Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques. (August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ibbett, Harriet; Jones, Julia P.G.; St John, Freya A.V.
• Is Part Of: Biological conservation. Volume 260(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-08
• Subjects: Specialised questioning techniques -- Indirect questioning -- Non-compliance -- Rule-breaking -- Natural resource management -- Sensitivity bias; Conservation of natural resources -- Periodicals; Nature conservation -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Environmental Pollution -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109191
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0006-3207

Abstract

Abstract: 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. Highlights: Randomised Response Techniques (RRTs) are increasingly used in conservation. Evidence from a systematic review shows RRT performance in conservation varies. Non-compliance with RRT instructions is common, but rarely accounted for. RRTs are not appropriate for all research questions. To be successful, RRTs require careful design and implementation.