Investigating determinants of compliance with wildlife protection laws: bird persecution in Portugal
- 456 Downloads
Conservation interventions are generally underpinned by formal rules. These rules often suffer from high rates of non-compliance which is difficult to investigate due to its clandestine nature. Here we apply socio-psychological approaches to investigate the prevalence and determinants of three illegal bird-threatening behaviours—shooting raptors, trapping passerines for consumption, and poison use—by surveying 146 respondents in Portugal. We apply the theory of planned behaviour to understand behavioural determinants, and an indirect questioning method, the unmatched count technique (UCT), to estimate behaviour prevalence. The UCT estimated a high prevalence of trapping for consumption (47 % SE 15) and shooting raptors (14 % SE 11); both estimates being higher than from direct questioning. Poisoning had a lower prevalence according to direct questioning (7 %), while the UCT generated a negative estimate suggesting that poisoning is a particularly sensitive behaviour. Different demographic groups were associated with different behaviours and determinants; men with greater rule knowledge were more likely to trap birds, while locally born people were less likely to approve themselves, or to think others approved of, trapping. Those with more positive attitudes to poisoning were more likely to admit to it, and these positive attitudes were found more in older non-hunters. Rule knowledge was better in younger male hunters. These findings suggest that NGOs aiming to reduce poisoning could enlist the support of hunters, while locally born people may be more receptive than others to working with NGOs to reduce trapping. These groups may be powerful allies in reducing illegal behaviours in their communities.
KeywordsAvian Attitudes Rule knowledge Subjective norms Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) Unmatched count technique (UCT)
We thank the Centro de Convergência, research assistants and respondents for supporting the study. AF was supported by Imperial College London. AN was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT; doctoral grant SFRH/BD/43186/2008). NB acknowledges the financial support of the European Commission under the HUNT project of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. This paper is a contribution to Imperial College’s Grand Challenges in Ecosystems and the Environment initiative.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This study complies with the current laws of the countries in which it was performed.
Research was conducted according to the Imperial College London research ethics policy.
- Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Bartoń K, (2012). Package ‘MuMIn’. Multi-model inference (1.12.1). http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html. Accessed 9/01/2015
- Birdlife (2011) Review of the illegal killing and trapping of birds in Europe. Paper presented at the European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, Larnaca, CyprusGoogle Scholar
- Birdlife International (2014) Country profile: Portugal. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country/portugal. Accessed 19/05/2014
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Council Directive (2009) 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birdsGoogle Scholar
- Council of Europe Convention (1979) 19.IX.1979 of 19 September 1979 on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitatsGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2.15.1). http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 18/11/2014
- Droitcour J, Caspar RA, Hubbard ML, Parsley TL, Visscher W, Ezzati TM (1991) The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning—a review of its development and a case-study application. In: Biemer PP, Groves RM, Lyberg LE, Mathiowetz NA, Sudman S (eds) Measurement Errors in Surveys. Wiley, New Jersey, USA, pp 185–210Google Scholar
- Leitão D, Costa J, Lopes P (2014) Captura ilegal de aves: avaliação preliminar. http://www.spea.pt/fotos/editor2/sagres2014capilegalaves.pdf. Accessed 3rd October 2014
- Schlager E (2005) Getting the relationships right in water property rights. In: Bruns BR, Ringler C, Meinzen-Dick RS (eds) Water Rights Reform: Lessons for Institutional Design. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA, pp 27–54Google Scholar
- Stroud DA (2003) The status and legislative protection of birds of prey and their habitats in Europe. In: Thompson DBA, Redpath SM, Fielding AH, Marquiss M, Galbraith CA (eds) Birds of prey in a changing environment. TSO, Edinburgh, pp 51–84Google Scholar