ReviewBiological conservation2021
Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques.
Review in Biological conservation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioral interventions to reduce demand for threatened freshwater turtles as pets.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- What fieldwork makes possible: perspectives from Japanese primatology in a technological era.Primates; journal of primatology · 2026Article
- Aiding the well celebrated Kuk's randomized response technique through auxiliary and prior information.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Topic sensitivity still affects honest responding, even when specialized questioning techniques are used.Conservation science and practice · 2023Article
- Acoustic Monitoring Confirms Significant Poaching Pressure of European Turtle Doves (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conservation increasingly seeks knowledge of human behaviour. However, securing reliable data can be challenging, particularly if the behaviour is illegal or otherwise sensitive. Specialised questioning methods such as Randomised Response Techniques (RRTs) are increasingly used in conservation to provide greater anonymity, increase response rates, and reduce bias. A rich RRT literature exists, but successfully navigating it can be challenging. To help conservationists access this literature, we summarise the various RRT designs available and conduct a systematic review of empirical applications of RRTs within (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.