332
R. Hamilton et al.
10.1 Introduction
Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK), also frequently called traditional or indigenous
ecological knowledge, refers to the cumulative knowledge of groups’ or individuals’
practices, experiences and beliefs about their natural environment. LEK contains
empirical and conceptual aspects and is passed down over successive generations or
intra-generationally (Berkes 1999 ; Hamilton 2005 ) . LEK is a dynamic state of
knowledge, kept alive in an oral form which makes it extremely fl uid and fl exible.
It is constantly being tested and modifi ed as individuals interact with their environment, adopt new technologies and make their own observations and refi nements
(Ruddle and Chesterfi eld 1977 ) . Subsistence, artisanal, and commercial fi shers
often possess detailed LEK on the fi sheries and environment upon which they
depend (e.g. Johannes 1981 ; Neis et al. 1999a ) . As a general rule, those who spend
more time on or in the water know the most, but much also depends on individuals’
powers of observation and communication, curiosity about their environment and
disposition for learning (Baird 2007 ) .
The potential values of utilizing LEK for fi sheries research and conservation are
increasingly recognized, and there is a growing body of literature advocating its
documentation and integration with more quantitative types of research and scientifi c methodology, for management planning, education and outreach, as well as for
strengthening the case for conservation and management (Christie and White 1997 ;
Johannes and Neis 2007 ; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2008 ) . Fishers can provide
important information on such things as inter-annual, seasonal, lunar, diel, tide- and
habitat-related differences in species behaviour, presence of concentrations of females
with eggs, types and abundance of target species and their changes over time, and
how these factors determine fi shing strategies (Johannes et al. 2000 ) . Fishers are
often the fi rst to discover the location of important habitats, such as nursery, feeding
and spawning grounds of fi shes on which scientists subsequently work (Johannes
1989 ; Hamilton and Walter 1999 ; Ames 2007 ) . When time and care are taken to
document LEK resource user’s perceptions about their environment can also be
understood, which can assist in directing future management efforts.
Local knowledge can be of great value for providing a historical perspective on
the state of reef fi sh communities and is particularly important where there is no
long-term monitoring or database, as for most tropical coastal fi sheries. Specifi c
examples range from declines in bonefi sh migrations in Kiribati disrupted by coastal
construction to the rapid demise of bumphead parrotfi sh, Bolbometopon muricatum ,
and humphead, or Napoleon, wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus , populations in the Pacifi c
(Johannes and Yeeting 2001 ; Sadovy et al. 2003 ; Dulvy and Polunin 2004 ) . In the
case of the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus , in the Caribbean, informal discussions
with local fi shers identifi ed a long since disappeared aggregation; this information
was followed up by a questionnaire sent around the Caribbean soliciting local
knowledge on the species, with results of the survey indicating similar losses and
declines elsewhere and highlighting a problem with the species (Sadovy 1993 ;
Sadovy and Eklund 1999 ) . Suitably validated and treated within the appropriate
R. Hamilton et al.
10.1 Introduction
Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK), also frequently called traditional or indigenous
ecological knowledge, refers to the cumulative knowledge of groups’ or individuals’
practices, experiences and beliefs about their natural environment. LEK contains
empirical and conceptual aspects and is passed down over successive generations or
intra-generationally (Berkes 1999 ; Hamilton 2005 ) . LEK is a dynamic state of
knowledge, kept alive in an oral form which makes it extremely fl uid and fl exible.
It is constantly being tested and modifi ed as individuals interact with their environment, adopt new technologies and make their own observations and refi nements
(Ruddle and Chesterfi eld 1977 ) . Subsistence, artisanal, and commercial fi shers
often possess detailed LEK on the fi sheries and environment upon which they
depend (e.g. Johannes 1981 ; Neis et al. 1999a ) . As a general rule, those who spend
more time on or in the water know the most, but much also depends on individuals’
powers of observation and communication, curiosity about their environment and
disposition for learning (Baird 2007 ) .
The potential values of utilizing LEK for fi sheries research and conservation are
increasingly recognized, and there is a growing body of literature advocating its
documentation and integration with more quantitative types of research and scientifi c methodology, for management planning, education and outreach, as well as for
strengthening the case for conservation and management (Christie and White 1997 ;
Johannes and Neis 2007 ; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2008 ) . Fishers can provide
important information on such things as inter-annual, seasonal, lunar, diel, tide- and
habitat-related differences in species behaviour, presence of concentrations of females
with eggs, types and abundance of target species and their changes over time, and
how these factors determine fi shing strategies (Johannes et al. 2000 ) . Fishers are
often the fi rst to discover the location of important habitats, such as nursery, feeding
and spawning grounds of fi shes on which scientists subsequently work (Johannes
1989 ; Hamilton and Walter 1999 ; Ames 2007 ) . When time and care are taken to
document LEK resource user’s perceptions about their environment can also be
understood, which can assist in directing future management efforts.
Local knowledge can be of great value for providing a historical perspective on
the state of reef fi sh communities and is particularly important where there is no
long-term monitoring or database, as for most tropical coastal fi sheries. Specifi c
examples range from declines in bonefi sh migrations in Kiribati disrupted by coastal
construction to the rapid demise of bumphead parrotfi sh, Bolbometopon muricatum ,
and humphead, or Napoleon, wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus , populations in the Pacifi c
(Johannes and Yeeting 2001 ; Sadovy et al. 2003 ; Dulvy and Polunin 2004 ) . In the
case of the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus , in the Caribbean, informal discussions
with local fi shers identifi ed a long since disappeared aggregation; this information
was followed up by a questionnaire sent around the Caribbean soliciting local
knowledge on the species, with results of the survey indicating similar losses and
declines elsewhere and highlighting a problem with the species (Sadovy 1993 ;
Sadovy and Eklund 1999 ) . Suitably validated and treated within the appropriate