非法野生动物贸易(IWT)正在威胁着世界各地的许多物种。重要的是要更好地了解IWT的规模和特征,以告知保护优先事项和行动。然而,IWT通常秘密进行,这意味着关于物种的数据,贸易路线和数量有限。这意味着保护主义者通常必须依靠公开的缉获执法报告作为IWT规模和特征的潜在指标。尽管如此,即使这些数据可能也很难访问,导致保护主义者使用媒体报道的癫痫发作。像尼泊尔这样的国家就是这种情况,数据保存和报告能力有限,没有集中的数据管理系统。然而,依赖媒体报道可能会带来进一步的偏见,很少被承认或讨论。在这里,我们通过比较2005年1月至2017年7月来自IWT三个信息来源的数据来描述尼泊尔的IWT:来自三个尼泊尔国家日报的缉获报告,加德满都区的官方缉获记录,以及尼泊尔针对IWT的额外执法工作的数据。我们发现,随着时间的推移,官方和媒体报道的癫痫发作数量之间存在很强的正相关关系,但是媒体报道的缉获数量不足,78%的癫痫发作没有报告。魅力的发作,受保护物种的报告频率更高,涉及老虎的癫痫报告最有可能被报告(57%)。媒体报道似乎是趋势和被缉获物种的良好指标,但不是总体缉获数量,媒体大大低估了癫痫发作总数。因此,在告知保护决策时,不能仅仅依靠媒体报道。我们建议保护主义者在使用媒体报道的癫痫发作数据时对不同的数据源进行三角测量,以更严格地表征IWT。
Illegal wildlife trade (IWT) is threatening many species across the world. It is important to better understand the scale and characteristics of IWT to inform conservation priorities and actions. However, IWT usually takes place covertly, meaning that the data on species, trade routes and volumes is limited. This means that conservationists often have to rely on publicly available law enforcement
reports of seizures as potential indicators of the magnitude and characteristics of IWT. Still, even these data may be difficult to access, leading conservationists to use media reports of seizures instead. This is the
case in countries like Nepal, which have limited capacity in data keeping and reporting, and no centralized data management system. Yet reliance on media
reports risks introducing further biases, which are rarely acknowledged or discussed. Here we characterize IWT in Nepal by comparing data from three sources of information on IWT between January 2005 and July 2017: seizure reports from three Nepali national daily newspapers, official seizure records for Kathmandu district, and data on additional enforcement efforts against IWT in Nepal. We found a strong positive correlation between the number of official and media-reported seizures over time, but media under-reported seizure numbers, with 78% of seizures going unreported. Seizures of charismatic, protected species were reported more often and seizure
reports involving
tigers were most likely to be reported (57%). Media
reports appeared to be a good indicator of trends and the species being seized but not overall seizure number, with the media largely underestimating total seizure numbers. Therefore, media reports cannot be solely relied upon when it comes to informing conservation decision-making. We recommend that conservationists triangulate different data sources when using seizure data reported in the media to more rigorously characterise IWT.