Environmental Management

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 393–398

Application of the randomized response technique to marine park management: an assessment of permit compliance

  • Milani Y. Chaloupka
Profile

Abstract

Marine product collecting permits are useful management tools for providing information on usage patterns. Unfortunately, usage parameters based on permit issuance are invariably inaccurate because of permit noncompliance. Since noncompliance is a prosecutable offense, any attempt to estimate the rate of noncompliance by direct survey techniques is met with misleading and evasive responses. It has been shown elsewhere that randomized response designs reduce survey response bias to incriminating questions by ensuring respondent anonymity. With the use of the randomized response survey technique, estimates of permit noncompliance were determined for the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Noncompliance with the requirement to obtain the prescribed permit was found to be low whereas, once a permit was obtained, noncompliance with specific permit conditions was considered high. Reasons for the high rate of noncompliance with specific conditions are presented, and it is recommended that marine park managers should not unreservedly base management decisions on usage data derived simply from permit issuance.

Key words

Randomized response designs Permit compliance Great Barrier Reef Marine Park management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Abernathy, J. R., B. D. Greenberg, and D. G. Horvitz. 1970. Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina.Demography 7:19–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth, J. D., and H. M. Sandler. 1976. Evaluation of the randomized response technique in a drinking survey.Journal for the Study of Alcohol 37:690–693.Google Scholar
  3. Boruch, R. F. 1972. Relations among statistical methods for assuring confidentiality of social research data.Social Science Research 1:403–414.Google Scholar
  4. Cochran, W. G. 1977.Sampling techniques, 3rd edn. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 350 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Dowling, T. A., and R. H. Shachtman. 1975. On the relative efficiency of randomized response models.Journal of the American Statistical Association 70:84–87.Google Scholar
  6. Ericksson, S. A. 1973. A new model for randomized response.International Statistics Review 41:101–113.Google Scholar
  7. Goodstadt, M. S., and V. Gruson. 1975. The randomized response technique: a test on drug use.Journal of the American Statistical Association 70:814–818.Google Scholar
  8. Greenberg, B. G., Abdel-Latif A. Abul-Ela, W. R. Simmons, and D. G. Horvitz. 1969. The unrelated question randomized response model: theoretical framework.Journal of the American Statistical Association 64:520–539.Google Scholar
  9. Greenberg, B. G., R. R. Kuebler, J. R. Abernathy, and D. G. Horvitz. 1971. Application of the randomized response technique in obtaining quantitative data.Journal of the American Statistical Association 66:243–250.Google Scholar
  10. Horvitz, D. G., B. G. Greenberg, and J. R. Abernathy. 1975. Recent developments in randomized response designs. Pages 271–285 in J. N. Srivastava (ed.), A survey of statistical design and linear models. North-Holland, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Horvitz, D. G, B. V. Shah, and W. R. Simmons. 1967. The unrelated randomized response model.Social Statistical Section, Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Washington DC 65–72.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, N. L., and S. Kotz. 1977. Urn models and their application: an approach to modern discrete probability theory. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 402 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Leysieffer, F. W., and S. L. Warner. 1976. Respondent jeopardy and optimal designs in randomized response models.Journal of the American Statistical Association 71:649–656.Google Scholar
  14. Liu, P. T., and L. P. Chow. 1976a. A new discrete quantitative randomized response model.Journal of the American Statistical Association 71:72–73.Google Scholar
  15. Liu, P. T., and L. P. Chow. 1976b. The efficiency of the multiple trail randomized response technique.Biometrics 32:607–618.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Moors, J. J. A. 1971. Optimization of the unrelated question randomized response model.Journal of the American Statistical Association 66:627–629.Google Scholar
  17. Mullenix, P. 1981. Randomized response technique: getting in touch with touchy questions.Undergraduate Mathematics and Its Application Project Journal 11:28–51.Google Scholar
  18. Pollock, K. H., and Y. Bek. 1976. A comparison of three randomized response models for quantitative data.Journal of the American Statistical Association 71:884–886.Google Scholar
  19. Poole, K. E. 1974. Estimation of the distribution function of a continuous type random variable through randomized response.Journal of the American Statistical Association 69:1002–1005.Google Scholar
  20. Shimizu, I. M., and G. S. Bonham. 1978. Randomized response technique in a national survey.Journal of the American Statistical Association 73:35–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Warner, S. L. 1965. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias.Journal of the American Statistical Association. 60:63–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Warner, S. L. 1971. The linear randomized response model.Journal of the American Statistical Association 66:884–888.Google Scholar
  23. Winkler, R. L., and L. A. Franklin. 1979. Warner's randomized response model: a Bayesian approach.Journal of the American Statistical Association 74:207–214.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milani Y. Chaloupka
    • 1
  1. 1.Maritime Estate Management BranchQueensland National Parks and Wildlife ServiceQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations