IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0018008.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Don't We Ask? A Complementary Method for Assessing the Status of Great Apes

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Meijaard
  • Kerrie Mengersen
  • Damayanti Buchori
  • Anton Nurcahyo
  • Marc Ancrenaz
  • Serge Wich
  • Sri Suci Utami Atmoko
  • Albertus Tjiu
  • Didik Prasetyo
  • Nardiyono
  • Yokyok Hadiprakarsa
  • Lenny Christy
  • Jessie Wells
  • Guillaume Albar
  • Andrew J Marshall

Abstract

Species conservation is difficult. Threats to species are typically high and immediate. Effective solutions for counteracting these threats, however, require synthesis of high quality evidence, appropriately targeted activities, typically costly implementation, and rapid re-evaluation and adaptation. Conservation management can be ineffective if there is insufficient understanding of the complex ecological, political, socio-cultural, and economic factors that underlie conservation threats. When information about these factors is incomplete, conservation managers may be unaware of the most urgent threats or unable to envision all consequences of potential management strategies. Conservation research aims to address the gap between what is known and what knowledge is needed for effective conservation. Such research, however, generally addresses a subset of the factors that underlie conservation threats, producing a limited, simplistic, and often biased view of complex, real world situations. A combination of approaches is required to provide the complete picture necessary to engage in effective conservation. Orangutan conservation (Pongo spp.) offers an example: standard conservation assessments employ survey methods that focus on ecological variables, but do not usually address the socio-cultural factors that underlie threats. Here, we evaluate a complementary survey method based on interviews of nearly 7,000 people in 687 villages in Kalimantan, Indonesia. We address areas of potential methodological weakness in such surveys, including sampling and questionnaire design, respondent biases, statistical analyses, and sensitivity of resultant inferences. We show that interview-based surveys can provide cost-effective and statistically robust methods to better understand poorly known populations of species that are relatively easily identified by local people. Such surveys provide reasonably reliable estimates of relative presence and relative encounter rates of such species, as well as quantifying the main factors that threaten them. We recommend more extensive use of carefully designed and implemented interview surveys, in conjunction with more traditional field methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Meijaard & Kerrie Mengersen & Damayanti Buchori & Anton Nurcahyo & Marc Ancrenaz & Serge Wich & Sri Suci Utami Atmoko & Albertus Tjiu & Didik Prasetyo & Nardiyono & Yokyok Hadiprakarsa & Lenny Ch, 2011. "Why Don't We Ask? A Complementary Method for Assessing the Status of Great Apes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-10, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0018008
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018008
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018008&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0018008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0018008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.