886 H. Ibbett et al.
We suspect that only a few individuals in each village hunt for commercial purposes, probably facilitated by middle- men who may place orders, purchase catch, and in some cases supply equipment, as documented elsewhere in Cambodia (Gray et al., 2017; Coad et al., 2019). One limita- tion of our research is that our study was restricted to the hunting activity of local people, although hunting is also thought to be undertaken by Vietnamese nationals near the international border (O’Kelly et al., 2018), by logging gangs who stay in the forest for extended periods (HI, pers. obs., 2017), and by military or police personnel with high-powered rifles (Drury, 2005; Evans et al., 2013). Gath- ering information on prevalence of hunting by these groups should be a research priority, although such research could potentially pose significant risk to researchers. Our findings highlight a threat to wildlife from hunting
by domestic dogs, an issue identified elsewhere in Cambodia (Heng et al., 2016; Loveridge et al., 2018). The scattered distri- bution of villages, combined with the frequent accompani- ment of hunters by dogs, means that interactions between dogs and wildlife are likely to occur regularly throughout the protected area. The presence of dogsmay also have indir- ect impacts on wildlife, by inducing fear in wild animals, in- creasing competition for resources with wildlife, and trans- mitting disease (Gompper, 2014).To understand the potential threats that dogs pose to wildlifemore information is needed on the ranging and hunting behaviour of dogs (e.g. by using faecal analysis or GPS tracking), alongside socially acceptable interventions that promote responsible dog ownership. For example, preliminary surveys by the Wildlife Conservation Society suggest communities are concerned about the high dog population but lack the means to deliver humane ster- ilization. A free dog sterilization programme could be one possible solution, although a high proportion of dogs would need to be sterilized to achieve a sufficient reduction in the population (O. Griffin, unpubl. data). Traditionally, hunting in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary
was conducted during resin collection (Drury, 2005). How- ever, since 2008 resin collection has declined markedly (Cheetham, 2014), partly because of reduced profitability but also because of the loss of resin trees to illegal logging and industrial-scale land clearance, which intensified in c. 2013. Cash cropping has emerged as the primary form of income generation (Travers et al., 2015; Mahanty & Milne, 2016), and therefore many have less time to develop hunting skills and spend time hunting, and more income to buy wild meat (Coad et al., 2019). Looking ahead, infrastruc- tural improvements, such as paved roads and improved cellular networks, may further enhance the market integra- tion of villages within the Sanctuary (Riggs et al., 2018), boosting the prevalence of cash cropping and reducing eco- nomic reliance on traditional livelihood activities. Fluctuations in cash crop prices, declining soil fertility, and high costs of fertilizers, pesticides and land rents, has
contributed to increasing debt burdens within local com- munities (Mahanty&Milne, 2016).Our findings suggest con- sumption of wild meat is widespread but low, comprising only a few meals per month. Historically, forest products such as wildlife have provided communities with a safety net in times of hardship (Milner-Gulland et al., 2003)but economic vulnerability associated with growing debt may result in increased pressure on natural resources, includ- ing wildlife. This could be exacerbated by infrastructural improvements, which may enhance local, provincial and regional access to wildlife trade. Intelligence-gathering opera- tions that assess commodity chains would be beneficial for an understanding of demand dynamics, but in-depth under- standing of the norms and attitudes driving consumption is also required. To be effective, any intervention for behaviour- al change must be informed by robust evidence, and include appropriatemonitoring and impact evaluation (Veríssimo & Wan, 2019). Central to the success of protected areas is that rules gov-
erning natural resource use are widely known (Keane et al., 2011) and,once known, adheredto(Arias, 2015).Patrols are de- ployed to catch those who commit offences and to act as a de- terrent to potential offenders (Dobson et al., 2019). Regardless of whether lawenforcement is effective, if the perceived likeli- hood and cost of being caught are high, we would expect peo- ple should be less likely to offend. Our findings suggest the effectiveness of patrols as a strategy to reduce hunting varied. The perceived likelihood of being caughtwas low, but the per- ceived likelihood of incurring a punishment if caught was
high.These factors combinedwere sufficient to deter some in- dividuals from hunting, and caused others to develop patrol- avoidance strategies. Yet, rangers were also perceived to un- justly punish local people, although some considered rangers’ malleability, in particular their alleged willingness to accept a bribe, to be advantageous. Although we agree with the rec- ommendations of others (more efficient and intelligence-led patrolling is needed, legislation that criminalizes hunting and possession of technologies such as snares is required, and all aspects of judiciary systems need to be strengthened; Gray et al., 2017), we believe that conservation success is un- likely to be achieved by strengthened law enforcement alone (Travers et al., 2016). Any approachmust be informed by ad- equate understanding of the drivers of non-compliant be- haviour, together with clear recognition of the incentives most likely to encourage behavioural change.
Acknowledgements We thank Nao Sok, Sovanndara Than and Sovann Nharak for collecting data; Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia and the Royal Government of Cambodia’s Ministry of Environment for their support, facilitation and input into the research. Research was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (Grant No. NE/N001370/1).
Author contributions Research conception and design: all authors; data collection and analysis, lead writing: HI; writing and revision: all authors.
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
