710 S. Gluszek et al.


process (Table 1), which was within the recommended panel size (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). This sampling method was biased towards institutions and experts whose contact details were available online, who were recommended and had a functional e-mail address, but it also enabled a wider geo- graphical reach than face-to-face interviews.


Stage 2: expert elicitation


We contacted researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from public, private and non-governmental sectors who re- sponded with interest to the e-mail, by telephone. We ex- plained the horizon scanning process to ensure that par- ticipants clearly understood each stage (Fig. 1; Burgman, 2015).We then used a structured interview guide with open- ended questions (Sutherland&Woodroof, 2009)toelicit po- tential emerging trends in illegal wildlife trade.With the par- ticipants’ consent,we recorded and transcribed the responses to these questions. Topics discussed in the interviewincluded threats frompoaching and trafficking ofwild species, changes in buyer demand, and also opportunities presented to tackle illegal wildlife trade. We phrased the questions carefully to minimize cognitive biases, for example by avoiding am- biguous wording (Sutherland & Burgman, 2015), and used prompts to elicit more detailed information. Experts were encouraged to consult with colleagues post-interview for ad- ditional insights. Trends relating directly to political parties were omitted, given that they are prone to change, even though these undoubtedly impact illegal wildlife trade. The facilitator analysed responses using a thematic framework in a spreadsheet (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994). We identified 26 trends (onewas later removed, see Stage 4) and document- ed each with a short description, using information given during the interviews.


Stage 3: first ranking


We developed an online survey using Qualtrics Survey (Qualtrics, Provo, USA) and circulated this by e-mail to ex- perts, asking them to rank the trends identified during the initial telephone interviews. We used closed questions to assess the novelty of each trend (i.e. whether a trend was known or not) and three-point format probability questions (Burgman, 2015) for their plausibility and impact (i.e. their likelihood of being an emerging threat or opportunity).We also used open questions to gather further information and evidence of the suggested trends, to help refine the short de- scriptions. We asked participants to respond within 2 weeks and sent reminder e-mails (1 week, 2 days and 1 day before the deadline, if they had not replied before then) to improve response rates (Dillman, 2011). We analysed the responses using a statistical mean of the estimates (M. Burgman, pers. comm., 2017). As the total number of trends was


low and we had the opportunity to discuss them further in the online focus group, we did not eliminate any trends at this stage.


Stage 4: online focus group


As participants were geographically distant, we held an on- line focus group using GoToMeeting (LogMeIn, Boston, USA) to discuss and provide a better collective understand- ing of reasoning behind survey answers (Burgman, 2015). The focus group was coordinated in Spanish and conducted as a typed group discussion in real time, to accommodate experts with poor internet connections and varying abilities to speak and write in Spanish (and in consideration of Belize being an English-speaking country). Although more com- plex and less direct than a face-to-face focus group, this method enabled remote participation. One specialist who was able to provide additional information on one of the topics was also invited to attend the online focus group. We e-mailed a transcript of the discussions to all participants after the session. Subsequently, a group e-mail chain pro- vided the opportunity to further discuss results (McBride et al., 2012). In line with the flexible approach of horizon scanning, the study encouraged the continual refinement of the descriptions of the trends through group discussions and individual feedback (Mukherjee et al., 2015); as a result, two trends were refined and one eliminated at this stage.


Stage 5: second ranking


We conducted a second online survey to rank trends and again analysed the estimates using the statistical mean. Participants were also given an opportunity to comment on each topic and further develop their descriptions. The entire process frominitial contact to the production of final descrip- tions of trends took place during April–August 2017.


Results


We identified and ranked 15 emerging trends of threats and opportunities across Mesoamerica. We grouped multiple species within trends, because illegally traded species are often substituted with others for the same uses (e.g. as pets, collectables, medicine or food). Identifying such ana- logue species allowed forecasting of trends to translate more directly into strategies for curbing illegal wildlife trade. Participants acknowledged that, because of the cryptic nature of this illicit trade, some suggested trends were pure- ly anecdotal or potentially isolated cases. This created diffi- culty in determining whether these were early signs of new trends or simply one-off cases. Although horizon scanning can allow for predictions to be made despite scarce evidence,


Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 708–716 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001133


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