The Primate Cultural Significance Index: applications with Popoluca Indigenous people at Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve

Abstract

Background The study of the cultural significance (CS) of biodiversity provides key information to develop conservation strategies consistent with traditions and perceptions of human communities. In Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve (TBR) in Mexico, the mantled howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata mexicana) and the black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi vellerosus) have historically coexisted with Popoluca Indigenous Peoples. This study sought to determine how the presence of a natural protected area (TBR location) and a range of sociodemographic factors (gender, age, origin, language proficiency, education level, religion) relate to the CS held by the Popoluca Indigenous People in relation to these two endangered primate species. Methods The first Primate Cultural Significance Index (PCSI) was designed as a composed index of 11 cultural variables (sub-indices) and was applied randomly to a representative size sample of people over 15 years old in two Popolucas communities, one within the TBR (Piedra Labrada = 81 people) and another outside (Los Mangos = 91). U Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare the PCSI between communities and Generalized Linear Models (GLM) to evaluate the sociodemographic factors of participants that influenced the sub-indices in the PCSI. Results The cultural significance of spider monkeys held by the Popolucas was higher for the community within the TBR than for the community outside, while for howler monkeys it was higher outside. For both primate species across the two communities, the most relevant sub-indices were (1) interest in conservation and (2) touristic significance of primates. Sociodemographic factors of participants influenced nine sub-indices of cultural significance out of the possible 10 sub-indices applied for each primate species. The demographic factors that most influenced each sub-index for both species were location and gender. Conclusions The main differences found between communities may be linked to the conservation and sustainable development programs promoted by the reserve, as well as the greater persistence of Popolucan ancestral traditions within the boundaries of the reserve. We recommend that conservation efforts should focus on people less interested about primate conservation (women, non-natives and residents outside the reserve), and turn to the leadership of people more interested (native men who reside inside the reserve).

Meizi-Consuming Culture That Fostered the Sustainable Use of Plum Resources in Dali of China: An Ethnobotanical Study

“…macrocarpa , Glycyrrhiza uralensis , Cinnamomum cassia , Malus prunifolia , and Syzygium aromaticum were below 50, while the value of S. aromaticum was only 3.64. However, this does not mean that the use values of these species are low, only that they are not as accepted as P. mume , C. speciosa , or other species in the Bai community, while they may be of great significance in other communities or fields [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ].…”

Specimens as individuals: Four interventions and recommendations for great ape skeletal collections research and curation

“…133,[142][143][144][145][146][147][148] Most "wild" primate populations have some human influence. 74,75,149,150 Not only are human-modified environments and those where humans interact with primates ubiquitous, but they provide valuable information about primate evolution and behavior. 151,152 The reality is that very little "wild" in the conventionally understood sense actually currently exists within ape territories.…”

Best practices are never best: Evaluating primate conservation education programs (PCEPs) with a decolonial perspective

“…The major lesson in “recognizing the value of local knowledge” is to incorporate pilot work, immersion, ethnoprimatology, the biosocial conservation approach, or other methods to understand how different community members learn and to understand conservation history in the area. This entails understanding all views in the community (Ellwanger et al, 2015; Franquesa‐Soler et al, 2019; Reibelt et al, 2017; Remis & Hardin, 2009; Riley, 2013; Setchell et al, 2017), understanding history with government policy (Brosius, 2006; Dowie, 2011; Riley, 2020), understanding the history of land use in the area, understanding the value and role that primate species play in human cultures (Pinto‐Marroquin et al, 2021) and perhaps most importantly, learning about/recognizing local ecological knowledge (Leblan, 2016; Mishra et al, 2017) before beginning any PCEP. Codesigning and socially constructing knowledge involves dialog, sharing of ideas, learning from one another, and collaborative activities well before implementation of PCEPs.…”

“…While the conservation and primatological communities are recognizing the value of integrating social science techniques into conservation projects (e.g.,Bennett et al, 2017;Kareiva & Marvier, 2012;Riley, 2020; Franquesa-Soler et al, this issue), we must also work to recognize that our own positionalities, life histories, and biases influence our understanding, our work, and our interpretation.The major lesson in "recognizing the value of local knowledge" is to incorporate pilot work, immersion, ethnoprimatology, the biosocial conservation approach, or other methods to understand how different community members learn and to understand conservation history in the area. This entails understanding all views in the community(Ellwanger et al, 2015;Reibelt et al, 2017;Remis & Hardin, 2009;Riley, 2013;Setchell et al, 2017), understanding history with government policy(Brosius, 2006;Dowie, 2011;Riley, 2020), understanding the history of land use in the area, understanding the value and role that primate species play in human cultures(Pinto-Marroquin et al, 2021) and perhaps most importantly, learning about/recognizing local ecological knowledge(Leblan, 2016;Mishra et al, 2017) before beginning any PCEP.Codesigning and socially constructing knowledge involves dialog, sharing of ideas, learning from one another, and collaborative activities well before implementation of PCEPs. These shared activities also allow for the identification of varied learning signals that may be able to be assessed via nontraditional metrics.It may also be helpful to recognize and share that a global history of consumerism, land use, and poor conservation efforts have been the result of global consumers rather than the citizens in the area(Franquesa-Soler & Sandoval-Rivera, 2019;Lanjouw, 2021;Mabele et al, 2021).…”