Article thumbnail

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

By 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 and Andrew J. Marshall


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

Topics: Research Article
Publisher: Public Library of Science
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). A graduate education framework for tropical conservation and development.
  2. (2009). Academic research training for a nonacademic workplace: A case study of graduate student alumni who work in conservation.
  3. (2005). Aerial surveys give new estimates for orangutans in Sabah,
  4. (2008). Assessing the accuracy of structured questionnaires as a means of sampling orangutan populations. Pilot study sampling methodology. SamarindaIndonesia: The Nature Conservancy.
  5. (2000). Assessing the relative importance of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler surveys Hum Dimens Wildl 5:
  6. (2010). Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized.
  7. (1985). Computing methods for variance estimation in complex surveys.
  8. (2001). Conservation biology: a displacement behavior for academia?
  9. (2008). Costeffective priorities for global mammal conservation.
  10. (1987). Data Collection in Developing Countries.
  11. (2004). Determination of ape distribution and population size using ground and aerial surveys: A case study with orang-utans in lower Kinabatangan,
  12. (2008). Distribution and conservation status of the orang-utan (Pongo spp.) on Borneo and Sumatra: how many remain?
  13. (2010). Estimating orangutan densities using the standing crop and marked nest count methods: Lessons learned for conservation.
  14. (2008). Evaluating orangutan census techniques using nest decay rates: Implications for population estimates.
  15. (2007). Integrating professional skills in wildlife student education.
  16. (2007). Is wildlife research useful for wildlife conservation in the tropics? A review for Borneo with global implications.
  17. (2004). Lawrence A
  18. (2010). Local attitudes and perceptions toward crop-raiding by Orangutans (Pongo abelii) and other nonhuman primates in Northern Sumatra,
  19. (1978). Management of orang utans.
  20. (1985). Maximum likelihood methods for complex sample data: logistic regression and discrete proportional hazards models.
  21. (2010). McKenna A
  22. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches.
  23. (2006). Monitoring for conservation.
  24. (2009). Multilevel models with multivariate mixed response types.
  25. (1993). Orang utan population and habitat quality analysis workshop.
  26. (2009). Orangutan nest surveys: the devil is in the details.
  27. (2004). Orangutan Population and Habitat Viability Assessment: Final Report. Apple
  28. (2009). Orangutan population biology, life history, and conservation. Perspectives from population viability analysis models.
  29. (2003). Orangutan population density, forest structure and fruit availability in hand-logged and unlogged peat swamp forests in West Kalimantan,
  30. (2009). Orangutans. Geographic variation in behavioral ecology and conservation.
  31. (1999). Our vanishing relative. The status of wild orangutans at the close of the twentieth century. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
  32. PfeffermanD,SkinnerCJ,HolmesDJ,GoldsteinH,RasbashJ(1998)Weightingfor unequal selection probabilities in multilevel models.
  33. (2004). PHVA Sumatra summary.
  34. (2004). Pooling local expert opinions for estimating mammal densities in tropical rainforests.
  35. (2003). Population status of the Bornean orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus) in the Sebangau peat swamp forest,
  36. (2006). Psychology of Academic Cheating. BurlingtonSan Diego and London:
  37. (2005). Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice.
  38. (2010). Rapidly shifting baselines in Yangtze fishing communities and local memory of extinct species.
  39. (2010). Recent surveys in the forests of Ulu Segama Malua,
  40. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys.
  41. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning.
  42. (2004). Survey Methodology.
  43. (2010). Testing novel methods for assessing rule breaking in conservation.
  44. (2008). Testing the use of interviews as a tool for monitoring trends in the harvesting of wild species.
  45. (2006). The blowgun is mightier than the chainsaw in determining population density of Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in the forests of East Kalimantan.
  46. (2008). The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests.
  47. (1999). Use of indigenous knowledge for rapidly assessing trends in biodiversity: a case study from Chiapas,
  48. (2010). Using simulation models to evaluate ape nest survey techniques.
  49. (2003). Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met?
  50. (2003). Wildlife knowledge among migrants in southern Sumatra, Indonesia: Implications for conservation.