Specialized questioning techniques and their use in conservation: A review of available tools, with a focus on methodological advances

Cerri, Jacopo; Davis, Elizabeth; Veríssimo, Diogo; Glikman, Jenny Anne

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109089

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The flexibility of the method, along with positive reviews of their performance suggests RRTs can overcome biases associated with research on sensitive topics. However, our findings, along with reviews by others ( Cerri et al, 2021 ; Lensvelt-Mulders et al, 2005b ; Umesh and Peterson, 1991 ), highlight a need for caution; RRTs do not consistently provide ‘better’ results ( Höglinger and Jann, 2018 ). Validation studies reveal that RRTs typically underestimate true prevalence, and whilst RRTs typically out-perform direct questioning in other fields, our evidence suggests they do not yet do so in conservation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

“…These methods provide respondents with greater anonymity when answering sensitive questions ( Chaudhuri and Christofides, 2013 ) and are grounded in the premise that respondents are more likely to answer truthfully when question design protects them from revealing incriminating information ( Warner, 1965 ). Within conservation, there is growing interest in using specialised questioning techniques to derive more reliable estimates when researching potentially sensitive behaviours ( Arias et al, 2020 ; Cerri et al, 2021 ; Hinsley et al, 2018 ), but to be effective, these techniques require robust design underpinned by good understanding of their advantages and limitations ( Hinsley et al, 2018 ; Nuno and St John, 2015 ). Here, we describe the various RRT designs, conduct a systematic review of their application, and provide evidence on what works.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques

Ibbett

Jones

John

2021

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation increasingly seeks knowledge of human behaviour. However, securing reliable data can be challenging, particularly if the behaviour is illegal or otherwise sensitive. Specialised questioning methods such as Randomised Response Techniques (RRTs) are increasingly used in conservation to provide greater anonymity, increase response rates, and reduce bias. A rich RRT literature exists, but successfully navigating it can be challenging. To help conservationists access this literature, we summarise the various RRT designs available and conduct a systematic review of empirical applications of RRTs within ( n = 32), and beyond conservation ( n = 66). Our results show increased application of RRTs in conservation since 2000. We compare the performance of RRTs against known prevalence of the sensitive behaviour and relative to other questioning techniques to assess how successful RRTs are at reducing bias (indicated by securing higher estimates). Findings suggest that RRT applications in conservation were less likely than those in other disciplines to provide prevalence estimates equal to, or higher than those derived from direct questions. Across all disciplines, we found reports of non-compliance with RRT instructions were common, but rarely accounted for in study design or analysis. For the first time, we provide conservationists considering RRTs with evidence on what works, and provide guidance on how to develop robust designs suitable for conservation research contexts. We highlight when alternate methods should be used, how to increase design efficiency and improve compliance with RRT instructions. We conclude RRTs are a useful tool, but their performance depends on careful design and implementation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques

Ibbett

Jones

John

2021

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To develop effective interventions, conservationists require reliable information about human behavior, including the proportion of a population engaged in illegal or otherwise sensitive behaviors (St John et al., 2013 ). Designed to reduce bias, SQTs are increasingly applied in conservation, but with mixed success (Cerri et al., 2021 ), leading researchers to question exactly how well research participants understand and follow SQT instructions (Davis et al., 2019 ; Hinsley et al., 2018 ). Conservation research is often conducted in different contexts and conditions from those in which SQTs were developed, meaning that it is important to determine how factors, such as education level, gender, and face‐to‐face enumeration, affect how well respondents understand SQTs and how comfortable respondents feel using these methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous SQTs exist, each developed to overcome the limitations of others (Cerri et al., 2021 ; Nuno & St John, 2015 ). Some rely on probability to determine how respondents should answer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

Ibbett

Dorward

Dwiyahreni

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation increasingly relies on social science tools to understand human behavior. Specialized questioning techniques (SQTs) are a suite of methods designed to reduce bias in social surveys and are widely used to collect data on sensitive topics, including compliance with conservation rules. Most SQTs have been developed in Western, industrialized, educated, rich, and democratic countries, meaning their suitability in other contexts may be limited. Whether these techniques perform better than conventional direct questioning is important for those considering their use. We designed an experiment to validate the performance of four SQTs (unmatched count technique, randomized response technique, crosswise model, and bean method) against direct questions when asking about a commonly researched sensitive behavior in conservation, wildlife hunting. We developed fictional characters, and for each method asked respondents to report the answers that each fictional character should give when asked if they hunt wildlife. We collected data from 609 individuals living close to protected areas in two different cultural and socioeconomic contexts (Indonesia and Tanzania) to quantify the extent to which respondents understood and followed SQT instructions and to explore the sociodemographic factors that influenced a correct response. Data were modeled using binomial general linear mixed models. Participants were more likely to refuse to answer questions asked using SQTs compared with direct questions. Model results suggested that SQTs were harder for participants to understand. Demographic factors (e.g., age and education level) significantly influenced response accuracy. When sensitive responses to sensitive questions were required, all SQTs (excluding the bean method) outperformed direct questions, demonstrating that SQTs can successfully reduce sensitivity bias. However, when reviewing each method, most respondents (59–89%) reported they would feel uncomfortable using them to provide information on their own hunting behavior, highlighting the considerable challenge of encouraging truthful reporting on sensitive topics. Our results demonstrate the importance of assessing the suitability of social science methods prior to their implementation in conservation contexts.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it can also be hypothesized that in areas where predations are under-reported, farmers are also more careful at concealing illegal killing. Other approaches should be used to capture under-reporting of human-wolf conflicts, including stricter controls on livestock numbers, the use of whistleblowing from members of local communities, or specialized questioning techniques [66] . Third, our results could indicate that illegal wolf killing is widespread in the study area, due to conflicts other than those with livestock.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Men and wolves: are anthropogenic causes the main driver of wolf mortality in human-dominated landscapes in Italy?

Musto¹,

Cerri²,

Galaverni³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last 40 years the gray wolf (Canis lupus) re-colonized its historical range in Italy increasing human-predator interactions. However, temporal and spatial trends in wolf mortality, including direct and indirect persecution, were never summarized. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the situation of Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna regions, believed to host a significant proportion of the Italian wolf population, by: (i) identifying the prevalent causes of wolf mortality, (ii) summarizing their temporal and spatial patterns and (iii) applying spatially-explicit Generalized Linear Models to predict wolf persecution. Between October 2005 and February 2021, 212 wolf carcasses were collected and subjected to necropsy, being involved in collisions with vehicles (n = 104), poisoned (n = 45), wounded with gunshot (n = 24) or blunt objects (n = 4) and being hanged (n = 2). The proportion of illegally killed wolves did not increase through time. Most persecution events occurred between October and February. None of our candidate models outperformed a null model and covariates such as the density of sheep farms, number of predations on livestock, or human density were never associated to the probability of having illegally killed wolves, at the municipal scale. Our findings show that conventional correlates of wolf persecution, combined with a supposedly high proportion of non-retrieved carcasses, fail to predict illegal wolf killings in areas where the species have become ubiquitous. The widespread spatial distribution of illegal killings indicates that persecution probably arises from multiple kinds of conflicts with humans, beyond those with husbandry. Wolf conservation in Italy should thus address cryptic wolf killings with multi-disciplinary approaches, such as shared national protocols, socio-ecological studies, the support of experts’ experience and effective sampling schemes for the detection of carcasses.

show abstract

Specialized questioning techniques and their use in conservation: A review of available tools, with a focus on methodological advances

Abstract: This is a preprint, not a peer-reviewed study. If you do not know what a preprint is, we encourage you to read more about this type of documents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprint), before evaluating and citing the study.

Cited by 11 publications

References 73 publications

Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques

Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

Men and wolves: are anthropogenic causes the main driver of wolf mortality in human-dominated landscapes in Italy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About