Rural and urban views on elephants 613
urban (n = 87) participants agreed that wildlife poachers should be punished for their actions, and .90% of both rural and urban participants believed that elephant poachers are likely to be captured by authorities. Most rural (70%, n = 79) and fewer urban (28%, n = 78)
participants reported being afraid of poachers (Table 2), for reasons including that poachers are ‘bad’ and ‘aggres- sive’, ‘bring guns and violence’, and ‘they can kill me’. Most rural participants (76%, n = 26) indicated that ele- phant poachers were native to Myanmar, whereas most urban participants (85%, n = 53) assumed that poachers came from both Myanmar and other countries. Both groups thought that the primary reason for poaching was for mon- etary gain (n = 58). When asked which parts of the elephant were taken by poachers, rural participants most commonly indicated tusks (64%, n = 83; Supplementary Material 6) and skin (39%), whereas urban participants mentioned tusks (69%, n = 95), skin (18%), or stated they did not know or did not answer the question (18%).
FIG. 3 Perceptions of rural and urban participants in Myanmar of the costs and benefits of living with elephants on a 5-point Likert scale (December 2016–May 2018). Asterisks denote significant differences between urban and rural respondents: ** P,0.01, *** P,0.001.
Discussion
Attitudes towards elephants Although both groups of participants overall had a positive view of elephants, there was a distinction in rural and urban attitudes towards elephants. Rural communities commonly see elephants as pests (De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Tisdell & Xiang, 1998), which may explain why rural participants rejected the possibility of human–elephant coexistence and were less supportive of protecting elephant habitat. Similarly, the threat of negative interactions with elephants may lead rural communities to deny the species’ ecological importance and undermine their support for elephant con- servation. However, rural residents perceived that elephants had a significantly greater importance in religion than did urban residents, although a majority of all participants self-identified as Buddhists.
Costs and benefits of living with elephants
FIG. 4 Motivations of rural and urban participants in Myanmar to comply with wildlife laws (December 2016–May 2018). Asterisks denote significant differences between urban and rural respondents: * P,0.05, *** P,0.001.
Urban participants were significantly more likely than
rural participants to state they were familiar with the coun- try’s wildlife laws (P = 0.03; Fig. 4) and believed they had a moral obligation to comply with elephant protection reg- ulations (P,0.001; Fig. 4). Both groups showed strong motivation for complying with laws that protect elephants (Fig. 4). Seventy per cent of rural (n = 80) and 92%of
Effective elephant conservation may result in increased wild populations and consequently greater challenges with re- spect to coexistence with people. Despite this, both urban and rural respondents felt that conserving elephants was not a waste of resources. Elephants can cause significant damage to crops and sometimes livestock (Fernando et al., 2005; Rodriguez & Sampson, 2019), which affects rural communities more directly than people in urban areas. Increasing negative interactions as a result of conservation ac- tions (Redpath et al., 2013) could result in rural participants being more inclined to prioritize the needs of people and livestock over elephant conservation. However, our findings
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
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