Wildlife poisoning in Cambodia 899
they may feel less constrained by village norms. This may also explain why informants gave diverging estimates of prevalence: either because they had access to different social information (i.e. they perceived it as common because their relatives all did it), or because they felt different social pres- sures to exaggerate or downplay poisoning in their responses to us. Our association with the chiefs may have played a role in this. Wedid not record any reports of conflicts caused by poi-
soning. Some informants suggested that they simply do not know who is poisoning and so cannot do anything about it. Perhaps some are not aware that it occurs, particularly in villages where it has not yet had large negative impacts. Others were aware but chose to keep silent, as revealed by the actions of one informant who spoke freely in private, but not in a group setting. Many of the questions related to poisoning posed during group discussions were met with long silences. This culture of silencemay have been to- wards us as outsiders, who potentially cannot be trusted and who might bring law enforcement or other consequences to the village, or to maintain the village’s reputation (Nyumba et al., 2018). Law enforcement was cited by some as reason for secrecy, but only rarely cited as reason not to poison. Alternatively, silence is maintained to preserve harmony
within the community, or to avoid retribution. Khmer cul- ture is conflict averse, but resentment can simmer before erupting violently (Luco, 2002). Data from one pilot village outside the protected areas provides a stark comparison, as poisoning was discussed openly, was widespread, and was perceived as legal. Perhaps the absence of conservation ac- tivity there meant villagers did not understand the illegality of their actions and were not concerned about legal sanc- tion. But we also recorded no negative impacts on other villagers here, perhaps because there were social norms regulating where and how waterholes could be poisoned, which served to prevent conflict. For example, discussants knew to avoid fishing in poisoned waterholes. Similar dy- namics may exist among some groups in the other villages, but perhaps involvement in conservation has precluded the possibility of these norms emerging at village level, as at least some elites will be interested in maintaining conservation programmes. Our study does not indicate how different net- works and individuals, with different poisoning norms and behaviours, interact within a village, and how conservation may be producing anti-poisoning norms or resistance to these norms at different levels. Our study highlights some methodological challenges in
the study of sensitive behaviour. We applied the unmatched count technique to measure the prevalence of poisoning, but observed a design effect, suggesting respondents actively manipulated their responses to avoid implication of engage- ment in poisoning. Other unmatched count technique stud- ies in Cambodia or on wildlife poisoning have encountered similar problems (Nuno & St John, 2015; Fairbrass et al.,
2016; Ibbett et al., 2017). If the unmatched count technique is to become a widely applicable tool, more research will be needed into how respondents perceive the method, and how this varies across contexts (Hinsley et al., 2019). Other mea- sured variables such as beliefs and attitudes may be equally susceptible to social desirability biases but lack specialized methods for measurement in sensitive cases. For example, individuals who have positive attitudes towards poisoning might disclose a negative attitude. Researchers should de- velop methods to measure complex sensitive variables that go beyond prevalence (but see Kramon & Weghorst, 2019). An alternative is to use more in-depth ethnographic ap- proaches to study the social dynamics in one place, but there is a trade-off between depth and generalizability. We chose in this study to gain amore superficial understanding of broad patterns over a landscape, as a prelude to gaining deeper understanding in fewer locations. Despite these lim- itations, our study nonetheless generated reliable insights into wildlife poisoning by using multiple complementary methods and triangulating qualitatively across a large num- ber of data sources. The many informants across multiple communities giving similar descriptions of poisoning prac- tices, motivations, actors and community perceptions gives confidence in these results. The neutral presentation of the research team was key to collecting these data (Drury et al., 2011). We have carried out a more in-depth study in one village that further supports our findings (de Lange et al., unpubl. data). Our results could be used to guide the design of more
effective interventions (Michie et al., 2008). Perceptions of health risks were a salient factor in decisions about poison- ing. The approach employed in Bunyala, Kenya, focused on raising awareness about the risks of consuming poisoned meat, but this was unsuccessful as consumers had extensive personal experiences that supported their belief that risks were low (Wu&Shaffer, 1987; Odino, 2011).Wefound simi- lar beliefs in our study, but these could potentially be in- fluenced by selecting appropriate messengers, such as local doctors (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Social norms can be a power- ful motivator for behaviour change (Cialdini, 2015), so the anti-poisoning norms present in some places may be effec- tive levers (McDonald et al., 2013). Interventions could in- crease the prominence of these norms and provide new avenues for villagers to apply social pressure on others in ways that avoid direct conflict. Conflict could have unin- tended negative consequences in this context, such as re- inforcing poisoning as a norm within certain subgroups, or provoking poisoning as a form of resistance (Luco, 2002; Peterson et al., 2017). For this reason, commonly used normative interventions such as community discus- sions may be culturally inappropriate as they require open confrontation. Media dramatization could alternatively be used to provoke changes in normative perceptions (Bicchieri, 2017), and encouraging and rewarding public
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
