Impact evaluation methods (mixed effects models and matching) were used to investigate the effect of protected areas (PAs) on poverty and livelihoods in Cambodia, comparing households inside PAs with bordering villages and controls. There was no evidence that PAs exacerbated local poverty or reduce agricultural harvests in comparison with controls. Households bordering the PAs were significantly better off due to greater access to markets and services. Non-timber forest product (NTFP) collectors inside PAs were significantly better off than controls and had greater rice harvests, because they had more secure access to land and forest resources. The PAs in Cambodia therefore have some positive impacts on households that use forest and land resources for their livelihoods.