Abstract
There is increasing recognition that diverse knowledge systems can work in mutually enriching ways and that Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) can enhance biodiversity conservation. However, studies using scientific knowledge and ILK in a complementary manner, and acknowledging convergent and especially divergent insights have remained limited. In this study, we contrasted proxies of abundances and trends of threatened and conflict-prone carnivores (caracal, cheetah, jackal, lion, leopard, spotted hyaena, striped hyaena) derived separately from scientific knowledge and ILK. We conducted camera trapping, track surveys and semi-structured interviews with local pastoralists from northern Kenya. We found convergences highlighting the need for conservation action and divergences suggesting scientific ecological sampling limitations or underlying socio-psychological phenomena. Overall, our study shows that complementing scientific knowledge and ILK as separate sources of information and opening up space for discrepancies can enrich our understanding of the status and trends of carnivores, as well as recognizing human-carnivore relationships.
Highlights
There is increasing recognition, both in academic and policy circles, that complementing different knowledge systems is key to widen the evidence basis underpinning wildlife management and biodiversity conservation (Whyte et al 2016; Kutz and Tomaselli 2019; Hill et al 2020)
The idea that diverse knowledge systems can work in mutually enriching ways is well reflected in the aspirations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, both of which have explicitly emphasized that Indigenous and Local Knowledge can contribute to conservation, policy and practice (IPBES 2019)
Scientific knowledge refers to the information obtained from two ecological sampling methods, and Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) refers to observations of wildlife by local Daasanach people, gathered through surveys and classic ethnographic methods
Summary
There is increasing recognition, both in academic and policy circles, that complementing different knowledge systems is key to widen the evidence basis underpinning wildlife management and biodiversity conservation (Whyte et al 2016; Kutz and Tomaselli 2019; Hill et al 2020). We complement information and insights derived from two different knowledge systems (i.e., ILK and scientific knowledge) to: (a) obtain an enriched picture of understanding of the status and trends of scarce, elusive and conflict-prone carnivore species; and (b) reflect on approaches and procedures to work across independent knowledge systems for enhanced carnivore conservation To meet these purposes, we contrast proxies of abundances and trends of carnivore species, derived separately from common scientific sampling methods and semi-structured interviews among a pastoralist community from northern Kenya. Scientific knowledge refers to the information obtained from two ecological sampling methods (i.e., track survey and camera trapping), and ILK refers to observations of wildlife by local Daasanach people, gathered through surveys and classic ethnographic methods (see Morales-Reyes et al 2019 for an example using both terms ILK and scientific knowledge) These definitions reflect a partial and contextspecific understanding of both knowledge systems. We highlight the importance of keeping both knowledge systems as separate sources of information with open space for divergences, thereby making carnivore conservation more inclusive and socially legitimate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
