Rural and urban views on elephants, conservation and poaching


CHRI S TIE SAMPSON,J EN NY ANNE GLIKMAN ,S.L.RODRIGUEZ,DAV I D TONKY N P AING S OE,DAV I D O’CONNOR,AUNG MYO CHI T and P ETE R L EIMGRUBE R


Abstract Successful anti-poaching policies and effective conservation of Asian elephants Elephas maximus require input and support from all stakeholders, including the pub- lic. But although Myanmar has one of the largest remaining populations of wild Asian elephants, there has been little research on public attitudes there towards elephants and poaching. We developed a questionnaire to assess attitudes of people in rural and urban areas towards elephants and conservation, and their perceptions of and experience with elephant poaching. We conducted 178 interviews across two regions in Myanmar. Although both rural and urban participants supported elephant conservation, people from urban areas expressed more favourable attitudes towards elephants than their rural counterparts. Similarly, conser- vation priorities differed between rural and urban com- munities, with rural communities less likely to believe that peaceful human–elephant coexistence was possible and preferring conservation initiatives that prioritize human activities over elephant conservation. Both groups were familiar with elephant poaching in Myanmar, but rural communities appeared to be better informed regarding the challenges faced by conservation agencies, and were more negatively affected by poaching. Our findings highlight potential areas for intervention by government


CHRISTIE SAMPSON*† (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0003-1873-4355)


and S. L. RODRIGUEZ*( orcid.org/0000-0002-2605-4336) Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA. E-mail csampso@g.clemson.edu


JENNYANNEGLIKMAN‡ ( orcid.org/0000-0002-0208-5488) Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados, Córdoba, Spain


DAVID TONKYN ( orcid.org/0000-0001-9033-5776) Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, USA


PAING SOE World Wildlife Fund–Myanmar, Yangon, Myanmar DAVID O’CONNOR§¶ (


orcid.org/0000-0001-8604-1812) Institute for


Conservation Research San Diego Zoo Global, Escondido, USA AUNG MYO CHIT and PETER LEIMGRUBER (


orcid.org/0000-0002-3682-0153)


Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, USA


*Also at: Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, USA


†Also at: Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, USA


‡Also at: Institute for Conservation Research, San Diego Zoo Global, Escondido, USA §Also at: Save Giraffes Now, Dallas, USA ¶Also at: The Faculty of Biological Sciences, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany


Received 25 February 2020. Revision requested 29 July 2020. Accepted 29 January 2021. First published online 30 September 2021.


and conservation agencies to reduce criminal activity and to protect both Myanmar’s citizens and its elephants.


Keywords Asia, attitudes, conservation, Elephas maximus, illegal wildlife trade, perception, poaching, wildlife value orientation


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321000156


Introduction


to quantify the threat that the international wildlife trade poses to people (WWF/Dalberg, 2012). Some studies have documented links between the illegal wildlife trade and violence, organized crime and human trafficking (WWF/ Dalberg, 2012; Brashares et al., 2014;Douglas &Alie, 2014). However, community perceptions of wildlife poaching can vary as a result of factors that include the underlying motivation for poaching (e.g. subsistence, commercial, per- ceived injustice; Harrison et al., 2015), cultural traditions, economic status, and the relationships between poachers and the communities affected by poaching (McCay, 1984; Kuriyan, 2002; Rippl, 2002; Hampshire et al., 2004). Regardless of these perceptions, poaching poses a risk to both people and wildlife. Biodiversity is generally richest in rural areas, particularly


W


in developing nations (Myers et al., 2000), and these areas are often poaching hotspots. Rural communities frequently experience poverty and food insecurity, and havemore lim- ited access to education and health care compared to their urban counterparts. Wildlife conservation policy and man- agement often affect marginalized rural communities by re- ducing their access to natural resources, which can lead to negative attitudes towards conservation (Woodroffe et al., 2005; Mwangi et al., 2016) and jeopardize human–wildlife coexistence (Parry & Campbell, 1992; Woodroffe et al., 2005). In contrast, people living in urban areas are often un- aware of the difficulties that rural communities face, includ- ing reduced access to resources, intimidation by poachers and threats posed by wildlife. Consequently, urban and rural communities may have opposing experiences with, perceptions of, and attitudes towards poaching, illegal wildlife trade and conflict involving wildlife (Bandara & Tisdell, 2003).


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 609–616 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000156


ildlife agencies have documented the negative im- pacts of poaching on wildlife, but rarely attempted


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164