Indigenous Knowledge from South Africa’s Clan of Centenarians: Reframing African Myths and Traditions to Advance SDG 15 (Life on Land)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your constructive and insightful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise you have invested in strengthening this work. We confirm that we have implemented all the suggested changes to improve the clarity, depth, and scholarly grounding of the paper.

Minor changes

Line 62: conservation impacts were recognised before1962, Significantly in light of the current paper’s contents, in Africa the first modern alarms about wildlife were due to overhunting by colonialist groups hunting for sport. This should be mentioned and referenced.

We have expanded the discussion to acknowledge that conservation concerns in Africa were recognised prior to 1962, particularly in relation to overhunting by colonial groups engaged in sport hunting. We have incorporated appropriate references to situate our discussion within this historical context.

Lines 76-82: The authors also need to mention the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which has been the driving force behind the biodiversity-linked targets in the SDGs

We have included a discussion of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, highlighting its significance in shaping biodiversity-linked targets within the Sustainable Development Goals. This also strengthens the policy relevance and contemporary framing of our study.

Lines 111-117: the authors might also cite a literature review of the effectiveness of sacred natural sites in protecting biodiversity. I know this one: Dudley, N., Bhagwat, S., Higgins-Zogib, L., Lassen, B., Verschuuren, B. and Wild, R. 2010. Conservation of Biodiversity in Sacred Natural Sites in Asia and Africa: A Review of the Scientific Literature. In: Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., McNeely, J. and Oviedo, G. (eds.) Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture. Earthscan, London: 19-32. If the authors can find anything more recent it should be cited instead. This is relevant to one of the major comments below.

We incorporate the suggested reference (Dudley et al., 2010) on the effectiveness of sacred natural sites in biodiversity conservation. We also included more recent literature (Hazel, 2019;  Sinthumule & Mashau, 2020; Heinen & Batenda,  2025)  and ensured that the review reflects the latest scholarship.

Lines 172-174: the distinction is often made between traditional ecological knowledge (which is long-standing knowledge) and local ecological knowledge (which is more recent). It seems like the dynamic and evolving definition of IK used here (which I like) dissolves these distinctions; it might be worth expanding on this. It seems to me that the authors are using a more sophisticated approach than in much of the literature.

We appreciate your thoughtful observation regarding the distinction between traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and local ecological knowledge (LEK).

Lines 416-426: this confused me. You say that killing a python is discouraged but not killing a python has bad consequences. There’s something wrong here, please clarify

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity. We have rephrased this section. The intended meaning is that killing a python is strongly discouraged, and the belief in severe negative consequences for attempting to kill one serves as a deterrent. The cultural narrative emphasises that pythons are difficult to kill compared to other snakes, and that attempting to do so may result in misfortune. These beliefs function to prevent people from even attempting to hunt or harm pythons. We have revised the passage to ensure that the explanation is clear and internally consistent.

My three major points:

1. You don’t say anywhere whether these taboos and belief systems are having a positive and measurable impact. Have there been studies done? If so they need to be cited. There is good evidence from elsewhere that the existence of taboos has variable effects – sometimes they are taboo in name only. If no research has been done the authors need to say so and identify this as necessary complementary research.

Thank you for this important comment. We have addressed this concern in the revised manuscript by explicitly engaging with existing empirical studies that assess the conservation impact of cultural beliefs and taboos.

We have now added the following discussion to clarify this point:

Our findings are consistent with those of Hazel (2019), Sin-thumule and Mashau (2020) and Heinen and Batenda (2025), who similarly demonstrate that cultural beliefs and taboos play a significant role in conservation efforts across Africa and in the Musambwa Islands in Uganda. Likewise, Gadgil et al. (1993) emphasise that conserving Indigenous cultures and empowering local communities to manage their own resources are essential for preserving valuable ecological knowledge and practices. They further argue that Indigenous knowledge systems offer important insights for sustainable resource use and effective ecosystem management in the contemporary world. In addition, we now acknowledge that the conservation outcomes of taboos are not uniform and may vary across contexts, as some taboos may weaken over time or exist symbolically without strong enforcement. The scope of our study did not include measurements of ecological impact; we have indicated this as an area requiring further complementary research to assess the measurable conservation effectiveness of these belief systems (lines 586-599).

2. Similarly, we need to know if younger people in the community are following these beliefs. The authors state that they picked the most knowledgeable people – were these all old? Belief systems are everywhere changing and we need to know whether this is historical (or soon to be historical) or whether these systems of taboos are likely to survive.

Thank you for this important observation. In response, we have expanded the methodology section to provide greater clarity regarding participant selection and demographic composition. We now explicitly state that the sample included both male and female participants. While several participants were elderly and regarded as particularly knowledgeable custodians of cultural practices, not all participants were of advanced age. Some participants, especially older individuals, were unsure of their exact ages; we have reported age ranges rather than precise figures. The youngest participant was 32, and the oldest was 94.

We acknowledge that our study did not systematically examine the extent to which these belief systems are changing over time, nor did it directly assess whether they are likely to persist or decline. Our focus was primarily on documenting the content, meaning, and conservation implications of the belief systems as currently articulated by knowledge holders. We have clarified this limitation in the revised manuscript and indicated the need for future longitudinal and intergenerational studies to assess their durability (lines 614-620).

However, we note that previous research by Sinthumule and Mashau (2020) suggests that although younger generations may express greater scepticism toward certain beliefs, their behaviour often remains aligned with cultural prescriptions and prohibitions. In other words, even where belief may be contested at a cognitive level, behavioural compliance with taboos frequently persists. We have incorporated this discussion to provide context regarding the potential continuity of these systems.

We are grateful for your valuable feedback and believe that the revisions will substantially strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very good  and interesting paper and it should be published.  Land is an appropriate outlet for the paper.  I have just a few comments that I think the authors could add here:

 

1.  Using qualitative data with unstructured interviews and purposeful sampling is appropriate and I am quite content with qualitative data.  However, I think a bit more background is in order.  Was a snowballing method used to find interviewees?  What were the age and gender mixes of people?  For focus groups, how were they elected?  Also, please explain how they arrived at 'Data Saturation.'
2. I think it is perhaps just a stylistic viewpoint, but I prefer results and discussion sections to be separate.  They could be done each wither the subsections used here, but I find it easier for to follow each separately rather than going back and forth from results to discussion in each subsection.
3. The authors may also wish to cited:  

Heinen, J.T. and H. Batenda. 2025.  Snake spirits, fishermen and water birds on Lake Victoria... J. Ecol. Anthr. 25(1): 1-10., which agrees with and backs up several of their themes.   

Dundes, A. 1989 Folklore Matters. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993 Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151- 156. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4314060

Hazel, R. 2019 Snakes, people and spirits: Traditional Eastern Africa in its broader context. Milton Park, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor and Francis.

This is all I have.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your constructive and insightful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise you have invested in strengthening this work. We confirm that we have implemented all the suggested changes to improve the clarity, depth, and scholarly grounding of the paper.

1. Using qualitative data with unstructured interviews and purposeful sampling is appropriate, and I am quite content with qualitative data.  However, I think a bit more background is in order.  Was a snowballing method used to find interviewees?  What were the age and gender mixes of people?  For focus groups, how were they elected?  Also, please explain how they arrived at 'Data Saturation.'

Thank you for this constructive comment. A bit of additional background has now been included in the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods section. We have clarified that a snowball sampling method was used to identify and recruit participants, and this is now explicitly stated in the manuscript. We have also specified the demographic composition of the participants. The sample included both male and female participants. Because some participants, particularly the elderly, were unsure of their exact ages, we have reported an age range instead. The youngest participant was 32, and the oldest was 94. In addition, we have further clarified how focus group participants were selected and have expanded the explanation of how data saturation was determined. Specifically, data saturation was considered reached when no new themes or substantive insights emerged from subsequent interviews and focus group discussions.

2. I think it is perhaps just a stylistic viewpoint, but I prefer results and discussion sections to be separate.  They could be done each wither the subsections used here, but I find it easier for to follow each separately rather than going back and forth from results to discussion in each subsection.

We thank you for this valuable suggestion regarding the presentation of results and discussion. In response, we have strengthened the manuscript by incorporating more direct quotations from participants. These additions make it much clearer where the data originate and allow readers to engage directly with the participants’ voices. This revision improves transparency and makes it easier to distinguish between the study’s empirical results and the subsequent discussion in relation to the literature.

3. The authors may also wish to cited:  

Heinen, J.T. and H. Batenda. 2025.  Snake spirits, fishermen and water birds on Lake Victoria... J. Ecol. Anthr. 25(1): 1-10., which agrees with and backs up several of their themes.   

Dundes, A. 1989 Folklore Matters. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993 Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151- 156. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4314060

Hazel, R. 2019 Snakes, people and spirits: Traditional Eastern Africa in its broader context. Milton Park, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Thank you for these valuable recommendations. We have carefully reviewed the suggested publications and found them highly relevant to our study. The works by Heinen and Batenda (2025), Dundes (1989), Gadgil et al. (1993), and Hazel (2019) have now been incorporated into the revised manuscript where appropriate (sections 1,4,5 and 6 of the manuscript). These sources have been cited to strengthen the paper's theoretical grounding and further.

We are grateful for your valuable feedback and believe that the revisions will substantially strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting manuscript on an important topic. It is well written and set in a fascinating part of the world. It would be of interest to the readership of this journal.

However, it could use some revisions that in my opinion would include,

1) add some more citations setting the scene in the introduction on global concerns relevant to this study

2) add information on the sampling strategy. It is unclear how exactly sources were chosen, and how those chosen are representative of the million people who live in the study area

3) also, in methods the "thematic analysis" referred to is not explained, again making it hard to see how the analysis was done, and if the study would be replicated elsewhere.

4) I question the decision to combine Results and Discussion in the same section. This makes it impossible to see where the data is coming from, and what new information is being provided by the authors beyond the literature cited. For example, who exactly gave you this information on taboos and sacred sites etc? How old were they? How general is knowledge among the people interviewed?

5) It is common in qualitative research to provide quotations from the sources of information, which helps see them as people.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your constructive and insightful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise you have invested in strengthening this work. We confirm that we have implemented all the suggested changes to improve the clarity, depth, and scholarly grounding of the paper.

1) add some more citations setting the scene in the introduction on global concerns relevant to this study.

We have expanded the introduction to include additional citations that situate the study within broader global environmental and biodiversity concerns relevant to this research. This strengthens the contextual framing and clarifies the study’s international relevance (lines 64-71; 91-71 and 132-141).

 

2) add information on the sampling strategy. It is unclear how exactly sources were chosen, and how those chosen are representative of the million people who live in the study area.

We have revised the methodology section to provide a clearer explanation of the sampling strategy. We now specify how participants were identified and selected, the rationale for focusing on knowledgeable custodians of cultural practices, and how the sample reflects key knowledge holders within the broader community. Due to the qualitative nature of this study, it was not designed to be representative in terms of statistical generalisability of the approximately one million people in the study area; however, the approach is consistent with qualitative, ethnographic research aimed at depth rather than numerical generalisation.

3) also, in methods the "thematic analysis" referred to is not explained, again making it hard to see how the analysis was done, and if the study would be replicated elsewhere.

We have expanded the methods section to explain the thematic analysis process in greater detail. The revised text now outlines how interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed, coded, categorised, and analysed to generate themes. This clarification improves transparency and enhances the study's replicability in other contexts (lines 365-383).

4) I question the decision to combine Results and Discussion in the same section. This makes it impossible to see where the data is coming from, and what new information is being provided by the authors beyond the literature cited. For example, who exactly gave you this information on taboos and sacred sites etc? How old were they? How general is knowledge among the people interviewed? Thank you for raising this important concern. We acknowledge that combining the Results and Discussion sections may have made it difficult to clearly distinguish between empirical findings and interpretive analysis.

In response, we have strengthened the manuscript by incorporating more direct quotations from participants. These additions make it much clearer where the data originate and allow readers to engage directly with the participants’ voices. This revision improves transparency and makes it easier to distinguish between the study’s empirical results and the subsequent discussion in relation to the literature. We have also clarified who provided the information on taboos and sacred sites by specifying participant demographics, including age range and gender composition. Where relevant, we indicate whether particular knowledge was widely shared among participants or articulated by specific individuals. We appreciate this comment, as it has significantly improved the clarity and structure of the manuscript.

5) It is common in qualitative research to provide quotations from the sources of information, which helps see them as people.

We have incorporated additional direct quotations from participants to better reflect their voices and perspectives. This strengthens the qualitative depth of the study and allows readers to more clearly see the human dimension of the data. We are grateful for these insightful comments, which have significantly improved the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall quality of the manuscript.

We are grateful for your valuable feedback and believe that the revisions will substantially strengthen the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good job of revising their manuscript.