Insights into medicinal wildlife consumption and bear part use in Rakhine, Myanmar

Wildlife conservation in Myanmar: trade in wild sheep and goats for meat, medicine, and trophies, with links to China, India, and Thailand

In Myanmar, the hunting and trade of wildlife are increasingly recognised as a major threat to the persistence of species. We here focus on the trade and conservation of wild sheep and goats (Caprinae; Antilopinae) as these species are indeed hunted and traded for a variety of reasons. Seizure reports from 2000 to 2020 and 20 visits to four wildlife markets between 1998 and 2017 resulted in records of ~ 2,000 body parts, the equivalent of ~ 1,200 wild sheep and goats. When combined with data from previous surveys conducted over the same period, the number of wild sheep and goats recorded in trade increase substantially, i.e. serow (the equivalent of 1,243 animals), goral (213 animals), takin (190 animals), blue sheep (37 animals), and Tibetan antelope (10 animals). With records from 10 out of 15 States, trade appears to be widespread and persistent over time. There was poor concordance between seizure data and trade observations, but data from various surveys are largely in agreement. The most prevalent body parts in trade were horns, followed by plates (the frontal portion of the skull with horns still attached) and heads of freshly killed animals. These parts are offered for sale both for decorations and for their purported medicinal properties. Meat, fat, and rendered oils were observed frequently but because of mixture with other wildlife, it was challenging to confirm species identify or to convert this to number of animal equivalents. Tongues and eyes were offered for sale as medicine. In order to better protect wild sheep and goats in Myanmar, it is imperative that the illegal trade in their parts is more effectively curbed than at present. This is the responsibility of both the Myanmar authorities and, given the high prevalence of trade in border towns, their international partners, including China and Thailand.

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

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.