Premium
The bean method as a tool to measure sensitive behavior
Author(s) -
Jones Sorrel,
Papworth Sarah,
Keane Aidan M.,
Vickery Juliet,
St John Freya A. V.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/cobi.13607
Subject(s) - psychological intervention , measure (data warehouse) , quality (philosophy) , literacy , computer science , environmental economics , environmental resource management , agricultural science , psychology , geography , economics , environmental science , data mining , pedagogy , philosophy , epistemology , psychiatry
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.