Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques

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. This dataset contains all the information extracted from each article as part of the systematic review. The spreadsheet contains two datasets, and two code sheets. One dataset reflects data extracted at the article level, the other reflects data extracted for each study included in the articles (e.g. some articles used RRT in two separate studies, or used 1+ RRT design).

随着对人类行为认识的不断深入，保护领域对这一领域的知识需求日益增长。然而，获取可靠数据往往颇具挑战，尤其是当行为涉及非法或敏感性时。随机响应技术（RRTs）作为一种专门的询问方法，其在保护领域中的应用日益广泛，旨在提供更大的匿名性、提高回答率和降低偏差。关于RRTs的丰富文献已存在，但成功解读这些文献却非易事。为帮助保护工作者获取这些文献，我们对可用的各种RRT设计方案进行了总结，并对包含（n=32）以及超出保护领域（n=66）的RRTs实证应用进行了系统综述。结果显示，自2000年以来，RRTs在保护领域的应用有所增加。我们比较了RRTs与已知敏感行为的普遍性以及与其他询问技术的表现，以评估RRTs在降低偏差（通过获得更高估计值来体现）方面的成功程度。研究发现，RRTs在保护领域的应用相较于其他学科，不太可能提供等于或高于直接提问得出的普遍性估计。在所有学科中，我们发现非遵守RRTs指导的报告普遍存在，但在研究设计或分析中却很少被考虑。首次，我们为考虑使用RRTs的保护工作者提供了关于哪些方法有效的证据，并提供了关于如何开发适合保护研究背景的稳健设计的指导。我们强调在何种情况下应使用替代方法，如何提高设计效率并改善对RRTs指导的遵守。我们总结道，RRTs是一种有用的工具，但其性能取决于精心设计和实施。此数据集包含了系统综述中从每篇文章中提取的所有信息。电子表格包含两个数据集和两个代码表。一个数据集反映了从文章层面提取的数据，另一个数据集反映了从包含在文章中的每个研究中提取的数据（例如，一些文章在两个独立的研究中使用RRT，或者使用1+ RRT设计方案）。