Skip to main content

Testing novel methods for assessing rule breaking in conservation

St. John, Freya A.V., Edwards-Jones, Gareth, Gibbons, James M., Jones, Julia P.G. (2010) Testing novel methods for assessing rule breaking in conservation. Biological Conservation, 143 (4). pp. 1025-1030. ISSN 0006-3207. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.018) (Access to this publication is currently restricted. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided) (KAR id:28713)

PDF
Language: English

Restricted to Repository staff only
[thumbnail of St._John_et_al_2010.pdf]
Official URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.018

Abstract

Many approaches to conserving and managing natural resources depend upon rules, but the existence of

rules alone does not guarantee compliance. Information on rule breaking behaviour is needed for designing interventions to improve compliance. However, directly investigating rule breaking is difficult as perpetrators

may not wish to identify themselves. Other disciplines have developed methods for answering sensitive questions but so far these have not been widely applied in conservation. Using rule breaking among fly fishers as a case study, we tested two methods specifically designed for collecting sensitive data (the randomised response technique (RRT) and the nominative technique), against a conventional

self-complete questionnaire. RRT resulted in much higher estimates of the prevalence of rule breaking than the self-complete questionnaire, particularly for more sensitive questions. The nominative technique yielded extremely low estimates, possibly because respondents did not know enough about their friends’ rule breaking behaviour, or did not want to discuss it in a face-to-face interview. Despite requiring large sample sizes we suggest that RRT is a useful method for obtaining information about rule breaking and could be more widely used, for example in studies of poaching and illegal resource extraction.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.018
Uncontrolled keywords: Compliance; Conservation; Fishing; Illegal; Poaching; RRT
Subjects: Q Science > QH Natural history > QH75 Conservation (Biology)
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology)
Depositing User: F.A.V. St-John
Date Deposited: 10 Oct 2012 08:03 UTC
Last Modified: 16 Nov 2021 10:07 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/28713 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)

University of Kent Author Information

St. John, Freya A.V..

Creator's ORCID:
CReDIT Contributor Roles:
  • Depositors only (login required):

Total unique views for this document in KAR since July 2020. For more details click on the image.