880 H. Ibbett et al.


of preserving and protecting wildlife (MoE, 2016). Accord- ing to the 2002 Forestry Law, it is strictly prohibited to hunt, harm or harass all wildlife, and under the 2008 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 protected area (MoE, 2008). Hunting occurs throughout the Sanctuary, however, and previous research has high- lighted the reliance of local communities on wild meat for subsistence purposes (Travers, 2014) and to supplement in- come. Hunting is also undertaken by outsiders (i.e. people who do not live within or immediately around the forest) for sport, commercial purposes and subsistence (Drury, 2005; Evans et al., 2013). Responsibility for enforcing rules lies with 40–50 government rangers working across 10 pa- trol stations. Since 2002 the government has received fi- nancial and technical support for the management of the Sanctuary from the Wildlife Conservation Society.


Methods


Ethical considerations Upon arrival in each village,wemet the village chief to explain our research aims and seek permission to work in the commu- nity.Before each interviewthe research purpose, risks, benefits, and proposed use of the data were explained to participants before verbal consent was sought (Supplementary Material 1). All interviews were voluntary, anonymous, and conducted in Khmer or Bunong by independent enumerators unassociated with theWildlife Conservation Society.Hunting is illegal, and therefore to protect participants against reprisals questions on hunting were targeted at the household rather than individual level, and village names have been anonymized here to offer additional protection. All methods were piloted before data collection, in 33 households during February 2018.


Household surveys


During February–April 2018, we interviewed people in 705 households in 18 villages (Fig. 1). Between 30 and 50%of households were surveyed per village, with houses identi- fied using a systematic sampling strategy in which ques- tionnaires were administered at every nth house, with n inversely related to village size.Weinterviewed any available respondent above the age of 18 in each household. If respon- dents declined or were absent, interviews were conducted at the next available house. Enumerators collected data on respondent demographics and household livelihood strat- egies, household reliance on wildlife species for meat and medicine, specifically the frequency with which species were consumed, how wildlife was accessed, and the most preferred meat (Supplementary Material 1 & 2). Respondents were also


asked about any problems with wildlife on farms, and their perceptions of any change in hunting levels over the pre- vious 5 years.


Measuring hunting prevalence


To reduce social desirability and non-response biases, we used the unmatched count technique to investigate the pro- portion of households that collected wild meat, took snares to the forest to hunt, and hunted to generate income in the pre- vious year. Half the samplewere randomly allocated to a con- trol group who received a list of non-sensitive items, and the treatment group received a list that included the same non- sensitive items, plus an additional sensitive item (Nuno & St John, 2015). Respondents were asked to report only the number of items applicable to them, never which items. Item scores were averaged across groups, and the prevalence 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- dard errors (Hinsley et al., 2019); to mitigate against this, we employed a double-list unmatched count technique, inwhich participants simultaneously act as control and treatment groups by answering a control and treatment list for the same question, but with the set of non-sensitive items differ- ing between the two lists (Droitcour et al., 2011). Prevalence of the sensitive item is derived by calculating the mean score across the paired lists (Glynn, 2013). Because of high levels of illiteracy, pictorial lists were used, and items were verbally described to participants. A practice question on fruit con- sumption was used to introduce the method, and follow-up questions were asked to assess respondents’ understanding. At the end of the interview, respondents were asked directly whether they currently or had ever hunted and, if so, the spe- cies they caught, how often they hunted, the methods used, and their reasons for hunting.


Knowledge of conservation rules


We assessed knowledge of rules pertaining to hunting activity, andthe perceivedlikelihoodof(1) a neighbour knowing if someone had caught wildlife, (2)being caught by apatrol when hunting and (3) receiving a penalty if caught.We mea- sured social acceptability by asking respondents whether they would approve if a friend or family member went hunting. Finally,we askedhouseholdswhether theyhadeverbeen caught by a patrol in possession of wildlife, and if so what happened.


Analysis


Prior to analysis, unmatched count technique data were tested to determine whether individual responses to the non-sensitive item changed depending upon the


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