896 E. de Lange et al.
FIG. 4 Each construct from the theory of planned behaviour (attitudes, perceived behavioural control, injunctive norms, and descriptive norms) was measured using two questions on a five-point Likert scale. The respondent was presented with a statement and asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed. The per cent of 462 respondents providing each answer for each statement is shown.
Attitudes, perceptions and beliefs
Attitudes The survey data showed that hunting with poi- sons was regarded as unsafe by 87% and not viewed as a good method by 89% of respondents (Fig. 4). Nonetheless, 32 respondents from across all villages stated that it was a good method. The two Likert items measuring attitudes were internally consistent (Cronbach’s α = 0.51) and were combined into a single measure. Wealthier respondents tended to have more negative attitudes, but no other vari- ables had significant effects (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table 3). Of 168 self-reported hunters asked to explain why they did not use poison, concerns for safety and health were the most frequent response (63%; Fig. 6), with lack of knowledge about the practice second (20%).
Perceived behavioural control Likert measures for per- ceived behavioural control were not consistent (Cronbach’s α = 0.09), so these were analysed separately: 65% of respon- dents did not think poisoning was an easy (sruol) method, and 13% did not know if it was easy. Wealth, agricultural pesticide use, and membership of the village market network correlated positively with perceived ease of use, whereas age and length of local residence correlated negatively (Fig. 7, Supplementary Table 4). Agricultural pesticide use (effect = 0.82 ± SE 0.25) had the largest effect. Conversely, 68%ofre- spondents stated that poisoning is an effective method for catching wildlife, especially younger people and those using agricultural pesticides (effect = 0.61 ± SE 0.28). Respondents living in Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary were more likely to perceive it as effective (effect = 1.63 ± SE 0.50; Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). Informants from four villages (three in Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, one in Chheb Wildlife Sanctuary) referred to the efficacy of poisoning as an advantage and a potential reason for others to practise
it. This included the ease with which the method can be learnt and applied, the effectiveness and speed with which animals are killed, and the quantity of wildlife that can be harvested. Two informants also made favourable compari- sons to guns and slingshots. Small amounts of termite poi- son are cheaply available locally, and several respondents suggested this made it accessible to even the poorest.
Perceived social norms Over 75%of respondents indicated anti- or non-poisoning norms for each of the four Likert items, and average responses did not vary by village (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, 28 respondents (6%), 17 of whom resided in two villages in Chheb Wildlife Sanctuary, per- ceived wildlife poisoning to be a common practice in their community. The four Likert items were internally consistent (Cronbach’s α = 0.61) and were analysed to- gether. Older respondents and those living in Kulen
Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary (effect =−1.89 ± SE 0.24) were more likely to perceive norms as being anti-poisoning (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table 3). Furthermore, when de- scriptive and injunctive norms were analysed separately, differences emerged: wealth had a small positive effect (effect = 0.15 ± SE 0.06) on descriptive norms (i.e. wealthier people were more likely to think poisoning is common in the village), but in villages where local authorities had taken action against poisoning (effect = 0.48 ± SE 0.15), wealth had a negative correlation with perceptions of in- junctive norms (i.e. wealthier people were more likely to say that other villagers did not approve).
Perceived and actual repercussions
According to informants and focus group discussions, hun- ters carry out poisoning in secret, which they suggested may
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
