Literature DB >> 21966985

The value, limitations, and challenges of employing local experts in conservation research.

Mark Elbroch1, Tuyeni H Mwampamba2, Maria J Santos3, Maxine Zylberberg4, Louis Liebenberg5, James Minye5, Christopher Mosser1, Erin Reddy1.   

Abstract

Evidence suggests that the involvement of local people in conservation work increases a project's chances of success. Involving citizen scientists in research, however, raises questions about data quality. As a tool to better assess potential participants for conservation projects, we developed a knowledge gradient, K, along which community members occupy different positions on the basis of their experience with and knowledge of a research subject. This gradient can be used to refine the citizen-science concept and allow researchers to differentiate between community members with expert knowledge and those with little knowledge. We propose that work would benefit from the inclusion of select local experts because it would allow researchers to harness the benefits of local involvement while maintaining or improving data quality. We used a case study from the DeHoop Nature Preserve, South Africa, in which we conducted multiple interviews, identified and employed a local expert animal tracker, evaluated the expert's knowledge, and analyzed the data collected by the expert. The expert animal tracker J.J. created his own sampling design and gathered data on mammals. He patrolled 4653 km in 214 days and recorded 4684 mammals. He worked from a central location, and his patrols formed overlapping loops; however, his data proved neither spatially nor temporally autocorrelated. The distinctive data collected by J.J. are consistent with the notion that involving local experts can produce reliable data. We developed a conceptual model to help identify the appropriate participants for a given project on the basis of research budget, knowledge or skills needed, technical literacy requirements, and scope of the project. ©2011 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21966985     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01740.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  7 in total

1.  Pumas as ecosystem engineers: ungulate carcasses support beetle assemblages in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Authors:  Joshua M Barry; L Mark Elbroch; Matthew E Aiello-Lammens; Ronald J Sarno; Lisa Seelye; Anna Kusler; Howard B Quigley; Melissa M Grigione
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Table scraps: inter-trophic food provisioning by pumas.

Authors:  L Mark Elbroch; Heiko U Wittmer
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Validating Community-Led Forest Biomass Assessments.

Authors:  Michelle Venter; Oscar Venter; Will Edwards; Michael I Bird
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Biodiversity data integration-the significance of data resolution and domain.

Authors:  Christian König; Patrick Weigelt; Julian Schrader; Amanda Taylor; Jens Kattge; Holger Kreft
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 8.029

5.  Nuisance ecology: do scavenging condors exact foraging costs on pumas in Patagonia?

Authors:  L Mark Elbroch; Heiko U Wittmer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Bed site selection by a subordinate predator: an example with the cougar (Puma concolor) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Authors:  Anna Kusler; L Mark Elbroch; Howard Quigley; Melissa Grigione
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Motion-triggered video cameras reveal spatial and temporal patterns of red fox foraging on carrion provided by mountain lions.

Authors:  Connor O'Malley; L Mark Elbroch; Patrick E Lendrum; Howard Quigley
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.061

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.