Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. We use a Randomized Response Technique (RRT) to estimate the prevalence of five rule‐breaking behaviors around the Ruaha–Rungwa Ecosystem in central‐southern Tanzania. Obtained estimates were negative or did not significantly differ from zero for all behaviors, suggesting the method did not work as expected. We undertook a novel experiment to explore this further, and found respondents understood RRT instructions well, but that propensity to follow instructions was influenced by the behavior asked about, and the answer they were required to provide.

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. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Abstrak Para konservasionis semakin berupaya memahami perilaku manusia untuk memberi informasi bagi desain intervensi. Namun, memperoleh informasi dari orang‐orang tentang perilaku mereka dapat menjadi tantangan tersendiri, terutama jika topik penelitian dianggap sensitif. Sensitivitas topik penelitian dapat meningkatkan kekhawatiran tentang metodologi, etika, politik dan hukum yang, jika ditangani dengan buruk, dapat berdampak signifikan pada peserta penelitian, proses penelitian, kualitas data, dan keberhasilan upaya konservasi yang didasarkan atas temuan penelitian tersebut. Sementara upaya yang cukup besar telah diinvestasikan dalam mengembangkan teknik untuk mengurangi bias saat mengumpulkan data tentang topik sensitif, perhatian yang lebih sedikit difokuskan pada mengidentifikasi jika, dan mengapa, suatu topik sensitif. Kami menggunakan pendekatan metode campuran untuk mengeksplorasi seberapa besar keinginan orang untuk mendiskusikan topik yang dapat dianggap sensitif (misalnya, perburuan satwa liar secara ilegal). Mengumpulkan data dari orang‐orang yang tinggal di dekat kawasan lindung di Indonesia (n = 362) dan Tanzania (n = 345), kami mengembangkan dan menguji skala psikometrik untuk mengukur sensitivitas topik pada tingkat responden dan melakukan kegiatan kelompok (free‐list dan pile sorts) untuk mendapatkan pemahaman yang lebih dalam tentang kesediaan orang untuk mendiskusikan topik yang berbeda. Sensitivitas topik yang dirasakan bervariasi baik di dalam maupun di antara dua konteks utama, dengan lebih banyak topik yang dianggap sensitif di Tanzania daripada di Indonesia. Pengetahuan responden tentang aturan, dan pengalaman mereka hidup berdampingan dengan kawasan konservasi memengaruhi anggapan mereka tentang seberapa sensitif suatu topik. Pendekatan metode campuran dapat memberikan pemahaman holistik dan bernuansa tentang sensitivitas suatu topik. Namun, menyadari bahwa studi mendalam tidak selalu layak untuk diterapkan, kami menunjukkan bahwa metode, seperti Indeks Sensitivitas kami, dapat dengan mudah diadaptasi untuk konteks yang berbeda dan digunakan untuk memperoleh wawasan berharga tentang sensitivitas topik dengan cepat, untuk membantu memberikan informasi untuk penelitian dan praktik konservasi. Muhtasari Uelewa wa tabia za binadamu umeendelea kuwa muhimu kwa wahifadhi ili kuasaidia kubuni njia za utatuzi. Hata hivyo kupata taarifa ya tabia za watu si jambo rahisi hasa kama mada yenyewe ni nyeti. Unyeti wa mada unaweza kuibua maswala ya njia za utafiti, kimaadili, kisiasa na kisheria ambayo, yasiposhughulikiwa vyema, yanaweza kuwa na athari kubwa kwa washiriki wa utafiti, mchakato wa utafiti, ubora wa takwimu na mafanikio ya matokeo ya uhifadhi ambayo yanatokana na matokeo ya utafiti. Ingawa juhudi kubwa zimewekezwa katika kubuni njia za kupunguza udhaifu wakati wa kukusanya takwimu za mada nyeti, nguvu kidogo zimeelekezwa katika kubainisha kama na kwa nini, mada nyeti. Tunatumia njia mchanganyiko kuchunguza ni namna gani watu wako tayari kujadili mada ambazo zinaweza kuchukuliwa kuwa ni nyeti (mfano uwindaji haramu wa wanyamapori). Ukusanyaji wa takwimu kwa watu wanaoishi karibu na maeneo yaliyohifadhiwa nchini Indonesia (n = 362) na Tanzania (n = 345), tulitengeneza na kupima kipimo cha saikolojia ili kupima unyeti wa mada kwa wahojiwa na kufanya mazoezi katika vikundi (kuorodhesha wenyewe na kuchambua rundo) ili kuongeza uelewa wa kina wa utayari wa watu kujadili mada tofauti. Unyeti wa mada unaodhaniwa hutofautiana muktadha kati na baina maeneo haya miwili, huku mada nyingi zilidhaniwa kuwa nyeti nchini Tanzania kuliko Indonesia. Uelewa wa washiriki wa taratibu, na uzoefu wao wa kuishi kando ya maeneo yaliyohifadhiwa uliathiri jinsi walivyofikiria mada kuwa nyeti. Matumizi ya njia meseto huweza kutoa uelewa mkamilifu wa unyeti wa mada. Hata hivyo, kwa kutambua kuwa tafiti za kina hazitekelezeki kila wakati, tunaonyesha kwamba njia kama vile kipimo chetu cha unyeti, kinaweza kutumiwa kwa muktadha tofauti tofauti na inaweza tumiwa kwa haraka kupata maarifa juu ya unyeti wa mada, ili kusaidia kutoa taarifa kwenye utafiti na utendaji wa uhifadhi. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Since the 2000s, Tanzania's natural resource management policy has emphasised Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), designed to promote wildlife and biodiversity conservation, poverty alleviation and rural development. We carried out a quasi-experimental impact evaluation of social impacts of WMAs, collecting data from 24 villages participating in 6 different WMAs across two geographical regions, and 18 statistically matched control villages. Across these 42 villages, we collected participatory wealth ranking data for 13,578 households. Using this as our sampling frame, we conducted questionnaire surveys with a stratified sample of 1,924 household heads and 945 household heads' wives. All data were collected in 2014/15, with a subset of questions devoted to respondents' recall on conditions that existed in 2007, when first WMAs became operational. Questions addressed household demographics, land and livestock assets, resource use, income-generating activities and portfolios, participation in natural resource management decision-making, benefits and costs of conservation. Datasets permit research on livelihood and wealth trajectories, and social impacts, costs and benefits of conservation interventions in the context of community-based natural resource management.