A Framework for Assessing Impacts of Wild Meat Hunting Practices in the Tropics

Dobson, Andrew D. M.; Milner‐Gulland, E. J.; Ingram, Daniel J.; Keane, Aidan

doi:10.1007/s10745-019-0075-6

Cited by 27 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 149 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The nature and extent of bias incurred by different survey methods may have implications for management decisions. Defining a “high” or “low” hunting offtake is important to differentiate hunter types and identify potential target groups (Dobson, Milner‐Gulland, Ingram, & Keane, 2019), which could lead to the development of more effective behavior change interventions (Jones, Keane, et al, 2019). In our study, a new observation of 2.2 prey items per day would be considered high under village‐based monitoring but typical according to hunter recall data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of survey method for estimating hunters' harvest rates

Jones

Papworth

John

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harvest data are widely used to understand hunting in tropical forests. However, survey methods are susceptible to biases which could affect results. We compare catch data from two approaches applied concurrently in the same villages (n = 7) in Gola Forest, Liberia: hunter recall interviews (n = 208 hunters, 253 trips) and continuous monitoring by village-based assistants (n = 53 hunters, 404 trips). We use Bayesian multi-level models to: (a) compare estimates of animals killed per trip for each data source; (b) test whether differences between villages are consistent across data sources and (c) identify potential sources of bias. Hunter recall produced higher, and more variable, catch estimates than village-based monitoring, with mean of 7.3 animals [6.0-8.8 95%CI] compared to 3.0 [2.4-3.6], for a trip lasting 3.2 days (the average duration from village-based monitoring). Mean catch-per-village from village-based monitoring failed to predict hunter recall catch and villages with highest catch differed between methods. Differences in trip duration were a potential source of bias: hunter recall recorded longer, more variable, trips (mean 4.0 ± SD 3.0 days, range = 1-32) than village-based monitoring (mean 3.2 ± SD 1.7, range = 1-10). Longer trips were associated with higher catchper-day, use of guns, forest camps and accompaniment by another person; so nonrandom sampling of these traits may have introduced bias. Betweenhunter variability was lower with village-based monitoring, suggesting sampling captured a less diverse subgroup of hunters, or that recall data were noisier due to reporting errors. Our results demonstrate that methodological biases can have large effects on catch estimates and should be carefully considered when designing or interpreting hunting studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of survey method for estimating hunters' harvest rates

Jones

Papworth

John

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our interdisciplinary approach-applying crime science theory to a conservation issue-attempts to provide complementary insight about the sequence of decisions and acts necessary to commit a specific crime or harm at a specific time, rather than build knowledge about why people commit crime or harm generally (Cornish and Clarke 1986). This information can supplement violence reports and other frameworks for assessing the impacts of wild meat hunting practices (e.g., Dobson et al 2019;Belecky and Gray 2020). By understanding this "thought and action" sequence and the situational factors that drive it, one can more precisely target techniques to prevent, constrain, or disrupt the activity.…”

Section: Characterizing An Operating Environment That Enables Illegalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And yet, unsustainable hunting continues with profound implications for ecosystem function and human livelihoods (Belecky and Gray 2020). Gaps remain in our understanding about how to effectively and efficiently apply criminogenic solutions to the conservation problem of illegal hunting practices (e.g., Dobson et al 2019). One implication of this gap is that unintended consequences of criminogenic interventions aimed at preventing illegal hunting may go undetected (Dobson et al 2019) and the problem will persist with irreversible consequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although efforts have been made by different agencies, organizations and sectors to reduce illegal wildlife harvest from snaring, these have been largely unsuccessful (Belecky and Gray 2020;MacMillan and Nguyen 2014). New(er) conceptual approaches for thinking about the topic are emerging, such as green, environmental, or conservation criminology (e.g., Gore 2017;Kurland et al 2017;South and Wyatt 2011), human ecology (e.g., Dobson et al 2019), and socio-environmental systems thinking (e.g., Carter et al 2017). These approaches broaden thinking about interventions for conservation based on a more holistic understanding of human behavior (UNODC 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using crime script analysis to understand wildlife poaching in Vietnam

Viollaz

Long

Trung³

et al. 2021

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poaching can contribute to the failure of biodiversity conservation efforts and inflict diverse harms on human livelihoods. We applied crime script analysis to the case of snare poaching—an illegal hunting activity—in three Vietnamese protected areas. Our goal was to enhance the understanding about the opportunity structure underlying snare poaching to advance the suite of community-based crime prevention activities. We analyzed crime scripts for three types of poachers across nine stages of the poaching process using expert-based elicitation with 13 workshop participants in Vinh, Vietnam, 2018. Five stages were similar, clustered toward the early stages, and two were different, clustered around middle crime stages. Analysis produced systematic crime-specific insight about the procedural aspects and requirements for poaching from preparation to hunt to selling one’s catch. Stages identify multiple entry points to apply prevention techniques and match techniques with different types of snare poaching or poachers. Although this research focused on protected areas, the interdisciplinary approach applied herein may be adapted to other conservation contexts.

show abstract

“…Bushmeat smuggling from Africa and elsewhere could act as a conduit for pathogen spread as suggested by the recent discovery of retroviruses and herpesviruses in bushmeat illegally imported to the US [5]. This is of particular relevance in light of the current global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, and the increasing risk of newly emerging infectious diseases of zoonotic origin [6]. It is widely recognized that 60% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin, and of these 70% originate in wildlife [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Bacillus Anthracis, Brucella Spp., and Coxiella Burnetii DNA Signatures From Bushmeat

Katani

Schilling

Lyimo

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meat from wildlife species (bushmeat) represents a major source of dietary protein in low- and middle-income countries where humans and wildlife live in close proximity. Despite the occurrence of zoonotic pathogens in wildlife, their prevalence in bushmeat remains unknown. To assess the risk of exposure to major pathogens in bushmeat, a total of 3,784 samples were collected from three major regions in Tanzania during both rainy and dry seasons, both fresh and processed and screened by real-time PCR for the presence of DNA signatures of Bacillus anthracis, Brucella spp and Coxiella burnetii (Coxiella). The analysis identified DNA signatures of B. anthracis (0.48%), Brucella (0.9%), and Coxiella (0.66%) in a total of 77 samples. Highest prevalence rates of B. anthracis, Brucella, and Coxiella were observed in wildebeest, dik-dik, and impala, respectively. Fresh samples, those collected during the rainy season, and samples from Selous or the Serengeti had a greater relative risk of being positive. Microbiome characterization identified Firmicutes and Proteobacteria as the most abundant phyla. The results highlight and define potential risks of exposure to endemic wildlife diseases from bushmeat and the need for future investigations to address the public health and emerging infectious disease risks associated with bushmeat harvesting, trade, and consumption.

show abstract

A Framework for Assessing Impacts of Wild Meat Hunting Practices in the Tropics

Cited by 27 publications

References 149 publications

Consequences of survey method for estimating hunters' harvest rates

Consequences of survey method for estimating hunters' harvest rates

Using crime script analysis to understand wildlife poaching in Vietnam

Identification of Bacillus Anthracis, Brucella Spp., and Coxiella Burnetii DNA Signatures From Bushmeat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About