The bean method as a tool to measure sensitive behavior

Conservationists need to measure human behavior to guide decisions and evaluate their impact. However, activities can be misreported and reporting accuracy may change following conservation interventions, making it hard to verify any apparent changes. Techniques for asking sensitive questions are increasingly integrated into survey designs to improve data quality, but some can be costly or hard for nonexperts to implement. We demonstrate a straightforward, low-cost approach, the bean method in which respondents give anonymous answers by adding a colored bean to a jar to denote a yes or no response. We applied the bean method to measure wild-meat hunting and trading over 2 years at a conservation-project (hunting reduction) site in Gola Forest, Liberia. We extended the technique to accommodate questions about hunting and meat-selling frequency. We compared responses given using the bean method and direct questioning for groups that did and did not participate in conservation interventions. Results from the bean method corresponded to those from direct questioning, and there was no indication of change in question sensitivity following conservation interventions. Estimates from both methods indicated that wild-meat trading decreased in project and nonproject households (from 36% to 20%) and that hunting decreased in 1 project group (38–28%). Where inconsistent answers were given (2–6% of respondents), differences were in both directions and were most likely attributable to measurement error. The bean method was quick and straightforward to administer in a low-literacy setting. We showed how it can be modified for answers of more than 2 categories and consider it a valuable tool that could be adapted for a wide range of conservation settings.     

Achieving conservation impact by shifting focus from human attitudes to behaviors

Attitudes have been a commonly used psychological measure of program effectiveness in conservation social science research. The major limitation of this approach is that attitudes do not always translate into behavior and therefore may not provide an accurate assessment of program success. Given that achieving conservation goals generally relies on understanding and changing human behavior, we argue for the need to assess behavior rather than attitudes as an indicator of conservation outcomes. Psychological theory shows that attitudes and behavior are distinct, but related, concepts. Measuring conservation behaviors involves identifying the target behavior or behaviors and the optimal time to measure and then selecting the most appropriate method of measurement (i.e., direct observation, objective indicators, self-reported behavior, and behavioral intentions) that considers the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. We call for conservation programs to focus on influencing behavior rather than attitudes alone and encourage conservation practitioners and researchers to collect high-quality behavioral data to more effectively inform policy and programs.     

Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence

Recent extinctions often resulted from humans retaliating against wildlife that threatened people's interests or were perceived to threaten current or future interests. Today's subfield of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) grew out of an original anthropocentric concern with such real or perceived threats and then, starting in the mid-1990s, with protecting valued species from people. Recent work in ethics and law has shifted priorities toward coexistence between people and wild animals. To spur scientific progress and more effective practice, we examined 4 widespread assumptions about HWCC that need to be tested rigorously: scientists are neutral and objective about HWCC; current participatory, consensus-based decisions provide just and fair means to overcome challenges in HWCC; wildlife threats to human interests are getting worse; and wildlife damage to human interests is additive to other sources of damage. The first 2 assumptions are clearly testable, but if they are entangled can become a wicked problem and may need debunking as myths if they cannot be disentangled. Some assumptions have seldom or never been tested and those that have been tested appear dubious, yet the use of the assumptions continues in the practice and scholarship of HWCC. We call for tests of assumptions and debunking of myths in the scholarship of HWCC. Adherence to the principles of scientific integrity and application of standards of evidence can help advance our call. We also call for practitioners and interest groups to improve the constitutive process prior to decision making about wildlife. We predict these steps will hasten scientific progress toward evidence-based interventions and improve the fairness, ethics, and legality of coexistence strategies.     

The uses and implications of avian vocalizations for conservation planning

There is a growing recognition that animal behavior can affect wildlife conservation, but there have been few direct studies of animal behavior in conservation programs. However, a great deal of existing behavioral research can be applied in the context of conservation. Research on avian vocalizations provides an excellent example. The conspicuous nature of the vocal behavior of birds makes it a useful tool for monitoring populations and measuring biodiversity, but the importance of vocalizations in conservation goes beyond monitoring. Geographic song variants with population-specific signatures, or dialects, can affect territory formation and mate choice. Dialects are influenced by cultural evolution and natural selection and changes can accumulate even during the timescale of conservation interventions, such as translocations, reintroductions, and ex situ breeding. Information from existing research into avian vocalizations can be used to improve conservation planning and increase the success of interventions. Vocalizations can confer a number of benefits for conservation practitioners through monitoring, providing baseline data on populations and individuals. However, the influence of cultural variation on territory formation, mate choice, and gene flow should be taken into account because cultural differences could create obstacles for conservation programs that bring birds from multiple populations together and so reduce the success of interventions.