Introduction

Socioeconomic advancement in developing countries is often tied to the expansion of agriculture and the conversion of natural landscapes into areas for industry or settlement (Maitima et al., 2009; Nyamasyo & Kihima, 2014). Development of natural lands often intensifies habitat fragmentation and loss, bringing humans and wildlife into closer proximity and escalating human–wildlife conflict (HWC; Johnson, Vongkhamheng, Hedemark, & Saithongdam, 2006; Mbora & McPeek, 2009; Parker & Osborn, 2006). HWC with wildlife species that raid crops, prey on livestock, or endanger humans can impose substantial costs on local people and their livelihoods (Karanth, Gopalaswamy, Prasad, & Dasgupta, 2013; Madhusudan, 2003). As a result, one key challenge in garnering community support for the conservation of megafauna is managing HWC in the face of growing human populations and expanding development.

The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus L.) range includes countries with some of the highest human population densities globally (Fernando & Leimgruber, 2011). Asian wildlands that previously comprised prime elephant habitat are increasingly being developed to accommodate the needs of a growing human population (Bhagwat et al., 2017; Leimgruber et al., 2003). Development is necessary to improve the livelihoods and socioeconomic conditions of local communities, but is often difficult to balance with the conservation of surrounding ecosystems and biodiversity, including elephants. One of the most visible ways this imbalance is expressed is through human–elephant conflict (HEC; Figure 1), which is a direct result of habitat loss, and the subsequent conversion of natural lands into agriculture, leading to increasing interactions between humans and elephant.

Figure 1.

Common examples of human–elephant conflict (HEC) in Myanmar include crop raiding of rice paddies (left) and property destruction (right top and bottom). In addition, death and injury can result from HEC, such as when a monk was killed when an elephant knocked over the support beams in his home (top right). Photo credit: Christie Sampson.

HEC can result in the injury and death of humans and threatens the survival of the Asian elephant throughout their range (Fernando & Leimgruber, 2011; Fernando et al., 2005; Sukumar, 1989, 2003). Consequently, understanding the socioeconomic context of HEC is essential when designing efficient, long-term conservation and management plans and policies for Asian elephants. Active involvement of local people can help ensure that such programs are sustainable (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2013; Carter, Shrestha, Karki, Pradhan, & Liu, 2012; Ripple et al., 2014; Treves & Bruskotter, 2014) and that local needs and concerns are heard and incorporated into these efforts.

The extent and consequences of HEC can vary among communities 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). In addition, the local perception of HEC can also vary depending on cultures and traditions (Dickman, 2010; Skogen, Mauz, & Krange, 2009). A persistent issue in developing and applying conservation policies is finding ways to gain the support of local communities and engage them in collaborative conservation efforts (Borgerhoff Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005), because it requires a sufficient understanding of the complex HEC issues they face before initiating HEC mitigation programs. Interviews within local communities may reveal core issues associated with HEC that are unique to their locations and assist researchers in developing more effective elephant conservation programs.

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. The wild elephant population in Myanmar has declined from 10,000 elephants in the 1940s to an estimated 1,430 in the 2000s (Leimgruber et al., 2008; Leimgruber & Wemmer, 2004) primarily due to elephant capture for use as draft animals in the logging industry (Leimgruber et al., 2008); habitat loss (Songer, Aung, Allendorf, Calabrese, & Leimgruber, 2016); HEC (Leimgruber, Oo, et al., 2011, Santiapillai & Jackson, 1990), and, more recently, excessive poaching for elephant skin (Sampson et al., 2018). Understanding how local communities experience and view HEC, and their attitudes toward Myanmar’s wild elephant population is essential to organizations working to reduce HEC and gain these communities’ support for conservation.

To assess the importance of socioeconomics in determining local people’s perception of HEC, we conducted oral interviews in rural communities in Myanmar. Our main objectives were to

We hypothesized that rural communities would identify HEC as a major challenge to improving their quality of life, and that farmers in particular experience more HEC due to crop raiding by elephants than their non-farmer neighbors (i.e., grocery store owners, forest product collectors; henceforth referred to as non-farmers). We hypothesized that farmers perceive the challenges posed by environmental factors, such as drought or animal presence, to be greater than those posed by socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment or inadequate infrastructure, relative to non-farmers. We integrated responses from the interview survey with a land cover analysis to determine if people in villages predominately surrounded by resources utilized by elephants (e.g., forests or agricultural areas) perceive elephants to be a greater problem than people in villages lacking these resources. Finally, we expected that people who experienced higher levels of HEC express lower levels of support for elephant conservation.

Methods

Study Sites

Working with wildlife officials from the Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, we identified two areas with high HEC, Taikkyi and Hlegu townships, where we conducted our study (Figure 2). Both townships 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 estimated at 189,268 and 230,663 people, respectively (Department of Population, 2017).

Figure 2.

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).

We conducted interviews with 14 villages or village complexes (henceforth “villages”) within Taikkyi Township and 17 within Hlegu Township. These 31 villages accounted for all the permanent settlements that experienced HEC in our study townships. The primary occupations in the area are farming, collecting forest products such as thatch and firewood, and daily labor including construction and harvesting. As a control, we also conducted surveys in two villages, Hlae Hlaw Inn and Haing Ku in Hlegu Township, that had not experienced HEC for the previous 10 years or more, as confirmed by the village headmen and Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation.

Results

From the 31 villages subject to HEC, we interviewed 229 males and 59 females; the average age in our HEC sample was 46 (SD = 12.2). Of these, 205 (71%) stated their primary occupation was farming, while the remaining 83 (29%) non-farmers indicated that their primary occupation was working as daily labors or gathering forest products. In the two non-conflict villages, we surveyed 15 males who were all farmers; the average age in our non-HEC sample was 46 (SD = 9.4).

Determining Major Challenges Experienced by Rural Communities Facing HEC

Among villages facing HEC, a similarly high percentage of farmers (75%) and non-farmers (84%) said that a lack of capital or funds or poverty was the primary obstacle they faced to improving their quality of life (Table 1; Appendix C). The majority of farmers (67.5%) indicated that wild or domestic animals were the second greatest obstacle, while almost all non-farmers found them to be inconsequential (98.8%). Instead, non-farmers reported that the lack of employment opportunities (60%) was their second-greatest obstacle (Appendix C). More generally, non-farmers were more likely than farmers to indicate that unemployment, land availability, and natural disasters posed obstacles to improving their lives (p < .001; Table 1). Eighty-three percent of farmers responded that conflict with wild animals was the most prevalent issue for their cultivation, followed by lack of money (59%), and plant diseases (32%, Appendix C). Most of the farmers (95%) cited elephants as one of the main animal species that cause crop damage, followed by wild pigs (16%) and insects (14%).

Table 1.

Obstacles to Improving the Lives of Farmers and Nonfarmers in Taikkyi and Hlegu Townships, Myanmar in June and July 2014.

Identifying the Intensity and Types of HEC

For farmers living in the elephant conflict area, 54% reported that elephants were a major problem, with an additional 24% reporting elephants as a moderate problem (Appendix C). Further analysis indicated that older farmers (51–77 years old) were most closely associated with reporting the most severe level of HEC, while younger participants were more closely associated with reporting only minor levels of HEC (Figure 3, Appendix D). For non-farmers in these areas, 30% reported elephants were a major problem with another 30% indicating elephants posed a moderate problem (Appendix C). Farmers indicated crop and property damage as the main concerns when living with elephants, while non-farmers in elephant range cited property damage and personal or family safety as their most prevalent concerns. Most farmers had experienced crop loss due to elephants, with 38% reporting that they lost half or more of their crop in the 2013 growing season. More than two thirds of farmers reported that elephants were the only animal that caused crop damage in 2013.

Figure 3.

Multiple correspondence analysis of participants’ age, sex, occupation type, and degree of human–elephant conflict they experience in Myanmar (June and July 2014).

HEC = human–elephant conflict.

Although we predicted that communities surrounded by greater percentages of both rice and sugarcane would report higher levels of HEC, results suggest that only people in villages surrounded by greater amounts of sugarcane perceived greater levels of conflict (Figure 4). Both farmers and non-farmers indicated more severe amounts of HEC when their villages were surrounded by lower percentages of rice in comparison to higher percentages (Figure 4). In forested areas, we found that farmers reported a lower severity of HEC in areas with greater percentages of forest surrounding their village; however, the trend was not clear for non-farmers.

Figure 4.

Severity of human–elephant conflict (HEC) reported by participants in villages with 10% or more forest (top; farmer: n = 90, non-farmer: n = 49), sugarcane (middle; farmer: n = 42, non-farmer: n = 4), and rice (bottom; farmer: n = 95, n = 28) land cover in the 1 km buffer around each village center. Interviews conducted in Myanmar in June and July 2014.

HEC = human–elephant conflict.

Discussion

The consequences of living alongside wildlife can be extensive (Hoare, 1999). However, assuming that HWC is the only or primary challenge for rural communities may prevent researchers from identifying management strategies that would more effectively, even if indirectly, 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 elephant conservation, in contrast to other studies that have revealed feelings of helplessness and bitterness toward species involved in HWC (e.g., Mwangi et al., 2016).

The identification of poverty as the most prevalent concern with respect to improving quality of life 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 (Borgerhoff Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005). Previous research has demonstrated that rural communities value the economic potential elephants may provide to the community (Bauer, 2003; Naughton-Treves, 1998; Newmark, Leonard, Sariko, & Gamassa, 1993). Thus, community-based programs that provide compensation in excess of the cost incurred by HWC (Kaltenborn, Bjerke, & Nyahongo, 2006; Li, Xiaowei, Chuanlin, & Wei, 2010) and reinforce traditional conservation values are often more effective than standard deterrent-based strategies because they can help improve the perception of the conflict species (Kuriyan, 2002).

We are not surprised that farmers perceived the presence of both domestic and wild animals to be the second greatest impediment to improving their quality of life, as income generation for farmers is highly dependent on their ability to grow crops free from destruction by animals (e.g., Mwangi et al., 2016). Costs incurred by rural communities due to HWC can be substantial (Dickman, Macdonald, & Macdonald, 2011; Hulme & Murphree, 1999; Salerno, Borgerhoff Mulder, Grote, Ghiselli, & Packer, 2016) and have potentially lasting negative implications for households that share the landscape with conflict species.

Limited livelihood opportunities have been shown to be a consequence of loss of access to land or resources as a result of HWC (Coad, Campbell, Miles, & Humphries, 2008; Salerno et al., 2016; West, Igoe, & Brockington, 2006). 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 do not hire daily laborers to harvest because elephants destroyed their crops. However, few non-farmers reported that animals, including elephants, posed barriers to improving their quality of life, which could indicate that they may not associate HEC with poverty or a lack of employment opportunities.

Although HEC was not named the leading cause preventing rural communities from improving their lives, both farmers and non-farmers within the elephant range perceived elephants to be a moderate or major problem. While elephant damage can be devastating, particularly when considering the collateral damage from trampling that can exceed the amount actually consumed by the elephants (Naughton-Treves, 1998; Parker & Osborne, 2006) was thought to occur infrequently (Naughton-Treves, 1998). In contrast to this, a third of the farmers in our study site reported losing half or more of their crops due to elephants in 2013. This substantial amount of conflict is reflected in the multiple correspondence analysis which associated farmers with reporting the greatest severity of HEC. This analysis also closely associated older participants with reporting major levels of HEC and younger participants with minor levels, perhaps because older participants may feel they would be unable to escape a potential elephant attack (e.g., climb a tree to avoid a charging elephant) as well as a younger person could.

These findings are also seen in the severe HEC reported in areas with higher percentages of sugarcane as the participants interviewed were primarily farmers. Reports of more severe conflict in these areas could be due to sugarcane’s longer growing season which may provide a more continuous food source for elephants, and more potential crop raiding, resulting in higher levels of HEC over the year. For villages near rice paddies; however, we found that even participants with low percentages of rice near their village reported severe HEC. This difference could be because sugarcane plantations tend to be larger and owned by wealthier community members in comparison to rice farmers. The threat of crop destruction may make rice farmers more sensitive to HEC if they are unable to endure significant crop losses as well as their richer neighbors. In contrast to the two crop resources we analyzed, the low severity of HEC reported by farmers in areas with more forest is in line with our earlier finding that this group of participants primarily regards elephants as a danger to crops and by extension their livelihood.

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 drought. Thus, it is possible that much of crop loss blamed on elephants in villages within elephant range may instead be due to insects, disease, or drought. Further, some individuals within the elephant range reported losses due to other animals, including domesticated animals and wild pigs, comparable to the amount others lost and attributed to elephant crop raiding (Appendix C).

Quantifying the amount of damage done by elephants in comparison to other species is imperative (Lahm, 1996) so that wildlife managers can determine if damage is correctly attributed to elephants. Naughton-Treves (1998) found that crop damage due to livestock was as great or exceeded the damage caused by some wildlife species, and that the number of individual crop raiding occurrences by livestock far exceeded the number of crop raiding occurrences by elephants. Working with local communities to improve their understanding of the types of damage done by elephants and having community experts such as mahouts (i.e., captive elephant caretakers and trainers) 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 and will allow for the deployment of more effective mitigation strategies (Dickman, 2010).

Maintaining or increasing the tolerance levels for HEC observed in this study is critical to long-term conservation sustainability (Behdarvand et al., 2014; Behr, Ozgul, & Cozzi, 2017; Suryawanshi, Bhatia, Bhatnagar, Redpath, & Mishra, 2014). It is essential for researchers to understand if perceived causes of conflict are rooted in superstition or more scientifically based reasoning to ensure that they do not also need to address societal or cultural beliefs in order to develop effective mitigation. Participants’ identification of the reasons why elephants injured humans as (a) it was done accidentally when they were trying to get to food resources or (b) because the human population had moved into elephant habitat, align with past studies attributing an increase in HEC to human expansion into wildlands (e.g., Fernando et al., 2005, Kioko, Kiringe, & Omondi, 2006; Okello, 2005). However, other studies (e.g., Prokop, Fančovičová, & Kubiatko, 2009) found community members facing HWC can believe that wildlife attacks were motivated primarily by cultural superstitions rather than ecological drivers. Our conversations with community members revealed that some believed that a recent HEC event which resulted in a woman’s death was perpetrated by a “vampire elephant” that was killing people to drink their blood. Still, as a majority of the participants attributed the drivers of HEC to ecological factors rather than superstitious motivations, the responses in our study support an optimistic view for continued conservation efforts in this area.

Other studies have concluded that people who have experienced HEC are more likely to engage in HEC mitigation to prevent future damage (Fernando et al., 2005; Karanth & Kudalkar, 2017). Rural communities in Myanmar rely principally on reactive mitigation strategies (e.g., physical barriers, deterrents, or driving away elephants) to combat HEC, although it has been suggested that these methods may be ineffective over the long term (Fernando et al., 2008). In addition, these disruptive and at times aggressive techniques can actually result in an increase of HEC and may potentially increase the number of attacks on humans by elephants (Fernando et al., 2008).

Identifying participants’ favored mitigation strategies allows local conservationists to address community expectations, the feasibility of implementation, and the necessary community input expected for the success of such mitigation strategies. Such information allows conservationists to make adjustments as needed based on what is realistically achievable. Erecting physical barriers and improving deterrents have proven successful in preventing elephants from causing damage in other countries (Fernando et al., 2008) and can be adapted for use by local communities. Barriers such as electric fences, however, may merely displace the conflict (Hill & Wallace, 2012) and create tensions with neighboring farms or villages (U Khin Muang Gyi, personal communication). In addition, these mitigation methods can be expensive to implement and can bring further inequality to the poorest members of the community who are unable to invest in or maintain effective barriers (Barua, Bhagwat, & Jadhav, 2013; Naughton-Treves, 1998). Other strategies such as educational outreach programs focus on best practices when confronted with elephants and behavioral modification to avoid HEC (e.g., keeping rice and other attractants away from the home, phone, or other alert systems for approaching elephants). These efforts were initiated by the research team and collaborators in 2015 and provided at no cost to communities through Myanmar’s rural schools and community centers in the study area, and on national television.

Although preferences for moving elephants to other locations was expressed as an HEC mitigation method, permanent translocation of elephants is expensive and hard to achieve as elephants often return to the areas from which they were taken (Fernando et al., 2008; Fernando, Leimgruber, Prasad, & Pastorini, 2012). Even if successful, translocation can simply move the conflict from one location to another. However, because we have identified this as the most desirous action, conservationists can incorporate a detailed explanation on the improbability of translocation as an effective management solution into future communication (i.e., town halls with local councilmen, community meetings) to demonstrate to the community that their concerns and wishes are being assimilated into the management plan.

Even though few participants advocated for the killing of elephants to reduce HEC, it should be noted that the study site and areas across central Myanmar experienced high levels of poaching during the course of this research (Sampson et al., 2018) which may be leading to further population declines. The degree of involvement in poaching activities by local community members is unclear, though several people in the area were arrested on poaching related charges between 2014 and 2017. Local informants have also provided details of a sophisticated logistic network for moving poached elephant products out of Myanmar, indicating the presence of organized international criminal groups. This poaching seems to be mostly driven by financial interests, specifically supplying elephant skins to the Chinese traditional medicine market (Nijman & Shepherd, 2014) and not by local people retaliating against crop raiding elephants.

Implications for Conservation

This study has answered critical questions including what challenges are faced by the residents within our study area and their conservation attitudes. The widespread support for the conservation of Asian elephants provides great hope for potential and continued collaboration with local communities. However, adapting conservation efforts so that they consider the primary socioeconomic challenges expressed by our sample may help to increase the effectiveness of such conservation efforts by facilitating a stronger connection between conservation and human well-being. Future studies that assess the most effective means of including socioeconomic considerations into conservation planning are recommended.

Appendix A.

Table A1.

Complete List of Questions Asked During the Interview Survey in June and July 2014 in Myanmar.

Appendix B.

Visual guide to assist farmers quantify crop loss due to elephants and other factors. The guide served as a tool to help farmers estimate crop damage and did not accurately reflect the pattern of crop loss. Crop loss percentages were chosen to allow for greater definition of damages at the finer scale due to potential multiple sources (i.e., drought, insects, and animals) after informal discussions with stakeholders prior to the survey. Participants were asked to indicate the closest percentage that represented their loss.

Appendix C

Table C1.

Responses From Farmers and Non-Farmers in 31 Villages Inside of the Elephant Range.

Appendix D.

Table D1.

Summary of Variables Included in Multiple Correspondence Analysis.