago Yoma is a forested mountain range that has been extensively logged and, as a consequence, has an abundance of disturbed forests which provide excellent habitat for remaining elephant populations. Over the past decades, the expansion of rice and sugarcane cultivation and the development of large water reservoirs have encroached on the Bago Yoma, increasingly bringing people into contact with wild elephants.

In the early 2000s, a large portion of the elephant habitat in the Bago Yoma was lost to the construction of two reservoirs created to store water for Yangon during the dry season (February - May). Employment opportunities during dam construction and the promise of a permanent water source for agriculture attracted settlers to the area. The

Bago Yoma landscape is now a mosaic of disturbed forest, plantations and rice paddies, and rural villages.

6 Figure 1. Map of Myanmar. Inset: study area including Takkyi and Hlegu Townships. Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe, accessed March 2014.

7 References

Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S (2013) The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation.

Borgerhoff Mulder M, Coppolillo P (2005) Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Brashares JS, Abrahms B, Fiorella KJ, Golden CD, Hojnowski CE, Marsh RA et al. (2014) Wildlife decline and social conflict. Science 345: 376–378.

Bruskotter J, Wilson R (2013) Determining where the wild things will be - using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores.

Carter NH, Shrestha BK, Karki JB, Pradhan NMB, Liu J (2012) Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 15360–15365.

Fenio KG (2014) Poaching Rhino Horn in South Africa and Mozambique: Community and expert views from the trenches. : 1–42.

Fernando P, Kumar MA, Williams AC, Wikramanayake E, Aziz T, Singh SM (2008) Review of human-elephant conflict mitigation measures practiced in South Asia.

Fernando P, Leimgruber P (2011) Asian elephants and dry forests. In: McShea WJ, Davies SJ, Bhumpakphan N (eds) The ecology and conservation of seasonally dry forests in Asia, 151–163. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, DC.

Fernando P, Wikramanayake E, Weerakoon D, Jayasinghe LKA, Gunawardene M, Janaka HK (2005) Perceptions and Patterns of Human--elephant Conflict in Old and New Settlements in Sri Lanka: Insights for Mitigation and Management. Biodiversity {&} Conservation 14: 2465–2481.

Flint EP (1994) Changes in land-use in south and southeast-Asia from 1880 to 1980 - A database prepared as part of a coordinated research program on carbon fluxes in the tropics. Chemosphere 29: 1015–1062.

Hoare R (2000) African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for coexistence. Oryx 34: 34–38.

8 Hoare R (2015) Human Dimensions of Wildlife : An Lessons From 20 Years of Human – Elephant Conflict Mitigation in Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 289– 295.

IUCN AESG, Choudhury A, Lahiri Choudhury DK, Desai A, Duckworth JW, Easa PS et al. (2008) Elephas maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008.

Jadhav S, Barua M (2012) The Elephant Vanishes: Impact of human–elephant conflict on people’s wellbeing. Health & Place 18: 1356–1365.

Kansky R, Kidd M, Knight AT (2016) A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation.

Koh LP, Wilcove DS (2008) Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conservation Letters 1: 60–64.

Leimgruber P, Gagnon JB, Wemmer C, Kelly DS, Songer MA, Selig ER (2003) Fragmentation of Asia’s remaining wildlands: implications for Asian elephant conservation. Animal Conservation 6: 347–359.

Leimgruber P, Oo ZM, Aung M, Kelly DS, Wemmer C, Senior B, Songer M (2011) Current Status of Asian Elephants in Myanmar. Gajah 35: 76–86.

Leimgruber P, Senior B, Aung M, Songer MA, Mueller T, Wemmer C, Ballou JD (2008) Modeling population viability of captive elephants in Myanmar (Burma): implications for wild populations. Animal Conservation 11: 198–205.

Leimgruber P, Wemmer C (2004) National elephant symposium and workshop. Report to the USFWS and the Myanmar Forest Department.

Nijman V (2010) An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation.

Nijman V, Shepherd CR (2014) Emergence of Mong La on the Myanmar–China border as a global hub for the international trade in ivory and elephant parts. Biological Conservation 179: 17–22.

Osborn FV, Parker GE (2003) Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review of current research. Oryx 37: 80–84.

Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M et al. (2014) Status and Ecological Effects of the World{\textquoteright}s Largest Carnivores. Science 343.

9 Santiapillai C, Jackson P (1990) The Asian Elephant: An Action Plan for Its Conservation. IUCN.

Shoshani J, Eisenberg JF (1982) Elephas maximus. Mammalian Species: 1–8.

Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL (2004) Southeast Asian biodiversity: An impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 654–660.

Sukumar R (1989) The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Sukumar R (2003) The Living Elephants: Evolutionary Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation. Oxford University Press, New York.

Treves A, Bruskotter J (2014) Tolerance for Predatory Wildlife. Science 344: 476–477.

WWF/Dalberg (2012) Fighting Illicit Wildlife Trafficking: A consultation with governments. Gland, Sweden.

10 RESEARCH ARTICLE New elephant crisis in Asia—Early warning signs form Myanmar

Christie Sampson1,2*, John McEvoy2, Zaw Min Oo3, Aung Myo Chit2, Aung 2,4,5 1,6 5 2 5 Nyein Chan , David Tonkyn , Paing Soe , Melissa Songer , A. Christy Williams , Klaus Reisinger7, George Wittemyer4, Peter Leimgruber2

1 Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States of America, 2 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, VA, United States of America, 3 Myanma Timber Enterprise, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, Yangon, Myanmar, 4 Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America, 5 WWF–Myanmar, Yangon, Myanmar, 6 Department of Biology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, United States of America, 7 Compass Films, Vincennes, France

* [email protected]

Abstract

In the southern Bago Yoma mountain range in Myanmar, Asian elephants are being killed at

OPEN ACCESS a disturbing rate. This emerging crisis was identified initially through a telemetry study when 7 of 19 of collared elephants were poached within a year of being fitted with a satellite-GPS Citation: Sampson C, McEvoy J, Oo ZM, Chit AM, Chan AN, Tonkyn D, et al. (2018) New elephant collar. Subsequent follow up of ground teams confirmed the human caused death or disap- crisis in Asia—Early warning signs from Myanmar. pearance of at least 19 elephants, including the seven collared individuals, within a 35 km2 PLoS ONE 13(3): e0194113. https://doi.org/ area in less than two years. The carcasses of 40 additional elephants were found in areas 10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 located across south-central Myanmar once systematic surveys began by our team and col- Editor: Rob Slotow, University of Kwazulu-Natal, laborators. In addition to the extreme rate of loss, this study documents the targeting of ele- SOUTH AFRICA phants for their skin instead of the more common ivory, an increasing trend in Myanmar. Received: December 20, 2017 Intensive research programs focused on other conservation problems identified this issue Accepted: February 23, 2018 and are now encouraging local authorities to prioritize anti-poaching efforts and improve Published: March 13, 2018 conservation policies within the country. Myanmar represents one of the last remaining countries in Asia with substantial wildlands suitable for elephants. Increasing rates of Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, human-elephant conflict and poaching events in this country pose a dire threat to the global distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or population. otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information Introduction files. The poaching crisis for African elephants (Loxodonta africana, B.), driven by the illegal ivory Funding: This work was funded by: Friends of the trade, has been well documented and receives much international attention in the media and National Zoo (https://nationalzoo.si.edu/ membership/join), and the United States Fish and scientific literature [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Poaching of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus, L.) for Wildlife Asian Elephant Conservation Fund ivory has been a major threat to the species [7], though because only male Asian elephants (ASE1539, ASE1648, https://www.fws.gov/ have tusks and proportions of tusked males varies between 10% -90% in different areas [7,8], international/wildlife-without-borders/asian- this form of mortality has affected some populations more than others. Additional conserva- elephant-conservation-fund.html). The funders had tion concerns are focused on the impacts of live-captures for temples as well as for logging and no role in study design, data collection and

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 11 Asian elephant poaching crisis analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the tourist camps [9], and escalating human-elephant conflict. Local governments generally see manuscript. human-elephant conflict as the primary threat to elephant populations throughout many parts Competing interests: The authors have declared of their range, probably because this type of threat is visible and affects the health and welfare that no competing interests exist. of human populations. Incidental reports have indicated that elephants are poached for skin, meat, genitalia, and hair on occasion, but the demographic impacts from this trade were thought to be minor relative to those from the ivory and live trade [10]. Recently, reports indicate that poaching of Asian elephants is occurring and may be a seri- ous problem in some range states [11, 12, 13]. In Myanmar, for example, the government reported that 133 elephants died between 2010 and 2016, 61 from poaching [14]. The same report states that 25 elephants were killed in 2016, suggesting the rate of poaching is increasing. This is especially worrisome for Myanmar where the wild elephant population collapsed from an estimated 10,000 individuals in the 1940s, to an estimated 1,430 2,065 today [9, 15, 16, 17]. Our data are from a project focused on reducing human-elephant conflict (HEC) in Myanmar, in three relatively small areas: the southern foothills of the Bago Yoma mountain range, the Ayeyarwady Delta, and the southern reaches of Tanintharyi (Fig 1). Information on poaching was incidental to project aims, given poaching was not perceived as a problem at the onset of the work. Here, we present survival data from GPS-satellite collared elephants, and patrol and informant based information on the causes of elephant mortality collected through an associated community educational outreach program, Human-elephant Peace (H.El.P.), and by the Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC) officials.

Methods

Study areas In the Bago Yoma mountain range of south central Myanmar, a large portion of the elephant habitat was lost in the construction of two dams created to store water for the capital city Yan- gon during the dry months. Dam workers and others have since settled in the area, leading to significant HEC. Elephants were initially displaced from their habitat but quickly returned to take advantage of the crops grown by the villagers, and the abundant and stable water supply from the reservoirs. HEC in this area is the one of the highest in Myanmar, with 3 6 people killed each year and extensive crop damage, particularly of rice paddies and sugarcane plantations (MONREC, personal communication). Reports from the area indicate villagers may be assisting poachers to reduce the elephant population and prevent more conflict (Khin Maung Gyi, personal communication). We collared 15 elephants at this study site between December 2014- January 2017 and conducted community outreach programs at this site December 2016-present. The Ayeryarwady Delta is located on the west coast of Myanmar and is dominated by man- grove and alluvial floodplain habitats. It is a major center for rubber and peppercorn production in Myanmar. Elephant habitat in this area is heavily fragmented by the expansion of agriculture, and development of major highways. Reported HEC events include increasing amounts of injuries and deaths within the local human populations, including the deaths of at least four people in 2016, as well as crop damage and loss of livestock [19]. We conducted community outreach programs beginning in December 2016 in the Pathein District which has a population of more than 1,630,000 people [20]. Elephant poaching is also prominent in this area and several poachers were arrested in this region in early August 2017 (MONREC, personal communication). Our study site in the Tanintharyi region is on a narrow strip of land between the Andaman Sea and Thailand, and located in the southern-most region of Myanmar. This area has a

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 12 Asian elephant poaching crisis

Fig 1. Locations of the study sites in Myanmar. 1) Ayeryarwady Delta, 2) southern Bago Yoma mountain range, and 3) southern Tanintharyi region. Myanmar elephant range from [18]. Image source: World Imagery: Esri, DigitalGlobe, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, GeoEye, USDA FSA, USGS, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community (accessed November 2017).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 13 Asian elephant poaching crisis

mosaic of oil palm and rice plantations, and one of the largest remaining lowland evergreen rainforests in mainland Southeast Asia [21]. It has a significant amount of HEC, primarily in the agricultural fields, though the reported human injuries and loss of life are lower than in our other two areas of study. Due to its proximity to Thailand, elephants in this region may face a higher risk of live capture for the illegal wildlife trade to other parts of Asia than do elephants elsewhere in Myanmar. We are tracking elephant movement in this area, with 4 elephants collared in March 2017, and will expand the community outreach effort to this study site in late 2017.

Identifying poaching events

We documented the loss of elephants in our study areas in three ways: loss of collared elephants, carcasses found as a result of discussions held by H.El.P with community members, and reports of carcasses found from MONREC. Our capture and collaring methods follow well-established procedures approved by the Smithsonian National Zoological Park Animal Care and Use Committee (Proposal #14 31) and are permitted through a memorandum of understanding with MONREC. All efforts were made to minimize any harm to the elephants experienced during the collaring procedure. Our research team fitted 19 elephants (16 male, 3 female) with satellite-GPS collars in four separate collaring drives: three in the Bago Yoma in December 2014, January- February 2016, and December 2016-February 2017; and one in Tanintharyi in March 2017. Elephants were captured in areas of high conflict near human hab- itation, including in sugarcane plantations, rice paddies and oil palm plantations. The collars record positions hourly and send a mortality signal if the collar has been immobile for more than 24 hours. The H.El.P. community outreach team traveled to schools and community centers in areas of high HEC in the Bago Yoma and Ayeryarwady Delta. Their primary goals were to increase understanding of elephant ecology and reduce the incidence of human-elephant encounters. During these meetings, local community members alerted district leaders and the team to the sites of eight poaching events. The H.El.P. team documented the presence of any elephant carcasses reported and notified the local government to dispose of any remains. In addition to the carcasses reported by our team, local government officials from MON- REC were informed of elephant carcasses from local residents as well as encountering them on anti- onse Unit (EERU). Rangers and mahouts from the EERU are tasked with patrolling hotspots of poaching and investigating when a poaching event occurs. The Myanmar government has arrested at least 15 people on poaching charges in the past year as a result of this increased patrolling in the Bago Yoma (MONREC, personal communication). The work of the EERU contributed to the number of uncollared elephant carcasses located in the Bago Yoma, in addition to the two carcasses located in central Myanmar.

Assessing population impacts

To estimate potential impacts of this poaching pressure on local elephant populations, we analyzed the survival of collared elephants at the Bago Yoma study site using the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator [22]. We assumed no differences between individual animals or times

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 14 Asian elephant poaching crisis of year, and accounted for censored observations when collars failed or in the single case that an individual was still active at the time of the analysis. Results

Between March 2015 and June 2017, we found the poached carcasses of five of the 19 elephants collared in the Bago Yoma area (Table 1, Figs 2 and 3, S1 Table). During this time, two more collared elephants stopped transmitting. Movement patterns prior to their disappearance suggested they were sick or injured (movement restricted to <50 m for more than 24 hours). Attempts to locate the carcasses were unsuccessful, which combined with the movement pat- tern and subsequent loss of signal from the collar suggest these animals were poached or captured for the live elephant trade. All seven collared elephants that were poached or disappeared were adult males, 20 45 years old. Only one had tusks. The carcasses of 11 more uncollared elephants were also discovered in the Bago Yoma area during this time (Fig 2, S1 Table). Poachers arrested by government officials admitted to killing one additional elephant and identified the area where they left the carcass, however our team was unable to locate the remains. In March 2017, our community outreach team in the Ayeyarwady Delta region discovered the carcasses of 20 elephants at a single kill site (MONREC, personal communication, Figs 4 and 5). The team subsequently found several more kill sites including one approximately 45 km away where a group of five elephants had been poached (S1 Table).

Discussion

Our team and collaborators have identified the poaching of over 40 elephants in the localized study areas where our efforts have focused. Since the bodies were often butchered or mutilated,

Table 1. Collared elephant status. Elephant ID Start Date End Date Status Gender Location 201401 6-Dec-14 15-May-15 Missing (presumed dead/captured) M Bago 201402 11-Dec-14 20-Sep-15 Dead M Bago 201403 15-Dec-14 11-Mar-15 Dead M Bago 201404 17-Dec-14 22-Jan-15 Collar fail (reused on 201405) M Bago 201405 7-Feb-15 27-Jun-15 Collar fail M Bago 201601 4-Jan-16 17-May-16 Dead M Bago 201602 6-Jan-16 4-Apr-16 Collar fail M Bago 201603 23-Jan-16 26-Mar-17 Collar fail M Bago 201604 26-Jan-16 18-Feb-17 Collar fail F Bago 201605 1-Feb-16 17-Aug-16 Collar fail F Bago 201606 17-Dec-16 31-Mar-17 Dead M Bago 201607 21-Dec-16 5-Jun-17 Missing (presumed dead/captured) M Bago 201608 27-Dec-16 27-Dec-16 Collar fail M Bago 201701 15-Feb-17 - Active M Bago 201702 27-Feb-17 6-Mar-17 Dead M Bago 201703 14-Mar-17 - Active F Tanintharyi 201704 15-Mar-17 10-May-17 Collar fail M Tanintharyi 201705 16-Mar-17 - Active M Tanintharyi 201706 17-Mar-17 - Active M Tanintharyi

Summary of the status of the collared elephants in the two study sites, the Bago Yoma and Tanintharyi, between 2015-present. The capture date and date of last position transmission is provided for each collared elephant.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 15 Asian elephant poaching crisis

Fig 2. Locations of elephant deaths and disappearances in Myanmar. Inset map shows elephants lost at the Bago Yoma field site, including collared and uncollared elephants. Image source: World Imagery: Esri, DigitalGlobe, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, GeoEye, USDA FSA, USGS, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community (accessed November 2017). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113.g002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 16 Asian elephant poaching crisis

Fig 3. Elephant 201601. The carcass of Elephant 201601 was located on May 18th, 2016 in a rubber plantation. Credit: Christie Sampson. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113.g003

it was often not possible to identify the sex or age of some animals. In the Bago Yoma region, of the five carcasses of collared male elephants found, only one was a tusker. The deaths or disappearances of at least 19 adult elephants within the Bago Yoma field site in such a short time frame added to discoveries of mass killings in nearby areas indicate a critical threat to the survival of the elephant population in Myanmar. We directly attribute 12 uncollared and at least five collared elephant deaths to poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. The movement patterns and observations made by MONREC staff prior to the deaths of an additional two collared elephants suggest that they were healthy, young males unlikely to have died of natural causes. Poisoning using darts loaded with widely available herbicides is a common method used by poachers to kill elephants (Zaw Min Oo, personal communication). The poison can take 2 3 days to take effect, which may account for the restricted movement patterns we saw in the final days of several collared elephants and explain why collared elephants located within a few days of their death were found unmutilated, as MONREC staff may have located the elephant before the poachers.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 17 Asian elephant poaching crisis

Fig 4. Skinned elephant carcass. The skinned carcass of an elephant found in April in Ayeyarwady. Credit: Dr. Zaw Min Oo. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113.g004

Most of the elephants killed were slaughtered for meat and skin. Given the size of the animals, the amount of material that would need to be stored and transported, and the butchering skills necessary to skin an elephant, this indicates experienced and well-coordinated poachers. According to local informants, the meat and skin are quickly moved across the border with China, indicating a connection with well-organized criminal groups and trafficking networks. This information aligns with previous studies [23] and more recent media articles showing markets in towns on the Myanmar/China border such as Mong La as hot spots for the illegal wildlife trade. The dynamics of elephant poaching and illegal trafficking appear to have shifted from ivory and live animals to the skin and meat trade, which is spreading across the region with reports also from Northern India and Thailand [23, 24]. The markets for non-ivory elephant products are poorly understood. The main driver seems to be the use of elephant skin as a medicinal product for treating skin fungi and infections, but also intestinal disease in people [10]. The skin is ground to a powder and then frequently combined with elephant fat to produce a paste

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 18 Asian elephant poaching crisis

Fig 5. Poaching for elephant body parts. Elephant skin and trunks removed by poachers in Ayeyarwady. Credit: Dr. Zaw Min Oo. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113.g005

for application [10]. Elephant feet are also ground up for medicinal use or converted to furniture. Elephant skin is used in jewelry production with bracelets of cured and polished subcuta- neous layer beads costing upwards of $115 USD. According to our local sources, the trade in meat for food concentrates on the trunk and genitalia. Past poaching events that focused on ivory affected only male Asian elephants females skewing the sex ratio but often leaving enough male breeders to slow declines [25, 26]. This new crisis, with increasing demand for elephant skin for jewelry and medical products, and elephant trunks and legs for furniture, now places all elephants at risk. Considering the low reproductive rate, long gestation period and long inter-calving period of Asian elephants, the targeting of critical female breeders may have devastating consequences for the survival of Asian elephant populations. In the Bago Yoma area, six of the 14 individuals for which we had survival data were lost to follow up either due to collar failures and a seventh was still alive at the time of analysis. Only two of the individuals tested were females. Therefore, we could not measure survival

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 19 Asian elephant poaching crisis

Fig 6. Bago Yoma elephant population survival estimation. Population survival estimation over time utilizing data from the Bago Yoma collared elephant study.

differences between the sexes, age classes or seasons. We also could not assign confidence to any parametric estimate of survival, but note that the median (non-parametric) survival was 0.445 years (Fig 6). Though our sample size is small, these results clearly demonstrate that this level of poaching in unsustainable for this population. The elephants tracked in the Tanintharyi region do not experience the same poaching pressure as the elephants in the Bago Yoma and Ayeryarwady areas. Though the sample size is smaller (n = 4), these particular animals have outlasted a majority of those in the Bago study area. Community outreach teams will expand their efforts to include sites within this region to gain a better understanding of whether the data received from our collared elephants accurately reflects the situation of poaching on the ground. Myanmar has the largest remaining wildlands of all the Asian elephant range states [27, 28], with wide swaths of intact forest currently connected by disturbed secondary forest and agriculture [21]. These wild areas provide a refuge for several endangered species including elephants, and extend beyond the within country elephant range allowing for connectivity between elephant populations especially in northern Myanmar [15, 27]. Elephants do use disturbed areas and are drawn to the interface of agriculture and intact forest by foraging opportunities. However, use of these edge habitats by elephant populations increases the occurrence of HEC and potentially places them at a greater risk of being poached due to increased visibil- ity and accessibility. Preservation of these wildlands offers one of the best chances for sustained Asian elephant conservation globally, as current elephant habitat throughout Asia is rapidly being fragmented and converted to human dominated landscapes [27, 28]. Poaching pressure in this critical habitat could endanger future source populations which may be necessary for

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 20 Asian elephant poaching crisis

reintroduction of elephants into other regions of Myanmar or throughout the Asian elephant range. This project began with two goals: a) to track wild elephants using satellite- GPS collars to better understand when, where, how and why they come into conflict with people (Dec 2014 present) to improve elephant management practices, and b) to use community-outreach teams to teach local people how to behave safely around elephants (November 2016-present). How- ever, the technology and indirectly-related activities of team members led to the detection of the poaching frequency of wild elephants across the study sites. Most elephant range countries are ill-equipped to combat elephant poaching and trafficking, and may need significant support from the international community to build their enforcement capacity. Yet, there are success stories from East Africa where much has been learnt about how to develop legal frameworks and law enforcement capacity, and how to work with local communities to curb wildlife poaching and trafficking. There is an urgent need to transfer these lessons, skills, and capacities to countries with populations of Asian elephants in order to inform effective conservation policy. Supporting information

S1 Table. Locations of elephant poaching events March 2015-August 2017. A summary of the elephant deaths and disappearance documented between March 2015 and August 2017. Collared elephants refer to the elephants that were being tracked by the research team prior to their death or disappearance. Uncollared elephants were not part of the movement study, and were found either incidentally or after the research team and collaborators began searching for evidence of poaching. The location of each carcass or last position before the collar stopped transmitting is listed along with the number of individuals found * - cates the two elephants, one collared and one uncollared, that were found at the same location at the same time. (DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Myanmar government for their assistance in this project. We are grateful to U Khin Muang Gyi, U Muang Muang Chay, and U Aung Kyaw, as well as the mahouts of Myaing Hay Wun Elephant Camp and veterinarians from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation for all of their efforts in collaring and tracking the elephant populations across the study sites. We also thank the community members of Aung Chan Tha and Thay Aye Ye for providing assistance throughout our research programs.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 21 Asian elephant poaching crisis

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Christie Sampson, David Tonkyn, A. Christy Williams, Peter Leimgruber. Data curation: Christie Sampson, John McEvoy. Formal analysis: Christie Sampson. Funding acquisition: Melissa Songer, A. Christy Williams, Peter Leimgruber. Investigation: Christie Sampson, John McEvoy, Zaw Min Oo, Aung Myo Chit, Aung Nyein Chan, Paing Soe, Klaus Reisinger, Peter Leimgruber. Methodology: Christie Sampson, John McEvoy, A. Christy Williams, Peter Leimgruber. Project administration: Christie Sampson, John McEvoy, Zaw Min Oo, Aung Myo Chit, Melissa Songer, A. Christy Williams, Peter Leimgruber. Supervision: Aung Myo Chit, George Wittemyer, Peter Leimgruber. Visualization: Christie Sampson. Writing – original draft: Christie Sampson, John McEvoy, David Tonkyn, Peter Leimgruber. Writing – review & editing: David Tonkyn, George Wittemyer.

References

1. Maisels F, Strindberg S, Blake S, Wittemyer G, Hart J, Williamson EA, et al. Devastating Decline of For- est Elephants in Central Africa. Kolokotronis S-O, editor. PLoS One. 2013 Mar 4; 8(3):e59469. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059469 PMID: 23469289 2. Underwood FM, Burn RW, Milliken T. Dissecting the Illegal Ivory Trade: An Analysis of Ivory Seizures Data. Montoya ARH, editor. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e76539. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0076539 PMID: 24250744 3. Gao Y, Clark SG. Elephant ivory trade in China: Trends and drivers. Biol Conserv. 2014; 180:23–30. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714003371 4. Wittemyer G, Northrup JM, Blanc J, Douglas-Hamilton I, Omondi P, Burnham KP. Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014; 111(36):13117–21. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25136107 PMID: 25136107 5. Kideghesho JR. The Elephant poaching crisis in Tanzania: a need to reverse the trend and the way for- ward. Trop Conserv Sci. 2016; 9(91):369–88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103 6. Poulsen JR, Koerner SE, Moore S, Medjibe VP, Blake S, Clark CJ, et al. Poaching empties critical Cen- tral African wilderness of forest elephants. Curr Biol. 2017 Feb; 27(4):R134–5. Available from: http:// www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(17)30024-6#.WhnZWH9Xc7Q.mendeley https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.023 PMID: 28222286 7. Sukumar R. (1989). The Asian elephant: ecology and management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 8. Kurt F. (1974). Remarks on the social structure and ecology of the Ceylon elephant in the Yala National Park. In The behaviour of ungulates and its relation to management: 618– 634. Geist V. & Walther F. (Eds.). Morges, Switzerland: IUCN Publications, New Series no. 24. 9. Leimgruber P, Senior B, Aung M, Songer MA, Mueller T, Wemmer C, et al. Modeling population viability of captive elephants in Myanmar (Burma): implications for wild populations. Anim Conserv. 2008 Jun 1; 11(3):198–205. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00172.x

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 22 Asian elephant poaching crisis

10. Shepherd CR, Nijman V. Elephant and ivory trade in Myanmar. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 2008. ISBN 9789833393169 Available from: http://www.traffic.org/ publications/elephant-and-ivory-trade-in-myanmar.html 11. Newman N. 2016. The scourge of the skin poachers: Hideous sight of a butchered elephant exposes the sick trade in animals’ hides to feed soaring demand in China. The Daily Mail Australia. 2016 Sept 4. Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805873/The-scourge-skin-poachers-Hideous- sight-butchered- elephant-exposes-sick-trade-animals-hides-feed-soaring-demand-China.html 12. Ray B. Myanmar: Elephant skins show up in illegal markets as poaching flourishes. International Busi- ness Times. 2017 Jan 21; Available from http://www.ibtimes.sg/myanmar-elephant-skins-show-illegal- markets- poaching-flourishes-6712. 13. Ray B. Sumatran elephant conservation: Tuskers face challenges from poaching, habitat loss and man- animal conflict. International Business Times. 2017 Apr 4; Available from http://www.ibtimes.sg/ sumatran- elephant-conservation-tuskers-face-challenges-poaching-habitat-depletion-man-animal- 8955. 14. Lynn KY. Myanmar introduces elephant protection plan. Andalou Agency. 2017 Jan 26. Available from: http://aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/myanmar-introduces-elephant-protection-plan/735240. 15. Santiapillai C, Jackson P. The Asian elephant: an action plan for its conservation. World Conservation Union/Species Survival Commission Asian Elephant Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. 1990. 16. Leimgruber P, Wemmer C. National elephant symposium and workshop. Report to the USFWS and the Myanmar Forest Department. 2004. 17. Leimgruber P, Oo ZM, Aung M, Kelly DS, Wemmer C, Senior B, et al. Current Status of Asian Elephants in Myanmar. Gajah. 2011; 35:76–86. Available from: http://www.asesg.org/PDFfiles/2012/35-76- Leimgruber.pdf 18. Songer M, Aung M, Allendorf TD, Calabrese JM, Leimgruber P. Drivers of Change in Myanmar’s Wild Elephant Distribution. Trop Conserv Sci. 2016; available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1940082916673749 19. Salai Thant Zin. Wild Elephants Destroy Home, Crops in Ngapudaw Township.The Irrawaddy. 2017 Dec 5. Available from: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/wild-elephants-destroy-home-crops- ngapudaw- township.html 20. Department of Population Ministry of Labour, Immigration and Population, UNFPA. Census Atlas Myan- mar: The 2014 Myanmar Population and Housing Census. Available from: http://myanmar.unfpa.org/ sites/default/files/pub-pdf/MyanmarCensusAtlas_lowres.pdf 21. Connette GM, Oswald P, Thura MK, LaJeunesse Connette KJ, Grindley ME, Songer M, et al. Rapid forest clearing in a Myanmar proposed national park threatens two newly discovered species of geckos (Gekkonidae: Cyrtodactylus). PLoS One. 2017; 12(4):e0174432. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0174432 PMID: 28403189 22. Kaplan E. L.; Meier P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J. Amer. Statist. Assn. 53 (282): 457–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281868 23. Nijman V, Shepherd CR. Emergence of Mong La on the Myanmar–China border as a global hub for the international trade in ivory and elephant parts. Biol Conserv. 2014 Nov 1; 179:17–22. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002985 24. Kronholm A. Demand for elephant skin, trunk and penis drives rapid rise in poaching in Myanmar. The Guardian. 2017 Jun 17. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/07/ demand-elephant-products-drives-dramatic-rise-poaching-myanmar 25. Ramakrishnan U, Santosh JA, Sukumar R. The population and conservation status of Asian elephants in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Southern India. Curr Sci. 1998; 74(2):110–3. Available from: http://www. jstor.org/stable/24100456 26. Moßbrucker MA, Apriyana I, Fickel J, Ali Imron M, Pudyatmoko S, Suryadi H. Non-invasive genotyping of Sumatran elephants: implications for conservation. Tropical Conserv Sci. 2015; 8(3):745–59. 27. Leimgruber P, Gagnon JB, Wemmer C, Kelly DS, Songer MA, Selig ER. Fragmentation of Asia’s remaining wildlands: implications for Asian elephant conservation. Animal Conservation, 2003; 6: 347– 359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003421 28. Bhagwat T, Hess A, Horning N, Khaing T, Thein ZM, et al. Losing a jewel—Rapid declines in Myanmar’s intact forests from 2002–2014. PLOS ONE 2017; 12(5): e0176364. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0176364 PMID: 28520726

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194113 March 13, 2018 23 CHAPTER THREE

DIFFERENCES IN RURAL AND URBAN VIEWS ON WILDLIFE,

CONSERVATION, AND POACHING

Abstract

The consequences of poaching and the illicit wild life trade are being felt by human and wildlife populations all across the world. Ongoing research in Myanmar has revealed the previously underestimated rate at which the poaching of Asian elephants is occurring, and a growing consumer demand for illicitly traded elephant products.

Successful anti-poaching policies and elephant conservation efforts will require support from all stakeholders, yet little research has been done to assess public attitudes towards elephants and elephant poaching with the Myanmar. We interviewed 136 people across two regions in south-central Myanmar to evaluate rural and urban area residents’ attitudes towards elephant conservation, and their perceptions and experience with elephant poaching. Urban participants viewed elephant conservation more favorably than rural participants, although both groups supported elephant conservation and indicated a belief in complying with wildlife protection laws. Both rural and urban participants indicated that they are already experiencing negative impacts of poaching, including elevated levels of fear (rural n = 49%, urban n= 28%) and perceived potential for violence. Our results indicate a need for rapid intervention by the Myanmar government and relevant conservation agencies to establish action plans to prevent further negative consequences from affecting both the elephant and human populations in Myanmar.

24 Introduction

Wildlife poaching has been acknowledged as a high priority policy issue across much of the world (Nellemann et al. 2014). The prevalence of illicit wildlife trafficking is on the rise; for example, the use of rhinoceros horn as a cure for cancer and hangovers contributed to the dramatic 3000% increase in the rate of rhino poaching in South Africa between 2007 to 2011 (WWF/Dalberg 2012). Although most poaching reports acknowledge the danger poaching presents to the conservation of threatened and endangered species, the considerable threat the illegal wildlife trade can also pose to human populations has not been acknowledged (WWF/Dalberg 2012). Poaching and the illicit wildlife trade, along with a general decline in populations of wildlife species, have been linked to increases in violence, organized crime, human trafficking, and slavery

(Gore 2011, WWF/Dalberg 2012, Wyler & Sheikh 2013, Brashares et al. 2014, Douglas

& Alie 2014). These links speak to a general shift in who is carrying out the poaching.

Gone are the days when the majority of poaching is being done by the impoverished rural hunter. Poaching is now also conducted by highly militarized groups (e.g., Lord’s

Resistance Army, Janjaweed, al-Shabab), which earn exorbitant profit from the organized sale of illicit wildlife products (Wyler & Sheikh 2013, White 2014,

WWF/TRAFFIC 2014).

How people perceive these poachers, the act of poaching, and the risks poaching poses to wildlife and humans can differ due to factors including cultural traditions, economic status, and the poachers’ relationship to the community where poaching is occurring (McCay 1984, Cohen 1997, Pendleton 1998, Kuriyan 2002, Rippl 2002,

25 Hampshire et al. 2004). Two demographic groups that can have contrasting experiences with and perceptions of poaching are people living in rural and urban areas (Muth &

Bowe 1998, Osborne & Winstanley 2006, Gangaas et al. 2013). Many conservation and anti-poaching projects occur in rural locales in developing nations where the human populations already experience high levels of poverty, food insecurity, and reduced access to educational opportunities in relation to their urban counterparts. Policy and management decisions that protect species of conservation can further burden these marginalized rural communities by reducing their access to natural resources, increasing human-wildlife conflict (HWC, Parry & Campbell 1992, Woodroffe et al. 2005), and prompting negative attitudes towards the species of conservation concern (Woodroffe et al. 2005, Mwangi et al. 2016). Poaching of conservation species can increase if local communities suffer from HWC (Kansky & Knight 2014), believe restrictions imposed by conservation policy and the authorities charged with enforcing conservation rules are unfair (Rangarajan et al. 2009, Gore et al. 2013), seek to decrease or eliminate future

HWC (Sánchez-Mercado et al. 2008), or retaliate against the species of conservation concern (Kissui 2008, Rangarajan et al. 2009, Gore et al. 2013). In contrast, people living in urban areas rarely deal with the same day-to-day consequences resulting from

HWC, may enjoy the benefits associated with maintaining the conservation species (i.e., improved economy from tourism, Holechek & Valdez 2018), and have an idealized view of the species involved in conflict (Bandara & Tisdell 2003).

The underreporting of poaching incidences only serves to exacerbate the problem, as it often gives the impression that poaching is only an occasional issue, rather than a

26 persistent one (Knapp et al. 2010). In Myanmar, a country that contains the greatest amount of unfragmented habitat for sustaining a viable wild Asian elephant population

(Elephas maximus L.; Leimgruber et al. 2003), underreporting of elephant poaching appears to be rampant (Sampson et al. 2018). Despite conservation agencies’ and the

Myanmar’s government’s commitment and efforts to conserve Myanmar’s remaining

1430-2065 wild elephants (Leimgruber & Wemmer 2004), poachers in Myanmar have expanded from killing elephants solely for their ivory, to poaching them to meet a growing consumer demands for elephant skin, meat, genitals, and other body parts

(Nijman & Shepherd 2014, Sampson et al. 2018). The severity of the poaching issue in

Myanmar threatens not only the success of conserving the remaining elephant population in this country, but may endanger local human populations as well (e.g., Brashares et al.

2014, Douglas & Alie 2014).

To address this gap in knowledge, we sought to: 1) assess perceptions among and between urban and rural communities of elephant populations in Myanmar, 2) determine their experience with, and perceptions of poaching activities and poached elephant products, 3) determine their motivation for complying with elephant conservation laws, and 4) identify consequences of elephant poaching currently being experienced by local community members.

Methods

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire consisted of four sections (Table 1). An "I do not know" response option was provided for all questions, and was treated as a non-answer in the

analysis. The questionnaire was translated from English to Myanmar by a professional translator and back-translated by bilingual Burmese members of the research team (n=5) to ensure accuracy. We used the questionnaire in an interview format with interviewers asking questions orally and recording responses on the questionnaire. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were conducted orally in Burmese by research team members that had participated in a half-day training session during which they were instructed how to follow approved protocol and record responses on a survey form.

Table 1. Summary of questions asked during interview for each section of the poaching perceptions survey conducted in Myanmar (December 2016-August 2017). All Likert type questions were 5-point with 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 =Strongly agree

Section Category Questions type (number of questions) I Demographics Multiple choice (3: Gender, ethnicity, and religious affiliation) Open ended (1: Age)

II Wildlife value orientation Likert (8) Likert (8) Attitudes towards elephants Likert (4) Perceptions of the costs and benefits of Myanmar's Yes/no (7) elephant population

III Knowledge about the conservation status of elephants Multiple choice (2) in Myanmar True/False (3)

Motivations for compliance with wildlife laws Likert (9)

IV Participants’ experiences with and perception of Yes/no (9) hunting and poaching Multiple choice (1) Likert (3) Open-ended (2: Why are you afraid of poachers?; Why do people poach elephants?)

Participant recruitment

We interviewed local people in rural and urban locations across central and western Myanmar between December 2016 and August 2017. The interview team traveled to easily accessible villages within our two rural target regions. Our rural sample included 20 villages from the Ayeyarwady Delta region and five villages from the foothills of the southern Bago Yoma Mountain range. This ongoing poaching crisis has been documented as recently as 2018 in both locations (Kyaw Ko Ko 2018).

We used a mixed method approach for recruiting participants: random sampling in villages and convenience sampling in communal areas of villages and in urban areas.

In villages, the interviewer approached the first house they saw upon arriving in a village.

If no adults were present in the home, or if those living there did not wish to participate in the study, the interviewer moved on to the next proximate house and every subsequent house until they found a willing participant. Once the interviewer had completed a survey, they skipped the next two houses and approached the third home for participation. In communal areas of villages (i.e., tea shop, bus stop, village store), the interviewer would approach the first potential participant they saw upon arrival to the chosen study location to inquire if they were willing to participate in the study. If they declined, the interviewer moved on to the next adult they encountered until they found a willing participant. After completing an interview, the interviewer allowed three people to pass before approaching the next potential interview participant. If a crowd had gathered to listen to the interview process, the interviewer allowed it to disperse before beginning the next interview. We also used this convenience sampling in the urban area

of Yangon in five public locations (Mingular market, People’s Park, Sule Pagoda,

Kandawgyi Park, Sule Park). We also conducted interviews at Yangon Zoo and Hlwaga

National Park to recruit people we expected to value or enjoy wildlife, as we hypothesized that urban people would have more positive views towards wildlife than rural people, and thus wanted to ensure that we included people in our sample that represented the most positive attitudes towards wildlife that exist in urban areas. Similar to the convenience sampling method in the rural areas, the interviewer would approach the first potential participant they saw upon arrival to inquire if they were willing to participate in the study. If they declined, the interviewer moved on to the next adult until finding a willing participant, and allowed three people to pass before approaching a potential participant once an interview was completed. The study design and questionnaire were approved by the institutional review boards at both Clemson

University and the Smithsonian Institution (IRB Protocols #2014-187 and #HS17014, respectively).

Data analysis

Data were analyzed following the methods described in Davis et al. (2016). Data were determined to be non-normal using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro & Wilk 1965).

We used the non-parametric unpaired two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Hollander &

Wolfe 1973) to test the significance (α = 0.05) of the Likert scale responses between participants from urban and rural, and the sampling locations. We used chi-squared to test for significance (α = 0.05) for all other questions types.

30 When testing to determine if there was a difference between responses from participants surveyed in general urban locations and those surveyed in nature-themed urban locations, we found that responses for only four questions were significantly different at the α = 0.05 level (Appendix 1). As such, we combined the samples for the two urban locations for the remainder of the analyses comparing urban vs. rural responses. We determined effect size using Cohen’s d (Cohen 1988). Statistical analyses were conducted in the R program (R Core Team 2013).

Results

We conducted a total of 136 interviews (Appendix 2), 41 interviews in rural locations, and 95 urban interviews in Yangon at popular local destinations (n= 37) and nature-themed attractions (n=58). The average age for rural participants was 40 years old, and an average age of urban participants at 28 years old. The majority of the participants in the rural sample were male (39 males, 1 females), while the number of males and females in the urban sample were nearly equal (46 and 44, respectively). Gender was not reported for one rural participant and five urban participants. The majority of the participants (65%) self-identified as Burmese in both rural and urban locations, while the other 35% self- identified as Rakhine, Mon, Kayin, Chin, or other. Ninety percent of the participants indicated they were Buddhist.

Urban participants’ average responses to Likert scale questions regarding wildlife value were more significantly positive than their rural counterpart’s responses in 5 of the

8 statements (Figure 1). Rural participants, however, were significantly less likely to believe animals are on earth mainly to be used for the needs of humans.

31 Keyword Statement Bond** I feel a strong emotional bond with wild animals. Needs*** The main reason wild animals are on earth is for people to use for their needs (-) Kind*** Hunting is not kind to wild animals. Coexist*** It is not possible to live in a world where people can coexist in harmony with wildlife. (-) Benefit Humans should manage wildlife populations so that humans benefit Priority*** The needs of humans should take priority over wildlife protection. (-) Tourism It is acceptable for elephants to be kept in villages for tourism attractions Timber It is acceptable for elephants to be used for working in the timber industry

5 Rural

4.5 Urban

3.5

2.5

1.5

Average Average Likert ResponseScore 1

0.5

0 Bond Needs Kind Coexist Benefit Priority Tourism Timber

Statement

Figure 1. Wildlife values of rural (n=41) and urban (n=95) participants in Myanmar (mean response, with standard errors, on a 5-point Likert scale where 1= Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree, December 2016-August 2017). (-) indicates the statement was framed as a negative and responses displayed are reverse coded. Significance at 0.05 “*”, at 0.01 “**”, and at 0.001 “***”.

Overall results indicate positive attitudes from both rural and urban participants towards elephants, though rural participant average responses were significantly more positive towards with regard to elephant importance in religion and culture in Myanmar

(Figure 2).

32 Keyword Statement Religious** Elephants are important for religious reasons Ecosystem Elephants are important to the ecosystem Myanmar's culture** Elephants are an important part of Myanmar’s culture Generation Elephants are important to conserve for future generations Same land It is possible to use the same land as elephants Habitat It is important to protect elephant habitat in Myanmar

5 4.5

4 3.5 3 Rural 2.5 Urban 2 1.5 1 Average Average Likert ResponseScore 0.5 0 Religious Ecosystem Myanmar's Generation Same land Habitat culture Statement

Figure 2. Attitudes towards elephants of rural (n=41) and urban (n=95) participants in Myanmar (mean response, with standard errors, on a 5-point Likert scale where 1= Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree, December 2016- August 2017). Significance at 0.05 “*”, at 0.01 “**”.

Rural participant’s average scores regarding prioritizing the needs of humans and livestock over the needs of the wild elephant population were significantly more positive than urban participants (Figure 3). Rural and urban participants’ responses indicated a similar level of belief that elephants should be protected because of the benefits they provide and that conservation efforts for elephants are not a waste of resources.

33 Table 2. Summary of yes/no responses to statements about benefits provided by elephant populations from rural and urban participants in Myanmar (December 2016-August 2017). Rural % Urban % Statement Affirmative Affirmative Money from tourists coming to see them 37% 77% Job in tourism/conservation 51% 72% I enjoy seeing them 63% 66% Meat or other parts on the elephants 17% 33% Helps with the working on the landscape (labor) 51% 73% Helps with transportation 73% 71%

Keyword Statement Efforts*** The needs of humans should take priority over elephants’ conservation efforts Conserving elephants is a waste of resources as it leads to more conflict within the Waste community

Livestock*** Elephants and livestock compete for water and grazing, but the needs of livestock remain more important than the needs of wildlife and should always be prioritized Elephants should be protected because they bring more benefits to this community than Protected they do problems

3.5 3 2.5 2 Rural 1.5 Urban 1

Average Average Likert ResponseScore 0.5 0 Waste Livestock Efforts Protected Statement

Figure 3. Perceptions of rural (n=41) and urban (n=95) participants in Myanmar of the costs and benefits of elephants (mean response, with standard errors, on a 5-point Likert scale where 1= Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree, December 2016-August 2017). Significance at 0.05 “*”, at 0.01 “**”, and at 0.001 “***”.

34 There was no significant difference in the responses from rural and urban participant to the true or false knowledgeable questions about Asian elephant conservation status in Myanmar (Table 3), with the majority of all participants correctly answering the questions.

Table 3. Summary of true/false responses to statement with to elephant conservation status knowledge questions from rural and urban participants in Myanmar (December 2016-August 2017). Rural Urban Question % responded True (n) % responded True (n) Elephants are legally protected in Myanmar 94% (36) 89% (73) Asian elephants are endangered 89% (28) 90% (61) Myanmar has the most remaining elephant habitat out on all the countries that have 89% (35) 81% (64) Asian elephants

When asked what has happened to the status of Myanmar's elephant population over the past five years, 49% of rural and 38% of urban participants believed the elephant population has decreased, though urban participants were significantly more likely (p < 0.001) to select the answer choice “I do not know” than rural participants

(Figure 4).

Urban participants were significantly more likely to indicate that their social group supported complying with laws not harming any wildlife compared to rural participants, although both groups indicated they had strong motivations for complying laws that protected both elephants and wildlife in Myanmar (Figure 6).

35 Urban (n=95) 7% 38% 54% It has increased It has decreased Rural (n=41) 20% 49% 27% It has stayed the same I don't know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of participants

Figure 4. Summary of responses from urban and rural participants in Myanmar to the multiple choice question “What has happened to the elephant population over the past five years?” (December 2016-August 2017).

Both groups pointed to poaching as the greatest threat to the wild elephant

population, followed by habitat degradation or destruction (Figure 5).

0.70 Rural

0.60 Urban 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20

Percentage of participants 0.10 0.00 Habitat Agriculture Illegal Capture to work in Capture for live degradation or hunting/poaching the timber export to another destruction industry country Greatest threats to the wild elephant population

Figure 5. Summary of responses from urban and rural participants in Myanmar to the question “Which of the following you think is the greatest threat to wild elephants?”. Participants were allowed to choose multiple options. (December 2016-August 2017).

36 Keyword Statement Protection I have a moral obligation to comply with rules concerning elephant protection. Laws that apply I know the laws that apply to wildlife in my country Rules I have a moral obligation to comply with rules concerning all wildlife protection. Unreasonable Current rules concerning wildlife protection are so unreasonable that there is no need to comply. Punished I think those people who break the rules concerning wildlife protection should be punished. Harming elephants Most of my friends think that we should comply with laws that apply to not harming elephants Harming wildlife** Most of my friends think that we should comply with laws that apply to not harming any wildlife Most of my friends think that we should protect our livestock and crops even if that means breaking Breaking rules rules that apply to elephants. Allowed Most of my friends think that we should be allowed to hunt wild animals if we want to. My neighbors need to hunt wild animals, even if it is against the law, to provide food or money for Against the law their family Traditional Hunting wild animals is an important part of traditional Burmese culture

5 4.5 Rural 4 Urban 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Average Average Likert ResponseScore 0 Protection Laws that Rules Unreasonable Punished Harming Harming Breaking rules apply elephants wildlife Statement

Figure 6. Motivations to comply with wildlife laws responses from rural (n=41) and urban (n=95) in Myanmar (mean response, with standard errors, on a 5-point Likert scale where 1= Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree, December 2016-August 2017). Significance at 0.05 “*”, at 0.01 “**”.

Rural and urban participants had similar beliefs about hunting, but had different

opinions on which body parts poachers took from elephants (Figure 8). Greater

percentages of rural participants reported having seen a poacher and being afraid of

poachers, but their responses were not significantly different from urban participant

responses (Table 4). Seventy-six percent of rural participants (n=26) indicated that

37 elephant poachers were native to Myanmar, whereas 85% of urban participants (n= 53) indicated that poachers came from both Myanmar and foreign countries, and that the primary reason for poaching cited by both groups was for “money” (n=43). Both groups indicated a belief that elephant poachers are typically apprehended by police (Appendix

2). Forty-nine percent of rural participants and 28% of urban participants reported being afraid of poachers, citing reasons such as (poachers) are “bad” and “aggressive” people, they “bring guns and violence”, and “they can kill me”.

Figure 7. Summary of responses from rural (n=37) and urban (n=95) participants in Myanmar to the multiple choice question “What elephant body parts are taken by poachers?” (December 2016- August 2017). Participants were allowed to choose more than one answer.

Table 4. Summary statistics of yes/no responses and number of rural and urban participants included in the analyses to questions about experiences with poaching in Myanmar (December 2016-August 2017). Rural Urban Question % Affirmative (n) % Affirmative (n) p Are you afraid of elephant poachers? 49% (37) 28% (78) 0.0927 Is it wrong for poachers from other countries to capture or kill Myanmar’s 86% (35) 90% (84) 0.4753 elephants?

38 Do Myanmar people help poachers from other countries find elephants in 35% (31) 56% (85) 0.1344 Myanmar? Do Myanmar people help poachers 42% (33) 42% (71) 0.9869 avoid capture? Have you ever seen an elephant 21% (34) 6% (85) 0.0161 poacher?

Discussion

Wildlife value orientations and attitudes towards elephants

Our results indicate a distinction in how rural participants view wildlife in general and elephants in particular. Previous studies assessing differences in urban and rural attitudes towards supporting elephant conservation in Sri Lanka have shown rural communities to be less supportive than urban areas (Bandara & Tisdell 2003).

Traditionally rural communities are more likely to view elephants as pests (Tisdell &

Xiang), and this may explain why rural participants in our study were significantly more likely to indicate that it was not possible for humans and wildlife to coexist than their urban counterparts.

However, despite valuing wildlife lower than urban participants, rural residents perceived a significantly higher level importance of elephants in religion and in the

Myanmar culture than urbanites. A majority of the participants surveyed, both rural and urban, identified themselves as Buddhists, a religion that subscribes to the tenet that all life is important, and views elephants important symbols in their theology

(Ramanathapillai 2009). Elephants are often featured in religious art, and can be an important part of religious ceremonies, for example as temple elephants or in parades,

39 though these are less common than in Myanmar than in other countries within the Asian elephant range. Religion may play a greater role in the lives of rural participants, possibly because they were older on average, than participants interviewed in urban areas.

In addition rural participants indicated believe elephants were more important to

Myanmar’s culture than urban participants, perhaps because the use of elephants for labor is still common in rural areas. Humans have long used captive Asian elephants for as beasts of burden (Sukumar 1989). In Myanmar in particular, elephants were historically crucial parts of the timber industry, and the capture of elephants to supply logging camps helped to fuel the dramatic decline in their population over the last century (Leimgruber et al. 2011). As such, the more utilitarian attitudes of the rural participants suggest such attitudes have persisted, even as the use of captive animals in rural Myanmar society has decreased in contemporary times.

The positive attitudes towards elephants and protection of elephant habitat might be explained by the current expansion of agriculture, mining and timber industries, and infrastructure development that are leading to a rapid decline in wildlife habitat and wildlife populations (Bhagwat et al. 2017). Previous research in the Bago Yoma found that rural communities acknowledge that one of the reasons for increasing HEC was human encroachment into areas where elephants live (Sampson et al. in prep). As such, our finding suggests that the people of Myanmar may recognize the increasing importance of mitigating human expansion into wild areas to protect ecosystem health.

40 Costs and benefits of elephants

Conservation programs can lead to a loss of economic opportunities, exclude communities from obtaining resources from within protected areas, and ensure conflicts between humans and the target conservation species continue (Ghimire & Pimbert 1997,

Borgerhoff Mulder & Coppolillo 2005). Elephants in particular are known to cause significant damage to crops and, at times, livestock (Naughton-Treves 1998, Fernando et al. 2005), which would more directly burden rural communities rather than urban areas.

Increasing human-elephant conflict as a result of conservation programs can lead rural participants to be significantly more likely to believe that the needs of humans and livestock should take priority over elephant conservation efforts.

However, both urban and rural indicated conserving elephants was not waste of resources and they recognized elephants provide benefits to their communities through the enjoyment participants received from seeing elephants as well as through such mechanisms as job creation in the ecotourism sector or by providing labor in the transportation and timber industries. Elephants are often cited as ecosystems engineers

(Wright & Jones 2006), which modify the landscape (Terborgh et al. 2018) and perform services such seed dispersal (Campos-Arceiz & Blake 2011) and habitat creation for other species (Campos-Arceiz 2009). Elephants can also have a positive effect on local economies, primarily through ecotourism. Models from Africa show that properly designed and managed ecotourism featuring charismatic megafauna such as the elephant can benefit both wildlife and human populations (Holechek & Valdez 2018). The ecotourism sector in Myanmar is currently underdeveloped and will require significant

41 financial input to develop infrastructure, capacity building of local naturalists, but with the help of international agencies (e.g., Flora and Fauna International), ecotourism attractions such as Indawgyi Lake in northern Myanmar saw a 15-fold increase in the number of visitors they had in 2016 than they did in 2013 (Nuwer 2016).

Knowledge of elephant conservation status

The most recent assessment of the Asian elephant population in Myanmar was published almost 15 years ago (Leimgruber & Wemmer 2004). New information indicating poaching may be occurring at a higher rate than previously believed and that it may pose more of a threat to Myanmar’s elephant population than expected (Sampson.et al 2018) has sparked questions whether this population estimate is still valid. Given this new information, the majority of rural participants indicating that the elephant population has decreased is especially worrying given that indigenous local knowledge (Gadgil et al.

1993) can be valuable in determining trends in wildlife populations (e.g., Mallory et al.

2003, Gilchrist et al. 2005, Anadón et al. 2009), and can provide insight on elephant population numbers and distribution (Songer et al. 2016).

Both groups indicated that poaching posed the greatest threat to wild elephant populations, which reflects at least a general understanding of the challenges facing elephant conservation. Surveys conducted in Myanmar’s legal wildlife markets have demonstrated a sharp increase in the quantity of products available with researchers seeing a 400% increase between 2009-2014 in the amount of elephant skin available for purchase, indicating a rise in consumer demand for legal of products (Underwood et al.

2013, Nijman & Shepherd 2014). Elephant populations in the rural areas where the

42 interviews occurred had been targeted by poachers in the months immediately prior to when the interview survey was conducted (Sampson et al. 2018). Multiple news stories in national (e.g., Lynn 2017) and international (e.g., Ray 2017, Kronholm 2017) newspapers recounted the discoveries of multiple mutilated elephant carcasses across Myanmar including in the rural study sites during this time which may have influenced local perception on the frequency of poaching events.

Rural participants were less likely to indicate that habitat destruction, which generally occurs as a result of agricultural expansion or other human development of the landscape, or agriculture were threats to the elephant population possibly because farming is one of the dominant occupations in rural Myanmar. Habitat loss is a high priority concern for wildlife conservation in Myanmar (Bhagwat et al. 2017) and for

Asian elephant throughout their range (Leimgruber et al. 2003, 2008, Songer et al. 2016).

However, a recent study suggested that landscapes that maintain equal amounts of forest and agriculture are better suited to sustaining higher levels of elephant populations, potentially due to the variety and abundance of food and other resources (Calabrese et al.

2017). Still, increasing human encroachment into elephant habitat through agricultural expansion or other development that leads to habitat degradation and has been shown to increase human-elephant conflict (e.g., Fernando et al. 2005, Okello 2005, Kioko et al.

2006), which is a major driver for elephant population declines (Elephas maximus, L.;

Ramakrishnan et al. 1998, Fernando et al. 2005, Fernando & Leimgruber 2011b). Most participants indicated agreement that Myanmar has the largest remaining amount of unfragmented elephant habitat the species range (Leimgruber et al. 2003), which may

43 explain why people underestimated the potential impact habitat loss within the country can have on the elephant population.

Motivations for compliance with wildlife laws

Myanmar's wildlife protection laws prohibit the killing of elephants, as well as the possession of any elephant body part without official permission, punishable by up to seven years in prison. Given that most participants believed that elephant poachers would be captured by wildlife authorities, it is appropriate that both rural and urban participants indicated they would likely comply with wildlife laws. The vast majority of both groups interviewed demonstrated support for the punishment of people who broke wildlife protection laws despite 34% of rural participants and 21% of urban participants believed that the current rules concerning wildlife protection were unreasonable to the point where citizens did not need to comply with them. This is an interesting contradiction, perhaps explained by the 34% of rural participants and 40% of urban participants who indicated that they did not know the laws that apply to all wildlife in Myanmar, even though 90% of the total number of participants correctly indicated that elephants were a protected species.

Experiences with and perception of hunting and poaching

The drivers behind poaching can be complex. While some people may poach for subsistence, others may poach to sell the animal products for profit and/or status (Eliason

1999). Results indicate that on average participants believed poaching of Myanmar’s elephants is a choice rather than a necessity or an important part of their traditional culture. Many participants believed that poachers killed elephants for money; in

44 Myanmar, the average rural farmer in earns only approximately $1000 USD per year

(Sampson unpublished data, Nuwer 2016). In contrast, people can make up to $4000 assisting a poacher to find an elephant (pers. com. Dr. Zaw Min Oo) or as much as $3.65 per square inch of dried elephant skin (Hla Hla Htay & Henshaw 2017), providing a large financial motivation.

Rural participants also indicated more elephants body parts were being taken by poachers, especially denoting elephant skin and meat as desirable products, better reflecting the reports from the Myanmar government and published finding of

Myanmar’s illegal wildlife markets (Nijman & Shepherd 2014) indicating they may be more familiar with the wildlife trade.

Other research had indicated that people in rural Myanmar are afraid to report poacher for fear of retaliation (Kyaw Ko Ko 2018). These fears are not unfounded. Wildlife species such as elephants are high-value natural resources (Douglas & Alie 2014). Declines in the populations if these high-value species drives demand, drawing crime syndicates and guerilla groups which can result in social unrest and violence in local communities

(Brashares et al. 2014, Douglas & Alie 2014). Already, the sale of ivory is fueling war, funding the purchase of weapons and the spread of terrorism in Africa (Gettleman 2012).

Poachers in Myanmar have diversified the product they acquire from elephants over the past 15 years (Nijman 2010, Nijman & Shepherd 2014), and appear to be increasing the number elephants poached annually (Sampson et al. 2018). Examples from other regions suggest local communities and the Myanmar government need to protect against an

45 increase in human trafficking and child slavery as elephant populations dwindle and more effort is required to extract elephants from the region (Brashares et al. 2014).

Conclusion

Our results indicate that there are differences in how rural and urban participants view wildlife and elephant conservation, highlighting the need to incorporate views from both groups and conservation management planning. In addition, the effects of poaching are being felt by both of these groups of citizens. However, the consequences of poaching are not equally distributed amongst all stakeholders in society (Gore et al. 2013, Salerno et al. 2016). The Myanmar government and other agencies working in elephant conservation should work to identify the most vulnerable members of the community and include strategies to protect them as well as the elephant population in the future.

46 References

Anadón JD, Giménez A, Ballestar R, Pérez I (2009) Evaluation of Local Ecological Knowledge as a Method for Collecting Extensive Data on Animal Abundance. Conservation Biology 23: 617–625.

Bandara R, Tisdell C (2003) Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biological Conservation 110: 327–342.

Bhagwat T, Hess A, Horning N, Khaing T, Thein ZM, Aung KM et al. (2017) Losing a jewel—Rapid declines in Myanmar’s intact forests from 2002-2014(KP Vadrevu, Ed). PLOS ONE 12: e0176364.

Borgerhoff Mulder M, Coppolillo P (2005) Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Brashares JS, Abrahms B, Fiorella KJ, Golden CD, Hojnowski CE, Marsh RA et al. (2014) Wildlife decline and social conflict. Science 345: 376–378.

Calabrese A, Calabrese JM, Songer M, Wegmann M, Hedges S, Rose R, Leimgruber P (2017) Conservation status of Asian elephants: the influence of habitat and governance. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 2067–2081.

Campos-Arceiz A (2009) Shit Happens (To Be Useful)! Use of Elephant Dung as Habitat by Amphibians. Biotropica 41: 406–407.

Campos-Arceiz A, Blake S (2011) Megagardeners of the forest - the role of elephants in seed dispersal. Acta Oecologica 37: 542–553.

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Cohen A (1997) Sturgeon poaching and black market caviar: a case study. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 423–426.

Davis EO, O’Connor D, Crudge B, Carignan A, Glikman JA, Browne-Nuñez C, Hunt M (2016) Understanding public perceptions and motivations around bear part use: A study in northern Laos of attitudes of Chinese tourists and Lao PDR nationals. Biological Conservation 203: 282–289.

Douglas LR, Alie K (2014) High-value natural resources: Linking wildlife conservation to international conflict, insecurity, and development concerns. Biological Conservation.

47 Eliason SL (1999) The illegal taking of wildlife: Toward a theoretical understanding of poaching. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4: 27–39.

Fernando P, Leimgruber P (2011a) Asian elephants and dry forests. In: McShea WJ, Davies SJ, Bhumpakphan N (eds) The ecology and conservation of seasonally dry forests in Asia, 151–163. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, DC.

Fernando P, Leimgruber P (2011b) Are Asian elephants a keystone or edge species in dry forest. In: McShea WJ, Davies SJ, Bhumpakphan N (eds) The Ecology and Conservation of Seasonally Dry Forests in Asia, 151–163. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

Gangaas KE, Kaltenborn BP, Andreassen HP (2013) Geo-Spatial Aspects of Acceptance of Illegal Hunting of Large Carnivores in Scandinavia(DL Roberts, Ed). PLoS ONE 8: e68849.

Gettleman J (2012) Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits. The New York Times: 1–13.

Ghimire K, Pimbert M (1997) Social change and conservation: an overview of issues and concepts. In: Ghimire K, Pimbert M (eds) Social change and conservation: environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas, 1–45. Earthscan, London, UK.

Gilchrist G, Mallory M, Merkel F (2005) Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society 10: 12.

Gore ML (2011) The Science of Conservation Crime. Conservation Biology 25: 659– 661.

Gore ML, Ratsimbazafy J, Lute ML (2013) Rethinking Corruption in Conservation Crime: Insights from Madagascar. Conservation Letters 6: 430–438.

48 Hampshire K, Bell S, Wallace G, Stepukonis F (2004) “Real” Poachers and Predators: Shades of Meaning in Local Understandings of Threats to Fisheries. Society & Natural Resources 17: 305–318.

Hla Hla Htay, Henshaw C (2017) The skincare fad threatening Myanmar’s elephants. The Myanmar Times.

Holechek J, Valdez R (2018) Wildlife Conservation on the Rangelands of Eastern and Southern Africa: Past, Present, and Future. Rangeland Ecology & Management 71: 245–258.

Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1973) Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York‐Sydney‐Tokyo‐Mexico City.

IUCN AESG, Choudhury A, Lahiri Choudhury DK, Desai A, Duckworth JW, Easa PS et al. (2008) Elephas maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008.

Kansky R, Knight AT (2014) Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in conflict with humans. Biological Conservation.

Kioko J, Kiringe J, Omondi P (2006) Human–elephant conflict outlook in the Tsavo– Amboseli ecosystem. Pachyderm 41: 53–60.

Knapp EJ, Rentsch D, Schmitt J, Lewis C, Polasky S (2010) A tale of three villages: choosing an effective method for assessing poaching levels in western Serengeti, Tanzania. Oryx 44: 178–184.

Kronholm A (2017) Demand for elephant skin, trunk and penis drives rapid rise in poaching in Myanmar. The Guardian.

Kuriyan R (2002) Linking Local Perceptions of Elephants and Conservation: Samburu Pastoralists in Northern Kenya. Society & Natural Resources 15: 949–957.

Kyaw Ko Ko (2018) Poachers feed China trade, threaten country’s elephants. The Myanmar Times.

Leimgruber P, Gagnon JB, Wemmer C, Kelly DS, Songer MA, Selig ER (2003) Fragmentation of Asia’s remaining wildlands: implications for Asian elephant conservation. Animal Conservation 6: 347–359.

Leimgruber P, Oo ZM, Aung M, Kelly DS, Wemmer C, Senior B, Songer M (2011) Current Status of Asian Elephants in Myanmar. Gajah 35: 76–86.

49 Leimgruber P, Senior B, Aung M, Songer MA, Mueller T, Wemmer C, Ballou JD (2008) Modeling population viability of captive elephants in Myanmar (Burma): implications for wild populations. Animal Conservation 11: 198–205.

Leimgruber P, Wemmer C (2004) National elephant symposium and workshop. Report to the USFWS and the Myanmar Forest Department.

Lisa Naughton-Treves (1998) Predicting Patterns of Crop Damage by Wildlife around Kibale, Uganda. Conservation Biology 1229: 156–168.

Lynn K (2017) Myanmar introduces elephant protection plan. Andalou Agency. Mallory ML, Gilchrist HG, Fontaine AJ, Akearok JA (2003) Local Ecological Knowledge of Ivory Gull Declines in Arctic Canada. Arctic 56: 293–298.

McCay BJ (1984) The Pirates of Piscary: Ethnohistory of Illegal Fishing in New Jersey. Ethnohistory 31: 17–37.

Muth RM, Bowe JF (1998) Illegal harvest of renewable natural resources in North America: Toward a typology of the motivations for poaching. Society & Natural Resources 11: 9–24.

Mwangi DK, Akinyi M, Maloba F, Ngotho M, Kagira J, Ndeereh D, Kivai S (2016) Socioeconomic and Health Implications of Human—Wildlife Interactions in Nthongoni, Eastern Kenya. African Journal of Wildlife Research 46: 87–102.

Nellemann C, Henriksen R, Raxter P, Ash N, Mrema E (2014) The environmental crime crisis: threats to sustainable development from illegal exploitation and trade in wildlife and forest resources.

Nijman V (2010) An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation.

Nijman V, Shepherd CR (2014) Emergence of Mong La on the Myanmar–China border as a global hub for the international trade in ivory and elephant parts. Biological Conservation 179: 17–22.

Nuwer R (2016) Saving Eden. Scientific American 314: 44–49.

Okello MM (2005) NLand use changes and human–wildlife conflicts in the Amboseli Area, Kenya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 19–28.

Osborne H, Winstanley M (2006) Rural and Urban Poaching in Victorian England. Rural History 17: 187–212.

50 Parry D, Campbell B (1992) Attitudes of rural communities to animal wildlife and its utilization in Chobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana. Environmental Conservation 19: 245–252.

Pendleton MR (1998) Taking the forest: The shared meaning of tree theft. Society & Natural Resources 11: 39–50.

R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

Ramakrishnan U, Santosh JA, Sukumar R (1998) The population and conservation status of Asian elephants in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Southern India. Current Science 74: 110–113.

Ramanathapillai R (2009) A Forest Ride on Wild Elephants : The Philosophy of Wilderness in Buddhism. Gajah 30: 29–33.

Rangarajan M, Vihar M, Shahabuddin G, Programme WCS, Group S, Estate L (2009) Displacement and Relocation from Protected Areas : Towards a Biological and Historical Synthesis Mahesh Rangarajan and Ghazala Shahabuddin. Conservation and Society 4: 359–378.

Ray B (2017) Elephant skins show up in illegal markets as poaching flourishes. International Business Times.

Rippl S (2002) Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement. Journal of Risk Research 5: 147–165.

Salerno J, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Grote MN, Ghiselli M, Packer C (2016) Household livelihoods and conflict with wildlife in community-based conservation areas across northern Tanzania. ORYX.

Sampson C, McEvoy J, Oo ZM, Chit AM, Chan AN, Tonkyn D et al. (2018) New elephant crisis in Asia - Early warning signs from Myanmar. PLoS ONE 13.

Sánchez-Mercado A, Ferrer-Paris JR, Yerena E, García-Rangel S, Rodríguez-Clark KM (2008) Factors affecting poaching risk to Vulnerable Andean bears Tremarctos ornatus in the Cordillera de Merida, Venezuela: Space, parks and people. Oryx 42: 437–447.

Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika 52: 591.

51 Songer M, Aung M, Allendorf TD, Calabrese JM, Leimgruber P (2016) Drivers of Change in Myanmar’s Wild Elephant Distribution. Tropical Conservation Science.

Sukumar R (1989) The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Terborgh J, Davenport LC, Ong L, Campos-Arceiz A (2018) Foraging impacts of Asian megafauna on tropical rain forest structure and biodiversity. Biotropica 50: 84– 89.

Tisdell CA, Xiang Z Protected areas, agricultural pests and economic damage: conflicts with elephants and pests in Yunnan. The Environmentalist 18: 109–118.

Underwood FM, Burn RW, Milliken T (2013) Dissecting the Illegal Ivory Trade: An Analysis of Ivory Seizures Data(ARH Montoya, Ed). PLoS ONE 8: e76539.

White N (2014) “White Gold of Jihad”: violence, legitimisation and contestation in anti- poaching strategies. Journal of Political Ecology 21: 452–474.

Wright JP, Jones CG (2006) The Concept of Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers Ten Years On: Progress, Limitations, and Challenges. BioScience 56: 203–209.

WWF/Dalberg (2012) Fighting Illicit Wildlife Trafficking: A consultation with governments. Gland, Sweden.

WWF/TRAFFIC (2014) Wildlife trade campaign report summary 2012-2013. Gland, Sweden.

Wyler L, Sheikh P (2013) International illegal trade in wildlife: Threats and US policy. CSR Report for Congress.

52 CHAPTER FOUR

PERCEPTIONS OF HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT AND CONSERVATION

ATTITUDES OF RURAL COMMUNITIES

Abstract

Myanmar offers an ideal location for Asian elephant conservation because of the large expanses of remaining elephant habitat in the country. However, increasing human- elephant conflict (HEC) threatens to derail the success of ongoing elephant conservation programs. We conducted 303 interviews within rural communities to inform the development and implementation of sustainable long-term management strategies to conserve this endangered species. Focusing on local people experiencing HEC, we assessed main challenges for improving quality of life in these communities, as well as, the type and level of HEC they experience, and local attitudes towards elephant conservation. Results showed that poverty, not conflict with elephants, was the greatest obstacle for our participants. However, HEC was still deemed a moderate to major problem across the study area, with 38% of farmers reporting that they lost half or more of their crops to elephants the previous year. Communities were supportive of elephant conservation and were willing to contribute to conservation efforts offering an optimistic view for the continued survival of elephants in Myanmar. The development of conservation policy and mitigation strategies that work with local communities to overcome challenges such as poverty may be more effective than directly addressing

HEC as a standalone issue.

53 Introduction

Socio-economic advancement in developing countries is often closely tied to the expansion of permanent agriculture and the development of natural landscapes for industry or settlement (Maitima et al. 2009, Nyamasyo and Kihima 2014). These activities usually intensify habitat fragmentation and loss, bringing humans and wildlife into closer proximity and increasing the potential for escalating human-wildlife conflict

(HWC, Gore et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2006; Parker and Osborn 2006, Mbora and

McPeek, 2009). HWC with wildlife species that raid crops, prey on livestock, or pose a danger to humans can levy substantial costs on local people and their livelihoods

(Madhusudan 2003; Karanth et al. 2013). As a result, one of the key challenges in garnering community support for the conservation of megafauna that engage in HWC is managing wild populations in the face of growing human populations and expanding development.

The Asian elephant range includes countries with some of the highest human population densities globally (Fernando and Leimgruber 2011). Wildlands that previously comprised prime elephant habitat are increasingly being developed to accommodate the needs of the growing human population (e.g., agriculture, housing; Leimgruber et al.

2003, Bhawgat et al. 2018). This habitat loss, along with its associated human-elephant conflict (HEC), poses critical threats to the survival of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus, L.; Fernando and Leimgruber 2011, Fernando et al. 2005, Sukumar 1989,

Sukumar 2003). Consequently, understanding the socio-economic context of HEC is essential when designing efficient, long-term conservation and management plans for

54 Asian elephants (van Schaik and Rijksen 2002). Active involvement of local people can help ensure that such programs are sustainable into the future (Bruskotter and Wilson

2013, Treves and Bruskotter 2014, Ripple et al. 2014, Carter et al. 2012). Further, projects designed to mitigate the rising rate of HEC should actively engage local communities in conservation efforts to ensure that local needs and concerns are heard and incorporated into these efforts.

Challenges to recruiting rural communities to actively engage in conservation behaviors are a persistent issue when developing and applying conservation management

(Borgerhoff and Coppolillo 2005), including gaining a sufficient understanding of the complexity of the HEC issues these communities face before planning and initiating HEC management and mitigation. The perception of HEC can vary depending on the culture and tradition of local communities (Richards 2000, Skogen et al. 2008, Dickman 2010).

In addition the prevalence and consequences of HEC can vary depending on crop type, farming practices, differences in growing season, environmental conditions, habitat characteristics, resource availability for both human and wildlife populations, and local variation in elephant behavior such as learnt responses to management (Dickman 2010,

Fernando et al. 2008). Interviews with residents can help reveal core issues associated with HEC that may be unique to their given location.

Myanmar has some of the largest remaining areas of unfragmented habitat for

Asian elephant populations (Leimgruber et al. 2003) and offers a model location for long- term elephant conservation efforts. However, the wild elephant population in Myanmar has declined from 10,000 elephants in the 1940s to an estimated 1,430 today (Leimgruber

55 and Wemmer 2004, Leimgruber et al 2008) primarily due to poaching (Sampson et al.

2018), habitat destruction, elephant capture for labor use, and HEC (Santiapillai and

Jackson 1990, Hedges et al. 2009, Leimgruber et al. 2008, 2011). Understanding how local communities experience and view HEC, and their conservation attitudes toward

Myanmar’s wild elephant population is important to organizations working to reduce

HEC and engage local communities in conservation.

For this study, we hypothesized that rural communities would identify HEC as one of the major challenges they faced in improving their quality of life, and that farmers, in particular, would experience greater levels of conflict due to crop raiding by elephants.

We hypothesized farmers and non-farmers would perceive challenges posed by environmental issues (e.g., drought or animal presence), and those posed by socioeconomic issues (e.g., lack of infrastructure or unemployment) differently, and farmers would be more impacted by environmental issues that non-farmers. We integrated responses from the interview survey with a landcover analysis to determine if people in villages predominately surrounded by agriculture or resources utilized by elephants (i.e. forage, water) would perceive elephants to be a greater problem than more remote villages. Finally, we expected that people who experienced high levels of HEC would not support elephant conservation as much as those who experienced lower levels of HEC. To answer these questions, we conducted oral interviews to address the following objectives:

1. Determine major obstacles rural communities facing HEC have to improving their

quality of life;

56 2. Identify the severity and types of HEC;

3. Assess general elephant conservation attitudes; and

4. Identify which mitigation strategies are most supported by the communities and

more likely to be successfully implemented.

Methods

Study sites

Working with wildlife officials from the Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC), we identified two areas of priority,

Taikkyi and Hlegu townships, due to their levels of HEC. (Fig.1). Both are located south of the Bago Yoma mountains in the Yangon region of south-central Myanmar, are surrounded by forest reserves used for timber extraction, and have rural human populations of approximately 189,268 and 230,663 people, respectively (Department of

Population, 2014).

We conducted interviews in 14 villages or village complexes (henceforth “villages”) within Taikkyi Township and 17 within Hlegu Township. All of these 31 villages experienced HEC and together accounted for all of the permanent settlements within our study townships. Farming, collecting forest products (e.g., thatch, firewood), and daily labor (e.g., construction, harvesting) were the primary occupations in this area. We also conducted surveys in two villages that did not experience HEC, Hlae Hlaw Inn and Haing

Ku in Hlegu Township, to serve as our study control. The village headmen for these two

57 villages confirmed there was no elephant activity in those two areas for the previous ten years or more.

Conducting the survey

The research team contacted each village headman prior to arriving in the village to request permission to interview community members. The headman arranged for our team to meet with interviewees at a central village location - usually the schoolhouse, monastery, or community center. We visited each village once to interview adults who were available and willing to participate in the survey at the time of our visit.

We conducted interviews with both men and women between the ages of 18 and

77, between July 8 and July 28, 2014. Each interview lasted 15-30 minutes and responses to the primarily open-ended questions were recorded on a survey form (Appendix 1). We adapted interview questions from a questionnaire previously developed by the Elephant

Conservation Group (Leimgruber et al. 2011b).

Interviews were conducted orally in Myanmar by interviewers that had participated in a half-day training session to learn how to interview participants and how to record responses on the survey form. During this training session, the interviewers also received specific instructions on how to categorize responses from each open-ended question utilizing keywords spoken by each participant. If the participant’s response did not fit into one of the categories, the interviewer recorded the response as ‘other’ on the survey form. The study design and survey were approved by the institutional review boards at both Clemson University and the Smithsonian Institution (IRB2014-187 and

HS15051, respectively).

58 Elephant conflict area

Figure 1. Locations of the study sites in Myanmar. Dots indicate villages where interviews were conducted in Taikkyi and Hlegu townships (July 2014). Myanmar elephant range adapted from Songer et al. (2016). Image source: World Imagery: Esri, DigitalGlobe, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, GeoEye, USDA FSA, USGS, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community (accessed November 2017). 59 Survey questions

We collected sociodemographic data for occupation, gender and age. Farmers were also asked questions specifically relating to the issues they faced cultivating crops within the elephant range. To identify major life improvement challenges for residents in our study site objective 1) we asked the participants “What are the main obstacles to improving your life?” Responses were categorized into the following: a) lack of capital/funds or poverty, b) unemployment, c) limited infrastructure (e.g., roads, medical clinics, schools, electricity), d) lack of land available or lack of access to land for farming, e) the drought/flood water cycle, f) natural disasters, g) financial or opportunity costs due to the presence of domestic and/or wild animals, and/or h) other. We tested for significance for between farmers and non-farmers responses using a two-proportion Z test in JMP (JMP 2013). To quantify the specific impacts of HEC on farmers, we asked

“What are the top three problems for your cultivation?” The response categories were the following: a) water availability, b) land availability, c) domestic and wild animals, d) natural disasters, e) plant diseases, f) money, and/or g) other issues. In addition, we inquired what animal species caused damage to their crops.

To determine the level of HEC in the communities (objective 2), we asked all participants “How much of a problem are elephants?” If the participant indicated elephants posed a problem, they were questioned why elephants were a problem, and to identify the specific types of conflict the participant themselves or people in their household had experienced over the past five years. Participants were also asked if HEC was seasonal, at what time during the day or night it predominately occurred, and why

60 they thought elephants attacked people. We assessed the loss due to HEC experienced by farmers by questioning how much of their harvest was lost specifically to elephants in the previous year, as well as due to other reasons (i.e., drought, plant disease, insect infestations). Visual aids depicting levels of crop loss at different percentages were used by the interviewers to assist the participants in more accurately quantifying damage to their annual harvest.

To assess elephant conservation attitudes within the local communities (objective

3), we questioned if it was important for Myanmar to have elephants in the future and why. To determine if local people were willing to engage in conservation efforts, we then asked who community members thought was primarily responsible for HEC management, and if they personally would be willing to contribute community initiatives for HEC mitigation. To identify which HEC mitigation strategies were currently in use

(objective 4), we inquired about what actions the participants were taking to prevent elephant damage and what should be done in the future to reduce HEC.

Interviews conducted in areas without HEC

We collected the same sociodemographic data for occupation, gender and age.

We also inquired what the communities perceived to be the major challenges they faced to bettering their quality of life to determine if there was a difference between people within or outside of the elephant range (Appendix 1). Similarly, we asked the farmers to identify the top problems for cultivation they encountered, identify which animal species caused damage to their crops, and to estimate the amount of crops lost. We then inquired

61 why they thought elephants attacked people, and if it was important for Myanmar to have wild elephants in the future and why.

Landcover analysis

We used satellite imagery to gather spatial data for the study sites and to quantify landcover types surrounding each village. We used a landcover map developed by

Conette et al. (2016) to quantify forest, agriculture, and human-dominated land cover. In

Esri ArcGIS 10 (Esri, 2016), we created 1 km buffers surrounding the GPS point recorded at the center of each village. The 1 km buffers were chosen to minimize overlap between villages located close together, while still encompassing each village and spatially relevant surrounding landcover. We then determined the percent of forest, agriculture, and human-dominated landcover within each of those 1 km buffers using the land cover map. Since sugarcane and rice represent the primary food crops raided by local elephants and water is limited during the dry season (Feb-May), we also quantified the amount of water, sugarcane and rice paddy using the same land cover map with hand digitized overlays within each of the 1 km buffers for each village.

Survey results

Our conflict area sample had an average age of 46 years old and was comprised of

229 males and 59 females. Of those surveyed, 205 stated their primary occupation was farming, with the remaining participants indicating their primary occupation was working as daily labors or gathering forest products. We grouped the remaining 83 individuals together as non-farmers. In the two non-conflict villages, we surveyed 25 males who had

62 an average age of 46 years old. All 25 individuals interviewed outside of the conflict area were farmers.

Determining major challenges experienced by rural communities facing HEC

A similar percentage of farmers (75%) and non-farmers (84%) indicated that a lack of capital, a socioeconomic factor, was the primary obstacle they faced (Table 1,

Appendix 1). We found significant differences in the second-highest-rated obstacle that farmers and non-farmers faced. Wild and/or domestic animals posed the second greatest obstacle to farmers (67.5%) which was significantly different than non-farmers (1.2%).

Table 1. Obstacles to improving the lives of farmers and non-farmers in Taikkyi and Hlegu Townships, Myanmar in June and July 2014. Significance: “*” denotes p <10-5, “**” denotes p <10-10, “***” denotes p < 10-20

Farmers (n=205) Non-Farmers (n=83)

Capital/Funds 155 (75.2%) 69 (84.1%)

Land* 39 (18.9%) 40 (48.8%)

Water 56 (27.2%) 15 (18.3%)

Natural disaster** 8 (3.9%) 29 (35.4%)

Infrastructure 103 (50%) 49 (59.8%)

Unemployment* 41 (19.9%) 42 (51.2%)

Animals*** 139 (67.5%) 1 (1.2%)

Other 4 (1.9%) 1 (1.2%)

Missing 0 (0%) 1 (1.2%)

63 For non-farmers, lack of employment opportunities (60%) was the second-most- indicated obstacle to improving their life. However, non-farmers were significantly more likely than farmers to indicate that unemployment, land availability, and natural disasters posed obstacles to improving their lives. Eighty-three percent of farmers responded that conflict with wild animals was one of the top problems for their cultivation specifically, followed by lack of money (59%), and plant diseases (32%, Appendix 1). Most of the farmers (95%) cited elephants as one of the main animal species that cause crop damage, followed by wild pigs and insects (16% and 14%, respectively).

Identifying the intensity and types of HEC

For farmers living inside the elephant range, 54% reported that elephants were a major problem and a 24% reported they were a moderate problem (Appendix 1). For non- farmers in these areas, 30% and 30% reported elephants were a major or moderate problem, respectively. Participants that lived in areas with greater percentages of human- dominated landscape (i.e., in larger villages; Figure 2) reported that elephants were more problematic.

64 Figure 2. The percentage of each landcover type (agriculture, forest, and human-dominated) in the 1 km buffer surrounding each respondent’s village in Taikkyi and Hlegu Township, Myanmar (June-July 2014). Severity of the elephant problem is indicated by each color with blue indicating no elephant problem and red indicating a major elephant problem.

Similarly, as the percentage of sugarcane near a village increased, participants in those villages indicated a greater severity of problems with elephants (Figure 3). Farmers indicated crop and property damage as the main concerns when living with elephants, while non-farmers cited property damage and personal/family safety as their top concerns. Most farmers had experienced crop loss due to elephants, with 38% reporting that they lost half or more of their crop in the year 2013. More than two-thirds of farmers reported that elephants were the only animal that caused crop damage in the previous year.

65 Figure 3. The percentage of each resource type (rice, sugarcane, and water) in the 1 km buffer surrounding each respondent’s village in Taikkyi and Hlegu Township, Myanmar (June-July 2014). Severity of the elephant problem indicated by each color with blue indicating no elephant problem and red indicating a major elephant problem.

Assessing how locals perceive the risks from HEC and their more general conservation attitudes

Both farmers (87%) and non-farmers (93%) supported the conservation of

Myanmar’s wild elephant population (Appendix 1). Reasons given for their support included elephants being an important part of nature (farmers = 63%, non-farmers =

79%), and elephants being an important part of the local religion (farmers = 37%, non-

66 farmers = 48%). Both groups believed that elephants attacked people either accidentally in their effort to get to food sources in agricultural fields or inside of homes (farmer=

90% and non-farmer= 83%) or because human residences were encroaching on their habitat (farmer= 50% and non-farmer= 63%).

Identifying which mitigation strategies are most supported by the communities

To reduce HEC and the associated damage/death, farmers indicated that they used elephant drives (physically pushing elephants out of an area with a tractor, captive elephant or using sound or visual aversion or deterrent; 41%) and spent the night in tree huts in or near their crop field, scaring the elephants away with noise or lights (34%).

Non-farmers used physical barriers and deterrents to reduce conflicts with elephants

(Appendix 1). Nearly all community members were willing to assist in future HEC mitigation proposed by the research team. The strategies most preferred by farmers to reduce HEC in the future included removing all elephants from the area (49%), and implementing more physical barriers (45%). Non-farmers supported the ideas of using more physical barriers (54%) and improving deterrents (39%). Community members believed that the Myanmar government should be primarily responsible for HEC mitigation, though individual households, and community organizations were also named as responsible parties. Over 95% of participants were willing to contribute to mitigation efforts, primarily through the donation of time and/or labor to assist NGO or government initiatives.

Interviews conducted outside of the elephant range

Participants outside of the elephant range indicated main obstacles they faced to improving their socio-economic status were lack of capital/funds or poverty and water availability, both at 73% (Appendix 1). The top three problems for cultivation were perceived to be plant diseases (73%) followed by lack of money and natural disasters, both at 53%. Most farmers (83%) reported that crops were damaged most by insects -- more than any other taxon. Twenty seven percent reported losing half of their crop in year 2013 to reasons other than elephants.

All participants supported keeping a wild elephant population into the future in

Myanmar because they were important for religious reasons, and 80% supported sustaining the elephant population because they are an important part of the ecosystem.

Similar to participants within the elephant range, these non-elephant range farmers believed that elephants primarily attacked people because humans were encroaching in elephant habitat (66%) or they attacked them accidentally when the elephants were trying to get to a food source (58%; n = 22).

Discussion

The consequences of living alongside wildlife can be extensive (Bell 1984,

Wambuguh 1998, Hoare 1999). However, assuming HWC is the only or primary challenge for rural communities limits the effectiveness of conservation efforts

(Kaltenborn et al. 2006), and may prevent researchers from identifying superior mitigation strategies that may indirectly, though more effectively, address conflict with wildlife. We found that HEC is one of many, often interconnected, challenges facing the people of Myanmar. Despite these challenges, the participants overwhelmingly supported

68 elephant conservation, in contrast to other studies that have revealed feelings of helplessness and bitterness towards species involved in HWC (Mwangi 2016).

Instead of HEC, we found a majority of both farmers and non-farmers perceived a lack of capital or poverty to be the biggest obstacles to improving their quality of life.

Farmers in particular reported that overcoming social welfare issues- including poverty, unemployment, and limited infrastructure- posed a greater challenge than overcoming environmental issues, including HWC. Previous research has demonstrated that rural communities value the economic potential of elephants to the community (Newmark et al. 1993, Naughton et al. 1999, Harris 2002, Bauer 2003). Identifying poverty as the top concern allows researchers and other stakeholders involved in elephant management to focus on improving conservation success by providing economic opportunities that support conservation efforts, potentially through community-based programs (Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). Community-based programs that provide compensation in excess of the cost incurred by HWC (Kaltenborn et al. 2006, Zhang & Wang 2003) and reinforce traditional conservation values are often more effective than standard deterrent- based strategies because they can alter perception of the conflict species so that they are viewed more favorably (Kuriyan 2002).

Farmers perceived the presence of animals, both domestic and wild, to be the second greatest issue to improving their quality of life. This is not surprising as income generation for farmers is highly dependent on their ability to successfully grow crops free from destruction by local animal populations (e.g., Mwangi et al. 2016). Costs incurred by rural communities due to HWC can be substantial (Hulme and Murphree 2001,

69 Thirgood et al. 2005, Dickman et al. 2011, Salerno 2016) and have lasting negative implications for households that share the landscape with protected species.

Very few non-farmers reported that animals, including elephants, posed barriers to improving their quality of life, indicating that they view the other challenges they face as outweighing the impact of HEC in their community. However, the second most cited reason preventing non-farmers from improving their lives was lack of employment opportunities. Limited livelihood opportunities can be a consequence of loss of access to land or resources as a result of HWC (West et al. 2006, Coad et al. 2008, Salerno et al.

2016). For example, rates of unemployment may be exacerbated by the presence of elephants if potential farmers among this group are deterred from raising crops due to the expectation of crop-raiding, or if farmers don’t hire daily laborers to harvest because their crops were destroyed by elephants.

Though HEC was not named the leading causes preventing rural communities from improving their lives, both farmers and non-farmers within the elephant range generally perceived elephants to be either a moderate or major problem. The reasons for this perception varied between the groups. Farmers perceived the greatest threats due to crop and property damage. Elephant damage to crops is often infrequent but devastating when it does occur (Naughton et al. 1999); elephants cause significant collateral damage

(e.g. due to trampling) that can far exceed the amount the elephant actually consumes

(Parker and Osborne 2001). At our study site, 38% of the farmers reported losing half or more of their crops in the previous year. It is important to note that farmers in Hlae Hlaw

Inn, a village with no HEC, lost 50% or more of their crops to insects, plant disease, and

70 drought. Individuals within the elephant range also reported losses due to other animals, including domesticated animals and wild pigs, comparable to the amount lost they attributed to elephant crop raiding (Appendix 1). Naughton et al. (1999) found that crop raiding by livestock actually accounted for two-thirds of the harvest lost per year even though elephants cause a greater amount of damage than livestock in a single visit.

Quantifying the amount of damage done by elephants in comparison to other species is imperative (Msiska and Deodatus 1991, Lahm 1996, Wunder 1997), so we can determine if damage is incorrectly attributed to elephants. Improving local understanding of the types of damage done by elephants and having community experts such as mahouts examine suspected elephant crop raiding sites may help communities to discern actual elephant damage from damage caused by other species or events. More accurate reporting of HEC will allow clarification of links between perceived and actual HEC events such as crop raiding so more effective mitigation strategies can be developed

(Dickman 2010).

Non-farmers were most concerned with property damage and fear for personal safety. We did not take a measure of property damage during the survey; however, conversations with local community members revealed that most people had suffered from damage to their houses as elephants attempted to retrieve food items, or damage to farming (e.g., plows) or transportation (e.g., ox-cart) equipment. Indirect impacts of

HEC, including stress and fear, can pose significant challenges for people living alongside conflict species (Dickman 2010, Jadhav and Barua 2012, Chowdhury and

Jadhav 2012, Baura et al. 2013). These hidden costs are hard to quantify and therefore

71 often remain unaddressed by agencies tasked with addressing HWC, despite the potentially significant role they play in how people perceive wildlife and whether or not community members will support conservation efforts (Dickman 2010, Barua et al.

2013).

Maintaining tolerance for HWC is critical to long-term conservation sustainability

(Behdarvand et al. 2014, Suryawanshi et al. 2014, Behr et al. 2017). Participants overwhelmingly identified that the elephants involved in HEC injured people either accidentally when they were trying to get to food resources or because the human population had moved into elephant habitat. A common theme for this answer was

“elephants are around people now because of deforestation”. While this response clearly aligns with past studies that attribute an increase in HEC to human populations expansion into wildlands (e.g., Okello 2005, Kioko et al. 2006, Fernando 2005), confirming local understanding of the drivers of HEC is essential to ensure researchers do not also need to address societal or cultural beliefs (see Richards 2000, Prokop et al. 2009) in order to develop effective mitigation. These responses provide an optimistic view for continued conservation efforts in this area, as local communities recognize the motives for elephants to engage in conflict and that the actions of humans and development in the area is one of the leading causes of HEC.

Perception of the degree of the problem caused by elephants to local communities could also be influenced by size of the village and the surrounding physical environments of the community. Elephant habitat use varies both between habitat types and seasonally

(Sukumar 2003, Kumar et al. 2002, Polansky et al. 2015). We found that larger

72 communities reported higher levels of human elephant conflict than people who lived in more isolated regions surrounded by forests. People who live in larger villages may perceive greater risks as there are more people potentially experiencing HEC and reinforcing the experiences of HEC, than in smaller villages. Though we predicted that communities surrounded by greater percentages of both rice and sugarcane would report higher levels of HEC, we found that only people who live near more sugarcane perceived greater levels of conflict. This could be due to sugarcane’s longer growing season, which could provide a more continuous food source for elephants resulting in higher levels of

HEC over the year.

People who have experienced HEC are more likely to engage in HEC mitigation to prevent future damage (Fernando et al. 2005, Karanth and Kudalkar 2017). Rural communities in Myanmar principally rely on reactive mitigation strategies (e.g. physical barriers, deterrents, or driving away elephants) to combat HEC, though these methods often proved to be ineffective over the long-term (Fernando et al. 2008). Identifying participants’ favored mitigation strategies allows local conservationists to address expectations, and the feasibility and expected contributions from the community for different mitigation methods at the start of conservation programs.

Participants’ primary choice for HEC mitigation was to move elephants to another location. Permanent translocation of an elephant is very hard to achieve, with elephants often returning to the area from which they were initially removed (Fernando et al. 2012).

But because we’ve identified this as the most desirous action, conservationists can incorporate a detailed explanation on the improbability of translocation as an effective

73 management solution into future communication (i.e., town halls with local councilmen, community meetings) to demonstrate the community that concerns and wishes are being assimilated into the management plan.

Erecting physical barriers and improving deterrents have proven successful in preventing elephants from causing damage in other countries (Fernando et al. 20##) and can be adapted for use by local communities. The use of barriers such as electric fences, however, simply displaces the conflict (Hill & Wallace, 2012; Treves, 2009) potentially creating tensions with neighboring farms or villages. It also brings further inequality to the poorest members of the community who are unable to invest in protection against

HEC (Naughton-Treves, 1998, Barua et al. 2013). In addition, educational outreach programs focusing on best practices when confronted with elephants and behavioral modification to avoid HEC, (i.e., keeping rice and other attractants in a safe location away from the home, warning others of elephants when they are present though a phone alert or sound projection system) are currently being initiated throughout Myanmar’s rural schools in community centers, and on national television. The Myanmar government was identified as the agency primarily responsible for HEC mitigation, though over 90% of the participants are willing to contribute to mitigation efforts, primarily through volunteering time and labor in the implementation of mitigation methods such as temporary electric fencing.

74 Conclusion

Researchers working to maintain sustainable populations of elephants, or other endangered species, can be biased towards the type of mitigation strategies they promote when working with communities involved in HEC. It is important to view the effects of

HEC on communities in the broader context of the challenges these communities face.

Addressing the issues that exacerbate the effects of HEC instead of, or in addition to, mitigating HEC itself may provide equal benefits to conservation elephants across their range. The effects of HEC may be compounded by the extreme poverty in the area as almost all residents reported a lack of capital, and farmers in particular reported that it was socioeconomic issues rather than environmental factors such as the presence of elephants, that posed a significant barrier to improving their lives. This study has answered critical questions including what challenges are faced by the residents within our study area and their conservation attitudes. Despite residents reporting a high level of

HEC within the study area, there is a prevalent positive attitude towards the conservation of Asian elephants. This, combined with the willingness of the residents to work with research team and contribute towards mitigation efforts, offers an encouraging outlook for the success of future projects in reducing HEC in this area.

75 References

Barua, M., S. A. Bhagwat, and S. Jadhav. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity, and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157: 309-316

Bhima, R. 1998. Elephant status and conflict with humans on the western bank of Liwonde National Park, Malawi. Pachyderm 25:74-80.

Chauhan, N.P.S. and S. Chowdhury. 2002. Evaluation of Electric fences for their efficacy in controlling elephant damage in Northern West Bengal and suggesting improvements. Indian Forester 128:179-188.

Ekanayaka, S.K.K., A. Campos-Arceiz, M. Rupasinghe , J. Pastorini, and P. Fernando. 2011. Patterns of Crop Raiding by Asian Elephants in a Human-Dominated Landscape in Southeastern Sri Lanka. Gajah 34: 20-25.

Fernando, P., E. Wikramanayake, D. Weerakoon, L.K.A. Jayasinghe, M. Gunawardene, and H.K. Janaka. 2005. Perceptions and patterns of human-elephant conflict in old and new settlements in Sri Lanka: insights for mitigation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2465-2481.

Fernando P., M. Kumar, A.C. Williams, E. Wikramanayake, T. Aziz and S.M. Singh. 2008a. Review of Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation Methods Practiced in South Asia. AREAS Technical Support Document Submitted to World Bank. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature. 46p.

Fernando P., E.D. Wikramanayake, H.Janaka, L. Jayasinghe, M. Gunawardena, S.W. Kotagama, D. Weerakoon and J. Pastorini. 2008b. Ranging behavior of the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka. Mammalian Biology 73: 2–13.

Fernando, P. and P. Leimgruber. 2011. Are Asian elephants a keystone or edge species in dry forest. Pp. 151-163 in McShea, W.J, Davies, S.J., Phumpakphan, N. & Pattanavibool, A. (Eds.) The Ecology and Conservation of Seasonally Dry Forests in Asia. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

Flint, E.P. 1994. Changes in land-use in south and southeast-Asia from 1880 to 1980—A data-base prepared as part of a coordinated research program on carbon fluxes in the tropics. Chemosphere 29:1015-1062.

Garstang M., R.E. Davis, K. Leggett, O.W. Frauenfeld, S. Greco, E. Zipser, and M. Peterson. 2014. Response of African Elephants (Loxodonta africana) to Seasonal Changes in Rainfall. PLoS ONE 9(10): e108736

76 Gore, M. L., W. F. Siemer, J. E. Shanahan, D. Schuefele, and D. J. Decker. 2005. Effects on risk perception of media coverage of a black bear-related human fatality. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33: 507–516.

Gunaratne, L. H. P and P. K. Premaratne. 2006. The effectiveness of electric fencing in mitigating human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. EEPSEA Publications. Research Report.

Gurarie E, R.D. Andrew, and K.L. Lairde .2009. A novel method for identifying behavioral changes in animal movement data. Ecology Letters 12: 395–408.

Hansteen, T.L., H.P. Andreassen, and R.A. Ims. 1997. Effects of spatiotemporal scale on autocorrelation and home range estimators. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:280–290.

Hedges, S. and D. Lawson. 2006. Dung Survey Standards for the MIKE Programme. CITES MIKE Programme, Central Coordinating Unit, PO Box 68200, Nairobi, Kenya.

Hedges, S. and D. Gunaryadi. 2010. Reducing human-elephant conflict: do chillies help deter elephants from entering crop fields? Oryx 44: 139 – 146.

Hines, J. E., J. D. Nichols, J. A. Royle, D. I. MacKenzie, A. M. Gopalaswamy, N. S. Kumar, and K. U. Karanth. 2010. Tigers on trails: occupancy modeling for cluster sampling. Ecological Applications 20: 1456–1466.

Hoare, R. E. 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:689–700.

Hoare, R. E. and Du Toit, J.T. 1999. Coexistence between people and elephants in African savannas. Conservation Biology 13:33–639.

Hoare, R.E. 2000. African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for coexistence. Oryx, 34:34–38.

Hothorn, T., K. Hornik, and A. Zeileis, 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15:651–674.

Jathanna, D., K.U. Karanth, N.S. Kumar, K.K. Karanth, and V.R. Goswami. 2015. Patterns and Determinants of Habitat Occupancy by the Asian Elephant in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, India. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133233.

77 Jayant, K., P. Mehta, D. Boominathan, and S. Chaudhuri. 2007. A study of man-elephant conflict in Nagarhole National Park and surrounding areas of Kodagu district in Karnataka, India. Final Report.

Johnson, A., C. Vongkhamheng, M. Hedemark, and T. Saithongdam. 2006. Effects of human–carnivore conflict on tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey populations in Lao PDR. Animal Conservation 9: 421–430.

Karanth, K. U., A. M. Gopalaswamy, N. S. Kumar, S. Vaidyanathan, J. D. Nichols, and D. I. MacKenzie. 2011. Monitoring carnivore populations at the landscape scale: occupancy modelling of tigers from sign surveys. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1048–1056.

Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., Nyahongo, J.W., & Williams, D.R. 2006. Animal preferences and acceptability of wildlife management actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 4633-4649.

Kioko, J., Okello, M. & Muruthi, P. 2006. Elephant numbers and distribution in the Tsavo Amboseli ecosystem, south-western Kenya. Pachyderm, 40:61–68

Leimgruber, P., J.B. Gagnon, C. Wemmer, D.S. Kelly, M.A. Songer, and E.R. Selig. 2003. Fragmentation of Asia's remaining wildlands: implications for Asian elephant conservation. Animal Conservation 6:347-359.

Leimgruber, P. and C. Wemmer. 2004. National elephant symposium and workshop. Report to the USFWS and the Myanmar Forest Department

Leimgruber, P., B. Senior, Uga, Myint Aung, M. A. Songer, T. Mueller, C. Wemmer, and J. Ballou. 2008. Modeling population viability of captive elephants in Myanmar (Burma)— implications for wild populations. Animal Conservation 11:198-205.

Leimgruber, P., Zaw Min Oo, Myint Aung, D. S. Kelly, C. Wemmer, B. Senior and M. Songer. 2011a. Current status of elephants in Myanmar. Gajah 35: 76-86.

Leimgruber, P., W. Azmi, H. Baishya, A. Campos-Arceiz, P. Fernando, W. Jitvijak, M. Maltby, J. Pastorini, N. M. B. Pradhan, J. Ritthirat, B. Stewart-Cox and C. Williams. 2011b. Developing Adaptive Management for Mitigating Human- Elephant Conflict Across Asia. Gajah 34: 63-66.

Madhusudan MD. 2003. Living amidst large wildlife: livestock and crop depredation by large mammals in the interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India. Environmental Management 31:466–475.

78 Millsap, B.A., J. Gore, D.E. Runde, and S. Cerulean. 1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monographs No. 111

Murwira, A. and A. K. Skidmore. 2005. The response of elephants to the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation in a Southern African agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology 20:217–234.

Okello, M.M. 2005. Land use changes and human– wildlife conflicts in the Amboseli area, Kenya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10(1), 19–28.

Osborn, F.V. and G.E. Parker. 2003. Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review of current research. Oryx 37: 80- 84.

Parker, G.E., and F.V. Osborn. 2006. Investigating the potential for chilli Capsicum spp. to reduce human–wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe. Oryx 40: 343–436.

Prokop, P., J. Fančovičová, and M. Kubiatko. 2009. Vampires Are Still Alive: Slovakian Students' Attitudes toward Bats. Anthrozoös 22:19-30.

Polansky, L., W. Kilian, and G. Wittemyer. 2015. Elucidating the significance of spatial memory on movement decisions by African savannah elephants using state–space models. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282(1805), 20143042.

R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org D

Ripple, W.J., J.A. Estes, R.L. Beschta, C.C. Wilmers, E.G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J.Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M.P. Nelson, and O.J. Schmitz. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science.343: 6167.

Rota, C. T., M. A. Rumble, J. J. Millspaugh, C. P. Lehman, and D. C. Kesler. 2014. Space-use and habitat associations of Black-backed Woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) occupying recently disturbed forests in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Forest Ecology and Management 313: 161-168.

Santiapillai, C., M. R. Chambers, and N. Ishwaran. 1984. Aspects of the ecology of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus L. in the Ruhuna National Park, Sri Lanka. Biological Conservation 29:47–61.

79 Santiapillai, C. and P. Jackson. 1990. The Asian elephant: an action plan for its conservation. World Conservation Union/Species Survival Commission Asian Elephant Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

Shoshani, J. and J.F. Eisenburg. 1982. Elephas maximus. Mammalian Species 182:1–8.

Sukumar, R. 1989. The Asian elephant: ecology and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sukumar, R. 2003. The living elephants: evolutionary ecology, behaviour, and conservation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Treves, A, and J. Bruskotter. 2014. Tolerance for Predatory Wildlife. Science 344:476-7. van Schaik, C. and H.D. Rijksen.2002. Integrated conservation and development projects: problems and potential, pp. 15–29. In: Terborgh, J., C. van Schaik, L. Davenport & M. Rao (eds.). Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, 15–29.

Williams, A.C., A.J.T. Johnsingh, and P.R. Krausman.2001. Elephant-human conflicts in Raijaji National Park, northwestern India. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1097- 1104

80 CHAPTER FIVE A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE INDIRECT IMPACTS OF HUMAN- ELEPHANT CONFLICT

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict can result in both direct and indirect consequences for human communities where it occurs. Understanding how both types of conflict affect communities is crucial to developing comprehensive and sustainable mitigation strategies. We conducted a study of 88 participants in three rural areas in Myanmar: the

Yangon District, the Ayeyarwady District, and the Bago District where communities are currently experiencing human-elephant conflict (HEC). In addition to quantifying the types of indirect impacts they are facing, we evaluated the communities’ knowledge about elephants and their attitudes towards elephant conservation. We also assessed indirect impacts to participants that had previously experienced a HEC event with a direct impact such as crop-raiding, injury by elephant, or loss of a family member. Ninety-five percent of farmers interviewed reported they guarded their crops at night, even though only 29% of them indicated their belief that crop-guarding was effective. Sixty-nine percent of those farmers felt that guarding crops reduced the amount of sleep they were able to get and 29% believed it made them more susceptible to illnesses. Thirty-percent of the participants indicated that their children were in constant fear of encountering elephants outside of their village, and that this fear lowered their children’s quality of life.

We found all of the participants, whether or not they had experienced HEC, suffered from

81 some type of indirect impact from HEC including fear for personal and family safety and fear that elephants will destroy their home. Despite the experiencing at least some indirect impacts from HEC at the community level, participants expressed attitudes consistent with supporting future elephant conservation programs.

Introduction

People living in landscapes they share with elephants face both direct and indirect impacts resulting from human-elephant conflict (HEC; Ogra 2008, Dickman 2010, Barua et al. 2013). The direct impacts of HEC for humans, which are more easily quantified and readily publicized, include crop, livestock and other property damages, and injury and loss of life. The indirect impacts of HEC go beyond physical damages to include resources lost to uncompensated activities such as guarding crops, pursuing compensation for crop and livestock loss, and harm to the psychological or social wellbeing of an individual or community resulting from conflict-born injury, fear of attack, disruption of livelihoods, and/or community activities (Chowdhury et al. 2008, Jadhav &

Barua 2012, Barua et al. 2013, Dhanwatey et al. 2013). Indirect costs of HEC are difficult to identify and quantify, but must be assessed to gain a full understanding of the impact of HEC on the lives of affected communities (Hoare 2015).

The form and severity of direct and indirect HEC vary with the location, social status and culture of the communities concerned, that contribute to HEC being a complex problem involving socio-economic and political considerations, as well as ecological issues (Fernando et al. 2005, Leimgruber et al. 2011). In addition, they range in form and severity of conflict events, from the disturbance of daily activities,

82 occurrences of crop raiding, property damage for people living near elephants, or even injury or death of both people and elephants (Hoare 2000), makes finding a sustainable one-size-fits-all solution highly unlikely (Osborn & Parker 2003).

Wildlife management and conservation programs have begun to adopt more collaborative models that encourage engagement from all stakeholders (Leong et al.

2011; Reid et al. 2009). However, the agencies in charge of executing conservation policy often may not have the capacity to assess or mitigate HEC impacts on human welfare. Further, agencies (e.g., social services, departments of human welfare) that advocate for the needs of rural communities may be absent from the wildlife management decision-making process, and thus, may not even consider themselves a part of the stakeholder group for HEC issues. However, many from both sides of the issue (i.e., human welfare focused organizations and wildlife focused organizations) acknowledge that for conservation projects to be sustainable, they must account for the needs of the communities that live alongside the conserved species (Dickman 2010, Peterson et al.

2013).

In many rural communities that face HEC, direct and indirect impacts can be compounded by depressed economic situations, and limited access to transportation and basic needs (e.g., access to clean water, livable housing, medical care, nutrition) experienced by communities in developing countries. Communities in countries with rampant government corruption may face more severe challenges related to mitigating

HEC given that it can be more difficult to obtain government assistance, if any is available to them (Nyhus et al. 2005, Barua et al. 2013). This can be further amplified in

83 remote areas where the government programs that do exist have more difficulty reaching those communities.

As habitat for elephants continues to be converted to agriculture and other human- dominated landcover, we can anticipate an increase in HEC as human and elephants are forced closer together (Choudhury 2001). The most obvious, and potentially permanent way to address future increases in HEC is by halting, or at least slowing, habitat loss.

More often, however, it is addressed through the development and use of short-term mitigation strategies such as fencing and noise deterrents, combined with long-term HEC reduction tactics such as education and land-planning to develop sustainable conservation policy (Hoare 2012). HEC can also be addressed from the purely social perspective; understanding what factors contribute to local communities’ perceptions of HEC, and factors that contribute to a willingness to support conservation in areas surrounding endangered species may be key in helping the government and conservationists engage local communities effectively. Previous research has indicated that a person’s gender

(Gunnthorsdottir 2001, Kaltenborn et al. 2010, de Pinho et al. 2014), education level

(Kideghesho et al. 2006), and even their aesthetic appreciation for species (de Pinho et al.

2014), as well as the participation of their local government or NGOs in mitigation efforts (Kideghesho et al. 2006) can play a role in determining an individual’s willingness to participate in conservation of wildlife. However, in order to understand conservation attitudes, we must gain insight into community members’ experiences with elephants, and the direct and the indirect impacts resulting from such experiences.

84 Previous studies have assessed the direct impacts HEC on rural communities across Asia (e.g., Fernando et al. 2005, Campos-Arceiz et al. 2009) and in Myanmar

(Sampson et al. in prep). However, few studies have attempted to quantify indirect impacts of (but see Chowdhury et al. 2008, Chowdhury & Jadhav 2012, Barua et al.

2013). To fill this research gap, we conducted a study of the indirect impacts of HEC in rural villages in Myanmar. Our study objectives were to: 1) assess rural community members’ experience with and conservation attitudes towards elephants; 2) quantify the amount and severity of any direct impacts of HEC experienced by the participants; and 3) quantify the amount and severity of any indirect impacts of HEC experienced by the participants.

Methods

Developing the questionnaire

The questionnaire is comprised of twelve sections. In Section 1 we collected the participant’s sociodemographic information, including their gender, age, ethnicity, education level, occupation, and length of residence in the village. Sections 2 and 3 assessed the participants’ experience with elephants and HEC and their knowledge about elephants, respectively. In section 4, we evaluated participants’ general beliefs about

HEC and their thoughts on best practices for deterring HEC. Sections 5 through 9 were only asked of: people who had experienced property damage by elephants (section 5); farmers who were at risk of crop-raiding by elephants (section 6); people who had been injured by an elephant (section 7); people who cared for someone injured by an elephant

(section 8); and people who had lost a family member in an HEC incident (section 9). In

85 Section 10, we evaluated the effects of elephant presence and indirect impacts of HEC on children. Section 11 assessed perceptions of risk in various HEC scenarios. The final section, 12, assessed the participants’ general experiences of indirect impacts from HEC, and their attitudes towards elephants and elephant conservation.

The questionnaire included open ended, yes/no, and 5-point Likert scale questions. We employed the use of visual aids to assist the participants in more accurately answering the Likert scale questions (Stange et al. 2016 ). We promoted the design validity with a pretest of the questionnaire conducted with undergraduate students from Clemson University role-playing constructed community member identities. Once the questionnaire was finalized, it was translated into the Myanmar language by a

Burmese translator and verified by English-Myanmar speaking members of the research team. The research team participated in a half-day training where they reviewed the questionnaire, practiced completing the questionnaire form, and received instruction on avoiding bias.

Survey implementation

The questionnaire was administered in Myanmar to adult male and female participants in an in-person, oral interview format between May 2017 and April 2018. Interviews were conducted with residents in three rural regions of Myanmar: Yangon (7 villages),

Ayeyarwady district (2 villages), and Bago district (20 villages; Figure 1). These regions were selected upon the recommendation of local wildlife officials who confirmed they were areas with high levels of HEC. Accessibility of some villages in the 3 regions was low due to inclement weather and poor road conditions, thus, in order to maximize data

86 collection, villages were selected based on ease of access using available transportation

(i.e., bus, motorbike).

We used a random sampling approach for recruiting participants. The interviewer approached the first house they saw upon arriving in a village. If no adults were present in the home, or if the residents did not wish to participate in the survey, the interviewer moved to the next proximate house and every subsequent house until a willing participant was found. Once the interviewer had completed an interview, they skipped the next two houses and approached the third home for participation. This procedure was continued until a maximum of 30 people per village, with one person per household, had been interviewed. Both the questionnaire and the study design were approved independently by the Smithsonian and Clemson University Institutional Review Boards (HS16051 and

IRB2014-187, respectively) prior to the start of the study.

87 Figure 1. Locations of the study sites in Myanmar. Dots indicate villages where interviews were conducted in the Bago, Yangon, and Ayeyarwady Districts( May 2017-April 2018). Myanmar elephant range adapted from Songer et al. (2016). Image source: World Imagery: Esri, DigitalGlobe, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, GeoEye, USDA FSA, USGS, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community (accessed November 2017).

88 Data analysis

Due to difficulties with the implementation of the 5 pt Likert scales (i.e, 3 pt responses despite 5 pt scale implementation/instruction), Likert scale responses were collapsed from a 5-point scale to a 3-point scale, where ‘strongly disagree’ responses were combined with ‘disagree’ responses (recorded as 1), and ‘strongly agree’ responses were combined with ‘agree’ responses (recorded as 3); neutral responses were recorded as 2.

For example, if a participant responded “disagree’ to the statement “I lose sleep because I am worried about HEC”, it would indicate that the participant did not suffer from that indirect impact. Summary statistics were calculated in R (R Core Team 2013).

Aggregate Indirect Impacts Scale

In order to quantify the overall effects of indirect impacts, we developed a broader scale that incorporated many of the aspects of indirect impacts that we evaluated in our questionnaire (Jackson-Smith et al. 2005, Rodriguez et al. 2018). We used ten individual

Likert statements regarding indirect impacts (e.g., fear for the safety of your family, loss of sleep, inability to travel, where we asked respondents to agree/disagree with statements regarding their experiences with indirect impacts) from the questionnaire in the overall indirect impacts scale. We summed the responses to the ten 3-point Likert scale statements in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft 2010). This resulted in a cumulative scores for all ten statements which represented the overall indirect impacts for each participant; the minimum and maximum cumulative scores for the overall scale were 10 (no indirect impacts experienced) to 30 (all types of indirect impacts experienced). Participants who

89 did not respond all ten of the Likert statements were excluded from the overall indirect impacts analysis.

Similarly, we developed a scale designed to evaluate participants’ overall attitudes towards elephants and elephant conservation in Myanmar using nine Likert attitude statements. For all Likert statements framed as a negative, we reverse-coded the responses to align all responses to a common positive framing for the analysis. For example, responses to the statement “Conserving elephants is a waste of government effort”, were reversed so that the “disagree” responses were converted to “agree”, and the

“agree” responses to “disagree”.

Results

We conducted a total of 88 interviews; 30 interviews were conducted in the Yangon district, 7 in the Ayeyarwady, and 51 in the Bago district. Our sample age range was 22 to 80 years old; mean participant age was 46. Seventy-four of the participants were male, and 13 were female; the gender of one participant was not provided. Ninety-five percent of the participants identified with the Burmese culture (n=84), while the remaining 5% of participants identified with the as Karin-Burmese culture. On average, participants indicated having lived in their current village for 37 years. Seventy-two percent of participants had attended school between the ages of 5 and 11. The most common occupation was agricultural farming (42%), while other participant’s self-identified occupations included forest product collectors (e.g., bamboo, wood for charcoal; 14%), transporters of goods or people (7%), livestock owners (6%), daily labors (n= 5%), and other (i.e., grocery store owner, unemployed; n=27%).

90 Experiences with HEC

All participants had seen an elephant in the wild at least once, and 17% reported they had been chased by a wild elephant. Participants from the Yangon and Ayeyarwady district villages reported that they thought HEC in their area has been increasing since

2009, which they attributed primarily to habitat loss. All participants from the Bago districts reported that they did not think that HEC has increased over the past 15 years.

Seventeen percent of the participants reported sharing resources, primarily food, with a family member affected by HEC. Eight percent of people reported sharing resources (i.e., money, food, shelter or labor) with non-family community member victims of HEC to assist with recovery post HEC.

Elephant Knowledge

Table 1. Average, standard deviation (SD) and n of responses to 3 pt Likert scale statements related to elephant knowledge from participants in the Yangon, Ayeyarwady, and Bago Districts of Myanmar (May 2017-April 2018), with the percent of participants that responded true indicated in the table.

Knowledge statement Average/SD n I am very knowledgeable about elephant behavior 1.18 +/- 0.57 88 I am very knowledgeable about elephant biology 1.05 +/- 0.30 88

Subsequent responses to the true/false knowledge questions provided support for this lack of knowledge (Table 2).

91 Table 2. Average, standard deviation (SD) and n of responses to True/false statements regarding elephant knowledge from participants in the Yangon, Ayeyarwady, and Bago Districts of Myanmar (May 2017-April 2018), with the percent of participants that responded true indicated in the table.

True response Elephant knowledge questions n % Elephants kill other animals to eat the meat 8% 88 Elephants eat tree bark, roots, and leaves 98% 88 During harvest season, elephants eat only human 46% 83 crops Only male elephants kill people 17% 86 Only adult elephants raid crops 17% 87 Elephants have lost habitat because of human 69% 85 activities Female elephants live in herds 23% 61 Elephants have emotions like love, anger, and grief 78% 88 Elephants have a good memory and can remember 97% 88 other elephants Asian elephants are endangered 34% 56 Asian elephants are legally protected in all countries 34% 44

General Beliefs and Best Practices of HEC

Most participants indicated that they did not know how to act to avoid potential conflict with elephants (1.39 +/- 0.75, Table 3). However, almost all participants responded that elephants will eat crops whenever possible (2.85 +/- 0.51).

92 Table 3. Average, standard deviation (SD) and n of responses to 3 pt Likert scale statements related to beliefs about human-elephant conflict from participants in the Yangon, Ayeyarwady, and Bago Districts of Myanmar (May 2017-April 2018). Responses were coded as 1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, 3=agree.

Belief Statement Average/SD n All wild elephants are dangerous 2.88 +/- 0.46 70

Adult male elephants cause the most conflict (including both 2.32 +/- 0.94 87 crop raiding and injury to humans) When possible, elephants will always attack people 1.76 +/- 0.96 87 When possible, elephants will always eat crops 2.85 +/- 0.51 87

HEC has gotten worse in my area since permanent water 2.03 +/- 0.87 79 sources in my area were constructed

As agriculture expands and human populations grow in my 2.68 +/- 0.69 87 area, HEC will get worse here

I know how to act around elephants to avoid potential 1.39 +/- 0.75 87 conflict

It is best to scare elephants away using lights and 2.21 +/- 0.95 87 firecrackers

Any elephant seen near a village must be scared away even 1.59 +/- 0.90 87 if they are not causing damage/harm

I am angry that the government will not compensate me for 1.11 +/- 0.45 61 elephant damage to my property

I am angry that the government will not compensate me or 1.10 +/- 0.44 60 my family if one of us is injured by an elephant

I am angry that the government will not compensate me or 1.10 +/- 0.44 59 my family if one of us is killed by an elephant

Crop Guarding and Farming in an Elephant Landscape

Ninety-five percent of participants that identified as farmers by occupation reported that they guard their crops to prevent crop raiding by elephants. These participants indicated that they stay awake all night, either in the field or in a tree hut, but that they also received help crop guarding either from their spouse, another family member, and/or a neighbor. Two farmers reported that they had their minor-aged children also assisted in

93 guarding crops. Sixty percent of farmers reported that they worked with their neighbors more on preventing crop loss from elephants than any other activity, and that such partnerships improved social bonds within their village. Ninety-one percent of participants indicated they deterred elephants by making noise (i.e., shouting, playing guitar). Thirty-five percent of the farmers reported that their older children cared for their younger sibling(s) in the absence of the adults while crop guarding was taking place.

Sixty-nine percent of farmers reported that guarding crops prevented the guard from getting enough sleep, and 29% indicated that they believed guarding crops made the guard more susceptible to illness; 35% indicated crop guarding took time away from other activities, citing a loss of family time and less time available for collecting forest products. Eighty percent of farmers reported that they had not expanded their farm due to concerns over elephants damage, and 55% indicated that they would grow alternate crops such as coconut, mango, cashew, or banana, if elephants were not present. Eighty percent of farmers indicated that damage to their crops by elephants exceeded damage from insects. Only 29% believed that crop guarding was effective in reducing actual crop loss from elephants.

Elephant damage to homes and property

Nine participants (10%) reported that they had sustained elephant damage to their home; most indicated they had been able to repair the damage within one week to one month, however one participant indicated that it took a year to rebuild. One additional person reported elephant damage to his property (tree hut) on a yearly basis, and thus, was forced to rebuild the hut after each event.

94 Injury by Elephant

Only one participant in our survey reported being injured by an elephant. The 60-year-old participant (at the time of the study) indicated that he was injured in 2008 and needed three years to fully recover. No further information was provided regarding the injury or the event.

Caretakers of those Injured by Elephants

Only one participant, a 50-year-old man (at the time of the study), reported acting as a caretaker for someone injured by an elephant. The participant indicated that his wife was injured in 2013, but that she did not lose much income or sleep due to her injuries, and was still able to care for their children (ages three and six at the time of the incident) after the event. He also indicated his belief that the injuries did not make her more susceptible to illness, nor did she worry more about her ability to provide food or shelter for her family after the incident. The participant did report that his wife was more afraid of elephants after she was injured.

The participants indicated that taking care of his wife did not impact his time spent in his primary occupation (i.e., collecting forest products), nor did he need to take on additional work to cover the medical expenses due to her injuries. He also indicated that acting as his wife’s caregiver did not impact his quality of life or prevent him from spending time with his children as normal. He indicated he did not believe he was more susceptible to illnesses, did not worry more about his ability to care for his children, or lose sleep while he acted as a caregiver, and that his fear of elephants did not increase after caregiving for his wife.

95 Surviving Family of Fatal Elephant Attacks

Three participants experienced deaths in their immediate families due to HEC. A 40- year-old man lost his brother in 2011, a 60-year-old woman lost her husband in 2008, and a 64-year-old man lost his daughter and grandson in 2008. Two of these people reported that they had to work more to counter the income loss due to their family member’s death; one indicated the additional work reduced the amount of sleep they were able to get, the other indicated it reduced the amount of time they spent caring for their children, and both believed that this additional work made them more susceptible to illness. Two of the three participants reported they worried more for their family’s safety after losing a family member to HEC, and all three people worried more about their ability to care for their children and provide their family with food and shelter. In addition, all three feared elephants more and lost sleep as a result of the death of their family member.

Impacts of HEC on Children

Forty of the participants (46%) had children between the ages of 4-18 years old living in their home. One participant reported that while he was rebuilding his home due to damage from an elephant, his son was unable to attend school and that his son’s performance in school suffered due to this interruption. Another reported that although his child was still able to attend school during the rebuilding process after an HEC event, their performance similarly suffered. Thirty percent of the participants indicated that their children fear encountering elephants when they are outside of their village, and these participants believe that this fear reduces their childrens’ quality of life.

96 Risk Perceptions of HEC

Participants rated their fear of a HEC event occurring higher than the expectation that such an HEC event would come to fruition in every instance except for their belief that an elephant would kill their livestock (Table 4).

Table 4. Average, standard deviation and n of responses to 3 pt Likert scale statements related to beliefs about fear versus expectation of HEC events posed to participants in the Yangon, Ayeyarwady, and Bago Districts of Myanmar (May 2017-April 2018). Responses were coded as 1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, 3=agree. Significance between the fear and expectation statements (Sig): “*” 0.01, “**” 0.001 Risk perception statements Average/SD n Sig I am afraid elephants will physically injure me 2.72 +/- 0.66 69 ** At some point in the future, an elephant will 2.10 +/- 0.28 45 physically injure me I am afraid elephants will physically injure my 2.74 +/- 0.67 78 spouse ** At some point in the future, an elephant will 2.22 +/- 0.49 59 physically injure my spouse I am afraid elephants will physically injure my 2.72 +/- 0.69 72 child/ren ** At some point in the future, an elephant will 2.17 +/- 0.56 59 physically injure my child/ren I am afraid elephants will physically injure my 2.51 +/- 0.75 65 neighbor/another person I know ** At some point in the future, an elephant will physically injure my neighbor/another person I 1.91 +/- 0.35 45 know I am afraid an elephant will destroy my house 2.36 +/- 0.93 78 * At some point in the future, elephants will destroy 2.03 +/- 0.71 64 my house I am afraid an elephant will destroy my crops 1.95 +/- 1.0 84 At some point in the future, elephants will destroy 1.73 +/- 0.96 71 my crops I am afraid an elephant will kill my livestock 1.52 +/- 0.88 84 At some point in the future, elephants will kill my 1.53 +/- 0.89 71 livestock

97 Indirect Impacts

The most prevalent indirect impacts experienced by the participants were fears for their own or their family’s safety (Table 5), and fear that an elephant would destroy their house. Participant’s average score for the overall indirect impacts scale (n=49) was 18.75

(range was 10-30) which suggests participants experienced a low-moderate overall level of indirect impacts from HEC.

Table 5. Average, standard deviation (SD) and n of responses to 3 pt Likert scale statements related to indirect impacts of HEC events posed to participants in the Yangon, Ayeyarwady, and Bago Districts of Myanmar (May 2017-April 2018). Responses were coded as 1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, 3=agree. Indirect impact experience statement Average/SD n I am losing sleep because I am worried that conflict with elephants will negatively impact my ability to care for my 1.53 +/- 0.89 78 children I am afraid elephants will physically injure me or my family 2.72 +/- 0.66 69 I am afraid elephants will physically injure my 1.66 +/- 0.47 65 neighbor/another person I know I am afraid an elephant will destroy my house 1.68 +/- 0.47 78 I fear that I will not be able to support my family if my 1.35 +/- 0.76 57 property sustains damage from elephants The threat of elephants prevents me from accomplishing daily 1.13 +/- 0.49 83 chores Sometimes I am afraid to travel outside my village because of 1.80 +/- 0.86 87 elephant activity in the area It is difficult to improve my quality of life because of HEC 1.67 +/- 0.95 86 I am afraid an elephant will destroy my crops 1.48 +/- 0.50 84 I am afraid my family and I will not have food because 1.32 +/- 0.73 56 elephants will destroy my crops

Elephant conservation attitudes Participants’ responses to the conservation attitudes statements reflected positive attitudes towards elephants and elephant conservation (Table 6); two statements, “elephants should

98 be protected by law” and “habitat should also be conserved”, received near total agreement, while only pro-elephant statement, “elephants are important to the ecosystem”, received an average score below the neutral. The average score for the overall elephant and elephant conservation attitudes (n=60) was 23.5 (range was 9-27), overall positive attitudes towards elephants and support for elephant conservation.

Table 6. Average, standard deviation (SD) and n of responses to 3 pt Likert scale statements related to elephant conservation attitudes posed to participants in the Yangon, Ayeyarwady, and Bago Districts of Myanmar (May 2017-April 2018). Responses were coded as 1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, 3=agree.

Elephant attitude statement Average/SD n Elephants should be protected by law in Myanmar 2.93 +/- 0.33 86 It is important to protect elephant habitat in Myanmar 2.92 +/- 0.31 87 Elephants are important to the ecosystem 1.80 +/- 0.60 87 Elephants are important for religious reasons 2.72 +/- 0.62 86 Elephants are an important part of Myanmar’s culture 2.78 +/- 0.49 87 It is a waste of money for the Myanmar government to protect elephants 1.26 +/- 0.49 87 People who poach elephants should be punished 2.52 +/- 0.68 87 All the people in Myanmar benefit from conserving elephants 2.05 +/- 0.40 85 We should remove all elephants from Myanmar 1.03 +/- 0.25 61

Discussion

Our sample population was consistent with current socio-demographics for the area with the exception of gender ratio of participants. All of the participants had at least seen the wild elephant indicating they had at least a minimal experience with elephants from which to respond to the interview questions. The indication from participants in the

Yangon district that HEC has increased over the past nine years, aligns with reports from concurrent research projects in the same area (Sampson et al. in prep). Similarly,

99 participants in both this study and the Sampson et al. (in prep) study indicated their belief that as humans encroach into elephant habitat, HEC will increase.

The small number of participants that indicated they knew how to act around elephants to avoid HEC suggests there is ample opportunity for educational outreach by

NGOs and other agencies to work with communities and instruct community members on tactics for avoiding HEC. Communities in the study areas generally use fire crackers or shout at elephants to scare elephants away even if they are not causing damage, which can lead to an increase in confrontation and aggressive behavior between humans and elephants (Fernando et al. 2008). As long as humans and elephants share a landscape there will be conflicts (Fernando et al. 2008), therefore working with the community to help them understand elephant behavior and ecology may increase tolerance for benign interactions, which could, in turn, improve coexistence between the two species.

Property Damage

Although most effected by property damage were able to repair their homes quickly, damage to a home can go beyond the physical destruction, harming a person’s sense of security and safety (Keane et al. 2002). The unexpected destruction of a family shelter can be very traumatic for both adults (Gibbs 1989) and children (Immel et al. 2014), with symptoms of distress lasting for up to six months even if there were no injuries associated with the event (Keane et al. 1994, 1998). Although little to no research has been done on the specific psychological effects of losing a home during a HEC event, related research on victims of home damage or loss during a natural disaster or residential fire indicates that victims experience a broad range of psychosocial problems including anxiety

100 disorders, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and an increase in occurrence of domestic violence and divorce (Gibbs 1989, Rubonis & Bickman 1991). Further, the degree to which victims experience loss of sentimental possessions, have increased demand for additional time and money to repair the home, and experience reduced ability to work after a traumatic event, can also impact the severity of the psychological distress they experience (Freedy et al. 1992). In the context of elephant damage, the existence of these psychological conditions after property damage may be somewhat tempered by the semi-permanent thatch and bamboo hut-style home types that dominate the Myanmar study area. Local communities already expect a certain level of maintenance in these types of structures due to monsoon and other natural events, so repairs may not be as stressful as they are in other areas with more permanent structures. As such, future research should related to HEC should address the psychological impacts of home or property damage.

Crop-guarding and Farming in an Elephant Landscape

Effective crop guarding relies on a person’s ability to maintain vigilance, or to detect and respond to a stimulus occurring at random intervals such as the unpredictable event of when an elephant might enter a farmer’s field to crop raid (Posner & Petersen 1990, Oken et al. 2006). Farmers primarily guard against crop raiding by wildlife at night, which they reported prevented them from obtaining sufficient amounts of sleep, which is congruent with previous research assessing impacts of HEC on farmers who crop guard in India

(Jadhav & Barua 2012, Barua et al. 2013). However, vigilance is the function most impaired by insufficient sleep in comparison to other complex cognitive functions (Lim

101 & Dinges 2006, Lo et al. 2012). This effect can be amplified when a person’s the human body’s normal circadian rhythmicity is disrupted (Cajochen et al. 1999, Gaggioni et al.

2018), and has been shown to be a major factor contributing to the increase of accidents that occur at night (Lim & Dinges 2006). In Nepal, researchers found that 72% of the

HEC events that resulted in human fatality primarily occurred during the late evening and night (Silwal et al. 2016), possibly as a result of the inability of the farmers to maintain vigilance of their surroundings.

Crop-guarding at night can affect the health of the guard in two ways, either directly through chronic sleep deprivation, which can decrease their mental and physical wellness (Moore et al. 2002, Knutson et al. 2007), or by exposing them to additional health threats they would not be exposed to during the day (Dutta et al. 2010). Myanmar, and much of Southeast Asia, is host to a variety of mosquito-borne diseases including dengue fever, malaria, and zika (CDC 2018). Exposure risks are greatest in the evening and at night when the highest densities of mosquitoes are present, and inopportunely when farmers are reportedly guarding their crops. Further, a study in India concluded that water contained in elephant footprints was found to be the second most prominent breeding ground for the malaria-carrying mosquito Anopheles baimaii (Dutta et al. 2010), contributing to the danger posed indirectly by elephants to communities already at risk for HEC.

One potentially positive outcome of HEC is the finding that partnerships with their neighbors to mitigate crop raiding was believed to improve social bonds in their community. The Common Enemy Effect encourages cooperation amongst unrelated

102

individuals in pursuit of a common goal (Mesterton-Gibbons & Dugatkin 1992), such as reducing crop loss due to elephants. Camaraderie in the face of adversity such as war has been shown to be particularly strong when the people involved share similar backgrounds

(Costa & Kahn 2008). Though Myanmar is a diverse country with 136 different ethnic groups, a majority of participants sampled belong to the same ethnic group, which may help explain why such a large percentage perceived improved social bonds. Although this camaraderie can have short-term positive effects such as increased likelihood of sharing food between individuals or emotional support in the face hardships (Costa & Kahn

2008), it can also have long-term effects in reducing the severity or onset of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Stretch et al. 1985) after traumatic events such as injury or death of a loved one (Nevarez et al. 2017).

Human Injury and Death Resulting from HEC

Previous studies describing animal attacks suggest that being injured by an elephant is likely to leave the human victim with permanent physical disabilities, and suffering from debilitating fear and mental stress (Chowdhury et al. 2008, Jadhav & Barua 2012, Barua et al. 2013). PTSD is commonly suffered by victims of life-threatening events and can include symptoms such as depression, hostility, hypervigilance and insomnia. Both the physical and mental consequences of injuries resulting from HWC can hinder or prevent the victim from future employment, increasing the financial strain on the victim and their family (Chowdhury et al. 2008, Barua et al. 2013). Caretakers of victims who have experienced a traumatic event or been severely injured can endure PTSD themselves

(Stretch et al. 1985), be subject to the harmful and aggressive behaviors victims exhibit

103 post HWC incident (Jadhav & Barua 2012), and suffer from compassion fatigue (Figley

2002, Beck 2011); caretakers who exhibit compassion fatigue can suffer symptoms including negative cognitive, emotional, and physical reactions that lead to a decreased level of concern and empathy for the victim of the attack, negative feelings towards the victim, and physical and emotional exhaustion (Maiden et al. 2006). Although we did not detect PTSD or compassion fatigues in our sample, we recognize the very real possibility that such symptoms do occur as a result of elephant attacks. As such, we suggest future studies make an effort to seek out individuals who are potentially suffering from PTSD due to HEC to ascertain what services would be most beneficial for their recovery, which can inform future outreach efforts from the government and elephant conservation agencies.

Interviewees who lost a family member to HEC expressed increased levels of fear towards elephants, difficulty sleeping, and an increase in concern for their surviving family’s safety, and as such are at risk of suffering even greater consequences as a result of HEC. Interviews with surviving family members of victims killed by elephants in

India and Bangladesh revealed that the loss resulted in feelings of depression, anger, humiliation, feelings of helplessness, and frustration at the lack of government assistance in improving their circumstances (Chowdhury et al. 2008, Jadhav & Barua 2012).

Poverty and poor mental health care can exacerbate the consequences people who lose a loved one to HEC face (Jadhav & Barua 2012). When the primary earner in the family is injured, typically the male head of household, the burden of supporting the family shifts to the female head of household and, potentially, the children of the victim casting added

104 responsibilities and opportunity costs on them (Chowdhury et al. 2008, Jadhav & Barua

2012, Barua et al. 2013).

Although the number of participants who suffered an injury, acted as a caretaker for someone who has been injured, or who had lost a family member to HEC is small in our sample, the variety in type and severity of indirect impacts that can occur in our total sample suggest there are impacts we have not yet tested for, or such impacts may not recognized as related to HEC. As such, future research in this area should seek out such participants to better understand implications for survivors and the community.

Children in Areas of HEC

The consequences of reports that children from our 3 study sites live in fear of elephants means future difficulties in school and as they grow are likely for such children, as research (from whatever discipline you found this research on childhood development shows that children who live in persistent and chronic fear can lose the ability to differentiate between safe and threatening situations which can inhibit their ability to learn and promotes the development of anxiety disorders (Shonkoff et al. 2010). Limited access to mental health care facilities, which is common in many developing nations either because they are too difficult to reach or because of financial barriers, can further marginalize these children and prevent them from becoming productive members of society as adults.

Fear and expectation

Fear is an important part of biological preparedness in the event of danger (Seligman

1971, Davey 1997). Studies with other species have found that fear can also lead to the

105 overestimation of the likelihood of actually encountering the danger in question (Aue &

Hoeppli 2012). Little research exists to compare the expected occurrence of HEC to the belief that an HEC event will actually occur. For example, only two people in our study experienced the injury or death of a spouse a result of HEC, yet the risk perception of a spouse being injured by an elephant was observed in a quarter of our respondents. Further discussion with community members can help to clarify their reasoning for the discrepancy between fear and the belief an event will actually occur.

Indirect impacts of HEC and elephant conservation

Despite all participants experiencing some form of indirect impacts from HEC, they expressed strong support for legal protection of elephants and their habitat elephant conservation and were generally very supportive of elephant conservation. Our results highlight differences in stakeholder priorities and concerns (i.e., farmers cited concern over crop damage whereas all other participants cited damage to home) and provide a potential avenue for the Myanmar government and other agencies to explore when developing elephant management and conservation policy initiatives focused on mitigating such events.

Conclusion

One of the fundamental challenges of conservation science is that increasing the population of a target species often results in negative consequences for the humans that share that species' landscape. Local support of conservation efforts is critical to their long-term success of such efforts. Previous research has demonstrated that communities will not support long-term conservation goals if they infringe on the community's ability

106 to procure resources needed for the communities’ survival in the short-term (Borgerhoff

Mulder & Coppolillo 2005). Though our results show that communities within the study area are prone to endorse elephant conservation efforts, any increase in the local elephant population is likely to increase the burden of indirect impacts already being felt by the community. Our quantitative assessment, though low in sample size, affords a complement to the limited qualitative research done by prior studies (e.g., Chowdhury et al. 2008, Jadhav & Barua 2012, Barua et al. 2013), by providing scale and critical contextual information about the rate at which different indirect impacts are being experienced. This information can inform future conservation policy and allow the

Myanmar government to better assist local communities with HEC management, identifying specific indirect impacts that can be targeted for mitigation, and improve people’s perception of elephants by better addressing their concerns.

107 References

Armfield JM (2007) Understanding animal fears: A comparison of the cognitive

vulnerability and harm-looming models. BMC Psychiatry 7: 1–12.

Aue T, Hoeppli M-E (2012) Evidence for an encounter expectancy bias in fear of spiders.

Cognition and Emotion 26: 727–736.

Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S (2013) The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife

conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological

Conservation.

Beck CT (2011) Secondary Traumatic Stress in Nurses: A Systematic Review. Archives

of Psychiatric Nursing 25: 1–10.

Borgerhoff Mulder M, Coppolillo P (2005) Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics,

and Culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Cajochen C, Khalsa SBS, Wyatt JK, Czeisler CA, Dijk D-J (1999) EEG and ocular

correlates of circadian melatonin phase and human performance decrements

during sleep loss. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and

Comparative Physiology 277: R640–R649.

Campos-Arceiz A, Takatsuki S, Ekanayaka SKK, Hasegawa T (2009) The human-

elephant conflict in southeastern Sri Lanka: type of damage, seasonal patterns,

and sexual differences in the raiding behaviour of elephants. Gajah 31: 5–14.

Choudhury AU (2001) Wild elephant extinct in Cachar. The Rhino Foundation for nature

in NE India Newsletter 3.

108 Chowdhury AN, Jadhav S (2012) Eco-psychiatry: Culture, Mental Health and Ecology

with Special Reference to India. Community Health in India: 521–542.

Chowdhury AN, Mondal R, Brahma A, Biswas MK (2008) Eco-psychiatry and

Environmental Conservation: Study from Sundarban Delta, India. Environmental

health insights 2: 61–76.

Costa DL, Kahn ME (2008) Heroes and Cowards The Social Face of War. Princeton

University Press.

Davey G (1997) The merits of an experimentally testable model of phobias. Behavioral

and Brain Sciences 20: 363–364.

Dhanwatey HS, Crawford JC, Abade LAS, Dhanwatey PH, Nielsen CK, Sillero-Zubiri C

(2013) Large carnivore attacks on humans in central India: a case study from the

Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve. Oryx 47: 221–227.

Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social

factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation.

Dutta P, Khan SA, Bhattarcharyya DR, Khan AM, Sharma CK, Mahanta J (2010) Studies

on the breeding habitats of the vector mosquito Anopheles baimai and its

relationship to malaria incidence in Northeastern region of India. Breeding

habitats of Anopheles baimai and its role in incidence of malaria in Northeastern

region of India. EcoHealth 7: 498–506.

Fernando P, Kumar MA, Williams AC, Wikramanayake E, Aziz T, Singh SM (2008)

Review of human-elephant conflict mitigation measures practiced in South Asia.

109 Fernando P, Wikramanayake E, Weerakoon D, Jayasinghe LKA, Gunawardene M,

Janaka HK (2005) Perceptions and Patterns of Human--elephant Conflict in Old

and New Settlements in Sri Lanka: Insights for Mitigation and Management.

Biodiversity {&} Conservation 14: 2465–2481.

Figley CR (2002) Treating compassion fatigue. Routledge.

Freedy J, Shaw D, Jarrell M, Masters C (1992) Towards an understanding of the

psychological impact of natural disasters: An application of the conservation

resources stress model. Journal of Traumatic Stress 5: 441–454.

Gaggioni G, Ly JQM, Chellappa SL, Wallant DC ‘t, Rosanova M, Sarasso S et al. (2018)

Human fronto-parietal response scattering subserves vigilance at night.

NeuroImage 175: 354–364.

Gibbs M (1989) Factors in the victim that mediate between disaster and

psychopathology: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress 2: 489–514.

Gunnthorsdottir A (2001) Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor

for its preservation. Anthrozoos 14: 204–215.

Hoare R (2000) African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for coexistence.

Oryx 34: 34–38.

Hoare R (2012) Lessons from 15 years of human – elephant conflict mitigation :

Management considerations involving biological , physical and governance issues

in Africa.

110 Hoare R (2015) Human Dimensions of Wildlife : An Lessons From 20 Years of Human –

Elephant Conflict Mitigation in Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: 289–

295.

Immel CS, Jones RT, Smith AJ (2014) Predicting Protective Factors of Physical and

Mental Health for Survivors of Residential Fire. Fire Technology 50: 1077–1087.

Jackson-Smith D, Kreuter U, Krannich RS (2005) Understanding the multidimensionality

of property rights orientations: Evidence from Utah and Texas Ranchers. Society

and Natural Resources.

Jadhav S, Barua M (2012) The Elephant Vanishes: Impact of human–elephant conflict on

people’s wellbeing. Health & Place 18: 1356–1365.

Jong P, Merckelbach H (1997) No convincing evidence for a biological preparedness

explanation of phobias. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20: 362–363.

Kaltenborn B, Bjerke T, Nyahongo J (2010) Living with problem animals–self-reported

fear of potentially dangerous species in the Serengeti region, Tanzania. Human

Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 397–409.

Keane A, Houldin A, Allison P, Jepson C, Shults J, Nuamah IF, Brennan AM, Lowery

BJ, McCorkle R (2002) Factors Associated with Distrss in Urban Residential Fire

Survivors. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 34.

Keane A, Pickett M, Jepson C, McCorkle R, Lowery B (1994) Psychological distress in

survivors of residential fires. Social Science Medicine 38: 1055–1060.

Keane A, Pickett M, Robinson L, Lowery B, McCorkle R (1998) A model of survivors’

psychological responses following a residential fire. Death Studies 22: 43–60.

111 Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E, Kaltenborn BP (2006) Factors influencing conservation

attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodiversity and

Conservation 16: 2213–2230.

Knutson KL, Spiegel K, Penev P, Cauter E Van (2007) The metabolic consequences of

sleep deprivation. Sleep Medicine Reviews 11: 163–178.

Leimgruber P, Oo ZM, Aung M, Kelly DS, Wemmer C, Senior B, Songer M (2011)

Current Status of Asian Elephants in Myanmar. Gajah 35: 76–86.

Lim J, Dinges D (2006) Sleep Deprivation and Vigilant Attention. Annals of the New

York Academy of Sciences 1129: 305–322.

Lo JC, Groeger JA, Santhi N, Arbon EL, Lazar AS, Hasan S, von Schantz M, Archer SN,

Dijk D-J (2012) Effects of Partial and Acute Total Sleep Deprivation on

Performance across Cognitive Domains, Individuals and Circadian Phase. PLOS

ONE 7: 1–16.

Maiden RP, Paul R, Thompson C (eds) (2006) Workplace Disaster, Preparedness,

Response, and Management. Haworth Press.

Mesterton-Gibbons M, Dugatkin LA (1992) Cooperation Among Unrelated Individuals:

Evolutionary Factors. The Quarterly Review of Biology 67: 267–281.

Moore PJ, Adler NE, Williams DR, Jackson JS (2002) Socioeconomic Status and Health:

The Role of Sleep. Psychosomatic Medicine 64.

Nevarez MD, Yee HM, Waldinger RJ (2017) Friendship in War: Camaraderie and

Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Prevention. Journal of traumatic

stress 30: 512–520.

112 Nyhus PJ, Osofsky SA, Ferraro P, Madden F, Fischer H (2005) Bearing the costs of

human-wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes.

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES-CAMBRIDGE 9, 107.

Ogra M V. (2008) Human-wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A

case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand

(Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum.

Oken BS, Salinsky MC, Elsas SM (2006) Vigilance, alertness, or sustained attention:

physiological basis and measurement. Clinical Neurophysiology 117: 1885–1901.

Osborn FV, Parker GE (2003) Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict

between elephants and people: a review of current research. Oryx 37: 80–84.

Peterson MN, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR, Leong K (2013) Why transforming biodiversity

conservation conflict is essential and how to begin. Pacific Conservation Biology

19: 94–103. de Pinho JR, Grilo C, Boone RB, Galvin KA, Snodgrass JG (2014) Influence of Aesthetic

Appreciation of Wildlife Species on Attitudes towards Their Conservation in

Kenyan Agropastoralist Communities(M Festa-Bianchet, Ed). PLoS ONE 9:

e88842.

Posner MI, Petersen SE (1990) The Attention System of the Human Brain. Annual

Review of Neuroscience 13: 25–42.

Rodriguez SL, Peterson MN, Cubbage FW, Sills EO, Bondell HD (2018) What is private

land stewardship? Lessons from agricultural opinion leaders in North Carolina.

Sustainability (Switzerland) 10.

113 V. Rubonis A, Bickman L (1991) Psychological impairment in the wake of disaster: The

disaster-psychopathology relationship. Psychological bulletin 109: 384–399.

Seligman MEP (1971) Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy 2: 307–320.

Shonkoff JP, Levitt P, Boyce WT, Cameron J, Duncan GJ, Fox NA et al. (2010)

Persistent Fear and Anxiety Can Affect Young Children’s Learning and

Development.

Silwal T, Kolejka J, Sharma R (2016) Injury Severity of Wildlife Attacks on Humans in

the Vicinity of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Journal of Biodiversity

Management & Forestry 5.

Songer M, Aung M, Allendorf TD, Calabrese JM, Leimgruber P (2016) Drivers of

Change in Myanmar’s Wild Elephant Distribution. Tropical Conservation

Science.

Stange M, Barry A, Smyth J, Olson K (2016) Effects of Smiley Face Scales on Visual

Processing of Satisfaction Questions in Web Surveys. Social Science Computer

Review 0: 0894439316674166.

Stretch RH, Vail JD, Maloney JP (1985) Posttraumatic stress disorder among Army

Nurse Corps Vietnam veterans. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

53: 704–708.

114 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS

One of the paradoxes of conservation science is that increasing the population of threatened species can increase the severity of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) with that species, making managing wildlife in human-dominated landscapes particularly challenging. The majority of large mammal conservation projects occur in developing countries where the human populations already experience high levels of poverty, food insecurity, and reduced access to educational opportunities. Policy and management decisions that protect target conservation species can further burden these marginalized stakeholders by restricting access to necessary resources or limiting traditional activities, such as hunting, and can lead local communities to resent both wildlife and the agencies involved in wildlife conservation.

When the needs of human communities are not considered or addressed within the conservation framework, there can be a further reduction in tolerance for wildlife and conservation efforts. Reduced tolerance and loss of other income sources due to HWC can make species of conservation concern susceptible to poaching, especially for 'high value' endangered species. Although poaching has been shown to have severe effects on wildlife populations (Chase et al. 2016, Robson et al. 2017), it can also pose consequences for the communities that surround areas where poaching occurs. Poaching, the illicit wildlife trade, and wildlife declines have been linked to increases in violence,

115 organized crime (Gore 2011, Douglas & Alie 2014), human trafficking, and slavery

(Brashares et al. 2014).

Peterson et al. 2013). The involvement of local people has been shown to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of conservation efforts (Hulme & Murphree 1999, Berkes

2007). However, to appropriately engage local people, the government and conservationists must understand their experiences with wildlife, and how local communities’ experiences with HWC and poaching influence their willingness to support wildlife conservation programs. Using the Asian elephant as an example, we developed what we consider to be a more realistic, theoretical model linking changes to elephant populations with conservation interventions and human welfare that includes negative

feedback loops (Figure 1). We then designed a series of studies to illustrate and test some of these links at several field sites across Myanmar. Our discovery of the extreme rate at which Asian elephants are poached in Myanmar (Chapter 2) adds a new urgency to efforts to save the Asian elephant. Our study served to alert wildlife officials in Myanmar and throughout the elephant range of the rise in poaching for elephant products other than ivory. Previous to this study, it was thought that the illicit Asian elephant trade involved only ivory, and thus targeted adult males but not the tusk-less females and juveniles; however, this study illuminated that the trade includes skin and other body parts as well, likely in response to a burgeoning consumer base in China

116 (Nijman & Shepherd 2014), so that poaching threat applies to females, juveniles and males alike. This information highlights the need for better monitoring of elephant populations across Asia and Africa, and more consistent sharing of information from and collaborations with countries that have identified methods to curb poaching to help countries like Myanmar adopt those methods as well.

Conservation program/Protection policy enacted

As a result of this research, the Myanmar government created the Emergency

Elephant Response Unit (EERU) to conduct anti-poaching operations across the country.

The Myanmar government also began conducting raids to remove illegal wildlife products from some of the most popular tourist sites in the country. In the future, DNA

117 retrieved from confiscated elephant products may be used in the fight against elephant poaching (Comstock et al. 2003, Wasser et al. 2004, Kurland & Pires 2017). Future research projects can utilize this DNA to compare to previously collected samples from fecal DNA to the remains of poached elephant carcasses to determine where the elephant originated. This information can then be used to determine poaching hotspots, identify poaching targets (e.g., family groups, males), and expose paths of distribution of poached elephant goods, which would provide key information on illicit wildlife trade routes.

Our research on perceptions of elephants and the risks they pose to communities

(Chapter 3) suggest future directions for educational outreach efforts. Given that finding ways to engage local communities in conservation is a major issue with creating sustainable conservation initiatives, recognizing the attitudes and belief systems that lead some citizens to be more supportive of elephant conservation can help guide the creation of more effective educational outreach programs. Our research suggests that people living in urban areas value wildlife more than their rural counterparts, highlighting opportunities for educational outreach in rural areas to increase awareness of the benefits that wildlife species provide to humans. Similarly, highlighting the role of elephants in Myanmar’s culture and religions can encourage rural communities to adopt more pro-conservation behaviors.

While communities indicate that they are willing to comply with elephant protection laws and support elephant conservation, they do not appear to be adopting behaviors that would benefit or the reduction of elephant poaching. Conversations with community leaders and local wildlife authorities suggest that actions such as providing

118 assistance to poachers may be financially motivated in view of low local wages

(approximately US$1,000 annually, Sampson unpub. data) and the high finders’ fees provided by the poachers (up to US$4,000 per animal, pers. comm. Zaw Min Oo). Given the deeply religious nature of many people in Myanmar and the Buddhist tenet that prohibits the killing of any living creature, developing and implementing programs in collaboration with religious authorities to stigmatize working with poachers may help to overcome this financial incentive to assist in poaching.

Research from this study has revealed a need for the Myanmar government and elephant conservation agencies to expand their mitigation efforts to include addressing the consequences of poaching and the illicit wildlife trade felt by human populations in

Myanmar (e.g., elevated levels of fear and perceived potential for violence). As the demand for poached elephant products identified in Chapter 2 increases in Myanmar, elephant populations are likely to decline further, and the potential for increased

(perceived) violence increases. Other studies of high-value wildlife declines have shown that this can lead to the spread of organized crime and the forced conscription of children and adults into the illegal wildlife trade to locate these increasingly rare animals

(WWF/Dalberg 2012, Brashares et al. 2014).

Future studies to assess communities’ role and motivation to tolerate or assist in poaching (e.g., not turning poachers in, helping locate elephants, transferring poached products) would help conservation organizations to develop alternatives methods to encourage conservation efforts instead. Additional studies that seek to understand the structure of poaching operations and how they function, though challenging and perhaps

119 dangerous, would assist law enforcement in their quest to identify and disband poaching rings. Moreover, identifying vulnerable communities and community members might allow for educational outreach and intervention programs to be developed to target such communities and people in attempt to prevent poachers from engaging them before it happens.

The results of Chapter 4 may explain one of many possibly interconnected reasons why communities can value elephants, yet assist poachers. Continued HEC can exacerbate systemic poverty, especially when there are few employment opportunities and limited infrastructure for development, and may push local community members into poaching to survive. The development of conservation policy and mitigation strategies that work with local communities to overcome challenges such as poverty may be more effective than direct ones that address HEC alone. However, programs that only address poverty are not enough to support long-term conservation goals (Tallis et al. 2008), thus the need for comprehensive research on how stakeholder views and experiences with

HEC can effect mitigation strategies and conservation efficacy.

Most participants cited the reasons why elephants to engage in HEC to as either accidental or a result of humans encroaching into elephant habitat (i.e., agricultural expansion). These responses are in line with results from studies on the causes of HEC in other regions (e.g., Fernando et al. 2005, Okello 2005, Kioko et al. 2006). However, it is important to confirm that local understanding of the drivers of HEC to ensure researchers do not also need to address societal or cultural beliefs to develop effective mitigation.

These responses provide an optimistic view for conservation efforts, as local

120 communities recognize that the actions of humans and development in the area are one of the leading causes of HEC.

One outcome from the research in Chapter 4 has been the establishment of a pilot livestock (DC) electric fencing program, which has proved to be 100% successful in repelling elephants from fenced crop and village areas. However, elephants are intelligent animals that have learned ways to overcome electric fences at other sites in Sri Lanka and

India. Future projects will need to focus on integrating novel stimuli (e.g., motion activated lights, automated predator calls), improving fence design to keep elephants away from the crops that local communities depend on for survival, and finding ways to ensure that communities who use electric fences understand the importance of regular maintenance to prevent elephants from learning how to bypass them.

Chapter 5 expands on the current field of the human dimensions of wildlife by presenting the first results from a comprehensive, quantitative questionnaire -based assessment of the indirect impacts of HEC experienced by communities, and their resulting attitudes towards elephant conservation. Due to the difficulty of identifying and measuring indirect impacts of human-wildlife conflicts, previous studies have assessed these hidden impacts through the use of in-depth qualitative interviews or focal groups

(e.g., Chowdhury et al. 2008, Chowdhury & Jadhav 2012, Jadhav & Barua 2012). While these studies provide critical insights, they often focus on people who personally experienced HEC events, and may not generalize to the larger community or regions. Our results revealed that all of the participants, whether they had experienced direct impacts of HEC or not (i.e., crop loss, injury by elephant, the loss of a family member to HEC),

121 suffered at least one type of indirect impact from HEC. Yet, despite this, most participants expressed attitudes consistent with supporting elephant conservation programs. This offers conservationists hope that the communities may continue to be receptive to future ideas promoting conservation.

This questionnaire also provided information on the extent and severity to which indirect impacts of HEC were experienced by participants after a direct impact of HEC such as crop-raiding, injury by elephant, or the loss of a family member. For example, we found that most farmers guarded their crops at night, though only about a quarter of them thought this was effective at preventing elephant damage. This suggests that crop guarding is more so a cost than a benefit, and this information provides an opportunity to improve attitudes towards elephants In this case, the government and conservation agencies can assist farmers in reducing costs associated with crop guarding by introducing more effective strategies such as electric fencing, sharing guarding duties, and providing mosquito nets or insect spray to reduce guards’ exposure to malaria, dengue fever, and other mosquito-borne diseases.

A common theme identified by this research is that community members in

Myanmar displayed attitudes consistent with supporting elephant conservation, yet they fail to take action to prevent avoidable HEC events and reported that fellow community members are involved in poaching activities. This suggests that conservation organizations do not need to convince people that elephants are important and worthy of protection. Instead, it indicates a need for agencies involved in elephant conservation to focus on modifying the behaviors of both elephants and humans that lead to HEC. Our

122 research suggests specific areas where agencies can work to modify the behaviors and actions of people sharing the landscape with elephants (i.e., educational outreach programs, forming crop guarding coalitions), improve deterrents to keep elephants away from crops (i.e., electric fencing), and future projects that can help fight against poaching in Myanmar (i.e., genetic testing of poached animal parts). If these strategies prove effective in Myanmar, similar projects should be enacted throughout the elephant range to support the ongoing conservation efforts of this endangered species.

123 References

Berkes F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National academy of sciences 104: 15188–15193.

Brashares JS, Abrahms B, Fiorella KJ, Golden CD, Hojnowski CE, Marsh RA et al. (2014) Wildlife decline and social conflict. Science 345: 376–378.

Chase MJ, Schlossberg S, Griffin CR, Bouché PJC, Djene SW, Elkan PW et al. (2016) Continent-wide survey reveals massive decline in African savannah elephants. PeerJ 4: e2354.

Chowdhury AN, Jadhav S (2012) Eco-psychiatry: Culture, Mental Health and Ecology with Special Reference to India. Community Health in India: 521–542.

Chowdhury AN, Mondal R, Brahma A, Biswas MK (2008) Eco-psychiatry and Environmental Conservation: Study from Sundarban Delta, India. Environmental health insights 2: 61–76.

Comstock KE, Ostrander EA, Wasser SK (2003) Amplifying Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA from African Elephant Ivory: A Tool for Monitoring the Ivory Trade. Conservation Biology 17: 1840–1843.

Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation.

Douglas LR, Alie K (2014) High-value natural resources: Linking wildlife conservation to international conflict, insecurity, and development concerns. Biological Conservation 171: 270–277.

Gore ML (2011) The Science of Conservation Crime. Conservation Biology 25: 659– 661. Hulme D, Murphree M (1999) Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa. Journal of International Development 11: 277–285.

Jadhav S, Barua M (2012) The Elephant Vanishes: Impact of human–elephant conflict on people’s wellbeing. Health & Place 18: 1356–1365.

Kioko J, Kiringe J, Omondi P (2006) Human–elephant conflict outlook in the Tsavo–

124 Amboseli ecosystem. Pachyderm 41: 53–60.

Kurland J, Pires SF (2017) Assessing U.S. Wildlife Trafficking Patterns: How Criminology and Conservation Science Can Guide Strategies to Reduce the Illegal Wildlife Trade. Deviant Behavior 38: 375–391.

Nijman V, Shepherd CR (2014) Emergence of Mong La on the Myanmar–China border as a global hub for the international trade in ivory and elephant parts. Biological Conservation 179: 17–22.

Okello MM (2005) NLand use changes and human–wildlife conflicts in the Amboseli Area, Kenya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 19–28.

Peterson MN, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR, Leong K (2013) Why transforming biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin. Pacific Conservation Biology 19: 94–103.

Robson AS, Trimble MJ, Purdon A, Young-Overton KD, Pimm SL, Van Aarde RJ (2017) Savanna elephant numbers are only a quarter of their expected values. PLoS ONE 12.

Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M, Chang A (2008) An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Wasser SK, Shedlock AM, Comstock K, Ostrander EA, Mutayoba B, Stephens M (2004) Assigning African elephant DNA to geographic region of origin: Applications to the ivory trade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101: 14847– 14852.

WWF/Dalberg (2012) Fighting Illicit Wildlife Trafficking: A consultation with governments. Gland, Sweden.

125 APPENDICES

126 Appendix 3.1

Appendix 3.1. Below are the four questions found to be significantly different between urban interviewees surveyed near general local attractions (Park) compared to animal- centric areas (Zoo).

Likert scale question Urban Location n Mean STDV p Cohen's d Hunting is not kind to wild animals. Park 34 4.12 1.17 0.0158 0.332 Zoo 57 3.74 1.13 Humans should manage wildlife Park 36 2.41 1.2 0.0135 0.53 populations so that humans benefit. Zoo 56 3.04 1.14

It is important to conserve elephant Park 34 4.32 0.73 0.0085 0.621 populations in Myanmar for future Zoo 53 3.75 1.02 generations. Most of my friends think that we should Park 33 4.24 0.5 0.0291 0.496 comply with laws that apply to not Zoo 53 4 0.48 harming any wildlife.

127 Appendix 3.2. Summary of demographic data and Likert questions and response from rural (Ayeyarwady and Bago regions) and urban (Yangon) participants, in Myanmar (December 2016 – August 2017).

Group Question Rural Urban Demographics Location n=41 n=95 Gender M=39, F=1, NA=1 M=46, F=44, NA=5 Age average = 40 (18-66) average = 28 (18-66) What is your ethnic group Burmese/Myanmar- 21, Burmese/Myanmar- 67, Mon-6, Chin-2, Kayin-6, Rakhine- 9, Rakhine- 1, Other/Mix- 26 Other/Mix- 3 What is your religion? Buddhist- 38, Christian-3 Buddhist- 84, Christian-8, Other- 3 Answer Summary (response rate) p-value Cohen's d Rural Urban Wildlife value I feel a strong emotional bond with wild animals. 3.9 +/- 0.8 4.3 +/- 0.6 0.0022 0.65 orientation (n=41) (n=89) The main reason wild animals are on earth is for people to 3.5 +/- 1.2 2.7 +/- 1.2 0.0013 0.64 use for their needs (n=41) (n=92) Hunting is not kind to wild animals. 3.1 +/- 1.2 3.9 +/- 1.2 0.0002 0.67 (n=41) (n=91) It is not possible to live in a world where people can coexist 3.3 +/- 1.2 2.4 +/-1.2 0.0001 0.78 in harmony with wildlife. (n=41) (n=91) Humans should manage wildlife populations so that humans 2.8 +/- 1.2 2.8 +/- 1.2 0.9498 - benefit (n=41) (n=92) The needs of humans should take priority over wildlife 3.4 +/- 1.3 1.9 +/- 0.9 0.0000 1.45 protection. (n=41) (n=93) It is acceptable for elephants to be kept in villages for 3.6 +/- 1.2 3.8 +/-0.9 0.7267 - tourism attractions (n=40) (n=90) It is acceptable for elephants to be used for working in the 3.8 +/-1.0 4.0 +/-1.0 0.2464 - timber industry (n=40) (n=89)

Attitudes Elephants are important for religious reasons 3.9 +/- 0.9 3.2 +/- 1.2 0.0018 0.63 towards (n=41) (n=83) elephants Elephants are important to the ecosystem 4.1 +/- 0.8 3.9 +/- 0.8 0.0965 0.60 (n=39) (n=78) Elephants are an important part on Myanmar’s culture 0.0071 - 4.3 +/- 0.7 3.9 +/- 0.8 128 (n=39) (n=93) It is important to conserve elephants populations in 3.9 +/- 1.1 4.0 +/- 1.0 0.9650 - Myanmar for future generations (n=22) (n=87) It is possible for humans to use the same land as elephants 3.8 +/- 1.0 3.9 +/- 0.9 0.4436 - (n=39) (n=89) It is important to protect elephant habitat in Myanmar 4.2 +/- 0.8 4.3 +/- 0.7 0.6240 - (n=37) (n=88)

Costs/Benefits Conserving elephants is a waste of resources as 0.9826 - 2.5 +/- 1.2 (n=34) 2.5 +/- 1.1 (n=71) it leads to more conflict within the community Elephants and livestock compete for water and grazing, but the needs of livestock remain 0.0005 0.78 3.4 +/- 1.3 (n=37) 2.5 +/- 0.9 (n=81) more important than the needs of wildlife and should always be prioritized The needs of humans should take priority over 0.0000 1.16 3.3 +/- 1.2 (n=37) 2.1 +/- 0.9 (n=80) elephants’ conservation efforts Elephants should be protected because they bring more benefits to this community than 0.3940 - 3.6 +/- 1.1 (n=37) 3.4 +/- 1.2 (n=80) they do problems

Motivations for How likely are poachers to get caught for killing 0.2463 - 3.8 +/- 1.0 (n=37) 3.9 +/- 1.2 (n=85) compliance an elephant? * I have a moral obligation to comply with rules 0.6101 - 3.8 +/- 1.1 (n=19) 4.1 +/- 0.6 (n=85) concerning elephant protection. I know the laws that apply to wildlife in my 0.1654 - 3.3 +/- 1.3 (n=29) 2.9 +/- 1.2 (n=40) country I have a moral obligation to comply with rules 0.4691 - 4.2 +/- 0.8 (n=39) 4.1 +/- 0.6 (n=86) concerning all wildlife protection. Current rules concerning wildlife protection are so unreasonable that there is no need to 0.3353 - 2.9 +/- 1.3 (n=35) 2.6 +/- 1.2 (n=67) comply. I think those people who break the rules concerning wildlife protection should be 0.2729 - 4.1 +/- 0.8 (n=38) 4.3 +/- 0.7 (n=87) punished. 129 Most of my friends think that we should comply with laws that apply to not harming 0.3398 - 3.9 +/- 0.9 (n=38) 4.1 +/- 0.5 (n=87) elephants Most of my friends think that we should comply with laws that apply to not harming 0.0049 0.17 3.6 +/- 1.1 (n=38) 4.1 +/- 0.5 (n=86) any wildlife Most of my friends think that we should protect our livestock and crops even if that 0.1163 - 3.0 +/- 1.1 (n=39) 2.7 +/- 1.0 (n=82) means breaking rules that apply to elephants.

Hunting/Poaching Most of my friends think that we should be 0.9168 - 2.4 +/- 1.1 (n=37) 2.4 +/- 1.2 (n=85) allowed to hunt wild animals if we want to. My neighbors need to hunt wild animals, even if it is against the law, to provide food or 0.4436 - 2.1 +/- 1.2 (n=39) 2.1 +/- 1.1 (n=81) money for their family Hunting wild animals is an important part of 0.8881 - 2.2 +/- 1.2 (n=39) 2.2 +/- 1.1 (n=87) traditional Burmese culture People that poach animals feel ashamed in 2.5 +/- 1.34 0.2772 - 2.6 +/- 1.0 (n=68) doing it (n=32) *Scaled Never=1, Occasionally=2, Sometimes=3, Usually=4, Always=5. All other Likert type questions were scaled: Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5.

130 Appendix 4.1. Responses from farmers and non-farmers in 31 villages inside of the elephant range. Question Response Farmers (n) % of Farmers Non-farmers (n) % of Non-farmers What are the main obstacles you have to Capital/Funds 155 75% 69 84% improving your life? Land 39 19% 40 49% Water 56 27% 15 18% Natural disaster 8 4% 0 0% Infrastructure (e.g. roads, clinics, 103 50% 29 35% schools, electricity) Employment 41 20% 49 60% Animals 139 67% 42 51% Other 4 2% 1 1%

What are the top three problems for your Water availability 50 24% - - cultivation? Land availability 26 13% - - Animals 170 83% - - Natural disaster 12 6% - - Plant disease 65 32% - - Money 122 59% - - Other 2 1% - -

What animals cause damage to your crops? Domestic animals (cattle, pigs, 16 8% - - goats, sheep, chicken, etc.) Wild pigs 32 16% - - Deer 0 0% - - Monkeys 2 1% - - Insects 28 14% - - Elephants 196 95% - - Wild birds (e.g. peafowl) 22 11% - - Other: 5 2% - -

131 Question Response Farmers (n) % of Farmers Non-farmers (n) % of Non-farmers How much of a problem are elephants? None 4 2% 6 7% Minor 37 18% 19 23% Moderate 50 24% 25 30% Major 111 54% 25 30% No elephants 1 0% 1 1% If elephants are a problem, why? Crop damage 188 91% 20 24% Property damage 124 60% 47 57% Safety (Injury/Death) 46 22% 25 30% Damage to livestock 10 5% 5 6% Other 3 1% 6 7% Elephants are not a problem 2 1% 5 6%

Have you or anyone in your household Crop damage 179 87% 12 15% experienced any of the following threats from Property damage 103 50% 40 49% wild elephants in the past 5 years? Fear for personal safety 108 52% 38 46% Physical injury 17 8% 11 13% Death of a family member 17 8% 6 7% Damage to livestock 5 2% 1 1% Other 4 2% 4 5%

Why do elephants attack people? Purposely because people are 10 5% 3 4% protecting their food/crops

Accidentally when elephants are 185 90% 68 83% trying to get to human food They are afraid of humans 17 8% 5 6% They don't like humans 17 8% 4 5% Because humans kill elephants 0 0% 0 0% Because humans encroach on 102 50% 52 63% elephant land Other 6 3% 1 1% 132 Elephants don't attack people 3 1% 6 7%

Question Response Farmers (n) % of Farmers Non-farmers (n) % of Non-farmers How much of your harvest did you lose to Entire harvest 16 8% - - elephants last year? More than half (>50%) 35 17% - - One half (50%) 27 13% - - One third (30%) 43 21% - - One quarter (25%) 18 9% - - One tenth (10%) 31 15% - - Less than one tenth (<10%) 20 10% - - None (0%) 14 7% - -

How much of your entire harvest did you lose Entire harvest 1 0% - - for other reasons? More than half (>50%) 1 0% - - One half (50%) 6 3% - - One third (30%) 9 4% - - One quarter (25%) 9 4% - - One tenth (10%) 12 6% - - Less than one tenth (<10%) 20 10% - - None (0%) 140 68% - -

At what time of the year does damage from All year 13 6% 3 4% elephants occur? Seasonally 184 89% 78 95% 0% 0% Who should be responsible for mitigating HEC? Government 196 90% 72 88% Individual farmer 102 47% 38 46% Community organizations 109 50% 34 41% NGOs 41 19% 7 9% Other 2 1% 2 2%

133 Question Response Farmers (n) % of Farmers Non-farmers (n) % of Non-farmers

What actions do you currently take to prevent Use of physical barriers 70 32% 38 46% elephant damage? Deterrents (smoke, bees, fire crackers, 62 29% 21 26% ….) Confrontation 28 13% 12 16% Use alternative crops/alternative 12 6% 7 9% livelihood Driving elephant from this area 89 41% 17 21% Kill elephants 0 0% 1 1% Moving people from this area 5 2% 8 10% Living in tree huts 74 34% 17 21% Nothing 29 13% 19 23% Other 4 2% 2 2%

What should be done about the elephant Use of physical barriers (electric fences, 97 45% 44 54% problem? trenches, biofences…)

Improving deterrents (smoke, bees, fire 71 33% 32 39% crackers, ….) Compensation 25 12% 3 4% Use alternative crops/alternative 21 10% 17 21% livelihood Move all the elephant from this area 106 49% 22 27% Move all the conflict elephants from this 65 30% 19 23% area Help people to move from this area 3 1% 9 11% Kill elephants 0 0% 1 1% Nothing 17 8% 10 12% Other 2 1% 1 1%

134 Question Response Farmers (n) % of Farmers Non-farmers (n) % of Non-farmers

Would you be willing to contribute to Time/labor 189 87% 77 77% community initiatives for HEC mitigation? If yes, how? Money 14 6% 5 5% In kind/materials 14 6% 9 9% No 5 2% 3 3%

Where should the elephant live? In this part of this forest reserve 12 6% 4 4%

In a different part of this forest reserve 36 17% 27 27%

In a different forest reserve 148 68% 51 51% Don't know 14 6% 10 10% Other 6 3% 2 2%

All wild elephants should be removed 28 13% 10 10%

Is it important that Myanmar have wild Yes, they are part of nature 137 63% 65 65% elephants in the future? Yes, they are important for tourism 30 14% 13 13% Yes, they are important for religious 80 37% 39 39% reasons Yes, other 52 24% 9 9% No, all wild elephants should be 29 13% 6 6% removed from Myanmar

135