Understanding the prevalence of bear part consumption in Cambodia:A comparison of specialised questioning techniques

<div><p>The trade in bear parts for medicine and for status is a conservation challenge throughout Asia. The Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) are endemic to this region, and populations are estimated to have declined throughout their ranges due to widespread illegal killing of bears and trade in parts, combined with loss of habitat. Previous studies have indicated that legislation alone is insufficient to prevent illegal hunting and trade, indicating instead a need to address demand for bear parts and products. We conducted mixed-method surveys in Cambodia to understand the key motivators for individuals to consume bear parts, and to understand whether specialised questioning techniques are applicable in this context. Bear part use is illegal in Cambodia and may therefore be considered a sensitive behaviour, in that individuals may be reluctant to admit to it. To counteract possible biases, four specialised questioning techniques were used in this study: randomised response technique (RRT), unmatched count technique (UCT), nominative technique (NT), and false consensus bias (FCB). All four methods serve to shield a respondent’s admittance of a sensitive behaviour from the interviewer. The results presented here show that great variability exists in anonymous methods’ efficacy in certain contexts. However, the results overall indicate that individuals in Cambodia are under-reporting their consumption of bear parts when directly asked, and that the prevalence of bear part use in Cambodia may be as high as 15% of the population, representing a significant conservation challenge.</p></div

Understanding the prevalence of bear part consumption in Cambodia:A comparison of specialised questioning techniques

The trade in bear parts for medicine and for status is a conservation challenge throughout Asia. The Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) are endemic to this region, and populations are estimated to have declined throughout their ranges due to widespread illegal killing of bears and trade in parts, combined with loss of habitat. Previous studies have indicated that legislation alone is insufficient to prevent illegal hunting and trade, indicating instead a need to address demand for bear parts and products. We conducted mixed-method surveys in Cambodia to understand the key motivators for individuals to consume bear parts, and to understand whether specialised questioning techniques are applicable in this context. Bear part use is illegal in Cambodia and may therefore be considered a sensitive behaviour, in that individuals may be reluctant to admit to it. To counteract possible biases, four specialised questioning techniques were used in this study: randomised response technique (RRT), unmatched count technique (UCT), nominative technique (NT), and false consensus bias (FCB). All four methods serve to shield a respondent’s admittance of a sensitive behaviour from the interviewer. The results presented here show that great variability exists in anonymous methods’ efficacy in certain contexts. However, the results overall indicate that individuals in Cambodia are under-reporting their consumption of bear parts when directly asked, and that the prevalence of bear part use in Cambodia may be as high as 15% of the population, representing a significant conservation challenge

‘People lie’: overcoming obstacles to incorporate social science research to biodiversity conservation

Mesmo com o reconhecimento da importância da interdisciplinaridade na conservação da biodiversidade, ainda há resistência em incorporar a pesquisa em ciências sociais (PCS) ao pensamento e à prática conservacionista. As razões para tal resistência podem ser resumidas em três afirmações gerais ainda comumente atribuídas à PCS: 'tem pouca utilidade' e 'menos rigor metodológico' quando comparada à pesquisa em ciências naturais e, sobretudo, é pouco confiável porque 'as pessoas mentem'. Neste ensaio, desenvolvido a partir da experiência dos participantes de uma comunidade de prática, formada por profissionais de diversas áreas e setores relacionados à conservação, e das discussões geradas nesse espaço de aprendizado coletivo, abordamos as limitações e os equívocos por trás das afirmações acima. A PCS não é menos útil na conservação e nem tem menos rigor metodológico do que a pesquisa em ciências naturais, e quando as pessoas mentem para o pesquisador o problema não está na pesquisa em si, mas na relação entre sujeito e pesquisador. Argumentamos que à medida que os conservacionistas se familiarizam com a PCS e que os princípios de equidade e justiça são incorporados aos valores e objetivos da conservação, a importância e necessidade da PCS na conservação tornam-se óbvias, e a falta de confiança entre pesquisador e sujeitos deixa de ser uma preocupação significativa. Capacitar, integrar e apoiar são nossas recomendações básicas para pesquisadores, educadores, gestores e tomadores de decisão nas áreas de conservação, ensino, publicação e financiamento, para que a PCS cumpra plenamente seu papel na conservação.Despite the acknowledged importance of interdisciplinarity in biodiversity conservation, there is still resistance to incorporate social science research (SSR) to both conservationist thinking and practice. The reasons for such a resistance can be summarized in three general statements still commonly attributed to SSR, namely: it is of 'little use' and it has 'less methodological rigor' than research in the natural sciences and, above all, it is unreliable because 'people lie'. The current essay was developed based on the experience of participants of a community of practice (formed by professionals from different fields and sectors  associated with conservation), as well as on discussions held in this space of collective learning. It addresses the limitations and misconceptions behind the aforementioned statements. SSR is not less useful in conservation and not less methodologically rigorous than research conducted in the natural sciences. When researchers are lied to, the problem does not lie on the research itself, but on the subject-researcher relationship. We herein argue that as conservationists become more familiar with SSR, and as principles like equity and justice are incorporated to conservation values and goals, both the importance and need of SSR in conservation become obvious, making the lack of trust between researcher and subjects no longer a significant concern. Increasing capacity, integrating and supporting are our basic recommendations for researchers, educators, managers and decision-makers in the conservation, teaching, publishing and funding fields, so that SSR can fully fulfill its role in conservation

Coexisting with different human-wildlife coexistence perspectives

Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific literature addressing human¿wildlife interactions (HWI) and associated concepts, such as coexistence, tolerance, and acceptance. Despite increased attention, these terms are rarely defined or consistently applied across publications. Indeed, the meaning of these concepts, especially coexistence, is frequently assumed and left for the reader to interpret, making it hard to compare studies, test metrics, and build upon previous HWI research. To work toward a better understanding of these terms, we conducted two World Café sessions at international conferences in Namibia, Africa and Ontario, Canada. Here, we present the array of perspectives revealed in the workshops and build upon these results to describe the meaning of coexistence as currently applied by conservation scientists and practitioners. Although we focus on coexistence, it is imperative to understand the term in relation to tolerance and acceptance, as in many cases these latter terms are used to express, measure, or define coexistence. Drawing on these findings, we discuss whether a common definition of these terms is possible and how the conservation field might move toward clarifying and operationalizing the concept of human-wildlife coexistence

Understanding the role attitudes could play in conservation planning for wolves and brown bears in Abruzzo, Lazio and Molise National Park, Italy

Wolf and brown bear populations are expanding throughout Europe, in a human dominated landscape. Conservation of these two species will be determined by the attitudes of those who live close to them. Unlike in North America, human dimensions (HD) regarding human-wildlife issues remains a relatively new field of research in Europe, and even more so in Italy. This is the first study of HD in wolf and bear management in Italy. -- This dissertation has focused on understanding how the attitudes of those living in close proximity to both wolves and bears can play a role in achieving conservation planning. -- Attitudes are positive of negative evaluations of an object - in this case wolves or bears - and are a mental state composed by affective (feelings), cognitive (beliefs) and behavioural intention components. Each component of attitude plays a role in the conservation of wolves and brown bears. The objectives of this study were to look in detail at these three components, how they can be linked, and how they contribute to conservation. Quantitative face-to-face (n=1611) interviews were carried out to determine attitudes of residents toward wolves and bears in the Abruzzo, Lazio, and Molise National Park (PNALM) and the surrounding buffer zone. -- This dissertation demonstrated that the majority of residents in the PNALM are willing to coexist with these large carnivores. Participants expressed positive feelings toward wolves and bears, they tolerated the perceived damages caused, and they support the maintenance and protection of both species - but especially of brown bears. This dissertation showed that residents have a higher level of knowledge about bears, which results in stronger positive feelings. -- These are important messages to communicate to managers responsible for the conservation of wolves and brown bears. Emphasizing these positive findings can be the staring point for constructive dialogue on conservation. This study, therefore, sets the direction for the future public involvement processes. The next HD step would be to organize workshops with all interest groups (e.g. shepherds, hunters, non-locals), to bring them together and to work with them on their commonalities to create a management plan for wolves and bears

Coexistence: looking at the glass half full

For some, the discussion of conflict or coexistence may be a matter of semantics. In terms of working toward solutions, concentrating on mechanisms of coexistence is more positive than mitigating conflicts. However, shifting from conflict to coexistence may not be enough. There is a need to consider conflict and coexistence as they relate to each other. We discuss the conflict-to-coexistence continuum concept, which spans from negative to positive attitudes and/or behaviors. On the extreme end of the conflict side of the continuum, negative attitudes/ behaviours can result in retaliatory killing of wildlife, or support for eradication policies. Moving away from this end position, people might still disagreeing and opposing species management and conservation, but likely not taking direct actions against wildlife. The continuum moves than toward neutral or mixed attitudes/behaviours, where people may not be interested in wildlife and thus remain indifferent toward wildlife issues. Passive tolerance characterizes this section, which is followed by the positive end of the continuum. In this last section, humans favouring the needs of wildlife - as in the case of supporting strict nature reserves, or donating for wildlife conservation, represent some examples of the end point on the positive side of the continuum. Examples from different worldwide studies extracted from the upcoming book "Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence" will be presented to illustrate how the continuum helps in comparing and categorizing the relative strength of negative to positive attitudes/behaviors, and may help to clarify how a specific context influences human-wildlife interactions.peerReviewe

The COVID-19 pandemic: A learnable moment for conservation

The global COVID-19 pandemic is a massive humanitarian and economic disaster on a scale not seen for more than a generation. Although society has appropriately focused on the human costs, the pandemic has provided an opportunity for conservation scientists to highlight lessons for society (Wittemyer, 2020), and assess impacts on biodiversity (e.g., Corlett et al., 2020). At the same time, society's response to the global pandemic provides learning opportunities for the science and practice of conservation. With respect to conservation, we find three key issues from which conservation may seek new directions in research and practice. First, the need to shelter in place has focused a bright light on the deep-seeded need for people to connect to nature. Second, the pandemic illustrates how crises create opportunities to undercut programs to protect people and nature. Finally, observing the willingness of people to make deep sacrifices for society to stem the pandemic shows the power of collective action to make governance succeed. Each of these observations of human behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic provide important lessons for conservation

Evaluation of motorists perceptions toward collision of an endangered large herbivore in Iran

Large herbivores possess high dispersal rates and require vast areas to roam due to their ecology. This will make them susceptible to anthropogenic threats such as vehicle-collisions. Persian onager (Equus hemionus onager), as the only representative of Artiodactyla in Iran, is not an exception. Persian onager-vehicle collision can not only be lethal for themselves but also for motorists. Given the importance of this twofold issue, an important step being taken to reduce collisions was the installation of signs that warn motorists of the high probability of onager-vehicle collisions. We developed a questionnaire to (1) assess the effectiveness of warning signs from motorists’ perspective, and (2) to identify the most important factors affecting motorist beliefs in the effectiveness of warning signs. We solicited responses to our questionnaire from motorists on a road with a high Persian onager-vehicle-collision rate in Southern Iran (Hassan Abad-Meshkan Road). To identify factors affecting motorists' beliefs in the effectiveness of warning signs we used logistic regression and for classifying motorists’ beliefs in the effectiveness of warning signs we used decision tree. Our result showed that motorists' driving speed, lack of adequate safety equipment on the road (e.g. light, police camera), using cellphone while driving, and concern about wildlife damage while driving on the road were the significant factors affecting motorists' beliefs toward the effectiveness of Persian onager warning signs. It is necessary to increase road safety equipment, install standard warning signs at the Persian onager crossing points, and study the behavior of motorists and the rate of road casualties after the mitigation methods to protect this species

Beyond rural vs urban differences: A close match in european preferences in some basic wildlife management and conservation principles

9 Pág.The EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 sets out a framework of commitments and actions to tackle the main drivers of biodiversity loss. Such framework needs to be built on a whole-of-society approach to biodiversity protection, mobilizing private and public funding. In this context, our goal was estimating societal support and preferences about some basic wildlife management principles, which may be useful to inform EU decision-makers about societal priorities and other additional funding sources for wildlife conservation. A discrete choice experiment was conducted by 2415 inhabitants in six European countries (Spain, France, Italy, UK, Germany, Sweden), including residents in both rural (47% of respondents) and urban areas. Our findings reveal a clear pattern across western Europe with similar trends along the studied countries, and even between rural and urban citizens, on some basic wildlife management principles. According to our survey, payments for environmental services contribute to achieving a higher well-being from European citizens in any of the prospective wildlife programs considered, which suggests it is an acceptable tool to share out funds for biodiversity conservation. In addition, managing scarce species is preferred over managing too abundant species; management in forest, agricultural and aquatic habitats is prioritized over that in urban landscapes; and management in protected areas is preferred over management in non-protected ones. These findings suggest that there is a common culture in Europe related to the management of wildlife even when considering citizens with contrasted ways of life: rural vs urban citizens from northern to southwestern Europe. Overall, this study may help in the design of wildlife management policies that maximize societal acceptability and gather higher support.This study was funded by project RTI2018-096348-R-C21/C22 (MCI/AEI/FEDER, Spain, UE).Peer reviewe