Estimating hunting in Cambodia 879


FIG. 1 Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary in Mondulkiri Province, Cambodia, indicating all settlements located within and close to the protected area (the 18 study villages are not identified, to ensure anonymity), and ranger patrol stations.


may be partly because gathering robust information about hunting is challenging, especially in contexts where it is a re- stricted or prohibited activity (Nuno&St John, 2015). Hunting in Cambodian protected areas is a punishable offence (Forestry Administration, 2002;MoE, 2008), and thus those who violate rules may not wish to identify themselves for fear of sanctions (Solomon et al., 2007).When asked directly, respondents may refuse to participate, provide inaccurate re- sponses, conceal their true attitudes, beliefs or behaviours, or temper their answers so as to appear more socially acceptable (known as ‘social desirability bias’; Tourangeau & Yan, 2007; Krumpal, 2013). Acquiring robust and reliable data on hunting prevalence is nonetheless important to ensure conservation interventions are targeted towards the most appropriate groups (StJohnetal., 2013; Jones et al., 2019). Here,we quantify the prevalence of hunting amongst rural


communities in a Cambodian protected area.We use the un- matched count technique, an indirect questioning approach, to estimate the prevalence of hunting as a subsistence and income-generating livelihood activity. Use of a specialized questioning technique can allow the biases typically asso- ciated with direct questioning to be overcome by assuring greater levels of anonymity, although often at the cost of lower precision (Nuno & St John, 2015). We couple this with direct questioning to derive further information about seasonality, methods used, species caught and consumed, and trends in hunting activity. Finally,we assess local peoples’ knowledge of rules regarding the capture and use of wildlife, and their perceptions of the ranger patrols responsible for enforcing protected area rules.


Study area


Our study was conducted in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, a 2,927 km2 area of protected mixed deciduous dipterocarp,


semi-evergreen and evergreen forest in Mondulkiri and Kratie provinces on the eastern border of Cambodia (Fig. 1; Evans et al., 2012). The Sanctuary lies within a wider forested landscape known as the Eastern Plains, and supports re- gionally important populations of Asian elephant Elephas maximus, wild cattle Bos spp., and globally important popu- lations of primates (Nomascus gabriellae, Pygathrix nigripes; Griffin, 2019). Approximately 32,000 people live within and around the


Sanctuary, the majority of whom are Bunong, an animist minority Indigenous people who have strong spiritual con- nections to the forest and its wildlife. Traditionally, the Bunong practised swidden agriculture, and relied heavily on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as honey, fish, rat- tan, wild fruit, vegetables and wildlife for subsistence (Evans et al., 2003). The construction of roads has brought market integration to previously inaccessible villages and strength- ened cross-border trade links with Viet Nam (Mahanty & Milne, 2016). Many households have abandoned traditional swidden agricultural practices in favour of more profitable cash crops such as cassava and cashew (Travers et al., 2015). Villages, particularly those on the periphery, have experi- enced large influxes of Khmer (the majority ethnic group in Cambodia) families seeking land, and forest cover has de- clined as a result of subsequent clearance for small-scale farms (Mahanty&Milne, 2016;Riggs et al., 2018). In addition, the forest has experienced severe pressure fromillegal logging for luxury timber, as well as industrial-scale forest clearance associated with government granting of Economic Land Concessions within protected area boundaries. Prior to 2016, Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary was


managed as a Protection Forest by the Government’s Forestry Administration. In 2016 jurisdictional reforms of natural resource management resulted in transfer to the Ministry of Environment under sub-decree 83, and reclassi- fication as aWildlife Sanctuary, with the principal objective


Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 878–888 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455


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