892 E. de Lange et al.


FIG. 2 Study area location in Preah Vihear province, Cambodia. The Northern Plains complex of protected areas comprises three protected areas, including the two included in this study (Kulen Promtep and Chhep Wildlife Sanctuaries).


Methods


The research team comprised students from the UK and Cambodia and operated independently of the Wildlife Conservation Society. We used unmarked vehicles and discussed our position with chiefs and other participants. Participants (all aged over 18) gave verbal consent following explanation of the research. Exploratory pilot studies were conducted in two villages,


outside the protected areas, which had been matched to our study villages (Clements &Milner-Gulland, 2015). We used key informant interviews and focus group discussions to investigate pesticide usage. We identified salient beliefs to measure for the theory of planned behaviour and to develop the questionnaire, which was piloted with c. 30 respondents in each of the two villages, and then refined. To measure the prevalence of sensitive poisoning practices we initially used the single sample count method (Petroczi et al., 2011) but switched to the unmatched count technique for the second village because of the technique’s lower cognitive demand. The surveys were initially translated into Khmer and back into English to ensure accuracy, and this was repeated fol- lowing modifications. In the full study, we administered the final survey to a


sample of households, organized focus group discussions, and conducted key informant interviews in each of the 10 villages. We visited each village for c. 5 days during July– September 2017, staying at the home of the village chief or a nominated subordinate. It was necessary to stay at a home for security reasons, and association with the chief was considered the best option as it is a common practice for visitors without personal contacts in the community.


This also legitimized our activities, and reassured villagers that talking to us was condoned, but may have raised con- cerns that responses would be shared with authorities, des- pite our assurances. We administered the questionnaire to 30–60 households


in each village. Sampling was opportunistic because of the unpredictable availability of household members, but we attempted to sample proportionally from all geographical sections of a village.Wesought to interview male household heads as in the pilot study they were found to be most knowledgeable on the topic, but also surveyed 24 female household heads. We visited respondents at their homes and collected survey data using Open Data Kit (Brunette et al., 2013). We collected demographic and livelihood informa- tion, and used an adaptation of a basic necessities survey previously developed for the same area, to give an index of household wealth (Beauchamp et al., 2018a). We used the unmatched count technique to estimate


prevalence of sensitive wildlife poisoning practices (Hinsley et al., 2019). In each round, respondents selected one of two face-down cards. One card displayed images of four related non-sensitive behaviours. The second card was identical but included the sensitive behaviour. Without identifying which, respondents were asked to state the number of dis- played behaviours they had practised in the past year.Anon- sensitive practice roundwas used to confirm that the proced- ure was understood before continuing (Hinsley et al., 2019). We then asked about pest control issues and uses of pesti- cides identified during the pilot study. We used images of pesticide packaging collected during a market shelf survey to help respondents identify specific products. We used five- point Likert scales to measure constructs from the theory of


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