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.

No abstract

1. Researchers and practitioners are increasingly using methods from the social sciences to address complex conservation challenges. This brings benefits but also the responsibility to understand the suitability and limitations of these methods in different contexts. After years of use in other disciplines, the unmatched count technique (UCT) has recently been adopted by conservation scientists to investigate illegal and socially undesirable human behaviours. Here we provide guidance for practitioners and researchers on how to apply UCT effectively, and outline situations where it will be the most and least appropriate.2. We reviewed 101 publications in refereed journals that used UCT to draw conclusions on its use to date and provide recommendations on when and how to use the method effectively in conservation. In particular, we explored: type of studies undertaken (e.g. disciplines; behaviour being studied; rationale for using UCT); survey administration (e.g. sample size, pilot studies, administration mode); UCT outcomes (e.g. type of analyses, estimates, comparison with other methods); and type of recommendations.3. We show that UCT has been used across multiple disciplines and contexts, with 10 studies that focus on conservation and natural resource use. The UCT has been used to investigate topics falling into five categories: socially undesirable behaviours, socially undesirable views, illegal or non-compliant behaviours, socially desirable behaviours; and personal topics (e.g. being HIV positive). It has been used in 51 countries and is suitable to several situations, but limitations do exist, and the method does not always improve reporting of sensitive topics. 4. We provide best-practice guidance to researchers and practitioners considering using UCT. We highlight that alternate methods should be considered if sample sizes are likely to be small, the behaviour in question is likely to be extremely rare, or if the behaviour is not particularly sensitive. UCT can be a useful tool for estimating the extent of non-compliance within a conservation context, but as with all scientific investigation, careful study design, robust sampling and consistent implementation are required in order for it to be effective.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The threat posed to protected areas by the illegal killing of wildlife is countered principally by ranger patrols that aim to detect and deter potential offenders. Deterring poaching is a fundamental conservation objective, but its achievement is difficult to identify, especially when the prime source of information comes in the form of the patrols’ own records, which inevitably contain biases. The most common metric of deterrence is a plot of illegal activities detected per unit of patrol effort (CPUE) against patrol effort (CPUE‐E). We devised a simple, mechanistic model of law breaking and law enforcement in which we simulated deterrence alongside exogenous changes in the frequency of offences under different temporal patterns of enforcement effort. The CPUE‐E plots were not reliable indicators of deterrence. However, plots of change in CPUE over change in effort (ΔCPUE‐ΔE) reliably identified deterrence, regardless of the temporal distribution of effort or any exogenous change in illegal activity levels as long as the time lag between patrol effort and subsequent behavioral change among offenders was approximately known. The ΔCPUE‐ΔE plots offered a robust, simple metric for monitoring patrol effectiveness; were no more conceptually complicated than the basic CPUE‐E plots; and required no specialist knowledge or software to produce. Our findings demonstrate the need to account for temporal autocorrelation in patrol data and to consider appropriate (and poaching‐activity‐specific) intervals for aggregation. They also reveal important gaps in understanding of deterrence in this context, especially the mechanisms by which it occurs. In practical applications, we recommend the use of ΔCPUE‐ΔE plots in preference to other basic metrics and advise that deterrence should be suspected only if there is a clear negative slope. Distinct types of illegal activity should not be grouped together for analysis, especially if the signs of their occurrence have different persistence times in the environment.