The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PARTICIPATORY INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT: WHAT CAN ECOLOGISTS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES LEARN FROM EACH OTHER
Abstract
Given the growing popularity of indicators among policy‐makers to measure progress toward conservation and sustainability goals, there is an urgent need to develop indicators that can be used accurately by both specialists and nonspecialists, drawing from the knowledge possessed by each group. This paper uses a case study from the Kalahari, Botswana to show how participatory and ecological methods can be combined to develop robust indicators that are accessible to a range of users to monitor and enhance the sustainability of land management. First, potential environmental sustainability indicators were elicited from pastoralists in three study sites. This knowledge was then evaluated by pastoralists, before being tested empirically using ecological and soil‐based techniques. Despite the wealth of local knowledge about indicators, this knowledge was thinly spread. The knowledge was more holistic than published indicator lists for monitoring rangelands, encompassing vegetation, soil, livestock, wild animal, and socioeconomic indicators. Pastoralist preferences for vegetation and livestock indicators match recent shifts in ecological theory suggesting that livestock populations reach equilibrium with key forage resources in semiarid environments. Although most indicators suggested by pastoralists were validated through empirical work (e.g., decreased grass cover and soil organic matter content, and increased abundance of Acacia mellifera and thatching grass), they were not always sufficiently accurate or reliable for objective degradation assessment, showing that local knowledge cannot be accepted unquestioningly. We suggest that, by combining participatory and ecological approaches, it is possible to derive more accurate and relevant indicators than either approach could achieve alone.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
REDISCOVERY OF TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:roteka]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,206
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-0288 · Cited by 3,703
Detrended Correspondence Analysis: An Improved Ordination Technique
Hill, M. O., & Gauch, H. G. (1980) · Classification and Ordination · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9197-2_7 · Cited by 3,337
Detrended correspondence analysis: An improved ordination technique
Hill, M. O., & Gauch, H. G. (1980) · Vegetatio · doi:10.1007/bf00048870 · Cited by 3,146
Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002) · AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment · doi:10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437 · Cited by 3,136
Tropical soil biology and fertility: a handbook of methods.
Anderson, J. M., & Ingram, J. S. I. (1993) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · Cited by 2,749
DECORANA - A FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging.
Hill, M. O. (1979) · Cited by 1,887
Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach
Kent, M., & Coker, P. D. (1992) · Cited by 1,775
Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach
Taylor, D., Kent, M., & Coker, P. (1993) · The Geographical Journal · doi:10.2307/3451427 · Cited by 1,748
Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications
Huntington, H. P. (2000) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:utekis]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,445
Cited by
Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 · Cited by 1,116
Self-citationStringer, L. C., Dyer, J. C., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., Twyman, C., & Mkwambisi, D. (2009) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.04.002 · Cited by 351
Self-citationEvaluating impact from research: A methodological framework
Reed, M. S., Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M., & Holden, J. (2021) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147 · Cited by 319
Self-citationReed, M. S., Podesta, G., Fazey, I., Geeson, N., Hessel, R., Hubacek, K., Letson, D., Nainggolan, D., Prell, C., Rickenbach, M. G., et al. (2013) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.007 · Cited by 278
Self-citationReed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Perkins, J. S., Atlhopheng, J. R., Mulale, K., & Favretto, N. (2015) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.010 · Cited by 191
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Baker, T. R.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1253-1269
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5582
- OpenAlex
- W2027856225
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 86.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: PARTICIPATORY INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT: WHAT CAN ECOLOGISTS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES LEARN FROM EACH OTHER. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/07-0519.1
- The paper
- Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Baker, T. R. (2008). PARTICIPATORY INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT: WHAT CAN ECOLOGISTS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES LEARN FROM EACH OTHER. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0519.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.