DOI: 10.5061/dryad.18931zd3r
title: Tshikombeni knowledge of national biodiversity symbols in South Africa

description: Most countries have declared one or more animal or plant species to be
 amongst their national symbols, termed here national biodiversity symbols.
 National biodiversity symbols are the species formally or informally
 recognised by societies and countries as having meaning to one or more of
 national identity, values and unity. It has been proposed previously that
 national biodiversity symbols can be used as flagship species to advance
 habitat conservation in their respective countries. However, this assumes
 that the symbols are well known and revered by the citizens of the country
 concerned. We examined this assumption via direct interviews with 382
 urban residents in four towns in South Africa, which is a
 mega-biodiversity country with five national biodiversity symbols (a
 national tree, flower, animal, bird and fish). We found that less than 3 %
 of the urban respondents could name all five species, ranging from 6 % for
 the national tree to 40 % for both the national flower and national
 animal. Knowledge of other national symbols (flag and anthem) were equally
 low. The number of national biodiversity symbols known increased with
 income and education level of respondents. Despite limited knowledge of
 which species were the national biodiversity symbols, almost two-thirds of
 respondents felt that having national biodiversity symbols was important
 for promoting national identity. These findings show that from a heritage
 perspective a great deal more awareness needs to be developed in South
 Africa around the national biodiversity symbols. From a conservation
 perspective, it indicates that the national biodiversity symbols are
 unlikely, at this stage at least, to be useful as flagship species for
 habitat conservation programmes.
description: Data were collected by means of face-to-face interviews with
 residents in each of the four towns. The residential areas of each town
 were first stratified into three socio-economic classes (low, low-medium
 and high) and the central business district. This was done on the basis of
 (i) scrutiny of Google Earth images, (ii) general ground familiaristion
 prior to data collection and (iii) experience of the researchers having
 worked in towns in the region. Within each of the four areas per town a
 target of 25 interviews was set (i.e. 100 interviews per town). However,
 the sample was slightly less due to logistical constraints and discarding
 four samples after data cleaning. The final sample was 382 participants,
 ranging from 92 in Kokstad to 100 in Uitenhage, and with 95 in both Mossel
 Bay and Butterworth.  Within each of the four strata
 per town a convenience sample was employed whereby local adults (&gt;
 18 years old) were approached opportunistically in the streets but with an
 eye on trying to include both genders. Most interviews took approximately
 30 minutes and were conducted in the language of choice of the respondent
 amongst isiXhosa, isiZulu, Afrikaans or English. The interview questions
 were read out to each respondent and their responses recorded on a paper
 version of the interview-schedule. The structured interview-schedule had
 two sections containing 20 questions in total (see Supplementary
 materials). The first section contained both open and closed questions on
 the national symbols of South Africa and the second section captured the
 respondent's profile using variables commonly collected in
 environmental and cultural heritage studies (such as age, gender, home
 language, highest education, income class (5 classes) and whether
 childhood was spent in a rural or urban area). Most of the questions in
 the first section focused on the national biodiversity symbols. However, a
 few questions were included on other national symbols (flag, anthem, coat
 of arms) to contextualise the responses about biodiversity symbols. The
 first section also asked respondents whether they felt the current symbols
 were appropriate. If they felt that one or more of them were not, they
 were invited to suggest alternative species. They were also asked whether
 they thought having national biodiversity symbols was useful or important.
 For the second question each respondent was presented with five sheets,
 one per taxonomic group, each with four photos one of which was the
 national species and three were not. They were then asked to identify the
 relevant national species on each sheet. Their response was recorded as
 either correct, incorrect, or they could not (or declined) to select one
 of the four images. Written informed consent was secured from each
 participant. Ethical approval for the study and questionnaire was provided
 by the Rhodes University Human Ethics Committee
 (2021-5095-6135). <em>Data
 analysis</em> The raw data were entered into MS
 Excel for cleaning and basic summarisation. Four samples were discarded
 due to incorrect data capture on the hard copy form. The data were then
 imported into R Studio for statistical analysis. Data normality was
 assessed using Shapiro-Wilk’s test which indicated it was not normal.
 Consequently, differences between the number of national biodiversity
 symbols known by income group were tested using a Kruskal-Wallis test. To
 answer the last research question we used a binominal logistic regression
 to determine if any respondent attribute variables (such as age, gender,
 education, and including location) influenced respondents’ ability to name
 the national biodiversity symbols. Independence of the errors and
 linearity were confirmed by plots of the residuals. 
description: # Tshikombeni knowledge of national biodiversity symbols in South Africa
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.18931zd3r](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.18931zd3r) The data set provides data from the interview sample of urban respondents in four towns in South Africa, with three locations per town, providing a total of 382 samples. Thereafter, the columns of data follow the questions posed in the interview questionnaire provided in supplementary materials. Data codes are provided. Not all respondents answered every question of the survey; thus blank responses are indicated using n/a. Column A: no. of the sample. Column B: name of the town in which the sample was taken. Column C: type of neighbourhood in which the sample was taken (CBD = central business district; township = poor and middle income neighbourhoods historically occupied on by Black citizens; affluent = middle and high income neighbourhoods, historically reserved for White citizens; RDP = reconstruction & development programme government social housing reserved for the indigent). Column D: name of the actual neighbourhood where the sample was recorded. Columns E-I: record of whether the respondent knew each of the national biodiversity symbols (one column per symbol) (0 = did not know; 1 = knew) Columns J-N: if a respondent said they did know one or more the national biodiversity symbols, then they were asked to name it. These columns record the name provided by a respondent. Column 0: provides the total number of national biodiversity symbols a respondent named correctly. Columns P-T: the letter denoting the photo a respondent selected when asked to select the correct national biodiversity symbol per taxon. Columns U-Y: whether or not a respondent had seen any of the national biodiversity symbol animals/plants in real life (0 = no; 1 = yes). Columns Z - AD: whether or not a respondent viewed each of the species of the national biodiversity symbols as an appropriate choice for being a national biodiversity symbol. (0 = no; 1 = yes). Columns AE - AI: if they said one or more of the species were not appropriate, then these columns report alternative species suggested by the respondent for each taxon. Columns AJ - AN: these columns report the reasons provided by a respondent for the suggestion of a particular alternative species. Column AO: answer to the question of whether any of the national biodiversity species occur on the national coat of arms (0 = no; 1 = yes; 2= don't know). Column AP: if a respondent answered yes to the previous question, then they were asked to state which of the national biodiversity symbol species occurs on the national coat of arms. Column AQ: respondents were asked to state is the knew the phase at the bottom of the national coat of arms (0 = did not know; 1 = knew). Column AR: if they replied yes to the previous question, then they were asked to state the phrase. Column AS: respondents were asked whether any of the national biodiversity symbol species are mentioned in the national anthem (0 = no; 1= yes). Column AT: if a respondents replied yes to the previous question, then they were asked to state which of the national biodiversity symbol species was in the national anthem. Column AU: respondents were asked to state the colour of the large Y-shape in the middle of the South African national flag. Column AV: respondents were asked whether they thought having national symbols was useful (0 = no; 1= yes; 2 = don't know). Column AW: if a respondent replied yes to the previous question, then they were asked the reason why they though having national symbols is useful (entries = the reasons provided). Column AX: home language of the respondent (1 = isiXhosa; 2 = isiZulu; 3 = Afrikaans; 4 = English; 5 = other). Column AY: rural or urban childhood ( 1 = rural; 2 = urban). Column AZ: the year a respondent was born. Column BA: age of a respondent (in years). Column BB: gender of a respondent (1 = female; 2 = male; 3 = non-binary). Column BC: the number of years of formal education. Column BD: main source of household income (1 = wages; 2 = government social grants; 3 = private pensions; 4 = own business) Column BE: monthly income bracket (in Rands per month) ( 1 = \\R30.000) <br> <br> ##