Estimating hunting in Cambodia 881
respondents’ treatment status (design effects). This test was conducted using the ict.test function in the list package of R 3.2.1 (Blair et al., 2016; R Core Team, 2017). If a Bonferroni-corrected P-value of ,0.05 was detected, this was interpreted as evidence for the presence of design effects, which were detected for one list (Supplementary Material 3). 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 0 (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.
Results
In total, 56% of respondents were men, 44% were women. Respondents were Bunong (66%), Khmer (31%) or from other Indigenous groups (Stieng, Laotian, Cham; 3%). Respondents had lived in their village for a mean of 17 ± SD 12.8 years, with 3 ± SD 3.5 years of formal education. The main sources of household income were farming (66% of households), shops or businesses (11%), resin col- lection (9%), opportunistic paid labour (7%), salaried work (5%) or illegal logging (2%). Eighty-four per cent of house- holds collected NTFPs, and 23% collected resin.
Wildlife hunting
Hunting prevalence, frequency & seasonality When directly questioned, 9%of households reported hunt- ing, and 27% of households reported they used to hunt but no longer did. When asked to indicate the year they ceased hunting (Fig. 2), 82% of hunters indicated they stopped hunting after 2009. Reasons included increased difficulty in catching wildlife (43% of retired hunters), reduced time available for hunting (35%), lack of dogs to hunt with (8%), old age (7%) and concern about meeting law en- forcement patrols (5%). The unmatched count technique warm-up question regarding prevalence of fruit consump- tion appeared to work as expected, estimating 25 ± SE 9% of respondents consumed the sensitive fruit, but the ques- tion on hunting provided a negative prevalence estimate (Fig. 3). Ideally, no respondent should report that all items on either the control or treatment list were applicable to them (i.e. nobody should answer 4 or 5), but responses to the question were subject to ceiling effects, meaning some respondents reported all items on the lists were applicable. Although this undermines assurances of anonymity (be- cause the interviewer knows the sensitive answer applies to the respondent), it provides a direct count of households
FIG. 3 Triangulated estimates of hunting prevalence in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, with 95% confidence intervals. DQ indicates questions in which 705 respondents where asked directly about hunting. UCT indicates findings from the unmatched count technique (702 of 705 respondents answered questions).
who reported hunting (63, 9%; Fig. 3). Unmatched count technique estimates for taking snares to the forest and hunt- ing for incomewere also unreliable and did not significantly differ from zero (Supplementary Material 3). In households where people directly reported hunting
(9% of all respondents) there was a mean of 4.31 hunting trips per month, almost double the number reported by retired hunters (27% of respondents, 2.45 trips per month). When askedwhat theywould do if hunting became harder (i.e. wild- lifewas caught less frequently), 52%of current hunterswould stop, 27%would seek newhunting grounds, 17%wouldcontinue to collect other NTFPs (hunting if the opportunity arose), 2% would change method, and 2% were unsure. Seventy- seven per cent of all respondents thought more hunting occurred in the wet season when the absence of leaf litter on the forest floor made it easier to walk quietly in the forest, snares could be set around fruiting trees such as wild almond
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
FIG. 2 Temporal change in the prevalence of hunting reported by 705 respondents in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary in 2018.
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
