# The Value, Limitations, and Challenges of Employing Local Experts in Conservation Research

> What happens when you give an expert tracker a handheld computer and no instructions? In South Africa’s De Hoop Nature Reserve, a certified Senior Tracker walked 4653 km in 214 days and recorded 4684 mammals. He found 93% of the reserve’s nocturnal species, two species never recorded there before, and leopards thought long gone. The authors set out how researchers can identify, evaluate, and fairly reward local experts.

Summary by Kersey Lawrence, Original Wisdom. Updated 5 November 2026. Page: https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/2011-elbroch-mwampamba-value-limitations-challenges-employing/

## Citation and access

- **Authors:** Mark Elbroch, Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Maria J. Santos, Maxine Zylberberg, Louis Liebenberg, James Minye, Christopher Mosser and Erin Reddy
- **Year published:** 2011
- **Journal or source:** Conservation Biology
- **Full citation:** Elbroch, M., Mwampamba, T. H., Santos, M. J., Zylberberg, M., Liebenberg, L., Minye, J., Mosser, C. and Reddy, E. 2011. The value, limitations, and challenges of employing local experts in conservation research. Conservation Biology 25(6): 1195–1202.
- **DOI:** 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01740.x
- **Access status:** Publisher link only
- **Where to find it:** https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01740.x

## Tags

- **Species:** Humans
- **Region:** Africa > South Africa
- **Tracking:** Footprints; Scat; Tracking; Tracks and signs identification; Trailing
- **Methods and technology:** Analysis of variance (ANOVA); CyberTracker; CyberTracker software; CyberTracker Tracker Evaluation; Global Positioning System (GPS); Interviews; Linear regression; Moran’s I
- **Data type:** Modelling or theoretical; New field data
- **Observer qualification:** Certified trackers
- **Discipline:** Citizen science; Wildlife tracking
- **Year published:** 2011

## Detailed keywords

- **Species:** Studied: humans (local expert animal tracker James “J.J.” Minye, a co-author, referred to in the paper as J.J.). Recorded by J.J.: 4684 terrestrial mammal detections; the paper names bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus) and eland (Taurotragus oryx) as the most frequent, yellow mongoose (Cynictis penicillata) as the smallest detected, aardvark (Orycteropus afer) and springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) as first records for the reserve, and a male and a female leopard (Panthera pardus) detected by spoor, a species thought to have been absent from the reserve for many years. Not detected: Cape hare (Lepus capensis) and Cape dune mole rat (Bathyergus suillus), which he was not asked to record. His evaluation included trailing a black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis). Other examples discussed: matsutake mushrooms, Eurasian lynx, marine crabs.
- **Location and habitat:** De Hoop Nature Reserve (34,000 ha), Western Cape, South Africa: fynbos (dense shrubland endemic to the Cape Floristic Region), with 86 terrestrial mammal and 260 bird species. J.J. was identified and evaluated in Karoo National Park, South Africa.
- **Topics:** citizen science and data quality; local experts versus amateur volunteers; the knowledge gradient (K); identifying experts by peer recommendation (multiple interviews); evaluating and certifying expertise; expert-designed sampling; spatial and temporal autocorrelation; detection of nocturnal and elusive mammals; icon-based data collection; when to involve local experts (conceptual model); steps for including local experts; recognition and co-authorship.
- **Statistics or models:** Moran’s I (spatial and temporal autocorrelation); linear regression; analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post-hoc comparisons; a conceptual model of project scope, knowledge base, budget and technical complexity.
- **Data type:** New field data: J.J.’s patrols, May 2002 to October 2003, and his skill evaluation, January 1999. Conceptual model and discussion of the literature.

## Synopsis

### 1. What they did

Involving local people makes conservation projects more likely to succeed, but citizen science raises questions about data quality. The authors propose a knowledge gradient, K, that places each potential participant according to their experience and knowledge of a research topic. Amateur volunteers who need training sit at the low end; local experts (such as trackers, hunters, herbalists or experienced scientists) sit at the high end. They define local experts by their knowledge, not by cultural background.

To show what a local expert can contribute, they used a case study from South Africa:

- Identifying the expert. They found an expert animal tracker, James “J.J.” Minye, through multiple interviews and peer recommendations in Karoo National Park.

- Evaluating his skill (January 1999). Three days identifying spoor of insects, reptiles, birds and mammals, then following the faint trail of a black rhinoceros over rocky ground to find the animal.

- Employing him (May 2002 to October 2003). J.J. recorded all signs and sightings of animals in De Hoop Nature Reserve, with no instructions on where or how far to patrol. He used a handheld computer with CyberTracker icon software and GPS.

- Analysing his data. The authors analysed his terrestrial mammal records for survey effort, detections, and spatial and temporal independence.

They also developed a conceptual model for deciding who should take part in a project, and recommendations for including local experts.

### 2. What they found

The evaluation

J.J. scored 100% on both parts. He also held a CyberTracker Senior Tracker certificate, then the highest category, achieved by only 20 of more than 1200 people tested in three countries.

Survey effort

- J.J. patrolled 4653 km over 214 days. Patrols averaged 22.7 km and about 6 hours.

- 56% of observations were made on footpaths, 24% on dirt roads, and 20% while sitting on a vehicle.

- Longer patrols gave more detections; he averaged 3.5 animals per km.

- Detections varied by month, with more in May and November.

- 90% of detections were within 5 m of him, which reflects sign found along his route; the farthest was 700 m.

What he detected

- 4684 mammals in total. The most frequent were bontebok (1276) and eland (832).

- He detected all species described as diurnal, crepuscular, or active both day and night, and 93% of strictly nocturnal species.

- Detection increased with body size; the smallest species detected was the yellow mongoose (679 g).

- Of 35 species over 200 g, he missed only the Cape hare and the Cape dune mole rat, which he had not been asked to record.

- Through spoor he found two species never before recorded in the reserve (aardvark and springbok), and a male and a female leopard, a species thought to have been extirpated there for many years.

His sampling design

With no protocol, J.J. patrolled in overlapping loops from the reserve headquarters, forming a “wandering rosette”. Even so, his detections were not autocorrelated in space or time.

Four challenges in working with local experts

- Identifying them. Not everyone in a community is an expert, but locals often know who is. How experts are selected should be reported, because selection can introduce bias.

- Evaluating their knowledge. Field testing is one way; another is sending samples or photos to recognized experts, or using genetic tests to confirm identifications.

- Recording their data. Interviews rely on memory and are rarely mapped. Icon-driven software on handheld computers has transformed how experts can record data.

- Analysing their data. Data gathered by convenience or opportunity can break statistical assumptions; resampling methods can help.

J.J. was not involved in the analysis, because it assessed his own performance and he lacked the statistical training and literacy for all team communications.

### 3. What they concluded

- J.J.’s data support the view that local experts can produce reliable, distinctive data. They can add the benefits of local involvement while maintaining or improving data quality.

- Under the usual citizen-science model, local experts are treated the same as any community member. In reality there are wide differences, and local experts should be recognized as different from other citizen scientists.

- Local experts suit projects that cover large areas, have small to medium budgets, use relatively simple equipment, and need highly specialized data.

- Seven steps for including local experts: (1) interview multiple people to identify available skills and potential experts; (2) evaluate their skills and develop a way to certify them, so future researchers and employers recognize them; (3) involve them in identifying and refining research questions; (4) train them, especially in standardized data collection; (5) consult them when interpreting data; (6) share project materials in formats suited to their literacy levels; (7) provide respectable incentives, acknowledge their input, and consider them as co-authors.

- This may need a shift away from seeing local participants only as cost-free citizen scientists, guides or field assistants.

### 4. How tracking was or was not used

J.J. recorded signs (such as footprints and scats) and sightings of mammals on foot and vehicle patrols that he designed himself. His evaluation tested both tracks and signs identification (insects, reptiles, birds and mammals) and trailing a black rhinoceros over rocky terrain to find the animal.

### 5. Tracker or observer certification

J.J.’s tracking skill was evaluated with a standardized test, described in Evans et al. (2009), on which he scored 100%. He held a CyberTracker Senior Tracker certificate. Co-author Mark Elbroch is a CyberTracker Evaluator, and Louis Liebenberg programmed the software.

### 6. Other technologies, skills or innovations

- CyberTracker icon-driven software on a Handspring Visor handheld computer with a Magellan GPS Companion. J.J. recorded date, time, location, species, age, sex, whether the detection was direct or by sign, and whether he was on foot or in a vehicle.

- The software could be customized: when J.J. found animals with no icon, Liebenberg added one.

### 7. Implications for conservation (from the paper)

- Conservation science and practice could benefit greatly from more widespread integration of local experts in research and monitoring. Doing so can raise a project’s chance of success and improve data quality.

- Local experts can detect elusive, nocturnal and rare species that observers with less knowledge would likely miss, as with the leopard, aardvark and springbok in De Hoop.

- Local experts should be valued and paid, not viewed only as cost-free volunteers or field assistants.

### 8. Implications for tracking (Original Wisdom's observations)

_These are Original Wisdom's observations, not the authors'._

- The knowledge gradient makes the same point as the polar bear study: expertise belongs to individuals, not to communities or cultures, so it needs to be identified and tested rather than assumed.

- The authors’ second step, evaluating local experts and developing a way to certify their skills so others recognize them, describes the role tracker certification plays: J.J.’s evaluation and Senior Tracker certificate are what gave the researchers confidence in his data.

- Even non-literate local experts prove capable of designing scientific studies and collecting data in a robust way. Given no instructions, J.J. designed his own sampling, and his data proved free of spatial and temporal autocorrelation.

## Cite this summary

Lawrence, K. 2026. Summary of: The Value, Limitations, and Challenges of Employing Local Experts in Conservation Research (Elbroch and Mwampamba et al., 2011). Original Wisdom, Tracking Literature. https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/2011-elbroch-mwampamba-value-limitations-challenges-employing/