Several examinations of records over varying geographic scales have concluded that Large-spotted Civet is basically a lowland species, with records over 300 m a.s.l. relatively unusual and almost confined to areas of level or gentle terrain (Duckworth 1997, Lynam et al. 2005, Gray et al. 2010, Jennings and Veron 2011, Chutipong et al. 2014). The species is camera-trapped in large numbers in some areas, without the use of special techniques (Austin 1999, Gray et al. 2010, Jenks et al. 2010, Chutipong et al. 2014); this allows high confidence that the extreme paucity of records from above 600 m and from hilly terrain above 300 m, despite extensive camera-trapping in most range states in such areas, truly reflects a great rarity of Large-spotted Civet at these altitudes. Nonetheless, Large-spotted Civet has occasionally been found much higher. Some such records (e.g. Kon Ka Kinh, Viet Nam; probably within 700-900 m; Le Trong Trai pers. comm. to Lynam et al. 2005) come from areas of mid-altitude plateau terrain, which also support other predominantly lowland species. The highest precise-altitude record is perhaps a camera-trap record in 2010 from interior Khao Yai National Park, Thailand, at 780 m; this area had been heavily camera-trapped over the preceding decade without finding the species and its occurrence so high is evidently exceptional (Chutipong et al. 2014).

Within suitable altitude and terrain, the species has been recorded in a number of different habitats: natural habitats assigned directly by observers include evergreen forest, semi-evergreen forest, mixed deciduous forest, deciduous dipterocarp forest, Melaleuca-dominated swamp-forest, shrubland, wetlands and grassland. There are many records from degraded and edge areas as well as some from well within little-encroached blocks of habitat (Duckworth 1997, Austin 1999, Nguyen et al. 2004, Lynam et al. 2005, Holden and Neang 2009, Jenks et al. 2010, Chutipong et al. 2014). Records from plantations (oil palm, teak and perhaps others) seem to come typically or invariably from close to natural habitat (Chutipong et al. 2014, Hamirul et al. 2015).

Two recent investigations of habitat use, one (Gray et al. 2010) for two parts of Cambodia, the other (Jennings and Veron 2011) across the species's non-Chinese range, assigned habitats from record coordinates and GIS habitat information, rather than directly by the surveyors. Both concluded the species is primarily one of deciduous forest. While there are many records of Large-spotted Civet from deciduous forest, there are also many from evergreen forest (see above) and, considering patterns of camera-trapping across habitats at altitudes below 300-400 m, it is certainly not, across its range, preferentially associated with deciduous forest.

Jennings and Veron (2011) provided no measure of relative survey effort between different habitat types, thus allowing the possibility that patterns of record distribution that they identified reflect patterns of survey distribution as much as or more than of animal distribution. Their habitat information source [Global Land Cover 2000 map for Southeast Asia (www.bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/products.php; map 6)], was examined independently by J.W. Duckworth and R.J. Tizard (pers. comm. 2010) for areas of southern Lao PDR, Cambodia and adjacent Viet Nam with which they were familiar. Across much of the southern Indochinese lowlands, predominantly deciduous landscapes have strips of semi-evergreen forest along many rivers and patches on hill tops. Many of these were not, on the GLC map, distinguished from the surrounding deciduous matrix. Jennings and Veron's (2011) analysis cannot, therefore, determine the degree of evergreen versus deciduous habitat use in this large three-country area, and it is plausible that similar imprecision is present in the map for other plains biomes with extensive but not total deciduous forest. These evergreen forest patches and strips support some birds typical of evergreen forest and not of deciduous forest J.W. Duckworth and R.J. Tizard pers. comm. 2010); the same may be true of mammals although at least with carnivores this is less readily assessed.

Gray et al. (2010) used an apparently more precise source for habitats, and were able to build in some at least implicit measure of relative effort. It is therefore possible that in these two areas Large-spotted Civet is particularly associated with deciduous forest. However, several lines of evidence suggest that the apparent association may be an artefact if taken to be applicable across the species's range. The primary confounding variable is that terrain types on which deciduous dipterocarp and semi-evergreen forest occur within the Mondulkiri Protected Forest are significantly different. Semi-evergreen forest is primarily associated with rocky hill terrain (albeit at low elevation) in which slope angles and soil characteristics are unlike typical plains level semi-evergreen forest as occurs elsewhere in Cambodia and other parts of the species's range. In Mondulkiri PF, camera-trapping in semi-evergreen forest appears to have been located only in such hilly terrain. Such semi-evergreen forest might be ‘avoided’by Large-spotted Civet as a result of terrain type rather than vegetation type; whereas the deciduous forests in this areas are on gentle terrain as is typically occupied by this civet (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). That there may be significant undetermined factors driving the local-scale distribution of Large-spotted Civet in areas surveyed by Gray et al. (2010) is suggested by the marked paucity of records from Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary compared with Mondulkiri PF. Although the habitats in these two areas are broadly similar, there are noticeable although somewhat subtle differences. Although Phnom Prich WS has a greater proportion of highly deciduous semi-evergreen forest (sometimes called mixed deciduous forest; poorly categorised and delineated on the JICA landcover maps) than does Mondulkiri PF, other differences suggest this factor alone may not be the most significant one in the apparent differences in Viverra civet occurrence data. Phnom Prich WS is on somewhat more rugged terrain than is Mondulkiri PF, especially when the camera-trap regions are compared (in part this may have some correlation with semi-evergreen forest/ highly deciduous semi-evergreen forest presence). Furthermore, deciduous dipterocarp forest differs between the two areas quite substantially: Phnom Prich WS has a much lower proportion of relatively open deciduous dipterocarp forest, and especially open ‘glades’, and a much higher proportion of the deciduous dipterocarp forest has an understorey dominated by small bamboo. Water sources are markedly fewer and more aggregated in Phnom Prich WS. Unless there was some bias in the camera-trapping protocol and camera placement, which is hard to imagine given the large numbers of Large Indian Civet V. zibetha detected, the paucity of Large-spotted Civet records from Phnom Prich WS suggests that the species may be relatively sensitive to further as yet unknown habitat characteristics.

Chutipong et al. (2014) intended also to assess the species's habitat use in Thailand by GIS, but the habitat types generated for the records, when checked by the original surveyors, produced far too many gross errors of classification for the method to be viable; this included the failure to distinguish between evergreen gallery forest and the surrounding extensive grassy deciduous dipterocarp forest, and multiple instances of semi-natural habitats being classed as plantations (W. Chutipong pers. comm. 2014). Instead, R.J. Timmins (pers. comm. 2014), in conjunction with the surveyors, inspected the locations by eye. In Thailand, there is no suggestion of an association with deciduous forest over evergreen. This analysis of Thai records again suggests that the species may have an even more restricted niche than was previously thought. Although there is wide occurrence across Thailand, detection rates, especially the proportions of camera-trap stations with detections, are very low in almost all areas (in eight of the nine sites with detections, fewer than five camera-trap stations found the species). At Khao Ang Rue Nai Wildlife Sanctuary, the only site with extensive lowland gentle terrain, the species was detected at 41 camera stations. Plotting the locations of all Thai Large-spotted Civet detections on terrain maps placed almost all records unequivocally on gentle terrain, mostly at the edges of protected areas that are centred on hill or mountainous terrain. One of the best examples of this is Khao Yai Natonal Park, which has had some of the most intensive camera-trapping in Thailand, yet Large-spotted Civet has been detected at only three camera-trap stations: two on low elevation, very gentle terrain at the very edge of the park, and a third at 780 m in more rugged terrain amid the main research area in the park with very high levels of camera-trapping in many years: it is clear that Large-spotted Civet does not occur regularly in that sector. Vegetation association in Thailand is less clear, for two main reasons: most low-elevation gentle terrain habitat is significantly degraded (mostly perhaps secondary) and to a degree fragmented; secondly it appears that little to no deciduous or largely deciduous low-elevation gentle terrain habitat survives in the camera-trap survey areas (indeed, such habitat is now rare in Thailand). Thus, there is no way to compare occurrence between semi-evergreen/evergreen and deciduous habitats, or intact with degraded and fragmented habitats. The Thai data suggest a possible greater association with mosaics of different habitats, but this might simply be an artefact of the habitat types present and camera-trapping procedures. An additional survey not included in Chutipong et al. (2014) or the foregoing, of Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary (Wongchoo 2014), detected Large-spotted Civet at few camera-trap stations. These were all in deciduous forest, but in this site evergreen forest is very localised below 400 m and nearly all camera-trapping was in deciduous forest; analysis suggested low altitude, not forest-type, best explained the distribution of the species in the survey area.

There has been no investigation of diet, ranging, productivity or other aspects of natural history, all of which, particularly if compared across habitats, might usefully inform conservation planning and implementation for this species.

Large-spotted Civet has been found in southern China (e.g., Lau et al. 2010), Cambodia (e.g., Holden and Neang 2009, Gray et al. 2010, 2014), Lao PDR (e.g., Duckworth 1997, Austin 1999, Khounboline 2005), Peninsular Malaysia (e.g., Jennings and Veron 2011, Hamirul et al. 2015), Myanmar (e.g., Than Zaw et al. 2008), Thailand (e.g., Lynam et al. 2005, Jenks  et al. 2010, Chutipong et al. 2014) and Viet Nam (e.g., Eames et al. 2004, Nguyen et al. 2004, Roberton 2007). There was considerable confusion during the twentieth century about the southern extent of Large-spotted Civet occurrence, stemming in part from at least one author's treatment of V. megaspila and Malay Civet V. tangalunga as synonymous; Large-spotted Civet's documented range in Peninsular Malaysia is limited to the north-west of the country (Jennings and Veron 2011, Hamirul et al. 2015) and there are no records from Singapore (Chua et al. 2012). 

There are recent (post 1995) records from multiple localities in most range states, except for China, Viet Nam and Malaysia. In China the last record was in 1998 (Wang Ying-xiang pers. comm. 2006); Lau et al. (2010) stated only that it might survive in the country. In Malaysia it has recently been found at only two localities, in the north-west and within the validated former range (Hamirul et al. 2015). In Viet Nam, apparently the only confirmed record since 2003 is of two captives photographed near Takou Nature Reserve (in which they were reportedly captured) in 2010 (D.H.A. Willcox pers. comm. 2014). The distribution in most countries is now patchy, reflecting its habitat use (see 'Habitats and ecology' section) and the heavy conversion of these habitats (see 'Threats' section).

It has been recorded from sea-level to about 800 m a.s.l., although it is very scarce above about 500 m and occurs predominantly below 300 m (see 'Habitats and ecology' section).

Large-spotted Civet has been found in many protected areas, particularly in Thailand and Cambodia (Gray et al. 2014, Chutipong et al. 2014). Most of these are not well managed, with some level of hunting, and many comprise largely unsuitable terrain and altitude for the species. Some of the PAs supporting it in Cambodia are afforded high ranking in conservation prioritisation, notably Mondulkiri Protected Forest, and Gray et al. (2010) called for Large-spotted Civet to be given specific consideration in management of this area. The species is nominally legally protected in most or all range states (excepting China, apparently), but these laws are widely flouted and over large parts of the species's present range have no deterrent effect on hunting levels. Recent great reductions in gun usage by civilians for hunting in Lao PDR and perhaps other countries have led to increased snaring efforts (in compensation); the latter is probably the more damaging form of hunting for this species (Lynam et al. 2005).

The overwhelming need is to secure multiple protected areas across its range by reducing hunting and habitat encroachment to levels not detrimental to this species. A firm legal basis already exists to do this in Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand and Myanmar. Such PAs should include Khao Ang Rue Nai WS and, perhaps, Huai Kha Khaeng WS, Thailand (the latter already one of the best-protected areas in South-east Asia; the former not), Mondulkiri Protected Forest and Preah Vihear Protected Forest (Cambodia), some in Myanmar (currently with too little information to decide which), and perhaps Xe Pian NPA in Lao PDR (although recent information is lacking and regional trends suggest it is quite likely the species will now be very rare there).