Introduction
Species extinction during the Anthropocene is considered one of the most critical current environmental challenges (Dirzo et al., Reference Dirzo, Young, Galetti, Ceballos, Isaac and Collen2014; Kaiho, Reference Kaiho2022). With limited resources, there is a need to prioritize conservation efforts, and the IUCN Red List is widely used as the standard for assessing species’ extinction risk (Vié et al., Reference Vié, Hilton-Taylor, Pollock, Ragle, Smart, Stuart, Tong, Vié, Hilton-Taylor and Stuart2008). The results of Red List assessments are important to help authorities, managers and scientists focus resources and efforts on mitigating population declines and species losses. Each species categorized as threatened on the IUCN Red List should be a high priority for conservation, especially those categorized as Critically Endangered, which are at high risk of extinction if no captive populations exist (Rodrigues et al., Reference Rodrigues, Pilgrim, Lamoreux, Hoffmann and Brooks2006).
Comprising 11 countries, Southeast Asia is recognized for its unique biodiversity and four global biodiversity hotspots: Sundaland, Wallacea, Indochina and the Philippines (Myers et al., Reference Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Da Fonseca and Kent2000). For more than 20 years scientists have warned of the risk facing Southeast Asian biodiversity as a result of forest loss, habitat destruction, overharvesting and the wildlife trade, amongst other threats (Sodhi et al., Reference Sodhi, Koh, Brook and Ng2004; Harrison et al., Reference Harrison, Sreekar, Brodie, Brook, Luskin and O’Kelly2016; Hughes, Reference Hughes2017). Species extinctions in the region are inevitable if action is not taken (Duckworth et al., Reference Duckworth, Mainguy, Batters, Belant, Bennett and Brunner2012).
Of 17,160 Southeast Asian land vertebrate species assessed on the IUCN Red List, 3,792 occur in Indonesia, 1,939 in Myanmar and 1,935 in Thailand. Indonesia has 78 Critically Endangered land vertebrates, Viet Nam 48 and Malaysia 43. Indonesia has 1,826 threatened bird species (31 Critically Endangered), 786 threatened mammals (26), 755 threatened reptiles (18) and 409 threatened amphibians (three; IUCN, 2022).
The Asian Species Action Partnership, a cross-institutional programme of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, was established to prevent extinctions of land and freshwater vertebrate species in Southeast Asia (Duckworth et al., Reference Duckworth, Mainguy, Batters, Belant, Bennett and Brunner2012; Rao et al., Reference Rao, Duckworth, Roberts and Shepherd2014). The Partnership works to catalyse and accelerate conservation action to prevent extinctions and promote species recovery of Critically Endangered land and freshwater vertebrate species in Southeast Asia. It provides funding as well as direct support to partner organizations through training programmes and other mechanisms, to strengthen individual and organizational capacity, enabling partners to lead conservation action for these species (Chao et al., Reference Chao, Loffeld, Mastro, Willcox, Guthrie and Rao2022).
As a mega-biodiverse country (Mittermeier et al., Reference Mittermeier, Myers, Thomsen, DA Fonseca and Olivieri1998), Indonesia has attracted global attention regarding the potential for biodiversity-related research (von Rintelen et al., Reference von Rintelen, Arida and Häuser2017). Such research has been used for IUCN Red List assessments and to develop priority and future conservation strategies. However, Red List assessment is only one of the many methods for assessing conservation status, prioritizing species and developing conservation strategies (Mace et al., Reference Mace, Possingham, Leader-Williams and Macdonald2006). Not all species are perceived equally, as aesthetic appeal, charisma and publicity levels have all been shown to influence research or protection priorities and can determine the popularity of species (Prokop & Fančovičová, Reference Prokop and Fančovičová2013; Adamo et al., Reference Adamo, Chialva, Calevo, Bertoni, Dixon and Mammola2021). To examine the research efforts focused on these threatened species, here we review the number, type and language of publications on the Critically Endangered land vertebrates of Indonesia published during 2000–2021, as well as the research topics and the location of the research and first authors of these publications. Our analysis will help to narrow gaps in research on and knowledge of the most threatened species in Indonesia, and serve as a guide for Indonesian and international researchers, and funding donors. We also recommend areas for further research and attention.
Methods
Following Xiao & Watson (Reference Xiao and Watson2019), we formulated inclusion criteria for a systematic review process. We compiled published papers indexed by Google Scholar and/or Scopus using the Publish or Perish application (Harzing, Reference Harzing2010), which includes peer-reviewed scientific papers, grey literature and other sources of information for conservation research (Haddaway & Bayliss, Reference Haddaway and Bayliss2015). We searched the titles of all publications for the scientific and common names of each of the 78 Critically Endangered land vertebrate species. We did not consider changes in species names or species separations during the data processing phase. We collected reports written in English or Bahasa Indonesia published during 2000–2021, based on Putera et al. (Reference Putera, Suryanto, Ningrum, Widianingsih and Rianto2022), who noted a significant increase in research activity in Indonesia from 2000 onward. We cleaned the data to ensure the completeness of publication metadata and to eliminate duplicates.
We found 4,073 records, of which 2,188 met the inclusion criteria for analysis in our systematic review. We categorized publication language as ‘English’ or ‘Bahasa Indonesia’ and publication type as ‘scientific article’, ‘thesis’, ‘report’, ‘seminar proceeding’ or ‘book chapter’. We omitted most non-scientific books and other publications (multimedia, posters and magazines). For analysis of research topic, we categorized publications into ‘ecology’, ‘behaviour’, ‘veterinary science’, ‘biochemistry and molecular biology’, ‘anatomy, morphology and physiology’, ‘biodiversity and conservation’, ‘reproductive and developmental biology’ and ‘people and nature’. To analyse the research outputs of Indonesian researchers, we compared the quantity of research conducted by Indonesian researchers to that of foreign researchers (based on the first author). To analyse the geographical distribution of the publications, we noted whether the research was carried out within or outside Indonesia. Research conducted outside Indonesia could include ex situ and laboratory studies.
(a) Number of research publications on Indonesian Critically Endangered species across four taxonomic groups (amphibians, birds, reptiles, mammals) from 2000 to 2021. The trend lines represent linear regression fits for each group. (b) Number of species categorized as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List in each year. (Readers of the printed journal are referred to the online article for a colour version of this figure.)
Types of publications focused on Critically Endangered species of Indonesia during 2000–2021, and the percentage of publications in Bahasa Indonesia and English.
Results
Based on our analysis of the 2,188 publications, we observed an increase in the number of publications across the four taxonomic classes during 2000–2021 (Fig. 1a). This increase in research corresponds with a notable rise in the number of species categorized as Critically Endangered, particularly from 2008 onwards (Fig. 1b). Over the years studied, there has been a general increase in the number of publications per year for birds, reptiles and mammals, with the most notable rise occurring in mammals. In contrast, research on amphibians remained relatively stagnant, with few or no publications during most of the study period (Fig. 1a). This pattern suggests that mammals have received proportionally more research attention over time compared to other taxonomic groups.
Number of publications on Critically Endangered species of Indonesia during 2000–2021 by research topic. (Readers of the printed journal are referred to the online article for a colour version of this figure.)
The most common publication type was scientific articles (67.5%), followed by academic theses (23.6%), reports (4.8%), seminar proceedings (3.8%) and book chapters (0.3%; Fig. 2). The majority (69.1%) of publications were in English, with 30.9% in Bahasa Indonesia, and English dominated all publication types except for theses. Analysis of research topics revealed that ecology (27.4%), behaviour (20.7%) and veterinary science (14.6%) were the most frequent subjects of study (Fig. 3).
With respect to the nationality of researchers and the geographical locations of the research (Fig. 4a-c), foreign researchers comprised c. 58.1% of all authorship across the 2,188 studies reviewed. This was calculated based on the total number of first and co-authors recorded in the dataset. The high percentage of foreign authorship is probably because some species occur in multiple countries (e.g. the Malay crestless fireback Lophura erythrophthalma and the Siamese crocodile Crocodylus siamensis), and some species have garnered international attention. This was particularly evident in the case of the Bornean and Sumatran orangutans Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii. Forty-three per cent of studies were conducted outside Indonesia, primarily on species with extensive geographical distributions in Borneo.
Details of publications on Critically Endangered species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles in Indonesia, and of the researchers carrying out the studies, during 2000–2021.
1 Endemic to Indonesia.
With respect to publication titles, 61 species (78%) had publications focused on them specifically (i.e the species name was stated in the title; Table 1). However, the remaining 17 species had no major publications associated with them. Instead, publications featuring these 17 species were only found through searching for relevant keywords within the text, indicating these species have received limited research attention. This included seven bird species (the Malay crestless fireback, Siau scops owl Otus siaoensis, blue-fronted lorikeet Charmosyna toxopei, Sangihe dwarf kingfisher Ceyx sangirensis, Sangihe whistler Coracornis sanghirensis, black-chinned monarch Symposiachrus boanensis and Sangihe golden bulbul Hypsipetes platenae), four mammal species (the black-spotted cuscus Spilocuscus rufoniger, golden-mantled tree-kangaroo Dendrolagus pulcherrimus, Emma’s giant rat Uromys emmae and Wondiwoi tree-kangaroo Dendrolagus mayri) and six reptile species (Calamaria longirostris, Eremiascincus antoniorum, the Jampea Island pipe snake Cylindrophis isolepis, Cnemaspis minang, the Apreocular reed snake Calamaria apraeocularis and Dibamus manadotuaensis).
Most publications studied mammal species (1,573), followed by reptiles (310) and birds (300), with only five studies on amphibians (Table 1). A research imbalance in Indonesia persists, with some species being the focus of only one publication: five bird species (the Javan blue-banded kingfisher Alcedo euryzona, Rück’s blue flycatcher Cyornis ruckii, the rufous-fronted laughingthrush Garrulax rufifrons, Nias hill myna Gracula robusta and Sangihe white-eye Zosterops nehrkorni), four mammal species (the Pagai Island macaque Macaca pagensis, East Sumatran banded langur Presbytis percura, Attenborough’s long-beaked echidna Zaglossus attenboroughi and blue-eyed spotted cuscus Spilocuscus wilsoni), two reptile species (Cyrtodactylus celatus and Cyrtodactylus gordongekkoi) and two amphibian species (Occidozyga tompotika and Philautus jacobsoni). For mammals, birds and amphibians > 50% of research was conducted in Indonesia, compared to only 19.3% of reptile research (of 310 publications, 157 are focused on C. siamensis, a species also occurring outside Indonesia). The first authors of mammal and reptile publications were mainly foreign (56.0 and 87.4% respectively), whereas research on birds and amphibians was predominantly carried out by Indonesian researchers (61 and 100%, respectively; Table 1).
We identified the species with the highest number of publications from each taxonomic class (Table 1). These were the Bali myna Leucopsar rothschildi (22.7%), the maleo Macrocephalon maleo (19.7%) and the yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea (18.3%) for birds, the Bornean orangutan (36.5%), Sumatran orangutan (19%) and Sunda pangolin Manis javanica (9.5%) for mammals, the Siamese crocodile (53.5%), southern river terrapin Batagur affinis (8.7%) and Asian forest tortoise Manouria emys (8.4%) for reptiles and one amphibian species, the bleeding toad Leptophryne cruentata (60%). We observed that, for each taxonomic class, one species not only had the highest number of publications but also had most of the research activities conducted within Indonesia. These species were the Bali myna, Bornean orangutan, Sulawesi forest turtle Leucocephalon yuwonoi and bleeding toad. The species with the most research conducted outside Indonesia were the spoon-billed sandpiper Calidris pygmaea, Bornean orangutan and Siamese crocodile.
Number of publications on Critically Endangered species of Indonesia during 2000–2021 categorized by researcher nationality (left) and research location (right) for (a) birds, (b) mammals, and (c) reptiles and amphibians. Species with no publications during 2000–2021 are not shown.
The majority of bird research was on the Bali myna, maleo and yellow-crested cockatoo, all of which are endemic to Indonesia. Most of the research on these species was conducted in Indonesia and carried out predominantly by Indonesian researchers. There is an uneven focus on one reptile species, the Siamese crocodile, for which research was mostly conducted outside Indonesia. Omitting this species from our data, we found that reptiles and amphibians are understudied in Indonesia. Of the reptiles endemic to Indonesia, the species with the most publications was the Sulawesi forest turtle L. yuwonoi (Fig. 4c). There are few publications on Critically Endangered amphibians, with three studies on Leptophryne cruentata and just one each on the frogs O. tompotika and P. jacobsoni. The research on these three endemic amphibians was mostly conducted by Indonesian researchers in Indonesia.
Number of publications on Critically Endangered (a) mammals and (b) primates of Indonesia during 2000–2021.
As the group with the highest number of publications, mammals have evidently attracted significant research interest from both Indonesian and foreign researchers. Primates were the most extensively studied mammalian order, accounting for 74.0% (1,164 publications) of the publications on mammals (Fig. 5a). Other orders with high numbers of studies include Perissodactyla (12.8%, 202 publications; 121 publications on the Sumatran rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis and 81 on the Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus) and Pholidota (9.5%, 149 publications; all on the Sunda pangolin). In contrast, considerably less research attention has been given to the orders Artiodactyla, Rodentia, Chiroptera, Monotremata and Diprotodontia, collectively comprising 3.7% of total publications, with monotremes and diprotodonts having the lowest publication rates of these. Only one publication, conducted in New Guinea, featured Attenborough’s long-beaked echidna. The western long-beaked echidna Zaglossus bruijnii had slightly better representation, and the research in three of five of its publications was conducted in Papua, Indonesia. Three publications featured the Talaud bear cuscus Ailurops melanotis, deriving from a study conducted in Sulawesi; only one publication featured the blue-eyed spotted cuscus but did not have a specific focus on the species.
Orangutans have received the greatest attention, with studies on the three species (P. pygmaeus, P. abelii and the Tapanuli orangutan Pongo tapanuliensis) constituting 56.3% (886 publications) of all publications on mammals (Fig. 5b). The Bornean orangutan is the primate with the highest number of publications, accounting for 49.3% (574 publications) of total primate-related publications. Of these, only 24.9% of the authors were Indonesian, indicating that most research on Pongo pygmaeus was conducted or led by foreign researchers. Pongo abelii also had a high publication count, representing 25.7% (299) of primate publications (Fig. 5b). However, we note this number may include publications on P. tapanuliensis, as this species was only recognized as distinct from P. abelii in 2017. Nevertheless, it is evident that large primates receive more research attention than other Indonesian mammal species.
Discussion
Attention towards threatened species can be indicated by the quantity of research and publications. Research on Critically Endangered species in Indonesia has shown a consistent upward trend since 2000, as has the number of species categorized as Critically Endangered. This increased focus on these species was also highlighted by Ardiantiono et al.’s review of mammal research in Indonesia (Reference Ardiantiono, Pinondang, Chandradewi, Semiadi, Pattiselanno and Supriatna2024). Although the increasing number of studies is encouraging, there are still challenges and research gaps regarding Critically Endangered species in Indonesia. We analysed the present situation to understand any research gaps, identify biases and address challenges.
Limited Indonesian authorship
Scientific articles were the main publication type in terms of quantity, but only 42% of this research was carried out by Indonesian researchers. Experts are often defined by their research outputs and authorship, and geographical disparities of experts in wildlife research has been highlighted, with Africa and Asia being the most underrepresented (Maas et al., Reference Maas, Pakeman, Godet, Smith, Devictor and Primack2021; Tuyisenge et al., Reference Tuyisenge, Kayitete, Tuyisingize, O’Malley, Stoinski and Van Der Hoek2023). The greater number of experts from countries outside biodiversity hotspots has been labelled ‘the biodiversity paradox’ (Rodríguez et al., Reference Rodríguez, Sucre, Mileham, Sánchez-Mercado, Andrade and Bezeng2022), and there are concerns regarding the low percentage of local authorship in Indonesia (von Rintelen et al., Reference von Rintelen, Arida and Häuser2017).
The large proportion of publications by foreign researchers highlights the limitations faced by Indonesian researchers in accessing opportunities to publish their findings. Language barriers are a major cause of disparities in biodiversity research (Amano & Sutherland, Reference Amano and Sutherland2013; Amano et al., Reference Amano, González-Varo and Sutherland2016; Negret et al., Reference Negret, Atkinson, Woodworth, Corella Tor, Allan, Fuller and Amano2022; Nature Human Behaviour, 2023). Local researchers may be missing opportunities to access resources to conduct wildlife research compared to their English-speaking counterparts, both during the development of proposals to international donors and when writing up their research.
Funding for species research is linked to publication outputs by researchers (Heyard & Hottenrott, Reference Heyard and Hottenrott2021), and publication outputs from such research can be used to improve conservation action (Sutherland et al., Reference Sutherland, Pullin, Dolman and Knight2004; Salafsky et al., Reference Salafsky, Boshoven, Burivalova, Dubois, Gomez and Johnson2019). Insufficient funding poses a formidable barrier for local researchers aiming to publish their work in internationally reputable open access journals, in which publication costs are typically USD 2,000–4,000 (Van Noorden, Reference Van Noorden2013; Yuen et al., Reference Yuen, Muquit and Whitfield2019). Although some journals offer waivers to cover these costs, competition and lengthy peer review processes are additional challenges for local researchers seeking to disseminate their work.
For species with the highest numbers of research publications in each taxonomic class (except for reptiles), the number of studies conducted in Indonesia by Indonesian lead researchers is > 50%. Despite concerns regarding so-called helicopter or parachute research by researchers from developed countries (Stefanoudis et al., Reference Stefanoudis, Licuanan, Morrison, Talma, Veitayaki and Woodall2021; De Vos & Schwartz, Reference De Vos and Schwartz2022), research on land vertebrates in Indonesia is increasingly led by local researchers. Most of this research is field-based, an advantage that local researchers have over their international counterparts.
Taxonomic bias
Few Critically Endangered land vertebrates in Indonesia are well studied and c. 20% have not been studied at all. Bias towards vertebrate species is common within biodiversity research (Donaldson et al., Reference Donaldson, Burnett, Braun, Suski, Hinch, Cooke and Kerr2017) and our results show there are further biases within land vertebrates, consistent with the findings of Ardiantiono et al. (Reference Ardiantiono, Pinondang, Chandradewi, Semiadi, Pattiselanno and Supriatna2024).
Our findings highlight a strong bias towards primates, with orangutans being the most researched genus. This high level of interest can be attributed to several factors, including the genus being a great ape (the most closely related group to humans) and its exclusive presence in Indonesia and Malaysia. It has been estimated that USD 1 billion was invested in orangutan conservation during 2000–2019 (Santika et al., Reference Santika, Sherman, Voigt, Ancrenaz, Wich and Wilson2022), contributing to its prominence in the scientific literature. However, Indonesia and Malaysiaare facing considerable land-use changes, posing further threats to the survival of these great apes (Gaveau et al., Reference Gaveau, Wich, Epting, Juhn, Kanninen and Leader-Williams2009; Sherman et al., Reference Sherman, Ancrenaz, Voigt, Oram, Santika, Wich and Meijaard2020).
The availability of funding can influence research priorities (Thelwall et al., Reference Thelwall, Simrick, Viney and Van Den Besselaar2023) and could affect the regions or taxa studied. Funding for biodiversity research may be disproportionately directed towards high-profile or politically significant projects, leading to a biased allocation of resources, as has been observed with orangutan research. The high conservation investment in the three species is unsurprising considering that at least 12 organizations feature ‘orangutan’ in their names. Furthermore, the active involvement of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry is evident through various initiatives, notably the introduction of the 2019–2029 Orangutan Conservation Strategy and Action Plan (MoEF, 2019).
There is a bias in conservation investment in well-known species (Bellon, Reference Bellon2019; Adamo et al., Reference Adamo, Sousa, Wipf, Correia, Lumia, Mucciarelli and Mammola2022), with less funding devoted to other, less well-known or less charismatic, species. An incomplete understanding of the ecology of lesser-known and less studied taxa could further increase the risk of research neglect and vulnerability to extinction. The limited research on lesser-known Critically Endangered species is of concern for improving their conservation status. The skew in public support and funding affect how priorities for species conservation are developed (Colléony et al., Reference Colléony, Clayton, Couvet, Saint Jalme and Prévot2017; Davies et al., Reference Davies, Cowley, Bennie, Leyshon, Inger and Carter2018; Adamo et al., Reference Adamo, Sousa, Wipf, Correia, Lumia, Mucciarelli and Mammola2022).
There are limited or no data on conservation investment for most Critically Endangered species in Indonesia. Except for orangutans, there have been no reports on the effectiveness of funding for biodiversity conservation in Indonesia (Santika et al., Reference Santika, Sherman, Voigt, Ancrenaz, Wich and Wilson2022). Greater investment is needed to improve the knowledge and conservation status of threatened species (McCarthy et al., Reference McCarthy, Thompson and Garnett2008), especially for unpopular and lesser-known species. Research on funding trends for biodiversity conservation in Indonesia is needed to narrow the gaps in research, as has been shown for Bhutan, China and the USA (Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Baum, Brodie, Salomon, Dickson and Gibbs2010; Devkota et al., Reference Devkota, Miller, Wang and Brooks2023; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Tao and Zhang2024).
Addressing biases and challenges
Addressing biases in biodiversity research requires a concerted effort from the scientific community, policymakers and funding agencies both nationally and internationally (Ocampo-Ariza et al., Reference Ocampo-Ariza, Toledo-Hernández, Librán-Embid, Armenteras, Vansynghel and Raveloaritiana2023). Encouraging local researchers to fill knowledge gaps, especially by providing access to resources to explore less studied taxa and regions, is crucial for their engagement and for the stewardship of these species. The inclusion of citizen science efforts under local researcher leadership not only enables local researchers to conduct cost-effective research on the distribution of species, including threatened species, but also improves awareness of the general public (Pocock et al., Reference Pocock, Chandler, Bonney, Thornhill, Albin and August2018; Callaghan et al., Reference Callaghan, Poore, Mesaglio, Moles, Nakagawa and Roberts2020; Fontaine et al., Reference Fontaine, Simard, Brunet and Elliott2022). Although there are concerns regarding the quality control of citizen science data (Crall et al., Reference Crall, Newman, Stohlgren, Holfelder, Graham and Waller2011; Aceves-Bueno et al., Reference Aceves-Bueno, Adeleye, Feraud, Huang, Tao, Yang and Anderson2017), this kind of monitoring (Callaghan et al., Reference Callaghan, Poore, Major, Rowley and Cornwell2019) is crucial to gathering data on species distributions and the occurrence of harmful invasive species (Devictor et al., Reference Devictor, Whittaker and Beltrame2010; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Mader, Dasgupta and Kumar2020). Currently, there are two citizen science programmes for recording land vertebrates in Indonesia, focusing on herpetofauna and birds (Kusrini et al., Reference Kusrini , Hamidy , Prasetyo , Nugraha , Munir and Arida 2019; Gumilang et al., Reference Gumilang, Mardiastuti, Kusrini and Noor2020; Squires et al., Reference Squires, Yuda, Akbar, Collar, Devenish and Nasution2020; Maharani et al., Reference Maharani, Kusrini and Hamidy2022).
Challenges faced by Indonesian researchers include limited funding and often limited access to scientific literature, global networks and specialized equipment and technology. Insufficient resources hinder the ability to conduct research and participate in biodiversity studies and conservation efforts. Thus, opportunities for local researchers to access funding needs to be increased by establishing targeted funding opportunities. Funding sources should not only be provided by international donors but should also be available from local governments and NGOs (Oktaviani et al., Reference Oktaviani, Rangkuti, Pyan Putro Surya and Puspita2018).
Although there have already been several attempts to increase funding for the conservation of lesser known Critically Endangered species, such funding remains limited. For example, the Asian Species Action Partnership has 77 Indonesian partner organizations (excluding international NGOs such as WWF and the Wildlife Conservation Society, or those based outside Indonesia) that work to protect 41 Critically Endangered mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species. In line with our own findings, orangutans are the most frequently listed focal species of these organizations (29% of the Asian Species Action Partnership in Indonesia list one or more orangutan species as a focus of their work). To bridge some of the gaps faced by local organizations and to catalyse greater action for neglected species, in 2020 the Partnership launched new funding mechanisms with a specific focus on supporting projects by local organizations, projects led by Indonesian researchers affiliated with one of the Indonesian partner organizations, and projects focused on neglected species. To date, the Partnership has funded its partners’ work on 16 Critically Endangered land vertebrates in Indonesia (nine bird, three mammal, three reptile and one amphibian species). However, the amounts are small and the funding mostly focuses on conservation action. Although additional funding is available from other organizations (such as the Mohammed bin Zayad Species Conservation Fund, Mandai Nature and Synchronicity Earth), the funding gap relative to the conservation needs of Critically Endangered species remains large.
Funding is also needed for capacity building. An assessment of organizations implementing species conservation in Southeast Asia indicated the need for greater and more diverse training opportunities in the region (Chao et al., Reference Chao, Loffeld, Mastro, Willcox, Guthrie and Rao2022). Organizations and institutions should invest in capacity-building programmes that provide local researchers and conservationists with training, mentorship and access to resources.
Building local capacity through training programmes, workshops and conferences in scientific methodologies, data analysis and conservation techniques, amongst other skills, can empower individuals to take an active role in biodiversity research and conservation. Funding and capacity-building initiatives also need to target research in underrepresented regions and amongst researchers from diverse backgrounds. The International Wildlife Symposium series conducted by WWF–Indonesia in collaboration with local universities across Sumatra (including Riau, Andalas, Lampung and Syiah Kuala Universities) is an example of how to empower local students and researchers to conduct research and share their processes and findings whilst at the same time organizing international events. Side events at the conference in Lampung University have led to the establishment of organizations that further promote international networking and collaboration for local researchers: the Society of Conservation Biology Indonesia Chapter and, later, the IUCN Species Survival Commission Indonesia Species Specialist Group.
Improving research by local researchers through collaboration and networking with experienced scientists from outside the country is important. Engaging local researchers in biodiversity studies is crucial for several reasons. Local researchers possess valuable knowledge about ecosystems, species distributions and traditional practices that can significantly contribute to a comprehensive understanding of biodiversity. Moreover, involving local researchers fosters capacity building and enhances local ownership and therefore long-term sustainability and more effective conservation efforts. Although international researchers in Indonesia are required to work in partnership with local researchers, the latter may feel discouraged if their contributions are not adequately recognized or rewarded within the scientific community, or if they feel there is no knowledge exchange or a lack of equal opportunities and shared responsibilities (Rochmyaningsih, Reference Rochmyaningsih 2019; De Vos & Schwartz, Reference De Vos and Schwartz2022).
Recognition and incentives, such as co-authorship, opportunities to attend conferences and to present findings, can enhance the motivation of local researchers. In addition, co-authorship enables local researchers to increase their academic capacity (Li et al., Reference Li, Aste, Caccioli and Livan2019), improve their data analysis and writing skills and access funding. As language barriers can be significant obstacles to effective collaboration, efforts to facilitate communication and translate scientific knowledge into local languages should be encouraged, to improve engagement (Primack, Reference Primack2008). Local people can and should be the guardians of biodiversity in their countries, actively participating in and leading research into biodiversity in their local regions. It is our collective responsibility as policymakers, scientific communities, donor agencies and journal editors, amongst others, to make this a reality.
Author contributions
Study design: MDK, RKT; data analysis: MDK, RKT, MMH, RA; writing: all authors.
Acknowledgements
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency or commercial or not-for-profit sectors. We thank the editors and reviewers for their comments and constructive input.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Ethical standards
No specific approval was required for this research, and the research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, RKT, upon reasonable request.
Open access
