594 L. L. Lopes et al
conservation projects. The survey included both closed and open-ended questions. A temporal qualifier of 5 years was used for some of the questions, to ensure that participants focused on current rather than historical trends, a common approach in expert elicitation studies (e.g. Swan et al., 2017). The survey instrument was pretested with a pilot group
of nine individuals who have a scientific background and familiarity with conservation research on marine turtles (this group was excluded from the actual survey). Following the pilot survey, we refined the instrument based on suggestions for rewording and restructuring. The survey (Supplementary Material 1) was deployed via e-mail and responses were col- lected during 12 April–20 May 2018; one e-mail reminder was sent during this period. We informed participants of the general aims of the project, that participation was voluntary and anonymous, individual details would not be disclosed or identifiable, information collected would be used for research purposes only, they could withdraw at any time, and they could skip questions they did not wish to answer. Clicking on an initiation button on the first page of the survey was taken as consent for participation. Participants were requested to complete the survey only once, although we could not control compliance with this.
Data analysis
Responses to closed questions were analysed as frequencies. Some response categories had limited counts and were grouped for more robust distinctions.We used ordered logis- tic regression to explore potential differences in perceived trade trends, threat ranking, adequacy of current efforts, and priority future efforts required, according to region. For ex- ample, we explored differences in perceptions of the trend in trade among regions as an ordered response (somewhat/ definitely increased, remained the same, somewhat/definitely decreased) without making assumptions about the distance between ordered categories or their distribution. Statistical analyses were conducted with R 3.4.4 (R Core Team, 2018). Responses to open questions (i.e. perceived challenges to
curbing illegal activities, how to address them, and lessons learnt) were categorized using an inductive approach in which summary themes were created by examining the data (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008), and then analysed as frequen- cies. Responses were often categorized into more than one theme, to retain as many differences as possible in expert judgment (an important aspect for communicating findings to decision-makers; Martin et al., 2011).
Results Characteristics of harvest, use and trade
Survey participants The survey was completed by 103 participants (a response rate of 22%), the majority of whom worked for
Of 94 participants, 68% reported the occurrence of illegal harvest of marine turtles in their countries of expertise, 86% reported illegal use and 61% illegal domestic trade.
Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 592–600 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001210
TABLE 1 Characterization of the 103 survey participants. Characteristics
Type of organization Environmental NGO
University/research institute Governmental agency
Other (e.g. more than one of the above; intergovernmental organization; independent)
Main role Scientific research
Programme coordination Technical ecological work Advocacy
Other (e.g. veterinarian; director; policy developer; advisor; student)
Scale of work International National Local
Years of experience2 .20
11–20 6–10 1–5
Frequency (%)1
55 (53) 31 (30) 6 (6)
11 (11)
41 (40) 33 (32) 7 (7) 6 (6)
16 (16)
42 (41) 37 (36) 24 (23)
19 (18) 40 (39) 19 (18) 24 (23)
1Per cents are rounded and hence may not sum exactly to 100. 2One invalid answer, representing 1%, is not displayed.
environmental NGOs and universities/research institutes, mainly playing a role in scientific research or programme coordination at national and international levels (Table 1). The majority of participants had considerable experience in marine turtle conservation, research and/or trade: 76% of the group had .5 years of experience in this field, 19 of which (18% of all participants) had .20 years experience. Of the 103 participants, 72% had been directly involved in a conservation project addressing illegal harvest, use or trade of marine turtles in the previous 10 years. Nine participants did not indicate a single country of ex-
pertise, hence only 94 responses were considered for some of the questions (sample sizes for questions are indicated throughout). In total, participants contributed information on 49 countries. Most participants contributed information on countries in the Eastern Pacific and Western Atlantic; followed by the Eastern Indian Ocean and Central and South-western Pacific; Central Eastern and South-eastern Atlantic; Mediterranean; and lastly, Western Indian Ocean (Fig. 1). Supplementary Figs 1–5 detail the number of par- ticipants per country.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164