Abstract
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.
Highlights
Where conservation interventions aim to influence human behaviour, it is essential to measure behaviour-change impacts and build an evidence base to guide decisions (Schultz, 2011).behaviours of interest to conservationists are often illegal, making them challenging to study (Gavin et al, 2010)
One problem is social desirability bias: systematic error introduced when people inaccurately report behaviour in order to convey a more socially desirable image (Krumpal, 2013). Such bias can lead to under-reporting of sensitive activities or over-reporting of desirable behaviour (Tourangeau and Yan, 2007). It presents a particular problem for evaluating conservation impacts, since many interventions explicitly aim to alter the social desirability of behaviour, for instance through education or social marketing campaigns (Salazar et al, 2019)
The issue that sensitive behaviour may be misreported has led to increased use by conservationists of survey methods explicitly designed to address this
Summary
Where conservation interventions aim to influence human behaviour, it is essential to measure behaviour-change impacts and build an evidence base to guide decisions (Schultz, 2011). A growing body of research applies specialised questioning techniques to understand sensitive conservation behaviours Studies comparing estimates from specialised methods to those resulting from asking questions directly, offer insight into the performance of different approaches (Razafimanahaka et al., 2012) and provide evidence that specialised techniques can increase reporting of sensitive topics (Lensvelt-Mulders et al, 2005; Phillips et al, 2010). We apply the bean method alongside direct questions to measure wildmeat hunting and trading at a conservation project site in Gola Forest, Liberia. This study focuses on the application of the bean method as a tool to measure behaviour, and evaluation of the impacts of interventions will be presented elsewhere
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
