Improving compliance around protected areas through fair administration of rules.

Protected area management often depends heavily on law enforcement to secure compliance with rules. However, this can contribute to conflict between protected area authorities and local people, negatively affecting both human well-being and conservation outcomes. Compliance is affected by many factors, including whether those who enforce rules are perceived to do so fairly, as well as the perceived rule-related behavior of others. We used factorial survey experiments to explore how fair respondents living around protected areas in Indonesia and Tanzania perceive sanctions distributed by law enforcers to be. We presented scenarios to respondents to assess how crime type, offender characteristics, and corruption influenced their judgments regarding the fairness of administered sanctions. We also assessed how descriptive norms and corruption influenced individuals' willingness to obey protected area rules. Data were collected from 229 people in Indonesia and 217 in Tanzania. Results showed that in both locations, lawful sanctions, such as arrests or warnings, were perceived as fairer, and sanctions that involved corruption were perceived as least fair. Attitudes toward protected area rules, corruption, and descriptive norms all influenced people's willingness to comply, whereas multidimensional poverty did not. Our results highlight the need for conservation policy and practice to move beyond narratives that focus on the need for more law enforcement. To improve protected area compliance and secure better outcomes for people and nature, conservation must focus on ensuring the fair administration of rules and enhancing the legitimacy of rules themselves.

Mejoras en el cumplimiento alrededor de las áreas protegidas mediante la administración imparcial de reglas Resumen El manejo de áreas protegidas casi siempre depende de la aplicación de la ley para asegurar el cumplimiento de las reglas. Sin embargo, esto puede contribuir al conflicto entro las autoridades de las áreas protegidas y los locales, lo que afecta negativamente al bienestar humano y a los resultados de conservación. El cumplimiento se ve afectado por muchos factores, incluido si se percibe que quienes aplican las reglas lo hacen de manera imparcial, así como el comportamiento relacionado a las reglas de las demás. Aplicamos experimentos de censo factorial para explorar cómo los respondientes imparciales que viven en torno a las áreas protegidas en Indonesia y Tanzania perciben las sanciones distribuidas por los agentes de la ley. Les presentamos escenarios para analizar cómo el tipo de crimen, características del ofensor y la corrupción influyen sobre sus juicios con respecto a la imparcialidad de las sanciones administradas. También analizamos cómo las normas descriptivas y la corrupción influyen sobre la voluntad individual de obedecer las reglas del área protegida. Recolectamos los datos de 299 personas en Indonesia y 217 en Tanzania. Los resultados mostraron que, en ambas localidades, las sanciones legales, como arrestos o advertencias, eran percibidas como más justas, y las sanciones que involucraban corrupción eran percibidas como las menos justas. Todas las actitudes hacia las reglas de las áreas protegidas, la corrupción y las normas descriptivas influyeron sobre la voluntad de las personas para obedecer, mientras que la pobreza multidimensional no influyó. Nuestros resultados enfatizan la necesidad de que las políticas y prácticas de conservación vayan más allá de las narrativas que se enfocan en la necesidad de una mayor aplicación de la ley. Para incrementar el cumplimiento en las áreas protegidas y asegurar mejores resultados para las personas y la naturaleza, la conservación debe enfocarse en garantizar la administración imparcial de las reglas e incrementar su legitimidad.

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation.

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.

Validación Experimental de las Técnicas de Cuestionamiento Especializado en la Conservación Resumen La conservación depende cada vez más de herramientas de las ciencias sociales para entender el comportamiento humano. Las técnicas de cuestionamiento especializado (TCE) son un conjunto de métodos diseñados para reducir el sesgo en los censos sociales y y se usan ampliamente para recolectar datos sobre temas sensibles, incluyendo el cumplimiento de las normas de conservación. La mayoría de las TCE se desarrollaron en el hemisferio occidental, en países industrializados, educados, ricos y democráticos, lo que significa que su que su idoneidad en otros contextos puede ser limitada. Quienes piensan en usar estas técnicas consideran importante saber si tienen un mejor desempeño que el cuestionamiento directo convencional. Diseñamos un experimento para validar el desempeño de cuatro TCE (técnica de conteo sin par, técnica de respuesta aleatoria, modelo transversal, método bean) frente a las preguntas directas cuando se cuestiona sobre un comportamiento sensible de interés recurrente en la conservación: la cacería de fauna. Desarrollamos personajes ficticios y para cada método le pedimos a los respondientes que reportaran las respuestas que cada personaje ficticio debería dar al cuestionársele si cazan fauna silvestre. Recolectamos datos de 609 individuos con residencia cercana a áreas protegidas en dos contextos cultural y socioeconómicamente diferentes (Indonesia y Tanzanía) para cuantificar el grado al que los respondientes entendieron y siguieron las instrucciones de las TCE y para explorar los factores sociodemográficos que influyeron sobre las respuestas correctas. Modelamos los datos mediante modelos lineales mixtos binomiales y generales. Fue más probable que los participantes se rehusaran a responder las preguntas realizadas con las TCE en comparación con las preguntas directas. Los resultados del modelo sugirieron que las TCE eran más difíciles de entender para los participantes. Los factores demográficos (p. ej.: edad y nivel educativo) influyeron significativamente la certeza de las respuestas. Cuando se requirieron respuestas sensibles a preguntas sensibles, todas las TCE (excepto el método bean) tuvieron un mejor desempeño que las preguntas directas, lo que demuestra que las TCE pueden reducir exitosamente el sesgo por sensibilidad. Sin embargo, cuando se les preguntó sobre cada método, la mayoría de los respondientes (59-89%) reportó que se sentirían incómodos si tuvieran que usarlas para proporcionar información sobre sus propios comportamientos de cacería, lo que destaca el reto considerable que es reportar honestamente los temas sensibles. Nuestros resultados demuestran la importancia de de evaluar la idoneidad de los métodos de las ciencias sociales previo a su implementación en contextos de conservación.

A mixed methods approach for measuring topic sensitivity in conservation.

Conservationists increasingly aim to understand human behaviour to inform intervention design. However, obtaining information from people about their behaviour can be challenging, particularly if the research topic is considered sensitive. Topic sensitivity may raise methodological, ethical, political and legal concerns which, if poorly addressed, can have significant impacts on research participants, the research process, data quality and the success of conservation outcomes that are informed by research findings. While considerable effort has been invested in developing techniques for reducing bias when collecting data on sensitive topics, less attention has been focused on identifying if, and why, a topic is sensitive.We use a mixed methods approach to explore how willing people are to discuss topics that could be considered sensitive (e.g. illegal wildlife hunting). Collecting data from people living near protected areas in Indonesia (n = 362) and Tanzania (n = 345), we developed and tested a psychometric scale to measure topic sensitivity at the respondent level and conducted group exercises (free-lists and pile sorts) to gain a deeper understanding of peoples' willingness to discuss different topics.The perceived sensitivity of topics varied both within and between the two focal contexts, with more topics being perceived as sensitive in Tanzania than Indonesia. Participants' knowledge of rules, and their experiences of living alongside protected areas affected how sensitive they considered topics to be.Mixed methods approaches can provide holistic and nuanced understanding of topic sensitivity. However, recognising that in-depth studies are not always feasible to implement, we demonstrate that methods, such as our Sensitivity Index, can easily be adapted for different contexts and deployed to rapidly obtain valuable insights on topic sensitivity, to help inform conservation research and practice.

Topic sensitivity still affects honest responding, even when specialized questioning techniques are used.

To develop more effective interventions, conservationists require robust information about the proportion of people who break conservation rules (such as those relating to protected species, or protected area legislation). Developed to obtain more accurate estimates of sensitive behaviors, including rule-breaking, specialized questioning techniques such as Randomized Response Techniques (RRTs) are increasingly applied in conservation, but with mixed evidence of their effectiveness. We use a forced-response RRT to estimate the prevalence of five rule-breaking behaviors in communities living around the Ruaha-Rungwa ecosystem in Tanzania. Prevalence estimates obtained for all behaviors were negative or did not differ significantly from zero, suggesting the RRT did not work as expected and that respondents felt inadequately protected. To investigate, we carried out a second study to explore how topic sensitivity influenced respondents' propensity to follow RRT instructions. Results from this experimental study revealed respondents understood instructions well (~88% of responses were correct) but that propensity to follow RRT instructions was significantly influenced by the behavior asked about, and the type of answer they were required to provide. Our two studies highlight that even if RRTs are well understood by respondents, where topics are sensitive and respondents are wary of researchers, their use does not necessarily encourage more honest responding.