351
10 The Role of Local Ecological Knowledge in the Conservation and Management...
read maps and spatial information should be carefully documented if aggregation
sites cannot be visited.
Once validated, the importance of LEK cannot be overstated. Community support
for conservation plans consistently emerges as one of the most important factors in
maintaining long term effectiveness and support from local people (King and Faasili
1999 ; Johannes 2002 ; Aswani and Hamilton 2004 ) . Moreover, community acknowledgement and understanding of key threats engender greater respect for regulations,
as noted for marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Bahamas (Broad and Sanchirico
2008 ) , and can garner government and community support for management, as in
Pohnpei, Fiji and elsewhere.
10.6.1 Examination of LEK for Internal Consistency
and Reliability
Internal consistency and reliability of LEK can be assessed by comparing within
and between transcripts and through expert consensus. Carefully examining an
interview transcript will help assess the likely accuracy of the information. If the
information provided clearly contradicts itself, then its validity is thrown into question
(Huntington 1998 ) . When many fi shers have been interviewed, multiple transcripts
can be compared to identify components of LEK that are consistent and frequently
raised, and highest reliability assigned to these aspects of LEK or to particularly
reliable respondents (Neis et al. 1999b ) . A cautionary note is that not all ‘experts’
are created equal. In cases where a single individuals’ LEK could potentially be
highly relevant to management, extra effort is needed to cross-check with independent
data sources or conduct independent research (Hamilton 2005 ) .
Researchers can hold review sessions with a community after completion of
interviews to discuss the LEK gathered and reach consensus. LEK documented
during interviews is presented to a group of expert fi shers for discussion and
consensus-building as well as to raise further awareness about the purpose of the
study, the implications of the results and to build support and explore possible
responses (e.g. Huntington 1998 ) .
10.6.2 Independent Validation of LEK
There is no substitute for independently validating LEK before incorporation into conservation and fi sheries management (Usher 2000 ) . Table 10.1 lists several attempts at
validation to illustrate possible outcomes and lessons learned. Key points include that
aggregations may last for more months than reported by LEK, with fi rst and last
months or the months with lower numbers of fi sh less obvious or possibly varying
from year to year, and therefore often excluded from LEK (as in the case of August in
Palau – see above). Highly variable responses tend to be found in areas with weak
10 The Role of Local Ecological Knowledge in the Conservation and Management...
read maps and spatial information should be carefully documented if aggregation
sites cannot be visited.
Once validated, the importance of LEK cannot be overstated. Community support
for conservation plans consistently emerges as one of the most important factors in
maintaining long term effectiveness and support from local people (King and Faasili
1999 ; Johannes 2002 ; Aswani and Hamilton 2004 ) . Moreover, community acknowledgement and understanding of key threats engender greater respect for regulations,
as noted for marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Bahamas (Broad and Sanchirico
2008 ) , and can garner government and community support for management, as in
Pohnpei, Fiji and elsewhere.
10.6.1 Examination of LEK for Internal Consistency
and Reliability
Internal consistency and reliability of LEK can be assessed by comparing within
and between transcripts and through expert consensus. Carefully examining an
interview transcript will help assess the likely accuracy of the information. If the
information provided clearly contradicts itself, then its validity is thrown into question
(Huntington 1998 ) . When many fi shers have been interviewed, multiple transcripts
can be compared to identify components of LEK that are consistent and frequently
raised, and highest reliability assigned to these aspects of LEK or to particularly
reliable respondents (Neis et al. 1999b ) . A cautionary note is that not all ‘experts’
are created equal. In cases where a single individuals’ LEK could potentially be
highly relevant to management, extra effort is needed to cross-check with independent
data sources or conduct independent research (Hamilton 2005 ) .
Researchers can hold review sessions with a community after completion of
interviews to discuss the LEK gathered and reach consensus. LEK documented
during interviews is presented to a group of expert fi shers for discussion and
consensus-building as well as to raise further awareness about the purpose of the
study, the implications of the results and to build support and explore possible
responses (e.g. Huntington 1998 ) .
10.6.2 Independent Validation of LEK
There is no substitute for independently validating LEK before incorporation into conservation and fi sheries management (Usher 2000 ) . Table 10.1 lists several attempts at
validation to illustrate possible outcomes and lessons learned. Key points include that
aggregations may last for more months than reported by LEK, with fi rst and last
months or the months with lower numbers of fi sh less obvious or possibly varying
from year to year, and therefore often excluded from LEK (as in the case of August in
Palau – see above). Highly variable responses tend to be found in areas with weak