This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"...an estimated 229 km² of evergreen forest lost in the years 1997 - 2002 through illegal logging (~30 km²/year)."
Hello. there is clearly something wrong here. The numbers doesn't add up. Is there a good source on-line perhaps? Hope we can get the right numbers.
RhinoMind ( talk) 04:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"The National Park comprises 183,408 hectares of designated park land."
The infobox says only 1,712.5 km2 or 171,250 hectares. What does the source says? What is the source anyway?
RhinoMind ( talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Status of the Protected area has been rated as High-importance, as seen above in the tag. I would suggest it to be rated at Top-importance for these reasons:
I would like to get some feedback. And if you have good sources, literature or links associated with this park, please share and post them below. Thank you.
RhinoMind ( talk) 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Clouded Leopard was mentioned in the article, but have been removed. See p.7 here: REPORT 4 Fauna and flora diversity studies in Botum Sakor National Park, Cambodia April 2005 – September 2009
If there is eveidence after 2009 of its presence, please give a proper source on it.
Source of claim for clouded leopard presence, but nothing here about any tigers: https://www.wildlifealliance.org/exciting-results-from-a-camera-trap-survey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.40.169 ( talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
RhinoMind ( talk) 05:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess some of them do! I have been in doubt whether I/we should mention the threatened species at all. I guess Im not alone with my concerns? What do you think? what do NGOs and conservationists think? Have this been debated somewhere? And what is the consensus on it in the global village? Hope for some constructive inputs.
RhinoMind ( talk) 06:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The information below was cut from the article:
"A Chinese owned company named "Chinese Development Group Co", started the clearing of around 36.000 hectares of land in the district of Kiri Sakor in August 2010. citation needed This project, situated to the east of the peninsula, is officially budgeted at US$5 billion and will include the construction of new roads, an airport, a seaport, a golf course, an ecotourism site and a large commercial area with residential living, hotels, restaurants and retail stores. There are serious concerns in the conservation community as well as in the local population citation needed that little, if any, international-standard environmental impact assessments were made prior to the approval of this massive development project, which is expected to last up to 25 years. citation needed"
The reason for moving the info here, is that it is badly sourced and because it might reflect the same project as the one described in the article involving the Union Development Group Co.,Ltd company. Further investigation is needed. Maybe the company changed its name, maybe "Chinese Development Group Co" was an error in the citing-process.
RhinoMind ( talk) 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
As said in the article, a simple calculation shows that the projects would claim more than 70% of the national park area, if they are completed as planned. This number can be interpreted in various ways though:
If these two assumptions holds true, the overall area would reduce to 18,354 ha + hydropower reservoir + smaller areas (tourism) = 25,125 ha + smaller area (tourism). This would lower the impact substantially and result in a 15% (+ tourism) claim on the national park. This is a very optimistic estimate, but shows that detailed information on the specific projects - especially the tourist projects - is important and could tip the doomsday prediction. Nevertheless 15-20% land claim is still a serious threat. Even more so, when all the other threats and concerns are taken into account.
RhinoMind ( talk) 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Botum Sakor National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"...an estimated 229 km² of evergreen forest lost in the years 1997 - 2002 through illegal logging (~30 km²/year)."
Hello. there is clearly something wrong here. The numbers doesn't add up. Is there a good source on-line perhaps? Hope we can get the right numbers.
RhinoMind ( talk) 04:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"The National Park comprises 183,408 hectares of designated park land."
The infobox says only 1,712.5 km2 or 171,250 hectares. What does the source says? What is the source anyway?
RhinoMind ( talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Status of the Protected area has been rated as High-importance, as seen above in the tag. I would suggest it to be rated at Top-importance for these reasons:
I would like to get some feedback. And if you have good sources, literature or links associated with this park, please share and post them below. Thank you.
RhinoMind ( talk) 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Clouded Leopard was mentioned in the article, but have been removed. See p.7 here: REPORT 4 Fauna and flora diversity studies in Botum Sakor National Park, Cambodia April 2005 – September 2009
If there is eveidence after 2009 of its presence, please give a proper source on it.
Source of claim for clouded leopard presence, but nothing here about any tigers: https://www.wildlifealliance.org/exciting-results-from-a-camera-trap-survey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.40.169 ( talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
RhinoMind ( talk) 05:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess some of them do! I have been in doubt whether I/we should mention the threatened species at all. I guess Im not alone with my concerns? What do you think? what do NGOs and conservationists think? Have this been debated somewhere? And what is the consensus on it in the global village? Hope for some constructive inputs.
RhinoMind ( talk) 06:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The information below was cut from the article:
"A Chinese owned company named "Chinese Development Group Co", started the clearing of around 36.000 hectares of land in the district of Kiri Sakor in August 2010. citation needed This project, situated to the east of the peninsula, is officially budgeted at US$5 billion and will include the construction of new roads, an airport, a seaport, a golf course, an ecotourism site and a large commercial area with residential living, hotels, restaurants and retail stores. There are serious concerns in the conservation community as well as in the local population citation needed that little, if any, international-standard environmental impact assessments were made prior to the approval of this massive development project, which is expected to last up to 25 years. citation needed"
The reason for moving the info here, is that it is badly sourced and because it might reflect the same project as the one described in the article involving the Union Development Group Co.,Ltd company. Further investigation is needed. Maybe the company changed its name, maybe "Chinese Development Group Co" was an error in the citing-process.
RhinoMind ( talk) 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
As said in the article, a simple calculation shows that the projects would claim more than 70% of the national park area, if they are completed as planned. This number can be interpreted in various ways though:
If these two assumptions holds true, the overall area would reduce to 18,354 ha + hydropower reservoir + smaller areas (tourism) = 25,125 ha + smaller area (tourism). This would lower the impact substantially and result in a 15% (+ tourism) claim on the national park. This is a very optimistic estimate, but shows that detailed information on the specific projects - especially the tourist projects - is important and could tip the doomsday prediction. Nevertheless 15-20% land claim is still a serious threat. Even more so, when all the other threats and concerns are taken into account.
RhinoMind ( talk) 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Botum Sakor National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)