Estimating hunting prevalence and reliance on wild meat in Cambodia's Eastern Plains
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Estimating hunting prevalence and reliance on wild
meat in Cambodia's Eastern Plains
HARRIET IBBETT, AIDAN KEANE, ANDREW D.M. DOBSON, OLLY GRIFFIN
H E N R Y T R A V E R S and E . J . M I L N E R - G U L L A N D
Abstract Hunting is a primary driver of biodiversity loss Introduction
across South-east Asia. Within Cambodia, the use of wire
unting threatens % of terrestrial mammal species
snares to capture wildlife is a severe threat in protected
areas but there have been few studies of the behaviour of H globally (Ripple et al., ), and is estimated to
have decreased bird and mammal abundances by and
hunters from local communities. Here, we combine the
unmatched count technique with direct questioning to %, respectively, in some tropical areas (Benitez-Lopez
estimate the prevalence of hunting behaviours and wildlife et al., ). The situation is particularly severe in South-
consumption amongst households living within Keo east Asia, where most large wild vertebrate species have
Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. We assessed respon- declined substantially throughout their remaining ranges
dents’ knowledge of rules, and their perceptions of patrols (Sodhi et al., ; Harrison et al., ). Here, forests are
responsible for enforcing rules. Estimates of hunting be- increasingly considered empty; i.e. devoid of all but the
haviour were variable: results from the unmatched count smallest or most common species (Harrison, ), with
technique were inconclusive, and direct questioning re- overexploitation facilitated by advancements in hunting
vealed % of households hunted, and % set snares around technologies, rapid economic growth and improved access
farms to prevent wildlife eating crops. Hunting with domes- to forested areas (Harrison et al., ; Hughes, ).
tic dogs was the method most commonly used to catch Cambodia is one of the most biodiverse countries in
wildlife (% of households owned dogs). Wild meat was South-east Asia (Daltry, ) and is legally one of the
consumed by % of households, and was most frequently best protected, with % of terrestrial land area afforded
bought or caught, but also gifted. We detected a high aware- protected status (Souter et al., ). However, in reality pro-
ness of conservation rules, but low awareness of punish- tected areas are chronically underfunded, overexploitation
ments and penalties, with wildlife depletion, rather than of natural resources is widespread, and laws are weakly en-
the risk of being caught by patrols, causing the greatest forced (Souter et al., ). Hunting has probably driven
reduction in hunting. Our findings demonstrate the chal- the kouprey Bos sauveli to extinction, extirpated the Javan
lenges associated with reliably estimating rule-breaking rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus and tiger Panthera tigris
behaviour and highlight the need to incorporate careful (O’Kelly et al., ), and continues to threaten the viability
triangulation into study design. of many other species (Starr et al., ; O’Kelly et al., ;
Rostro-García et al., ). Cambodia has a high prevalence
Keywords Bushmeat, Cambodia, law enforcement, poach- of hunting and reliance on wild meat, with an estimated %
ing, protected areas, ranger patrols, snares, unmatched of rural households engaged in some form of harvest of wild
count technique animals at least once per year (Nielsen et al., ). Snares
Supplementary material for this article is available at are widely used; in , , were removed by patrols in
doi.org/./S Cambodia’s South Cardamoms National Park (Gray et al.,
), with true snare abundance probably much higher,
as experimental studies suggest only a small proportion of
snares set are found by rangers (O’Kelly et al., ; Ibbett
et al., ). Usually made from wire, cable or nylon, snares
are affordable, accessible, and have limited selectivity with
respect to animals’ species, sex or age (Noss, ). Once
set, they can trap a wide range of arboreal and terrestrial
HARRIET IBBETT (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0003-1213-4834), species (Borgerson, ; Ingram et al., ) and, although
HENRY TRAVERS and E. J. MILNER-GULLAND Department of Zoology, University animals occasionally escape, subsequent non-fatal injuries
of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK. E-mail harriet.ibbett@bangor.ac.uk
often jeopardize long-term survival (Yersin et al., ).
AIDAN KEANE and ANDREW D. M. DOBSON School of Geosciences, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
The impact of hunting on Cambodia’s fauna is well docu-
mented (Harrison et al., ), but there is less empirical
OLLY GRIFFIN Wildlife Conservation Society—Cambodia Programme, Phnom
Penh, Cambodia information about hunters, their hunting methods, and
Received September . Revision requested November . local demand for wildlife products (but see Martin &
Accepted December . Phipps, ; Loucks et al., ; Coad et al., ). This
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge
DownloadedUniversity
from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address:
Press must be obtained for commercial re-use46.4.80.155, oncreate
or in order to 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34,
a derivative work. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001455
Oryx, Page 1 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S00306053190014552 H. Ibbett et al.
FIG. 1 Keo Seima Wildlife
Sanctuary in Mondulkiri
Province, Cambodia,
indicating all settlements
located within and close to the
protected area (the study
villages are not identified, to
ensure anonymity), and ranger
patrol stations.
may be partly because gathering robust information about semi-evergreen and evergreen forest in Mondulkiri and
hunting is challenging, especially in contexts where it is a re- Kratie provinces on the eastern border of Cambodia (Fig. ;
stricted or prohibited activity (Nuno & St John, ). Hunting Evans et al., ). The Sanctuary lies within a wider forested
in Cambodian protected areas is a punishable offence landscape known as the Eastern Plains, and supports re-
(Forestry Administration, ; MoE, ), and thus those gionally important populations of Asian elephant Elephas
who violate rules may not wish to identify themselves for maximus, wild cattle Bos spp., and globally important popu-
fear of sanctions (Solomon et al., ). When asked directly, lations of primates (Nomascus gabriellae, Pygathrix nigripes;
respondents may refuse to participate, provide inaccurate re- Griffin, ).
sponses, conceal their true attitudes, beliefs or behaviours, or Approximately , people live within and around the
temper their answers so as to appear more socially acceptable Sanctuary, the majority of whom are Bunong, an animist
(known as ‘social desirability bias’; Tourangeau & Yan, ; minority Indigenous people who have strong spiritual con-
Krumpal, ). Acquiring robust and reliable data on hunting nections to the forest and its wildlife. Traditionally, the
prevalence is nonetheless important to ensure conservation Bunong practised swidden agriculture, and relied heavily on
interventions are targeted towards the most appropriate non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as honey, fish, rat-
groups (St John et al., ; Jones et al., ). tan, wild fruit, vegetables and wildlife for subsistence (Evans
Here, we quantify the prevalence of hunting amongst rural et al., ). The construction of roads has brought market
communities in a Cambodian protected area. We use the un- integration to previously inaccessible villages and strength-
matched count technique, an indirect questioning approach, ened cross-border trade links with Viet Nam (Mahanty &
to estimate the prevalence of hunting as a subsistence and Milne, ). Many households have abandoned traditional
income-generating livelihood activity. Use of a specialized swidden agricultural practices in favour of more profitable
questioning technique can allow the biases typically asso- cash crops such as cassava and cashew (Travers et al., ).
ciated with direct questioning to be overcome by assuring Villages, particularly those on the periphery, have experi-
greater levels of anonymity, although often at the cost of enced large influxes of Khmer (the majority ethnic group in
lower precision (Nuno & St John, ). We couple this Cambodia) families seeking land, and forest cover has de-
with direct questioning to derive further information about clined as a result of subsequent clearance for small-scale
seasonality, methods used, species caught and consumed, farms (Mahanty & Milne, ; Riggs et al., ). In addition,
and trends in hunting activity. Finally, we assess local peoples’ the forest has experienced severe pressure from illegal logging
knowledge of rules regarding the capture and use of wildlife, for luxury timber, as well as industrial-scale forest clearance
and their perceptions of the ranger patrols responsible for associated with government granting of Economic Land
enforcing protected area rules. Concessions within protected area boundaries.
Prior to , Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary was
managed as a Protection Forest by the Government’s
Study area Forestry Administration. In jurisdictional reforms of
natural resource management resulted in transfer to the
Our study was conducted in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Ministry of Environment under sub-decree , and reclassi-
a , km area of protected mixed deciduous dipterocarp, fication as a Wildlife Sanctuary, with the principal objective
Oryx, Page 2 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001455Estimating hunting in Cambodia 3
of preserving and protecting wildlife (MoE, ). Accord- asked about any problems with wildlife on farms, and their
ing to the Forestry Law, it is strictly prohibited to perceptions of any change in hunting levels over the pre-
hunt, harm or harass all wildlife, and under the vious years.
Protected Area Law, killing wildlife and releasing hunting
dogs is strictly forbidden, and regulated extraction of NTFPs
and sustainable use is allowed in some zones within the Measuring hunting prevalence
protected area (MoE, ). Hunting occurs throughout To reduce social desirability and non-response biases, we
the Sanctuary, however, and previous research has high- used the unmatched count technique to investigate the pro-
lighted the reliance of local communities on wild meat for portion of households that collected wild meat, took snares to
subsistence purposes (Travers, ) and to supplement in- the forest to hunt, and hunted to generate income in the pre-
come. Hunting is also undertaken by outsiders (i.e. people vious year. Half the sample were randomly allocated to a con-
who do not live within or immediately around the forest) trol group who received a list of non-sensitive items, and the
for sport, commercial purposes and subsistence (Drury, treatment group received a list that included the same non-
; Evans et al., ). Responsibility for enforcing rules sensitive items, plus an additional sensitive item (Nuno &
lies with – government rangers working across pa- St John, ). Respondents were asked to report only the
trol stations. Since the government has received fi- number of items applicable to them, never which items.
nancial and technical support for the management of the Item scores were averaged across groups, and the prevalence
Sanctuary from the Wildlife Conservation Society. of the sensitive item was estimated from the difference
between the means. The unmatched count technique re-
quires large sample sizes, and estimates can have wide stan-
Methods
dard errors (Hinsley et al., ); to mitigate against this, we
employed a double-list unmatched count technique, in which
Ethical considerations
participants simultaneously act as control and treatment
Upon arrival in each village, we met the village chief to explain groups by answering a control and treatment list for the
our research aims and seek permission to work in the commu- same question, but with the set of non-sensitive items differ-
nity. Before each interview the research purpose, risks, benefits, ing between the two lists (Droitcour et al., ). Prevalence of
and proposed use of the data were explained to participants the sensitive item is derived by calculating the mean score
before verbal consent was sought (Supplementary Material ). across the paired lists (Glynn, ). Because of high levels
All interviews were voluntary, anonymous, and conducted in of illiteracy, pictorial lists were used, and items were verbally
Khmer or Bunong by independent enumerators unassociated described to participants. A practice question on fruit con-
with the Wildlife Conservation Society. Hunting is illegal, and sumption was used to introduce the method, and follow-up
therefore to protect participants against reprisals questions on questions were asked to assess respondents’ understanding.
hunting were targeted at the household rather than individual At the end of the interview, respondents were asked directly
level, and village names have been anonymized here to offer whether they currently or had ever hunted and, if so, the spe-
additional protection. All methods were piloted before data cies they caught, how often they hunted, the methods used,
collection, in households during February . and their reasons for hunting.
Household surveys Knowledge of conservation rules
During February–April , we interviewed people in We assessed knowledge of rules pertaining to hunting activity,
households in villages (Fig. ). Between and % of and the perceived likelihood of () a neighbour knowing if
households were surveyed per village, with houses identi- someone had caught wildlife, () being caught by a patrol
fied using a systematic sampling strategy in which ques- when hunting and () receiving a penalty if caught. We mea-
tionnaires were administered at every nth house, with n sured social acceptability by asking respondents whether they
inversely related to village size. We interviewed any available would approve if a friend or family member went hunting.
respondent above the age of in each household. If respon- Finally, we asked households whether they had ever been caught
dents declined or were absent, interviews were conducted by a patrol in possession of wildlife, and if so what happened.
at the next available house. Enumerators collected data on
respondent demographics and household livelihood strat- Analysis
egies, household reliance on wildlife species for meat and
medicine, specifically the frequency with which species were Prior to analysis, unmatched count technique data were
consumed, how wildlife was accessed, and the most preferred tested to determine whether individual responses to
meat (Supplementary Material & ). Respondents were also the non-sensitive item changed depending upon the
Oryx, Page 3 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00306053190014554 H. Ibbett et al.
respondents’ treatment status (design effects). This test was
conducted using the ict.test function in the list package
of R .. (Blair et al., ; R Core Team, ). If a
Bonferroni-corrected P-value of , . was detected, this
was interpreted as evidence for the presence of design
effects, which were detected for one list (Supplementary
Material ). In addition, both floor and ceiling effects were
detected for all lists. Floor effects occur if a higher than ex-
pected number of respondents give an aswer of (i.e. none
of the items were applicable), and ceiling effects occur if the
maximum number of items is reported for each list (i.e. all
the items were applicable). Both effects reduce anonymity
and indicate the method did not function as expected.
Prevalence estimates were calculated by combining the
scores from list pairs using the ictreg function in R. FIG. 2 Temporal change in the prevalence of hunting reported
by respondents in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary in .
Results
In total, % of respondents were men, % were women.
Respondents were Bunong (%), Khmer (%) or from
other Indigenous groups (Stieng, Laotian, Cham; %).
Respondents had lived in their village for a mean of ±
SD . years, with ± SD . years of formal education.
The main sources of household income were farming
(% of households), shops or businesses (%), resin col-
lection (%), opportunistic paid labour (%), salaried work
(%) or illegal logging (%). Eighty-four per cent of house-
holds collected NTFPs, and % collected resin.
FIG. 3 Triangulated estimates of hunting prevalence in Keo
Wildlife hunting Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, with % confidence intervals.
DQ indicates questions in which respondents where asked
Hunting prevalence, frequency & seasonality directly about hunting. UCT indicates findings from the
When directly questioned, % of households reported hunt- unmatched count technique ( of respondents answered
ing, and % of households reported they used to hunt but questions).
no longer did. When asked to indicate the year they ceased
hunting (Fig. ), % of hunters indicated they stopped
hunting after . Reasons included increased difficulty who reported hunting (, %; Fig. ). Unmatched count
in catching wildlife (% of retired hunters), reduced time technique estimates for taking snares to the forest and hunt-
available for hunting (%), lack of dogs to hunt with ing for income were also unreliable and did not significantly
(%), old age (%) and concern about meeting law en- differ from zero (Supplementary Material ).
forcement patrols (%). The unmatched count technique In households where people directly reported hunting
warm-up question regarding prevalence of fruit consump- (% of all respondents) there was a mean of . hunting trips
tion appeared to work as expected, estimating ± SE % per month, almost double the number reported by retired
of respondents consumed the sensitive fruit, but the ques- hunters (% of respondents, . trips per month). When
tion on hunting provided a negative prevalence estimate asked what they would do if hunting became harder (i.e. wild-
(Fig. ). Ideally, no respondent should report that all items life was caught less frequently), % of current hunters would
on either the control or treatment list were applicable to stop, % would seek new hunting grounds, % would continue
them (i.e. nobody should answer or ), but responses to to collect other NTFPs (hunting if the opportunity arose),
the question were subject to ceiling effects, meaning some % would change method, and % were unsure. Seventy-
respondents reported all items on the lists were applicable. seven per cent of all respondents thought more hunting
Although this undermines assurances of anonymity (be- occurred in the wet season when the absence of leaf litter
cause the interviewer knows the sensitive answer applies on the forest floor made it easier to walk quietly in the forest,
to the respondent), it provides a direct count of households snares could be set around fruiting trees such as wild almond
Oryx, Page 4 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001455Estimating hunting in Cambodia 5
Irvingia malayana, and wildlife was easier to catch as animals TABLE 1 Hunting methods reported by a total of retired hunters
were distracted while foraging on new growth. In addition, it (% of respondents surveyed) and current hunters (% of re-
was reported that lulls in agriculture and logging meant peo- spondents surveyed) in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia,
in .
ple had more time to allocate to hunting, and poor road con-
ditions reduced the chance of encountering ranger patrols. No. of retired No. of current
Six per cent of respondents indicated hunting was more fre- Method hunters (%) hunters (%)
quent in the dry season when the absence of foliage made it Dogs 155 (81) 52 (87)
easier for dogs to run unhindered, and when water scarcity Slingshot 73 (38) 28 (47)
meant efforts could be targeted around water sources. Sev- Snares 40 (21) 8 (13)
enteen per cent of respondents did not know when most Crossbow 12 (6) 2 (3)
hunting occurred. Gun 5 (3) 0 (0)
Total no. of respondents 192 60
Hunting methods
Dogs were the most commonly reported hunting method Protecting crops
(% of current hunters), followed by slingshot (%), Alongside killing wildlife for food, medicine and income,
snares (%) and crossbow (%; Table ). Only % of all respondents reported killing wildlife to protect crops. Sev-
respondents reported ever having set snares in the forest, enty-one per cent of all households reported that wildlife
and only eight interviewees reported currently doing so ate or destroyed crops, and % reported setting snares (a
(%), setting a mean of snares, although one respondent mean of per household) around farms to protect crops.
reported maintaining snares. Four per cent of households reported setting –
People in % of current hunting households reported snares. The main problem species reported were the wild
using more than one method to catch wildlife. Dogs boar (% of respondents with wildlife problems), long-tailed
and slingshots were reported more frequently by current macaque (%), elephant (%) and green peafowl Pavo
hunters than retired hunters, with snares, crossbows and muticus (%). Other species mentioned included the East
guns reported less frequently by current hunters (Table ). Asian porcupine Hystrix brachyura, red muntjac, jungle
Respondents often said that guns were only used by people fowl and bamboo rat (Rhizomyini spp.).
outside the community or authorities, such as police or the
military. Several respondents reported seeing soldiers hunting Hunting by dogs
primates, with guns, and another stated they had seen men
Seventy-nine per cent of households owned dogs, and % of
with rifles, in × vehicles, with cool-boxes to take meat
those who went to the forest took dogs with them for com-
away. One respondent said they had borrowed a gun from
panionship and for protection against encounters with wild-
the police to shoot black-shanked douc langur P. nigripes.
life. Although a few respondents reported actively using dogs
Of those that reported hunting, % said they did so only
to hunt species such as muntjac and sambar, many of those
for subsistence, % hunted for food and income, and only
who reported dogs killing wildlife said it was unintentional.
one household reported hunting solely for income. One indi-
When accompanying owners to the forest, dogs would
vidual said that, if successful, they could earn USD –
chase wildlife scents. Owners also reported dogs roaming
per month selling meat to villagers or external traders. This
away from home to hunt, catching species such as monitor
is considerably more than the monthly earnings of a casual
lizards, chevrotains, turtles and tortoises. Excluding puppies,
labourer, which are KHR ,–, per day (USD –
we recorded a total of , dogs; the mean number of dogs
per month). The most commonly caught species were
owned across all households was . (a mean of .
monitor lizard (Varanus spp., % of current hunters), wild
dogs per dog-owning households). Approximately %
boar Sus scrofa (%), chevrotain (Tragulus spp., %) and
of households were surveyed, suggesting the total number
civets (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus, Viverra zibetha, %;
of domestic dogs living within Keo Seima Wildlife Sanc-
Table ). Other species caught included northern red munt-
tuary could exceed ,, or . per km, a higher density
jac Muntiacus vaginalis, sambar Rusa unicolor, long and pig-
than many species of conservation interest (Wildlife Conser-
tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis, Macaca nemestrina), black-
vation Society, unpubl. data).
shanked douc langur, southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon
Nomascus gabriellae, Sunda colugo Galeopterus variegatus,
red jungle fowl Gallus gallus, and various tortoise, turtle and
Wildlife use and consumption
squirrel species. Compared to retired hunters, a greater
proportion of current hunters reported catching monitor Eighty-five per cent of all households consumed wild meat,
lizards and civets, and fewer reported catching wild boar, and % used wildlife products for medicinal purposes.
muntjacs and chevrotains (Table ). Overall, % of respondents preferred eating wild meat
Oryx, Page 5 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00306053190014556 H. Ibbett et al.
TABLE 2 Species most commonly caught, as reported by a total of current and retired hunters in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary,
Cambodia, in .
Species National status (Red List status1) No. of retired hunters (%) No. of current hunters (%)
Monitor lizard Varanus spp. Common (LC) 116 (60) 43 (71)
Wild boar Sus scrofa Common (LC) 78 (41) 17 (28)
Chevrotain Tragulus spp. Unclassified (LC) 46 (24) 8 (13)
Northern red muntjac Muntiacus vaginalis Common (LC) 26 (15) 2 (3)
Civets2 Common (LC) 9 (5) 7 (12)
Primates3 Common/Rare (LC/EN) 11 (6) 3 (6)
Sambar Rusa unicolor Common (VU) 2 (1) 1 (, 1)
Total no. of repondents 192 60
LC, Least concern; VN, Vulnerable; EN, Endangered.
Common palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus and large Indian civet Viverra zibetha.
Long-tailed/pig-tailed macaque Macaca fascicularis/nemestrina: Common/LC; black-shanked douc langur Pygathrix nigripes and yellow-cheeked crested
gibbon Nomascus gabriellae: Rare/EN.
TABLE 3 Reasons given by respondents living in Keo Seima % reported being given wild meat by family or neigh-
Wildlife Sanctuary when asked about their preference for differ- bours. More households ate wild meat in the wet (% of
ent types of meat in (six respondents indicated they had no consumers) than in the dry season (%), with wild meat
preference, and six did not answer the question).
also consumed more frequently in the wet (mean .
Meat type preferred times per month) than in the dry season (mean . times
Reason for preference Wild meat (%) Domestic meat (%)
per month). This corroborates the reportedly higher fre-
quency of wildlife interactions in the wet season, when
It is better for your health 299 (42) 16 (2)
It has no chemicals 235 (33) 5 (, 1)
species can be caught eating crops. In addition, domestic
It is tastier 209 (30) 21 (3) meat alternatives were reportedly less available during the
It is natural 58 (8) – wet season, as rain restricts traders’ access and villagers
It is more affordable 1 (, 1) 7 (, 1) have less income to purchase domestic meat.
It is easier to buy – 122 (17) The species most commonly reported as eaten were wild
Total no. of respondents 490 (70) 166 (24) boar (%), monitor lizard (%), muntjac (%), chevrotain
(%), monkeys (%), civets (%), sambar (%), tortoises and
turtles (%) and jungle fowl (%). Snakes, porcupine and
to domestic alternatives, mostly because wild meat was other rodents accounted for , % each. Species most likely
believed to be healthier, free from chemicals, and chnganh to be bought were wild boar, monitor lizard and red muntjac.
(delicious) (Table ). Twenty-four per cent of respondents Species most likely to be caught were monitor lizard, wild
preferred domestic meat, mostly because it was more access- boar, chevrotain and muntjac, and monitor lizard was most
ible. Domestic meat was reportedly more widely sold, and likely to be gifted (Table ). The most common species
easier to buy in small quantities, than wild meat, which used for medicine were the slow loris Nycticebus pygmaeus
was usually only sold by the kilogram. Several respondents (% of households) and the porcupine (%). In some villages,
said wild meat could unknowingly be bought, as it is difficult slow loris could be ordered from local hunters, who caught
to differentiate meat once butchered. Only % of respon- them at night using spotlights and slingshots. Others bought
dents who preferred domestic meat cited affordability, and slow loris or porcupine from neighbours or traders, when
prices often overlapped. Wild boar, for example, was USD available. One respondent reported that a tonic made from
.–. per kg in villages, whereas domestic pork in the rice wine and slow loris, traditionally given to mothers
district town (which is usually cheaper for commodities in after childbirth, could be purchased at one of the provincial
general than villages) was USD –./kg. Muntjac and sam- markets. Other species mentioned more than once for medic-
bar meat was less available, and more expensive than wild inal purposes included chevrotain (% of households), cobra
boar meat (village price USD –./kg). (Naja spp., %), flying squirrel (Pteromyini, %), muntjac
Respondents reported accessing wild meat in several (%), civet (%), black-shanked douc (%), Sunda pangolin
ways. It was most commonly (% of respondents) bought Manis javanica (%) and hornbill (Bucerotidae spp., , %).
from villagers or motorcycle traders from the district town. The majority of respondents believed that since
Some said traders hid meat in compartments under their levels of hunting (% of respondents), wildlife consump-
motorbike seats. Thirty-three per cent of respondents tion (%) and sale of wildlife by villagers (%) had
reported catching wild animals to eat, which is surprising decreased. Fifty-four per cent of respondents believed hunt-
considering only a small proportion (%) reported hunting; ing levels had declined because wildlife was scarcer and
Oryx, Page 6 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001455Estimating hunting in Cambodia 7
TABLE 4 χ tests of association between whether a species was re-
ported as consumed by a household, and how wild meat was ac-
cessed (with degree of freedom). All species reported as eaten
were tested, but only species for which there were positive asso-
ciations with access type are reported.
How household Species household
accessed wild meat reported consuming χ2 P
Bought Wild boar 58.266 , 0.001
Monitor lizard 19.338 , 0.001
Muntjac 18.362 , 0.001
Caught Monitor lizard 121.020 , 0.001
Wild boar 40.765 , 0.001
Chevrotain 20.410 , 0.001 FIG. 4 The perception of respondents regarding whether
Muntjac 7.271 0.007 neighbours would know about a villager’s hunting activity,
Gifted Monitor lizard 4.941 0.026 a villager being caught by a patrol if hunting, and a villager
receiving a penalty if caught by a patrol in Keo Siema Wildlife
Sanctuary.
therefore harder to catch, % thought patrols deterred
people, % said forest loss meant there was nowhere to
hunt, and % said livelihood changes meant people were animals, such as elephants, was not. Twelve per cent of respon-
now too busy farming cash crops to hunt. Reasons freely dents thought others would approve of hunting, and % did
given by respondents for these changes included growing not know or had no opinion. If someone in the village caught
village populations increasing demand for wildlife, and wildlife, % of respondents thought it likely that neighbours
because hunters secretly sold wildlife to traders. Others would know (Fig. ). Some respondents said it was difficult
suggested that increasing village populations meant people to keep it secret because children would spread the news,
were less inclined to share wild meat with neighbours, to although secrecy would allow people to avoid sharing their
avoid having to share wild meat with many people. Fifty- catch and reduce the risk of being reported.
two per cent of respondents believed that hunting by
outsiders had decreased, % of respondents did not know Perceptions of law enforcement effectiveness
or thought hunting was not undertaken by outsiders, and If a villager hunted, only % of respondents thought it like-
% thought hunting by outsiders had increased. Outsiders ly that a patrol would catch them, but if caught, % thought
were typically regarded as people from outside the com- it likely a hunter would receive a penalty (Fig. ). Expected
mune. Some respondents stated that declines in hunting penalties listed by respondents included arrest (% of re-
by local people meant there was more wildlife, which spondents), warning (%), fine (%), and confiscation of
attracted outsiders to hunt. meat and/or snares (%). Twenty-four per cent of respon-
dents did not know what the penalty would be. Respondents
often stated that the type of penalty received depended on
Law enforcement the severity of the crime, and whether the hunter had pre-
viously been caught. Some reported that if they were only
Knowledge of rules hunting for food, and had caught only small animals such
Seventy-one per cent of respondents stated there were rules as wild boar, monitor lizards or tortoises, patrols may show
about catching wildlife. Of these, % attributed their knowl- leniency. However, if caught hunting large animals such as
edge of rules to the Wildlife Conservation Society (e.g. ‘WCS elephants, sambar or gaur, punishment could be a fine of
said we cannot catch wildlife’). Twenty-seven per cent did not up to USD , or imprisonment.
know if there were rules, and % believed there were none. Despite respondents saying there was a % probability
When asked specifically about setting snares around farms, of being caught when hunting, overall, just respondents
% of respondents incorrectly believed it was legal, % (% of all those who reported ever hunting) had been caught
correctly said it was not and % did not know. by a patrol when hunting, and only once did a household
The majority of respondents (%) thought that if a report severe punishment. In this incident, the respondent’s
member of their household went hunting, their friends son had been lent a gun by the police to shoot sambar. After
and/or family would disapprove. However, some respondents his arrest by rangers, the police reportedly intervened and,
explained that it depended on what was caught; using dogs rather than being prosecuted, the son was released with a
to catch small animals, such as monitor lizards or turtles, fine of USD . Mostly, respondents reported receiving
for food, was considered acceptable, whereas shooting large warnings or having meat confiscated.
Oryx, Page 7 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00306053190014558 H. Ibbett et al.
Perceptions of patrols uncertainty regarding prevalence. Direct questioning and
Sixty-two per cent of respondents reported they were not ceiling counts from the unmatched count technique suggest
worried about encountering patrols in the forest. The major- a prevalence of %, but the estimate from the latter did not
ity said that as they did not hunt or partake in any illegal differ significantly from zero. This is probably the result of
activities they had nothing to fear, although a small number floor and ceiling effects, which reduce precision, as well
of respondents expressed concern that patrols might pre- as anonymity (Blair et al., ). Our findings also highlight
vent or punish the legal collection of NTFPs, such as rattan. ambiguity regarding the definition of hunting; one-fifth of
Others reported adapting their behaviour to avoid patrols, for respondents reported setting snares around farms, which
example by waiting until patrols had passed. Some said was considered a legitimate crop protection activity, and
friends and family would call to warn them if patrols passed when people were asked about how they accessed wild
through the village towards the forest. One respondent said meat to eat, nearly a third said they caught their own wild
when hunting in a group, each would travel individually to meat, presumably from snares set around farms. Yet, few
reduce the chance of being spotted by a patrol, and meat households stated they hunted. Our results suggest that
would be shared in the forest before leaving, to reduce pun- questions about the intentional killing of wildlife in the for-
ishment if caught. In total, % of respondents expressed con- est were probably subject to bias, and that responses about
cern about meeting patrols, of which % said that this was wildlife killed opportunistically (e.g. by dogs) or coinciden-
because a member of their household was engaged in illegal tally (e.g. to protect crops) were less likely to be censored,
logging. A further % of respondents said they were worried a matter also documented elsewhere in Cambodia (Coad
that rangers would punish them if their dogs caught wildlife. et al., ). Our findings reinforce the need to consider
Several respondents believed that camera traps set by the survey questions carefully, and to triangulate by asking
Wildlife Conservation Society to monitor wildlife popula- several questions, in different ways, about the same topic,
tions were actually set to photograph people hunting. particularly if examining sensitive topics. During our
research, some respondents were hushed by fellow family
members when discussing hunting, and others failed to
Corruption mention information they later provided after question-
We frequently found that respondents associated patrols naires were completed (e.g. borrowing guns). Overall, it is
with corruption. One individual stated ‘patrols only come likely our findings underestimate hunting prevalence.
to catch the money, not to stop people’, and another stated Although specialized methods such as the unmatched
‘patrols only use laws for villagers, they have different rules count technique can be useful for reducing biases asso-
for outsiders or people with power’. One respondent, who ciated with sensitive topics, they require careful design,
was a commercial hunter, reported they avoided punish- extensive piloting and are not suitable for all contexts
ment because they were on friendly terms with rangers, (Hinsley et al., ). Greater understanding of the relia-
and other respondents reported that if hunters were caught, bility of these methods for providing robust estimates of
rangers would ask for or accept a bribe. Others believed that rule-breaking behaviour is needed. Typically, estimates
when rangers confiscated meat, they ate it themselves in- derived from specialized questioning techniques are vali-
stead of destroying it. After one interview a respondent dated by comparing them to those obtained from direct
reported they had found a muntjac fawn in the forest, but questioning; if prevalence estimates from the specialized
when urged to take it to the nearest patrol station, they method are higher, the method is perceived as more success-
refused, as they believed that the rangers may eat it. No- ful. In addition to undermining the anonymity of the meth-
body explicitly reported having paid a bribe when caught od (Ibbett & Brittain, ), this validation approach fails
hunting, but two respondents said they had paid bribes to to inform researchers whether respondents understood the
patrols when transporting wood, and others reported they method and felt sufficiently protected to report their behav-
had heard that other villagers paid bribes to release confis- iour accurately. Typically, conservation research focuses on
cated motorbikes. One respondent said that bribery occurs obtaining data to answer urgent questions, rather than test-
because the low-paid rangers have to pay their superiors, to ing methods per se. Yet, experimental studies that explictly
maintain their positions. assess methods such as the unmatched count technique
would enhance research practice and improve the reliability
of data used to inform conservation interventions.
Discussion Snaring has been identified as a specific threat to
Cambodia’s wildlife (Harrison et al., ; O’Kelly et al.,
Hunting is widely cited as a cause of the loss of biodiver- ) but, although snares were widely used to protect
sity in Cambodia (Harrison et al., ; Gray et al., ). crops, few respondents reported setting snares to hunt wild-
Our research confirms that local communities living in life in the forest. Snaring by ex-hunters, who theoretically
Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary do hunt, although there is have less incentive to misreport behaviour, was also low.
Oryx, Page 8 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001455Estimating hunting in Cambodia 9
We suspect that only a few individuals in each village hunt contributed to increasing debt burdens within local com-
for commercial purposes, probably facilitated by middle- munities (Mahanty & Milne, ). Our findings suggest con-
men who may place orders, purchase catch, and in some sumption of wild meat is widespread but low, comprising
cases supply equipment, as documented elsewhere in only a few meals per month. Historically, forest products
Cambodia (Gray et al., ; Coad et al., ). One limita- such as wildlife have provided communities with a safety
tion of our research is that our study was restricted to the net in times of hardship (Milner-Gulland et al., ) but
hunting activity of local people, although hunting is also economic vulnerability associated with growing debt may
thought to be undertaken by Vietnamese nationals near result in increased pressure on natural resources, includ-
the international border (O’Kelly et al., ), by logging ing wildlife. This could be exacerbated by infrastructural
gangs who stay in the forest for extended periods (HI, improvements, which may enhance local, provincial and
pers. obs., ), and by military or police personnel with regional access to wildlife trade. Intelligence-gathering opera-
high-powered rifles (Drury, ; Evans et al., ). Gath- tions that assess commodity chains would be beneficial for
ering information on prevalence of hunting by these groups an understanding of demand dynamics, but in-depth under-
should be a research priority, although such research could standing of the norms and attitudes driving consumption is
potentially pose significant risk to researchers. also required. To be effective, any intervention for behaviour-
Our findings highlight a threat to wildlife from hunting al change must be informed by robust evidence, and include
by domestic dogs, an issue identified elsewhere in Cambodia appropriate monitoring and impact evaluation (Veríssimo &
(Heng et al., ; Loveridge et al., ). The scattered distri- Wan, ).
bution of villages, combined with the frequent accompani- Central to the success of protected areas is that rules gov-
ment of hunters by dogs, means that interactions between erning natural resource use are widely known (Keane et al.,
dogs and wildlife are likely to occur regularly throughout ) and, once known, adhered to (Arias, ). Patrols are de-
the protected area. The presence of dogs may also have indir- ployed to catch those who commit offences and to act as a de-
ect impacts on wildlife, by inducing fear in wild animals, in- terrent to potential offenders (Dobson et al., ). Regardless
creasing competition for resources with wildlife, and trans- of whether law enforcement is effective, if the perceived likeli-
mitting disease (Gompper, ). To understand the potential hood and cost of being caught are high, we would expect peo-
threats that dogs pose to wildlife more information is needed ple should be less likely to offend. Our findings suggest the
on the ranging and hunting behaviour of dogs (e.g. by using effectiveness of patrols as a strategy to reduce hunting varied.
faecal analysis or GPS tracking), alongside socially acceptable The perceived likelihood of being caught was low, but the per-
interventions that promote responsible dog ownership. For ceived likelihood of incurring a punishment if caught was
example, preliminary surveys by the Wildlife Conservation high. These factors combined were sufficient to deter some in-
Society suggest communities are concerned about the high dividuals from hunting, and caused others to develop patrol-
dog population but lack the means to deliver humane ster- avoidance strategies. Yet, rangers were also perceived to un-
ilization. A free dog sterilization programme could be one justly punish local people, although some considered rangers’
possible solution, although a high proportion of dogs would malleability, in particular their alleged willingness to accept a
need to be sterilized to achieve a sufficient reduction in the bribe, to be advantageous. Although we agree with the rec-
population (O. Griffin, unpubl. data). ommendations of others (more efficient and intelligence-led
Traditionally, hunting in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary patrolling is needed, legislation that criminalizes hunting
was conducted during resin collection (Drury, ). How- and possession of technologies such as snares is required,
ever, since resin collection has declined markedly and all aspects of judiciary systems need to be strengthened;
(Cheetham, ), partly because of reduced profitability Gray et al., ), we believe that conservation success is un-
but also because of the loss of resin trees to illegal logging likely to be achieved by strengthened law enforcement alone
and industrial-scale land clearance, which intensified in (Travers et al., ). Any approach must be informed by ad-
c. . Cash cropping has emerged as the primary form equate understanding of the drivers of non-compliant be-
of income generation (Travers et al., ; Mahanty & haviour, together with clear recognition of the incentives
Milne, ), and therefore many have less time to develop most likely to encourage behavioural change.
hunting skills and spend time hunting, and more income to
buy wild meat (Coad et al., ). Looking ahead, infrastruc- Acknowledgements We thank Nao Sok, Sovanndara Than and
Sovann Nharak for collecting data; Wildlife Conservation Society
tural improvements, such as paved roads and improved Cambodia and the Royal Government of Cambodia’s Ministry of
cellular networks, may further enhance the market integra- Environment for their support, facilitation and input into the research.
tion of villages within the Sanctuary (Riggs et al., ), Research was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research
boosting the prevalence of cash cropping and reducing eco- Council (Grant No. NE/N001370/1).
nomic reliance on traditional livelihood activities. Author contributions Research conception and design: all authors;
Fluctuations in cash crop prices, declining soil fertility, data collection and analysis, lead writing: HI; writing and revision: all
and high costs of fertilizers, pesticides and land rents, has authors.
Oryx, Page 9 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531900145510 H. Ibbett et al.
Conflicts of interest Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary receives finan- F O R E S T R Y A D M I N I S T R AT I O N () Chapter —Conservation of
cial and technical support from the Wildlife Conservation Society Wildlife. Law on Forestry. Articles –. Royal Government of
Cambodia Programme, with whom OG is affiliated. Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
G LY N N , A.N. () What can we learn with statistical truth serum?
Ethical standards Research permission was granted by the Royal Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly,
Government of Cambodia, ethics clearance approved by the Uni- , –.
versity of Oxford’s Social Sciences & Humanities Interdivisional G O M P P E R , M.E. () The dog–human–wildlife interface: assessing
Research Ethics Committee (Ref No: R43030/RE004), and the research the scope of the problem. In Free-ranging Dogs and Wildlife
otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards. Conservation (ed. M.E. Gompper), pp. –. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.
Data availability Data are available from reshare.ukdataservice.ac. G R A Y , T.N.E., S O K U N , H., L E F T E R , E., G R O S U , R., K I M S R E N G , K.,
uk/854333. O M A L I S S , K. & G A U N T L E T T , S. () A decade of zero elephant
poaching in the Cardamom Rainforest Landscape, Cambodia.
Gajah, , –.
References G R A Y , T.N.E., H U G H E S , A.C., L A U R A N C E , W.F., L O N G , B., L Y N A M , A.
J., K E L LY , H.O. et al. () The wildlife snaring crisis: an insidious
A R I A S , A. () Understanding and managing compliance in the and pervasive threat to biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Biodiversity
nature conservation context. Journal of Environmental and Conservation, , –.
Management, , –. G R I F F I N , O. () The Biodiversity of Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary
B E N I T E Z -L O P E Z , A., A L K E M A D E , R., S C H I P P E R , A.M., I N G R A M , D.J., ចម្រុះនៅក្នុងដែនជ ម្រកសត្វព្រៃកែវសីមា. Technical Report.
V E R W E I J , P.A., E I K E L B O O M , J.A.J. et al. () The impact of Wildlife Conservation Society, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. dx.doi.org/
hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations. Science, ./RG.... [accessed March ].
, –. H A R R I S O N , R.D. () Emptying the forest: hunting and the
B L A I R , G., I M A I , K., P A R K , B., C O P P O C K , A. & C H O U , W. () extirpation of wildlife from tropical nature reserves. Bioscience,
List: Statistical Methods for the Item Count Technique and List , –.
Experiment. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, H A R R I S O N , R.D., S R E E K A R , R., B R O D I E , J.F., B R O O K , S., L U S K I N , M.,
Austria. rdrr.io/cran/list [accessed March ]. K E L LY , H.O. et al. () Impacts of hunting on tropical forests
B O R G E R S O N , C. () The effects of illegal hunting and habitat on two in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, , –.
sympatric endangered primates. International Journal of H E N G , S., D O N G , T., H O N , N. & O L S S O N , A. () The hairy-nosed
Primatology, , –. otter Lutra sumatrana in Cambodia: distribution and notes on
C H E E T H A M , S. () Tapping for Change: Investigating the Dynamics ecology and conservation. Cambodian Journal of Natural History,
of Resin Tapping in Seima Protection Forest, Cambodia. Imperial , –.
College London, London, UK. H I N S L E Y , A., N U N O , A., K E A N E , A., S T J O H N , F.A.V. & I B B E T T , H.
C OA D , L., L I M , S. & N U O N , L. () Wildlife and livelihoods in the () Asking sensitive questions using the unmatched count
Cardamom Mountains. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, , . technique: applications and guidelines for conservation. Methods
D A LT R Y , J. () Editorial—Cambodia’s biodiversity revealed. in Ecology and Evolution, , –.
Cambodian Journal of Natural History, , –. H U G H E S , A.C. () Understanding the drivers of Southeast Asian
D O B S O N , A.D.M., M I L N E R -G U L L A N D , E.J., B E A L E , C.M., I B B E T T , H. biodiversity loss. Ecosphere, , e.
& K E A N E , A. () Detecting deterrence from patrol data. I B B E T T , H. & B R I T T A I N , S. () Conservation publications and their
Conservation Biology, , –. provisions to protect research participants. Conservation Biology,
D R O I T C O U R , J., C A S P A R , R.A., H U B B A R D , M.L., P A R S L E Y , T.L., , –.
V I S S C H E R , W. & E Z Z AT I , T.M. () The item count technique I B B E T T , H., M I L N E R -G U L L A N D , E.J., B E A L E , C., D O B S O N , A.D.,
as a method of indirect questioning: a review of its development G R I F F I N , O., O’K E L LY , H. & K E A N E , A. () Experimentally
and a case study application. In Measurement Errors in Surveys assessing the effect of search effort on snare detectability. Biological
(eds P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz & Conservation, , .
S. Sudman), pp. –. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA. I N G R A M , D.J., C O A D , L., A B E R N E T H Y , K., M A I S E L S , F., S T O K E S , E.J.,
D R U R Y , R. () Wildlife Use and Trade in Seima Biodiversity B O B O , K.S. et al. () Assessing Africa-wide pangolin exploitation
Conservation Area, Mondulkiri Province, Cambodia. University by scaling local data. Conservation Letters, , e.
College London, London, UK. J O N E S , S., K E A N E , A., S T J O H N , F.A.V., V I C K E R Y , J. & P A P W O R T H , S.
E VA N S , T.D., H O U T , P., P H E T , P. & H A N G , M. () A Study of () Audience segmentation to improve targeting of conservation
Resin-Tapping and Livelihoods in Southern Mondulkiri, Cambodia, interventions for hunters. Conservation Biology, , –.
with Implications for Conservation and Forest Management. Wildlife K E A N E , A., J O N E S , J.P.G. & M I L N E R -G U L L A N D , E.J. () Encounter
Conservation Society Cambodia Program, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. data in resource management and ecology: pitfalls and possibilities.
E VA N S , T.D., A R P E L S , M. & C L E M E N T S , T. () Pilot REDD activities Journal of Applied Ecology, , –.
in Cambodia are expected to improve access to forest resource use K R U M P A L , I. () Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive
rights and land tenure for local communities. In Lessons About Land surveys: a literature review. Quality and Quantity, , –.
Tenure, Forest Governance and REDD+. Case Studies From Africa, L O U C K S , C., M A S C I A , M.B., M A X W E L L , A., H U Y , K., D U O N G , K.,
Asia and Latin America (eds L. Naughton-Treves & C. Day), C H E A , N. et al. () Wildlife decline in Cambodia, –:
pp. –. UW-Madison Land Tenure Center, Madison, USA. exploring the legacy of armed conflict. Conservation Letters,
E VA N S , T.D., O’K E L LY , H.J., S O R I Y U N , M., H O R , N.M., P H A K T R A , P., , –.
P H E A K D E Y , S. & P O L L A R D , E. () Seima protection forest. In L O V E R I D G E , R., C U S AC K , J., E A M E S , J., S A M N A N G , E. & W I L L C O X , D.
Evidence-Based Conservation: Lessons From the Lower Mekong () Mammal records and conservation threats in Siem Pang
(eds T.C.H. Sunderland, J.A. Sayer & H. Minh-Ha), pp. –. wildlife sanctuary and Siem Pang Khang Lech wildlife sanctuary,
CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Cambodia. Cambodian Journal of Natural History, , –.
Oryx, Page 10 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001455Estimating hunting in Cambodia 11
M A H A N T Y , S. & M I L N E , S. () Anatomy of a boom: cassava as a collapse of the Indochinese leopard (Panthera pardus delacouri)
‘gateway’ crop in Cambodia’s north eastern borderland. Asia Pacific in Southeast Asia. Biological Conservation, , –.
Viewpoint, , –. S O D H I , N.S., K O H , L.P., B R O O K , B.W. & N G , P.K.L. () Southeast
M A R T I N , E.B. & P H I P P S , M. () A review of the wild animal trade in Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and
Cambodia. TRAFFIC Bulletin, , –. Evolution, , –.
M I L N E R -G U L L A N D , E.J., B E N N E T T , E.L., A B E R N E T H Y , K., B A K A R R , S O LO M O N , J., J A C O B S O N , S.K., W A L D , K.D. & G AV I N , M. ()
M., B E N N E T T , E., B O D M E R , R. et al. () Wild meat: the bigger Estimating illegal resource use at a Ugandan Park with the
picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, , –. randomized response technique. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
M O E (M I N I S T R Y O F E N V I R O N M E N T ) () Chapter . Article . , –.
Protected Areas Law. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. S O U T E R , N.J., S I M P S O N , V., M O U L D , A., E A M E S , J.C., G R AY , T.N.E.,
M O E (M I N I S T R Y O F E N V I R O N M E N T ) () Sub-Decree No. on S I N C L A I R , R. et al. () Editorial: will the recent changes in
Establishment of Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary. Phnom Penh, protected area management and the creation of five new protected
Cambodia. areas improve biodiversity conservation in Cambodia? Cambodian
N I E L S E N , M.R., M E I L B Y , H., S M I T H -H A L L , C., P O U L I OT , M. & T R E U E , Journal of Natural History, , –.
T. () The importance of wild meat in the global south. Ecological S T J O H N , F.A.V., K E A N E , A.M. & M I L N E R -G U L L A N D , E.J. ()
Economics, , –. Effective conservation depends upon understanding human
N O S S , A.J. () The impacts of cable snare hunting on wildlife behaviour. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology (eds D.W.
populations in the forests of the Central African Republic. Macdonald & K.J. Willis), pp. –. st edition. John Wiley &
Conservation Biology, , –. Sons, Oxford, UK.
N U N O , A. & S T J O H N , F.A.V. () How to ask sensitive questions S TA R R , C., N E K A R I S , K.A.I.A.I., S T R E I C H E R , U. & L E U N G , L.K.-P.P.
in conservation: a review of specialized questioning techniques. () Field surveys of the Vulnerable pygmy slow loris Nycticebus
Biological Conservation, , –. pygmaeus using local knowledge in Mondulkiri Province,
O’KELLY, H.J., E VA N S , T.D., S T O K E S , E.J., C L E M E N T S , T., D A R A , A., Cambodia. Oryx, , –.
G AT E LY , M. et al. () Identifying conservation successes, T O U R A N G E A U , R. & Y A N , T. () Sensitive questions in surveys.
failures and future opportunities; assessing recovery potential of Psychological Bulletin, , –.
wild ungulates and tigers in Eastern Cambodia. PLOS ONE, T R AV E R S , H. () Making friends with benefits: an investigation
, e. into the use of incentives for the conservation of forest commons.
O’K E L LY , H.J., R O W C L I F F E , M.J., D U R A N T , S.M. & M I L N E R - PhD thesis, Imperial College London, London, UK.
G U L L A N D , E.J. () Robust estimation of snare prevalence within T R AV E R S , H., W I N N E Y , K., C L E M E N T S , T., E VA N S , T. &
a tropical forest context using N-mixture models. Biological M I L N E R -G U L L A N D , E.J. () A tale of two villages:
Conservation, , –. an investigation of conservation-driven land tenure reform
R C O R E T E A M () R: a Language and Environment for Statistical in a Cambodian Protection Forest. Land Use Policy, ,
Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, –.
Austria. r-project.org [accessed March ]. T R AV E R S , H., C L E M E N T S , T. & M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J. ()
R I G G S , R.A., L A N G S T O N , J.D. & S AY E R , J. () Incorporating Predicting responses to conservation interventions through scenarios:
governance into forest transition frameworks to understand and a Cambodian case study. Biological Conservation, , –.
influence Cambodia’s forest landscapes. Forest Policy and V E R Í S S I M O , D. & W A N , A.K.Y. () Characterizing efforts to reduce
Economics, , –. consumer demand for wildlife products. Conservation Biology,
RIPPLE, W.J., A B E R N E T H Y , K., B E T T S , M.G., C H A P R O N , G., D I R Z O , R., , –.
G A L E T T I , M. et al. () Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to Y E R S I N , H., A S I I M W E , C., V O O R D O U W , M.J. & Z U B E R B Ü H L E R , K.
the world’s mammals. Royal Society Open Science, , . () Impact of snare injuries on parasite prevalence in wild
R O S T R O -G A R C Í A , S., K A M L E R , J.F., A S H , E., C L E M E N T S , G.R., chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). International Journal of
G I B S O N , L., L Y N A M , A.J. et al. () Endangered leopards: range Primatology, , –.
Oryx, Page 11 of 11 © Fauna & Flora International 2020 doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 19 Dec 2020 at 07:37:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001455You can also read
