898 E. de Lange et al.


FIG. 7 We fit cumulative linked mixed models (logistic regressions), to examine which variables predict perceived behavioural control. The two Likert responses (poisoning is easy, and poisoning is effective) used to measure this construct were analysed separately. This figure shows the effect size for each variable, and the bars show the 95% confidence intervals.


Discussion


In northern Cambodia, wildlife is being poisoned by pesti- cides deposited near seasonal waterholes. We found that several practices and actors may be contributing to wildlife poisoning, but most significant is an intentional form of hunting carried out by local residents, particularly young men and children older than 12 years. Our study presents a first characterization of this practice using a mixed-meth- ods approach, and quantifies its socio-psychological de- terminants using the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Although we were unable to quantify the prevalence of poisoning, reports suggest that it was being practiced in eight of the 10 villages surveyed, and that it is affecting the environment, public health, livestock and wildlife. The pes- ticides used include carbamates, which are extremely toxic to birds (Richards, 2011), and placement at critical dry sea- son water sources means that even low frequencies of poisoning may be having significant impacts on threatened bird species (Loveridge et al., 2019; Pin et al., 2020). For ex- ample, individuals of Critically Endangered species of vul- ture and ibis were reported to be affected. Further anecdotal evidence suggests these practices are occurring beyond our study area and they should be taken seriously by local and national authorities. Some poisoning in Cambodia may be occurring as a


symbolic and visible form of resistance to conservation rules (Norgrove & Hulme, 2006; Essen & Allen, 2017). This was suggested by one village chief in a community with a long-standing ecotourism project, where a waterhole had been poisoned close to the guest lodge. However, most


poisoning occurs where visibility is low, and the lowsalience of conservation law enforcement among hunters and inter- viewees suggests this form of symbolic poisoning is a limited occurrence (Peterson et al., 2017). Most reports indicated that poisoning is predominantly a method of harvesting wild meat for household consumption. It is seen as an effec- tive method that requires few skills and little effort, and is practised during the dry season, when other sources of meat are less available (Coad et al., 2019). Our data do not suggest a clear link with poverty or food insecurity as wealthier households were also implicated, and many poor- er households expressed disapproval. Similarly, hunters using poison to whom we spoke directly did not raise food insecurity as a consideration in deciding whether or not to continue using poison. Nevertheless, it may play a role for some hunters. Varying perceptions of the health risks associated with consuming poisoned meat seem to play a larger role. Among other hunters and former poisoners, health con- cerns were a prominent reason given for not using poison. But others downplayed these risks or believed that removing the internal organs rendered the meat safe. For them, the ability to catch meat with ease in the dry season outweighed the perceived health risks. This form of poisoning is unusual as most documented cases of wildlife poisoning are symbol- ic acts related to conflicts (Berny, 2007; Richards, 2011), but there are similarities with practices documented in Bunyala, Kenya, where carbofuran pesticides and baits are used to harvest wild birds at seasonal wetlands. Consumers there also believed that poisoned meat can be rendered safe, although in Cambodia, hunters consume the meat them- selves, whereas in Kenya they supply markets (Odino, 2011). Waterhole poisoning affects other members of the com-


munity (e.g. by harming cattle and dogs) and represents a risk to public health through distribution of contaminated meat and contamination of water sources used for drinking and washing, and fisheries. Concerns about these impacts have led some local authorities to sanction individual hun- ters or organize meetings to discourage further poisoning. These have taken place in villages where injunctive norms aremore negative, either because the authorities’ actions pro- duced these negative norms or because authorities feel en- abled to act where negative injunctive norms already exist. Whether these sanctions have had deterrent effects is un- known, but poisoning continues to occur. This suggests there are groups of villagers who consider poisoning accept- able and who are not influenced by the chief, and poten- tially that other influential villagers condone poisoning (per- haps implicitly) among their clients (Ledgerwood&Vijghen, 2002). In other words, there are variable perceptions of social norms within different parts of the village social net- work (Shepherd, 2017), or as one chief articulated: ‘they are not among my friends’. For example, younger respondents tended to have less negative norm perceptions, suggesting


Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 889–902 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001492


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