Innovative Techniques for Estimating Illegal Activities in a Human-Wildlife-Management Conflict

Abstract

Effective management of biological resources is contingent upon stakeholder compliance with rules. With respect to disease management, partial compliance can undermine attempts to control diseases within human and wildlife populations. Estimating non-compliance is notoriously problematic as rule-breakers may be disinclined to admit to transgressions. However, reliable estimates of rule-breaking are critical to policy design. The European badger (Meles meles) is considered an important vector in the transmission and maintenance of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle herds. Land managers in high bTB prevalence areas of the UK can cull badgers under license. However, badgers are also known to be killed illegally. The extent of illegal badger killing is currently unknown. Herein we report on the application of three innovative techniques (Randomized Response Technique (RRT); projective questioning (PQ); brief implicit association test (BIAT)) for investigating illegal badger killing by livestock farmers across Wales. RRT estimated that 10.4% of farmers killed badgers in the 12 months preceding the study. Projective questioning responses and implicit associations relate to farmers' badger killing behavior reported via RRT. Studies evaluating the efficacy of mammal vector culling and vaccination programs should incorporate estimates of non-compliance. Mitigating the conflict concerning badgers as a vector of bTB requires cross-disciplinary scientific research, departure from deep-rooted positions, and the political will to implement evidence-based management.

Researching controversial and sensitive issues: using visual vignettes to explore farmers' attitudes towards the control of bovine tuberculosis in England

“…Although this has not received significant attention from academics, a few studies have noted the difficulties associated with asking participants to discuss illegal activities that they may have potentially undertaken (see Enticott ; Cross et al . ). The final video clip, showing a locally‐known farmer and amateur ecologist in Devon discussing the reasons for killing a badger on his farm, allowed this issue to become an acceptable point for discussion.…”

Estimating the prevalence of food risk increasing behaviours in UK kitchens

“…However, due to the inherent noise associated with forced response approaches, RRT requires larger samples compared to conventional techniques in order to obtain estimates with acceptable levels of error [43, 44]. Larger sample sizes require a contingent increase in research costs.…”

Compliance with ivory trade regulations in the United Kingdom among traders

“…We used projective questioning (Cross et al. ) to measure compliance with ivory trade regulations by asking respondents to report on illegal behavior of close friends rather than their own, allowing respondents to reply without implicating themselves in criminal activity (St. John et al. ; Gore et al.…”

“…We used projective questioning (Cross et al 2013) to measure compliance with ivory trade regulations by asking respondents to report on illegal behavior of close friends rather than their own, allowing respondents to reply without implicating themselves in criminal activity (St. John et al 2010b;Gore et al 2013;Nuno & St. John 2015). Respondents were asked "Out of every 100 people who work with objects containing ivory, how many do you think always check they have correct documentation for use?"…”

“…Projective questioning builds on the assumption that people know about behaviors present or absent in their social group and assume others act the way they do; thus, when questioned about a given behavior, they will provide prevalence estimates biased in accordance with their own behavior (Ross et al 1977;Petróczi et al 2008). Projective questioning helps overcome the difficulties of obtaining a large sample size and complicated questioning of other methods, such as randomized response technique (Warner 1965), which have been used in other studies of illegal behavior in conservation (St. John et al 2010aCross et al 2013;Thomas et al 2015).…”