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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Pfeffermann & C. J. Skinner & D. J. Holmes & H. Goldstein & J. Rasbash, 1998. "Weighting for unequal selection probabilities in multilevel models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(1), pages 23-40.
    2. Yuehong Zhang, 2010. "Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7312), pages 153-153, September.
    3. Ryan H Boyko & Andrew J Marshall, 2010. "Using Simulation Models to Evaluate Ape Nest Survey Techniques," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(5), pages 1-9, May.
    4. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erik Meijaard & Damayanti Buchori & Yokyok Hadiprakarsa & Sri Suci Utami-Atmoko & Anton Nurcahyo & Albertus Tjiu & Didik Prasetyo & Nardiyono & Lenny Christie & Marc Ancrenaz & Firman Abadi & I Nyoman, 2011. "Quantifying Killing of Orangutans and Human-Orangutan Conflict in Kalimantan, Indonesia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-10, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sweldens, Steven & Puntoni, Stefano & Paolacci, Gabriele & Vissers, Maarten, 2014. "The bias in the bias: Comparative optimism as a function of event social undesirability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 229-244.
    2. Nenycz-Thiel, Magda & Romaniuk, Jenni, 2011. "The nature and incidence of private label rejection," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 93-99.
    3. G. Rejikumar & Aswathy Asokan-Ajitha & Sofi Dinesh & Ajay Jose, 2022. "The role of cognitive complexity and risk aversion in online herd behavior," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 585-621, June.
    4. Stalker, Katie Cotter & Wu, Qi & Evans, Caroline B.R. & Smokowski, Paul R., 2018. "The impact of the positive action program on substance use, aggression, and psychological functioning: Is school climate a mechanism of change?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 143-151.
    5. Mr Clive Boddy & Mr Derek Bond & Dr Elaine Ramsey, 2010. "Projective Techniques Are they a Victim of Clashing Paradigms," Accounting, Finance and Economics Research Group Working Papers 1, Ulster Business School.
    6. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    7. Ruvio, Ayalla A. & Shoham, Aviv, 2016. "Consumer arrogance: Scale development and validation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 3989-3997.
    8. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Datta Gupta, Nabanita & Lausten, Mette & Pozzoli, Dario, 2012. "Does Mother Know Best? Parental Discrepancies in Assessing Child Functioning," IZA Discussion Papers 6962, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Gabriel, Andreas & Rombach, Meike & Wieser, Hannah & Bitsch, Vera, 2021. "Got waste: knowledge, behavior and self-assessment on food waste of university students in Germany," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6), February.
    11. Ana León-Gómez & José Manuel Santos-Jaén & Daniel Ruiz-Palomo & Mercedes Palacios-Manzano, 2022. "Disentangling the impact of ICT adoption on SMEs performance: the mediating roles of corporate social responsibility and innovation," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(3), pages 831-866, September.
    12. Carvalho, Sergio W. & Fazel, Hesham & Trifts, Valerie, 2018. "Transgressing a group value in a transcultural experience: Immigrants' affective response to perceived social identity threats," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 326-333.
    13. Rimal, Arbindra & Fletcher, Stanley M. & McWatters, Kay H., 2000. "Nutrition Considerations In Food Selection," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 3(01), pages 1-16.
    14. Sjöstedt, Martin & Sundström, Aksel & Jagers, Sverker C. & Ntuli, Herbert, 2022. "Governance through community policing: What makes citizens report poaching of wildlife to state officials?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. María Dolores Aledo‐Ruiz & Eva Martínez‐Caro & José Manuel Santos‐Jaén, 2022. "The influence of corporate social responsibility on students' emotional appeal in the HEIs: The mediating effect of reputation and corporate image," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 578-592, May.
    16. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    18. Pradeep Kumar Ponnamma Divakaran & Jie Xiong, 2022. "Eliciting brand association networks: A new method using online community data," Post-Print hal-03700393, HAL.
    19. Sha Yang & Yi Zhao & Ravi Dhar, 2010. "Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-539, 05-06.
    20. de Ruyter, Ko & van Birgelen, Marcel & Wetzels, Martin, 1998. "Consumer ethnocentrism in international services marketing," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 185-202, April.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.