Conservation Initiatives, Guwahati, 781022, Assam, India.
Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bengaluru, 560042, Karnataka, India.
Conserv Biol. 2020 Apr;34(2):515-526. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13392. Epub 2019 Dec 17.
Stakeholder support is vital for achieving conservation success, yet there are few reliable mechanisms to monitor stakeholder attitudes toward conservation. Approaches used to assess attitudes rarely account for bias arising from reporting error, which can lead to falsely reporting a positive attitude toward conservation (false-positive error) or not reporting a positive attitude when the respondent has a positive attitude toward conservation (false-negative error). Borrowing from developments in applied conservation science, we used a Bayesian hierarchical model to quantify stakeholder attitudes as the probability of having a positive attitude toward wildlife notionally (or in abstract terms) and at localized scales while accounting for reporting error. We compared estimates from our model, Likert scores, and naïve estimates (i.e., proportion of respondents reporting a positive attitude in at least 1 question that was only susceptible to false-negative error) with true stakeholder attitudes through simulations. We then applied the model in a survey of tea estate staff on their attitudes toward Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in the Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong landscape of northeast India. In simulations, Bayesian model estimates of stakeholder attitudes toward wildlife were less biased than naïve estimates or Likert scores. After accounting for reporting errors, we estimated the probability of having a positive attitude toward elephants notionally as 0.85 in the Kaziranga landscape, whereas the proportion of respondents who had positive attitudes toward elephants at a localized scale was 0.50. In comparison, without accounting for reporting errors, naïve estimates of proportions of respondents with positive attitudes toward elephants were 0.69 and 0.23 notionally and at local scales, respectively. False (positive and negative) reporting probabilities were consistently not 0 (0.22-0.68). Regular and reliable assessment of stakeholder attitudes-combined with inference on drivers of positive attitudes-can help assess the success of initiatives aimed at facilitating human behavioral change and inform conservation decision making.
利益相关者的支持对于实现保护的成功至关重要，但目前很少有可靠的机制来监测利益相关者对保护的态度。评估态度的方法很少考虑到因报告错误而产生的偏差，这可能导致错误地报告对保护的积极态度（假阳性错误），或者在受访者对保护有积极态度时不报告这种态度（假阴性错误）。借鉴应用保护科学的发展，我们使用贝叶斯层次模型来量化利益相关者的态度，将其表示为对野生动物（或抽象地）和局部尺度持有积极态度的概率，同时考虑到报告错误。我们通过模拟，将我们的模型、李克特评分和朴素估计（即，至少有 1 个问题报告积极态度的受访者比例，这些问题只容易出现假阴性错误）的估计值与真实的利益相关者态度进行了比较。然后，我们在印度东北部的卡齐兰加-卡尔比昂格朗景观中，对茶园工作人员对亚洲象（Elephas maximus）的态度进行了调查，应用了该模型。在模拟中，利益相关者对野生动物态度的贝叶斯模型估计值比朴素估计值或李克特评分的偏差更小。在考虑到报告错误之后，我们估计在卡齐兰加景观中，对大象有积极态度的概率为 0.85，而对大象在局部尺度上有积极态度的受访者比例为 0.50。相比之下，不考虑报告错误时，对受访者对大象有积极态度的比例的朴素估计值分别为 0.69 和 0.23，分别是从整体和局部尺度来看。错误（正和负）报告的概率都不为 0（0.22-0.68）。定期和可靠地评估利益相关者的态度，结合对积极态度驱动因素的推断，可以帮助评估旨在促进人类行为改变的举措的成功，并为保护决策提供信息。
