Interviews in ecology and conservation biology: A hidden treasure for the African ecologist

Abstract

Scientific exploration of the African continent, particularly during the 1700s and 1800s, was greatly supported by often unrecognised but essential contributions of native hunters, guides, translators, and cultural intermediaries. Their invaluable expertise in facilitating the integration of foreign naturalists into local communities, their capacity to share profound knowledge about the landscape, and their insights into the region's plant and animal life played a pivotal role in the success of numerous epic expeditions. Consequently, these foreign explorers managed to navigate extensive African rivers, venture into uncharted forests, and systematically record the abundant biotic and abiotic resources within untouched landscapes that had experienced minimal human interaction. Many of these unnamed local facilitators can be seen as uncelebrated ‘co-authors’ of many, if not all, the scientific discoveries made during the 1800s and early 1900s. Their unobtrusive existence, at times alluded to in the accounts of naturalists and explorers, acts as a form of ‘conciliation’ between the colonised and the colonisers. This conciliation was intended to promote scientific advancement despite the sombre legacy of colonialism and its deplorable transgressions and crimes (Ewans, 2017; Hickman, 2008; Karari, 2018). In the writings of naturalists from that era, the information provided by native individuals was not only considered fundamental and credible but also deserving of the highest scientific regard and admiration. One of the most renowned examples is the revelation of the Okapi (Okapia johnstoni), credited to the narratives conveyed by Mbuti Pygmies to the naturalist Sir Harry Johnston, which eventually led to the shipment of Okapi skins and skulls to the British Museum (Lankester, 1902). Using the words of Henry Stanley, Lankester (1902) noted that the ‘Warnbutti’ people, a Pygmy tribe, were acquainted with a creature similar to a donkey, which they called ‘Atti’. This term ‘Atti’ was a variant of the name ‘Okapi,’ as confirmed by Johnston from information provided by his native informants. In March 1900, Johnston first heard about the Okapi from the forest-dwelling natives who lived with him in Entebbe, Uganda. In early July, he arrived at the Semliki Forest in the Congo Free State. The first Belgian official to verify the accounts of the Okapi and assist in obtaining the coveted pelts was Lieutenant Rileura. The Okapi's extraordinary diet, primarily composed of leaves, elicited amazement.

In the early 1900s, the scientific approach differed from contemporary conventions, where methodological descriptions were notably less detailed. Nonetheless, if we were to narrate the discovery of the Okapi in a modern context, we would undoubtedly underscore that the Okapi's existence was validated through a meticulous process that involved direct interviews with local hunters belonging to small forest communities. This method heavily leaned on harnessing their invaluable traditional local ecological knowledge (LEK). In a way, it could be regarded as a precursor to what we now refer to as ‘citizen science’.

The first scientist to have employed interviews to gather information in the field was, in 1886, a famous British shipowner and social researcher, Charles Booth (Converse, 1987). Use of interviews as a well-established research method in ecology and conservation was not really known then. Over the course of time, face-to-face interviews have evolved to play an increasingly vital role in research on conservation of biodiversity, ecosystems, and natural resources (Anadón et al., 2009; Bennett, 2016; Pillay et al., 2022). Conservation biology, which inherently necessitates an understanding of human interactions with nature, underscores the essential role of face-to-face interviews with local stakeholders (e.g. Aglissi et al., 2023; Battisti, 2023; Fa & Luiselli, 2023; Sonhaye-Ouyé et al., 2022). Such interviews serve various purposes, encompassing data collection, information acquisition, and active meaningful engagement with stakeholders. (e.g. Chakanyuka & Utete, 2022; Hamad et al., 2023; Matema et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2022).

Face-to-face interviews certainly facilitate field collaboration for the benefit of conservation (Grodzińska-Jurczak & Cent, 2011) creating opportunities for dialogue and knowledge exchange among stakeholders despite different cultural origins and activities (Grodzińska-Jurczak & Cent, 2011). Additionally, meaningful engagement with community members fosters trust, nurtures mutually advantageous relationships, and bolsters the social approval of conservation endeavours (Grodzińska-Jurczak & Cent, 2011; Pillay et al., 2022). These interactions yield priceless local insights into ecosystem dynamics (e.g. Riddell et al., 2022), species distribution, and environmental shifts. They help in identifying key conservation issues and in prioritising areas for intervention (Bonebrake et al., 2018; Di Sacco et al., 2021; Hariohay et al., 2022; Nuno et al., 2014; Wells & McShane, 2004). Communities can become empowered more easily after face-to-face interviews; their participation in acquiring scientific data may become instrumental to their active participation in decision-making processes enhancing conservation success (Fa & Luiselli, 2023; Hunter Jr & Gibbs, 2006; Sher, 2022; Van Dyke, 2008).

Data collection is also strongly facilitated by face-to-face interviews (e.g. Fa & Luiselli, 2023), either applied individually or on groups of community members (Figure 1). For instance, during three fieldwork days, interviews in a forest area of Liberia revealed the presence of 23 species of mammals and reptiles, 14 of them being also confirmed by market surveys, and only 6 by field surveys (5 using a standardised method and 1 by random walks). Interviews turned out to be far more effective than any other method to obtain biodiversity data during short term surveys (Fa & Luiselli, 2023). This is so because well-informed respondents (hunters, fishers) are often able to point out precise locations where rare/elusive species can be found, providing critical support to field research or even specimens they collected previously (shells of turtles and tortoises, skins of mammals, crocodiles or snakes, insects, etc). In this regard, I can think of two specific cases in West Africa. While studying the mammal communities of coastal forest patches in South-eastern Togo, we were «supervised» by local hunters on where to place our camera traps to increase our chances of sighting the rare West African sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii, or Tragelaphus gratus according to Groves & Grubb, 2011), a species whose presence in Togo has for long been disputed (Amori et al., 2016). Indeed, after just a few days of camera-trapping, we were able to obtain good photos of this antelope, as well as of many other species (Segniagbeto et al., 2022). In the second case, my research team was mapping the distribution of the Chief Goliath beetle (Goliathus cacicus) in Côte d'Ivoire, a species considered very rare and by some even extinct (Luiselli, 2023). We interviewed many local people that lived in the surroundings of the sites that historically were considered to be the main G. cacicus habitats (Dendi et al., 2023). Throughout the series of interview campaigns, certain interviewees directed our attention to some trees situated within the forested hills in the ‘District des Montagnes’ (Western Cote d'Ivoire) and in a ‘forét classée’ situated in the north of San Pedro (South-western Cote d'Ivoire). This revelation enabled us to observe several dozen Chief Goliaths and embark on a multi-year study of their ecology, morphometrics, and population dynamics. We anticipate publishing the outcomes of this study in the near future.

From these experiences and many others, we have learnt that it is crucial that interviews are conducted with as many people as possible so that their information can be weighed for precision and reliability (e.g. see Le Duc et al., 2020; Van Pham et al., 2022). Informants can come from local communities and may be ideally former hunters specialising in the pursuit of target species (Van Pham et al., 2020), while other residents may have long-term experience of their natural environment (fishers, farmers), such as resource users, landowners, or even government officials and policymakers (e.g. Djagoun et al., 2022; Kisingo et al., 2022). By directly engaging with local communities, conservation biologists can gain valuable insights into a wide range of factors, including ecological processes, land use patterns, traditional knowledge, and socio-economic dynamics. This information can, in turn, inform conservation decisions and contribute to the development of evidence-based management plans.

Researchers must remain aware of these limitations and employ appropriate strategies to address them. This can be achieved by establishing trust with the respondents, emphasising open-ended questions, and incorporating multiple data collection methods (Punch, 2005). It is crucial to avoid certain pitfalls, including a lack of transparency regarding the sampling strategy by the interviewers, the use of poorly designed questions (e.g. direct inquiries about poaching activities), and flawed methods of analysis (Young et al., 2018). Despite the challenges, the advantages of face-to-face interviews significantly outweigh their limitations, rendering them an indispensable tool in conservation research and management in Africa.

In a broader context, the importance of African traditional knowledge can be better grasped by applying the reasoning of Karl R. Popper (2005), a seminal figure in contemporary epistemology stemming from the philosophical tradition of logical positivism. Popper's perspective asserts that scientific evidence should hinge on the falsifiability of one or more hypotheses. This approach allows for the logical selection and interpretation of evidence, which, in turn, propels the scientific community toward ongoing progress in the collective expansion of human knowledge through continual refinement and revision, based on an increasing body of observable evidence. In light of Popper's philosophy, scientific evidence should be framed in the form of falsifiable hypotheses, enabling formal testing (this overarching framework governs modern scientific domains grounded in experimental evidence, such as physics, medicine, and the natural sciences).

Although usually considered an example of ‘Baconian’ investigation, the interview protocols can be easily adapted to a Popperian logic. For example, let us suppose that we want to test by interviews whether a certain species, which has been suspected to be declining in a certain area during a certain time interval (e.g. 50 years), is really in decline. To do this, a group of n local people of different ages is recruited, each of whom does or has done the same job (for example, hunter). By interviewing each of them individually with a same question (‘how often do you meet this species during your routine working activities?’), it can be a-priori hypothesised that, if the target species has really declined in the last 50 years, the frequency of respondents who assert that it is rare or absent should be significantly higher in the younger cohort and gradually decreasing with the age of the respondents (Luiselli et al., 2020). The higher the number of respondents, the clearer the pattern, the more evident it will be that the species in question has truly declined in the study area during the last 50 years (Luiselli et al., 2020). Many other examples can be given of how interviews can be used to test and falsify hypotheses in ecology and conservation biology, but what remains important is that the logic of the interviews (both the questionnaire and the applied methodology) must be rigorously adapted to the a-priori hypotheses that one wants to test and falsify.

It is easy to find tangible examples related to the first point (think for example of the applications of ethnobotany), while the second point needs to be more carefully considered. Despite his sceptical approach, the value of general theories was underlined by Popper himself in his demarcation between science and pseudo-science and in his treatment of the problem of induction through which he overcame the tenets of modern positivism (Popper, 1962). Using an inductive inference approach, scientific theories are able to develop scenarios independent of any verification. In Popper's view, scientific progress cannot follow this path that is akin to the idealistic tradition inherited from Plato and Hegel. At the same time, however, Popper admired Democritus' atomic theory, despite being untestable; a metaphysical tenet that later was re-articulated in a more properly scientific form by Dalton and Maxwell, became refined through the screening of empirical verification and is today part of modern Physics. This means that ‘good’ metaphysics, considered ‘bla-bla’ by positivists, can in reality support problem- solving by creating an initial conjectures and hypothetical scenarios that can then nurture the growth of knowledge through the screening of operational falsifiable hypotheses and iterative refutations. Einstein followed a similar pathway himself.

In addition to supporting methodologies aimed at bolstering empirical evidence, African traditions and knowledge systems should be recognised as a valuable source of metaphysical insights. This potential should not be dismissed by modern science. To illustrate this, consider the traditional understanding among African farmers of the close relationship between forests and water availability, leading to the concept of ‘Water Towers’. These are forests that play a crucial hydrological role by capturing rainfall, retaining moisture within their biomass and soils, and gradually releasing water throughout the drainage network, even during dry seasons when rainfall is limited. Bhatasara (2017) reported this traditional linkage in rural Sub-Saharan Africa, while elders in the Mau Massif in Kenya attributed it to their region (Silale, 2022).

Not far from there, a small Maasai community in the western Naivasha Basin (Kenya) preserves Olosho Rongai, a 650-acre pencil cedar forest (Juniperus procera), one of the last intact portions of the once-extensive Mau Forest complex. This forest is vital because ‘cutting the forest would run dry the last permanent spring feeding the Marmanet, our sole source of water during the dry season. The other springs that used to flow around our village are now dry because of deforestation’, explained community elder Sonkoi Kiminta (NBSI, 2013). However, this view is not universally shared by Western scientists, and a longstanding dispute exists between hydrologists (claiming that water levels rise after forest removal) and ecologists (documenting the disruption of local water cycles due to deforestation). Resolving this issue is challenging due to the long timeframes and large spatial scales involved and the difficulty of obtaining direct measurable evidence.

Nonetheless, several indirect observations support the notion that vegetation's ‘recycling of moisture’ must influence precipitation. This implies a close connection between climate and land use (Savenije, 1995). A comprehensive theory known as the Biotic Pump, formulated 15 years ago by two Russian physicists from the Saint Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (Makarieva & Gorshkov, 2007), contends that forest-mediated evapotranspiration-condensation cycles facilitate the large-scale transport of humid air masses from oceans to continental interiors. They offered the example of the contrast between the moist Congo Basin (mostly forested) and the dry Nile Basin (deforested). Forests have been found to capture rains using organic compounds and bacterial spores released from tree leaves, acting as catalysts (Morris et al., 2014).

Through the water cycle, tropical forests impact global warming by influencing land-atmosphere heat fluxes, as recently demonstrated in the Amazon (Butt et al., 2023). This underscores that deforestation has profound effects on the planet's energy balance beyond the observable evidence related to carbon sequestration and CO2 reduction.

In this context, as in several other scientific challenges facing humanity, African knowledge and traditions can pave the way for defining new problem-solving scenarios that collectively advance sustainable development and support the progress of modern science.

While I have highlighted the advantages, as well as the philosophical and scientific strengths, of utilising face-to-face interviews in researching the ecology and conservation of African flora and fauna, it is crucial to emphasise the significance of interview data within the context of an international ecology journal, such as AJE. Over the past 2 years, several articles based on face-to-face interviews have been published (Aglissi et al., 2023; De Vos & McIntyre, 2023; Dupuis-Desormeaux et al., 2023; Houehanou et al., 2023; Ibrahim et al., 2022; Kisingo et al., 2023; Oyda et al., 2022; Shibru et al., 2023). Many other submissions have been rejected, primarily due to a lack of true ‘ecological’ focus. African conservation research undeniably incorporates a significant ‘human dimension’ component (Luiselli, 2023). Thus, it is pertinent and necessary to clarify what aspects are of interest and will be prioritised by AJE, in contrast to what might be considered peripheral. This will guide future AJE authors in the submission of their manuscripts.

In general, any source of information that directly enhances scientific understanding of a specific ecological system holds ecological interest. For instance, large carnivores like lions (Panthera leo) receive substantial scientific attention, with numerous studies based on face-to-face interviews with local informants. Many researchers inquire about local residents' perceptions of large carnivores, exploring questions such as whether pastoralists are more concerned about potential attacks on their herds or attacks on people, which among lions, leopards, or hyaenas are more feared, and how local residents view the control of large carnivore populations. These questions, while relevant in some contexts, are of limited relevance to an international journal of ecology. It is widely recognised that large carnivores are often feared by local communities, and perceptions of these predators are typically negative. Similarly, studies reporting on traditional ethnological uses of carnivore body parts may be interesting if integrated within a broader conservation study. However, when considered independently, they fall outside the scope of ecological research and will be accorded lower priority by AJE or another ecological journal's editors.

Conversely, studies that employ face-to-face interviews to document ecological patterns are of paramount interest to our journal. An exemplary instance of this research approach is exemplified by Aglissi et al. (2023). In this article, the authors utilised a comprehensive set of face-to-face interviews to establish that lions were extirpated from the Comoé National Park in Cote d'Ivoire approximately two decades ago (19.75 years ±8.15). They were able to pinpoint the sector of the park where lions disappeared first, thereby elucidating the pattern and causes of the local extirpation of these magnificent animals. Their study revealed that the civil war was the primary cause of lion extirpation, as it resulted in the abandonment of the national park by park management authorities and facilitated illegal activities such as hunting and prey depletion. Aglissi et al. (2023) demonstrated how face-to-face interviews can yield quantitative data that are highly relevant to a conservation ecology issue. Contributions of this nature align precisely with what AJE seeks when encouraging researchers to further develop methods rooted in face-to-face exchanges.

Numerous other examples underscore the value of utilising face-to-face interviews in ecological research. For instance, there are reports documenting the ecology of lesser-known species through information gathered from local communities (Dendi et al., 2023; Hariohay et al., 2022) or from retired hunters (Van Pham et al., 2020). Additionally, contributions based on a more theoretical or methodological approach, which place face-to-face interviews within a broader context to demonstrate the value of local ecological knowledge, are valuable (Anadón et al., 2009; Fa & Luiselli, 2023).

Face-to-face interviews offer significant potential in conservation research, given their flexibility and the elegant analyses they enable using relatively accessible evidence (Young et al., 2018). While interviews are a widely employed method, their suitability depends on the subject area, the target species, and specific environmental and social contexts. Researchers should carefully evaluate the pros and cons of utilising interviews when designing their research strategy and should also consider the appropriate interview format (structured, semi-structured, or unstructured; Punch, 2005).

For researchers aiming to submit their work to an ecological journal, it is crucial to remember that exploring ecological patterns should constitute the core focus of their research. Conversely, aspects related to communities' sentiments about conservation issues, anthropological or ethnological findings arising from interviews, and socio-political perspectives are better suited for journals specialising in social sciences or other related disciplines. Articles focusing on these aspects are likely to be considered out of scope by journals dedicated to ecological research.

In this editorial, I have analysed the importance of interviews in the study of African ecology and emphasised the significance of ecological researchers carefully structuring their questionnaires to yield relevant outcomes. This ensures that their articles receive the attention they deserve from AJE, as we aim to further encourage submissions based on this innovative research method in the coming years.