Common Palm Civet uses a wide range of habitats including evergreen and deciduous forest (primary and secondary), seasonally flooded Melaleuca-dominated peat swamp forest, mangroves (Bangladesh Sundarbans), monoculture plantations (such as oil palm and teak), village and urban environments (Ratnam et al. 1995, Heydon and Bulloh 1996, Duckworth 1997, Azlan 2003, Esselstyn et al. 2004, Heaney et al. 2004, Su Su 2005, Wells et al. 2005, Belden et al. 2007, Maddox et al. 2007, Mudappa et al. 2007, Roberton 2007, Khan 2008, Than Zaw et al. 2008, Holden and Neang 2009, Wilting et al. 2010, Low 2011, Chua et al. 2012, Samejima and Semiadi 2012, Choudhury 2013, Hedges et al. 2013, Kalle et al. 2013, Nakashima et al. 2013, Wahyudi and Stuebing 2013, Coudrat et al. 2014, Gray et al. 2014, Kakati and Srikant 2014, Rode-Margono et al. 2014, Chutipong et al. 2014, Nakabayashi et al. in prep., D.H.A. Willcox pers. comm. 2014). In a survey of two oil palm plantations in central Sumatra (where it was the only civet recorded), it was common even in their interior (Jennings et al. 2015). Radio-tracking studies have revealed home-ranges of up to 17 km² for males and 1.6 km² for females (Dhungle and Edge 1985, Rabinowitz 1991, Joshi et al. 1995, Grassman 1998).

This species is adapted for forest living, yet it tolerates living in areas near people: commuting along wires and pipes, sleeping in barns, drains, or roofs during the day, and coming out at night to catch rats or forage for mango, coffee, pineapples, melons, and bananas; it also eats insects and molluscs (Lekagul and McNeely 1977, Spaan et al. 2014). It is crepuscular or nocturnal (e.g., Duckworth 1997, Azlan 2005). It is partly arboreal (Payne et al. 1985) and the extent of arboreal activity perhaps varies across its range or between habitats: it is often among the most commonly photographed small carnivores by ground-level camera-traps, yet extensive camera-trapping in an oil-palm plantation in East Kalimantan did not record it at all, until camera-traps were placed up trees, when it was found to be common (Wahyudi and Stuebing 2013).

Common Palm Civet has a wide distribution in South and South-east Asia from Afghanistan in the west to Hainan and the adjacent Chinese coast in the east; it occurs widely on South-east Asian islands, but the natural pattern of occurrence there is uncertain, given the evidence of introduction by people (Patou et al. 2010, Stevens et al. 2011, Veron et al. 2015). Animals in Sulawesi and the Lesser Sundas eastwards appear to be introductions, while the Philippine archipelago might have been colonised naturally but also might stem entirely from introductions (Veron et al. 2015). Its recorded distribution in China is restricted, to Hainan, southern Guangdong (perhaps based on a trade animal), south-western Guangxi, much of Yunnan and south-western Sichuan provinces (Wang 2003, Lau et al. 2010). It occurs on the small islands of Bawean (Indonesia), Con Son (Viet Nam), Koh Samui (Thailand), Koh Yao (Thailand), and Telebon (Thailand) (Meiri 2005), and on the Philippine islands of Balabac, Busuanga, Camiguin, Culion, Leyte, Luzon, Marinduque, Mindanao, Negros, Palawan, Sangasanga, Sibuyan (specimens) and Catanduanes, Biliran, Maripipi and Panay (other indications) (Heaney et al. 1998). It is sometimes stated to have been introduced to Japan, but this reflects confusion with Masked Palm Civet Paguma larvata (S. Roy in litt. 2014).

It occurs widely at sea-level; the highest records globally are perhaps those at 2,400 m in North-east India (Choudhury 2013) and in Afghanistan at 2,500 m (Stevens et al. 2011).

Common Palm Civet is found within many protected areas across its range (e.g. Lao PDR – Duckworth 1997; Viet Nam – Roberton 2007, Willcox et al. 2014: Table SOM3; Cambodia – Gray et al. 2014; Myanmar – Than Zaw et al. 2008; Thailand – Chutipong et al. 2014; Singapore – Chua et al. 2012; China – Lau et al. 2010; North-east India – Choudhury 2013; Borneo – Nakabayashi et al. in prep.; Java – Rode-Margono et al. 2014). This species is listed on CITES Appendix III (India). It is protected in Malaysia (Azlan pers. comm. 2006), India (on Schedule II part II of the Wildlife Protection Act (2004)), Sichuan, China (Li et al. 2000), Myanmar (Than Zaw et al. 2008) and Bangladesh (under the Wildlife Act 2012; Hasan Rahman pers. comm. 2014), but not in Thailand (Chutipong et al. 2014). It is listed as Vulnerable on the China Red List (Wang and Xie 2004). Its adaptability to modified habitats (including towns and cities) and resilience in the face of heavy general hunting means that at present no conservation interventions are needed. However, the effects of the recent rapid rise in targeted off-take, for civet coffee and the pet trade, in parts of its range (notably Indonesia) are unknown; surveillance of trade levels and investigation of effects on wild populations are warranted (Nijman et al. 2014).