Wildlife poisoning in Cambodia 891
FIG. 1 A summary of the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) as applied in this study. Within the theory an individual’s behaviour is predicted by their intention, which in turn is influenced by their attitudes towards the behaviour, their perceived control over the behaviour, and their perception of social norms related to the behaviour. The subjective norm is influenced by descriptive (how others behave) and injunctive norms (how others think one ought to behave).
et al., 2018b). Given these pressures and opportunities, many residents who previously farmed subsistence rice now clear forest and accumulate land, to grow and sell cash-crops such as cassava or cashew, or to take advantage of rising land prices (Beauchamp et al., 2018a). Clearing land within the protected areas is illegal, but is facilitated or promoted by personal relationships with local officials (Milne, 2015). Cambodian society is marked by neopatrimonialism: power is exercised through personalized patron–client relations, with an em- phasis on kinship. A village is a geographical collection of relatively autonomous households and much interaction is governed by norms of reciprocity (Ovesen et al., 1996; Ledgerwood & Vijghen, 2002; Sedara, 2011). Each village has a chief who is either appointed by the state or nominated by village elites. Chiefs vary in influence, and they tend to be loyal party members who participate in surveillance and disciplining of the community (including researchers). Their bureaucratic position gives them power to mediate access to the state (i.e. registration of land titles), but some may enjoy respect for facilitating the community’s interests (Ledgerwood & Vijghen, 2002; Biddulph, 2015). Other dis- putes may be settled through informal processes by village elders (Luco, 2002; Travers et al., 2011). The Ministry of Environment and the Wildlife Conser-
vation Society support village institutions and conserva- tion programmes in most communities within the protect- ed areas. Participatory land-use plans have been developed with residential, conservation, agricultural and other zones. Community protected area or community forest committees are elected in nine of the 10 villages, to monitor and enforce
compliance with these rules. To incentivize compliance, the Ibis Rice company buys rice at a premium from farmers who follow conservation rules (including no hunting and no use of pesticides; Clements et al., 2010). Village market network committees are elected tomonitor farmers’ compli- ance and determine eligibility in five of the villages. There are also community-managed ecotourism projects in three vil- lages that generate village development funds and direct payments to individuals to protect the nests of priority birds (Clements et al., 2010; Clements & Milner-Gulland, 2015). Medium-term evaluations show that these programmes have contributed to improved tenure security and have pro- vided additional livelihood options (Beauchamp et al., 2018a). Law enforcement patrols are also conducted by the state. Fish and wild meat remain important dietary compo-
nents, and collection of non-timber forest products, such as liquid resin and mushrooms, provides additional income (Travers et al., 2011; Beauchamp et al., 2018a). Most house- holds are engaged in incidental wildlife hunting for home consumption, such as setting traps around agricultural land, taking dogs into the forest when collecting mush- rooms or a slingshot while fishing. This affects common spe- cies such as the water monitor Varanus salvator,muntjac Muntiacus muntjak or wild boar Sus scrofa, and is tolerated by authorities. The meat is considered preferable to domes- tic or market meat because it is seen as chemical-free. Only a small proportion of households practise targeted hunting in the forest using homemade guns or snares, as this requires skilled labour. They target high-value species for sale at local markets (Coad et al., 2019; Ibbett et al., 2020).
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
