Wildlife poisoning in Cambodia 893


planned behaviour related to wildlife poisoning: two items each for attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and percep- tions of descriptive and injunctive norms. Finally, we directly questioned the respondent about their hunting practices, including use of poison for hunting. Focus group discussions were organized separately for


men and women in each village. We invited eight partici- pants, selected in consultation with the village chief, but the number of attendees was 4–10. We began by asking about non-sensitive topics such as pest issues, pest control, and use of pesticides, and finally other forms of poisoning. We adapted key informant interviews depending on the specific knowledge of the informant. In each village we made efforts to interview the village chief, local doctors, shopkeepers, and leaders of conservation committees, and opportunistically interviewed other individuals. When in- formants indicated direct knowledge or experience of wild- life poisoning, we asked about the practice, the motivations for it, and how they had learnt this method. Statistical analysis was performed in R 3.5.2 (R Core


Team, 2017). We used the List package to analyse un- matched count technique data (Blair & Imai, 2010). We cal- culated estimated prevalence of each behaviour and counted the number of maximal responses (i.e. respondents stating they performall behaviours on the card). Using the method described by Blair & Imai (2012) we also tested for design effects: lower than expected responses from respondents who see the sensitive item, indicating dishonest responses. When theory of planned behaviour construct measures were internally consistent (i.e. Cronbach’s α.0.5), we sum- med them into single continuous measures. We fitted lin- ear mixed models with a Gaussian or binomial response to test for associations between individual variables and be- liefs, practices, perceptions, and theory of planned be- haviour variables. For individual ordinal Likertmeasurements, we used cumulative link (logit)mixed models. Village was in- cluded as a random effect in all models. Qualitative data was translated, and transcribed into NVivo (QSR International, 2015). Text was then coded into pre-defined themes related to the research questions. New themes were also allowed to emerge from the data, following which the data were recoded. Our results subheadings reflect these themes. In total, we interviewed 462 respondents (20–50%of households in each village), and carried out 20 focus group discussions and 53 key informant interviews. We preserved the anonymity of the villages.


Results


Waterhole poisoning practices During the dry season termite poison mixed with rice, water, fruit or fish, is placed in the water of a waterhole or


Impacts of poisoning


Informants and focus group discussion participants de- scribed impacts of poisoning on the environment, wildlife,


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


in a container nearby, to hunt wildlife (Plate 1). One re- spondent summarized this as follows, and similar descrip- tions were provided by a total of 28 informants from eight villages, including during two focus group discussions.


In the dry season, when the waterholes are dry, I put the poison in a coconut shell. It is a powder which I dissolve in the water and put in the shell [.. .]. Using this poison, I used to catch a lot of birds, maybe five or six each time, and I would try three times in one season.


Termite poisons are considered the strongest chemicals available. This term referred to multiple products, identified by packaging, including carbosulphan, carbofuran, fipronil, diazinon and cypermethrin. Respondents often described the poisons by their blue, red or purple colour. Small un- labelled bags of termite poison are also available in local shops forKHR 1,000 (c.USD0.25; Plate 2).We also recorded other misuses of pesticides (Supplementary Material 1).


Prevalence


When directly questioned, 174 respondents (38%) stated they hunted wild meat, but only six respondents (1.3%) admitted to poisoning waterholes (Supplementary Mate- rial 2). In the unmatched count technique, the practice roundshowednodesigneffect (P = 0.67). The estimated


prevalence of waterhole poisoning was −40% of the pop- ulation (SE = 0.12,P,0.01). This is an impossible re- sult, and the significant design effect (P,0.01), suggests this occurs because respondents shown the sensitive be- haviour deliberately under-report the number of activities in which they engage. Nonetheless, six respondents (2.4%) gave a maximal response when shown the card including the sensitive behaviour, effectively indicating engagement in waterhole poisoning. Informants in eight villages reported occurrences of


waterhole poisoning. In one village the chief estimated c. 30% of households engaged in the practice, and two other informants gave estimates of 25–30%. In other villages, estimates varied more widely. For example, one chief de- nied any poisoning, but his deputy gave an estimate of 30%. In another village, some estimates varied from c. 4 to 10%, and another two informants estimated 50%. In the other four villages, just a few households were indicated to engage in the practice (Fig. 3). Three informants reported having practised waterhole poisoning for many years. One man ad- mitted that he stopped poisoning 7 years ago after suffering from symptoms of poisoning and accidentally killing one of his dogs. Another told us he had learnt the method from his father who had been practising it for many years.


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