Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

Harriet Ibbett, Leejiah Dorward, Asri A. Dwiyahreni, Julia P.G. Jones, Joseph Kaduma, Edward M. Kohi, Jesca Mchomvu, Karlina Prayitno, Humairah Sabiladiyni, Stephen Sankeni, Andie Wijaya Saputra, Jatna Supriatna, Freya A.V. St John

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere13908
JournalConservation Biology
Volume36
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2022

Keywords

  • bean method
  • bias
  • crosswise model
  • direct questions
  • modelo transversal
  • método bean
  • preguntas directas
  • randomized response techniques
  • rompimiento de reglas
  • rule breaking
  • sensibilidad
  • sensitivity
  • sesgo
  • técnica de conteo sin par
  • técnicas de respuesta aleatoria
  • unmatched count technique

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this