Leejiah Jonathan Dorward

Wild meat can play a crucial role in the food system of rural communities residing near tropical forests. Yet, socio‐ecological changes across tropical landscapes are impacting the patterns and sustainability of meat consumption. To understand the prevalence, frequency and drivers of wild meat, domestic meat and fish consumption in this context, we implemented structured questionnaires across 28 villages in two forested landscapes of Central Kalimantan, a region of Indonesian Borneo characterised by forest‐dependent livelihoods. Across the 632 male household heads surveyed, the primary reason for consumption at the species‐level was taste, followed by ease of access. Conversely, the main reasons for not consuming wild meat more often were cost and low availability. The frequency of wild meat consumption was relatively low, with most respondents consuming it less than once every 6 months. However, local perceptions of biodiversity change and reported difficulties in accessing wild meat suggest this modest consumption was due to declining availability. Freshwater fish was consumed daily by most respondents, serving as an important animal protein in both landscapes. However, we found a positive association between greater well‐being and higher odds of consuming wild meat more frequently. This trend likely reflects disparity in access, with individuals of higher well‐being status better positioned to obtain this declining resource. Our findings highlight the multiple environmental and anthropogenic stressors concurrently affecting both terrestrial and aquatic animal populations in Central Kalimantan, with significant implications for the sustainability of wild meat and wider food security. There were also regional differences in the frequency, diversity and types of domestic and wild species consumed, underscoring the need to consider socio‐demographic diversity when developing wildlife conservation and sustainable food initiatives. Finally, we provide recommendations to work towards sustainable wild meat in these changing rural landscapes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Urgency to save species from extinction has prompted increased investment in law enforcement in protected areas. To date, such law enforcement has largely focused on increasing costs and reducing opportunities for offending. However, these resource‐intensive approaches are not always effective and can contribute to conflict between people and conservation authorities, undermining human well‐being and conservation goals. Drawing on criminal justice research, we considered how procedural justice theory—which examines how fair process and the perceived legitimacy of rules and enforcers influence behavior— could enhance understanding of compliance dynamics and complement existing law enforcement approaches, particularly in addressing low‐level noncompliance in protected areas. We also explored how principles of procedural justice have been incorporated in general policing and outlined challenges and opportunities to integrating this approach into conservation law enforcement. We considered key opportunity‐based (e.g., routine activity theory) and actor‐based frameworks (e.g., deterrence theory) underpinning most protected areaenforcement. We then focused on procedural justice theory and the role of legitimacy in encouraging compliance. Evidence from general policing shows that when enforcers treat citizens fairly, listen, and make decisions objectively, they gain trust and legitimacy. In turn, people are more inclined to comply with laws and cooperate with enforcers. Procedural fairness can be implemented during encounters by embracing 4 pillars: neutrality, voice, respect, and trustworthiness. Outlining challenges of integrating this approach in conservation law enforcement, we highlight the need to address limited public trust in state authority and other factors including working conditions of enforcers. Alongside ensuring the integrity and accountability of conservation law enforcement, we argue that embedding principles of procedural fairness into interactions between enforcers and citizens could reduce low‐level noncompliance. Success, however, requires conservation law enforcement to be reconceptualized by placing procedural fairness and legitimacy on a more equal footing with deterrence in research and practice.

Protected area management often depends heavily on law enforcement to secure compliance with rules. However, this can contribute to conflict between protected area authorities and local people, negatively affecting both human well‐being and conservation outcomes. Compliance is affected by many factors, including whether those who enforce rules are perceived to do so fairly, as well as the perceived rule‐related behavior of others. We used factorial survey experiments to explore how fair respondents living around protected areas in Indonesia and Tanzania perceive sanctions distributed by law enforcers to be. We presented scenarios to respondents to assess how crime type, offender characteristics, and corruption influenced their judgments regarding the fairness of administered sanctions. We also assessed how descriptive norms and corruption influenced individuals’ willingness to obey protected area rules. Data were collected from 229 people in Indonesia and 217 in Tanzania. Results showed that in both locations, lawful sanctions, such as arrests or warnings, were perceived as fairer, and sanctions that involved corruption were perceived as least fair. Attitudes toward protected area rules, corruption, and descriptive norms all influenced people's willingness to comply, whereas multidimensional poverty did not. Our results highlight the need for conservation policy and practice to move beyond narratives that focus on the need for more law enforcement. To improve protected area compliance and secure better outcomes for people and nature, conservation must focus on ensuring the fair administration of rules and enhancing the legitimacy of rules themselves.

New footage confirms Hemiceratoides moths to be bird tear-drinking. Bionomics of Hemiceratoides is updated, and its taxonomy revised, with descriptions of Hemiceratoides ornithopotis sp. nov. and H. avimolestum sp. nov., while Cynisca thysbe, type species of Siccyna (= Cynisca), is recombined as H. thysbe comb. nov. (thus Hemiceratoides = Siccyna synon. nov.), whereas another Siccyna, originally Cynisca reichi, is found to be conspecific with Devena atomifera (synon. nov.). We highlight the striking proboscis modifications in Hemiceratoides compared to non-calpine erebids that may perhaps be incidental eye frequenters. Hemiceratoides sittaca has remarkable, sexually dimorphic labial palps, which are fang-like in males, probably assisting in tear feeding. Hemiceratoides also features unusual valval processes, an asymmetric whip- or stick-like juxta, and sclerotizations surrounding the ostium bursae. A phylogenetic tree reconstructed with eight nuclear genes as well as COI for the subfamilies Hypocalinae + Calpinae confirms the prior finding that Hemiceratoides belongs to tribe Ophiderini, not to Calpini, and supports previously held relationships between calpine genera, except that (Miniodes + Phyllodes) do not form a sister group relationship with (Hemiceratoides + Eudocima). We thus discuss the controversy over the evolution of the unusual feeding habits in Hemiceratoides. Finally, Calyptra canadensis comb. rev. is updated due to a newly established synonymy Calyptra = Percalpe synon. nov.

Working mostly in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries, environmental psychologists have developed scales assessing relationships between pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors. Working in Tanzanian and Indonesian protected area landscapes, containing important biodiversity and conflict over human-nature interactions, we investigate the utility of the New Ecological Paradigm for measuring pro-environmental beliefs and understanding support for protected area regulations. We found the New Ecological Paradigm ineffective at measuring pro-environmental beliefs in both countries; in Tanzania due to acquiescence bias, and in Indonesia exploratory factor analysis supported none of the original factors, with 4 of 15 statements loading onto a novel “eco-fragility” factor. Individual statements in both countries and the eco-fragility factor in Indonesia were weakly correlated with support for protected area regulations, highlighting while elements of the New Ecological Paradigm can improve understanding of support for protected area regulations, care must be taken when applying psychometric tools in novel cultural contexts.

Conservationists increasingly aim to understand human behaviour to inform intervention design. However, obtaining information from people about their behaviour can be challenging, particularly if the research topic is considered sensitive. Topic sensitivity may raise methodological, ethical, political and legal concerns which, if poorly addressed, can have significant impacts on research participants, the research process, data quality and the success of conservation outcomes that are informed by research findings. While considerable effort has been invested in developing techniques for reducing bias when collecting data on sensitive topics, less attention has been focused on identifying if, and why, a topic is sensitive. We use a mixed methods approach to explore how willing people are to discuss topics that could be considered sensitive (e.g. illegal wildlife hunting). Collecting data from people living near protected areas in Indonesia (n = 362) and Tanzania (n = 345), we developed and tested a psychometric scale to measure topic sensitivity at the respondent level and conducted group exercises (free‐lists and pile sorts) to gain a deeper understanding of peoples' willingness to discuss different topics. The perceived sensitivity of topics varied both within and between the two focal contexts, with more topics being perceived as sensitive in Tanzania than Indonesia. Participants' knowledge of rules, and their experiences of living alongside protected areas affected how sensitive they considered topics to be. Mixed methods approaches can provide holistic and nuanced understanding of topic sensitivity. However, recognising that in‐depth studies are not always feasible to implement, we demonstrate that methods, such as our Sensitivity Index, can easily be adapted for different contexts and deployed to rapidly obtain valuable insights on topic sensitivity, to help inform conservation research and practice. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

To develop more effective interventions, conservationists require robust information about the proportion of people who break conservation rules (such as those relating to protected species, or protected area legislation). Developed to obtain more accurate estimates of sensitive behaviors, including rule‐breaking, specialized questioning techniques such as Randomized Response Techniques (RRTs) are increasingly applied in conservation, but with mixed evidence of their effectiveness. We use a forced‐response RRT to estimate the prevalence of five rule‐breaking behaviors in communities living around the Ruaha–Rungwa ecosystem in Tanzania. Prevalence estimates obtained for all behaviors were negative or did not differ significantly from zero, suggesting the RRT did not work as expected and that respondents felt inadequately protected. To investigate, we carried out a second study to explore how topic sensitivity influenced respondents' propensity to follow RRT instructions. Results from this experimental study revealed respondents understood instructions well (~88% of responses were correct) but that propensity to follow RRT instructions was significantly influenced by the behavior asked about, and the type of answer they were required to provide. Our two studies highlight that even if RRTs are well understood by respondents, where topics are sensitive and respondents are wary of researchers, their use does not necessarily encourage more honest responding.

Conservation increasingly relies on social science tools to understand human behavior. Specialized questioning techniques (SQTs) are a suite of methods designed to reduce bias in social surveys and are widely used to collect data on sensitive topics, including compliance with conservation rules. Most SQTs have been developed in Western, industrialized, educated, rich, and democratic countries, meaning their suitability in other contexts may be limited. Whether these techniques perform better than conventional direct questioning is important for those considering their use. We designed an experiment to validate the performance of four SQTs (unmatched count technique, randomized response technique, crosswise model, and bean method) against direct questions when asking about a commonly researched sensitive behavior in conservation, wildlife hunting. We developed fictional characters, and for each method asked respondents to report the answers that each fictional character should give when asked if they hunt wildlife. We collected data from 609 individuals living close to protected areas in two different cultural and socioeconomic contexts (Indonesia and Tanzania) to quantify the extent to which respondents understood and followed SQT instructions and to explore the sociodemographic factors that influenced a correct response. Data were modeled using binomial general linear mixed models. Participants were more likely to refuse to answer questions asked using SQTs compared with direct questions. Model results suggested that SQTs were harder for participants to understand. Demographic factors (e.g., age and education level) significantly influenced response accuracy. When sensitive responses to sensitive questions were required, all SQTs (excluding the bean method) outperformed direct questions, demonstrating that SQTs can successfully reduce sensitivity bias. However, when reviewing each method, most respondents (59–89%) reported they would feel uncomfortable using them to provide information on their own hunting behavior, highlighting the considerable challenge of encouraging truthful reporting on sensitive topics. Our results demonstrate the importance of assessing the suitability of social science methods prior to their implementation in conservation contexts.

Social science is becoming increasingly important in conservation, with more studies involving methodologies that collect data from and about people. Conservation science is a normative and applied discipline designed to support and inform management and practice. Poor research practice risks harming participants and, researchers, and can leave negative legacies. Often, those at the forefront of field‐based research are early‐career researchers, many of whom enter their first research experience ill‐prepared for the ethical conundrums they may face. We draw on our own experiences as early‐career researchers to illuminate how ethical challenges arise during conservation research that involves human participants. Specifically, we considered ethical review procedures, conflicts of values, and power relations, and devised broad recommendations on how to navigate ethical challenges when they arise during research. In particular, we recommend researchers apply reflexivity (i.e., thinking that allows researchers to recognize the effect researchers have on the research) to help navigate ethical challenges and encourage greater engagement with ethical review processes and the development of ethical guidelines for conservation research that involves human participants. Such guidelines must be accompanied by the integration of rigorous ethical training into conservation education. We believe our experiences are not uncommon and can be avoided and hope to spark discussion to contribute to a more socially just conservation.