Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34252109›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A quantitative assessment of the indirect impacts of human-elephant conflict.

Christie Sampson, S L Rodriguez, Peter Leimgruber, Qiongyu Huang, David Tonkyn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effects of organized guarding on mortality from human-elephant conflict in northeast India.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christie SampsonDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1873-4355
S L RodriguezDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.
Peter LeimgruberSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, Virginia, United States of America.
Qiongyu HuangSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, Virginia, United States of America.
David TonkynDepartment of Biological Sciences Department, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict has direct and indirect consequences for human communities. Understanding how both types of conflict affect communities is crucial to developing comprehensive and sustainable mitigation strategies. We conducted an interview survey of 381 participants in two rural areas in Myanmar where communities were exposed to human-elephant conflict (HEC). In addition to documenting and quantifying the types of direct and indirect impacts experienced by participants, we evaluated how HEC influences people's attitudes towards elephant conservation. We found that 99% of participants suffered from some type of indirect impact from HEC, including fear for personal and family safety from elephants and fear that elephants will destroy their home. Despite experiencing moderate levels of indirect impacts from HEC at the community level, participants expressed attitudes consistent with supporting future elephant conservation programs.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesHuman-Animal InteractionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsAnimals, WildElephantsFearFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyanmarSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34252109
PMCPMC8274878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.