Jan. 16, 2013 A little-used method for estimating how many people are involved in sensitive or illegal activities can provide critical information to environmental policy makers involved in the proposed UK badger culling scheme, according to new research.
'Innovative techniques for estimating illegal activities in a human-wildlife-management conflict', a paper written by a research team from Bangor University, the University of Kent and Kingston University, has revealed -- for the first time -- the estimated rate of illegal badger killing.
Using a method known as the randomised response technique (RRT), the research, recently published in PLOS ONE, has shown over 10% of livestock farmers in Wales have illegally killed badgers in the 12 months preceding the study. Previous research does not sufficiently consider whether illegal badger killing contributes to the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to livestock.
The team suggest that it would be interesting to model how such a rate of illegal badger killing could be contributing, or not, to the spread of bTB, particularly as badger movements are effected when social groups are disrupted.
Dr Paul Cross, from Bangor University's School of Environment, Natural Resources & Geography explains: 'The proportion of farmers estimated to have killed badgers should be considered by policymakers and in the wider debate.
'Intensive badger culling is one approach being considered by policy makers in an attempt to control the spread of tuberculosis in cattle. However, studies investigating the effects of badger culling on TB outbreaks in cattle have not factored in the prevalence of illegal badger killing, and its potential to spread disease.'
Dr Freya St John, from the University of Kent's Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), said: 'Attempting to resolve the issues regarding badgers as carriers of bovine TB requires cross-disciplinary scientific research, a departure from deep-rooted positions, and the political will to implement evidence-based management. We believe that this study makes an important contribution to that debate.'
RRT requires respondents to roll two dice before answering sensitive questions such as 'have you killed a badger in the last 12 months'. The result of the dice roll is never revealed to researchers, it is the respondents' secret. Crucially there are instructions associated with the dice roll, for example, if the sum of the dice equals five through to ten, answer truthfully; if the sum is between 2 and 4, answer 'yes'; and if the sum is 11 or 12, answer 'no'. The role of 'forced' answers adds noise to the data so that a 'yes' answer doesn't necessarily mean that a respondent committed an illegal act.
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
- Paul Cross, Freya A. V. St. John, Saira Khan, Andrea Petroczi. Innovative Techniques for Estimating Illegal Activities in a Human-Wildlife-Management Conflict. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (1): e53681 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053681
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.