Measuring what people know about the environment: A review of quantitative studies

Full text

CONCEPTS AND METHODS IN STUDIES MEASURING
INDIVIDUAL ETHNOBOTANICAL KNOWLEDGE
VICTORIA REYES-GARCI
´
A,
a,b
NEUS MARTI
´
,
c
THOMAS MCDADE,
d
SUSAN TANNER,
e
and VINCENT VADEZ
f
a
ICREA and Institut de Cie
`
ncia i Tecnologia Ambientals,
Universitat Auto
`
noma de Barcelona, 08193
Bellatera, Barcelona, Spain
b
Sustainable International Development Program,
Heller School for Social Policy and Management,
Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454
c
Institut de Cie
`
ncia i Tecnologia Ambientals,
Universitat Auto
`
noma de Barcelona, 08193
Bellatera, Barcelona, Spain
d
Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL 60208
e
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602
f
Crop Physiology Laboratory, ICRISAT-Patancheru,
502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT.—We review 34 quantitative studies that have measured individual-
level variations in ethnobotanical knowledge, analyzing how those studies have
conceptualized and operationalized ethnobotanical knowledge. We found that
this type of research is recent but growing, and is concentrated in indigenous
peoples of developing countries. We also found that studies differ on how they
conceptualize and measure individual ethnobotanical knowledge. As it is the
case in other interdisciplinary research, the lack of conceptual consistency and
comparable data limit the inferences that can be drawn from empirical analyses
of ethnobotanical knowledge. Future research should 1) validate the consistency
of measures of individual ethnobotanical knowledge; 2) analyze the reliability of
data generated by the different methods developed so far; and 3) address the
relationship between the various dimensions of ethnobotanical knowledge.
Studies of individual ethnobotanical knowledge have the potential to contribute
to a systematic understanding of humanity’s most widespread and ancient form
of knowledge.
Key words: ethnobotanical knowledge, intra-cultural variation, quantitative
methods, folk knowledge.
RESUMEN.—En este artı
´
culo revisamos 34 estudios que han medido cuantita-
tivamente el conocimiento etnobota
´
nico individual, analizando co
´
mo lo han
medido y definido. Hallamos que este tipo de investigaciones es reciente pero
creciente y que se concentra en poblaciones indı
´
genas en paı
´
ses en desarrollo.
Tambie
´
n se observan diferencias a la hora de definir y medir el conocimiento
etnobota
´
nico individual. Como en otras investigaciones interdisciplinarias, la
Journal of Ethnobiology 27(2): 182–203 Fall/Winter 2007

falta de consistencia conceptual y de me
´
todos que proporcionen datos
comparables limita las conclusiones que podemos obtener de este tipo de
investigacio
´
n. Se necesita ma
´
s investigacio
´
n que 1) valide la consistencia de los
me
´
todos usados, 2) analice la fiabilidad de la informacio
´
n generada por los
me
´
todos usados hasta ahora, y 3) estudie la relacio
´
n entre las distintas
dimensiones del conocimiento etnobota
´
nico. Los estudios sobre el conocimiento
etnobota
´
nico individual pueden ayudarnos a entender mejor la forma de
conocimiento ma
´
s antigua y comu
´
n de la humanidad.
RE
´
SUME
´
.—Nous avons compare
´
34 e
´
tudes quantitatives qui portent sur la
mesure des variations individuelles en savoirs ethnobotanique. Notre analyse
vise a
`
comprendre comment ces e
´
tudes ont conceptualise
´
et rendu ope
´
rationnel
le savoir ethnobotanique. Nous remarquons que ce type de recherche, quoique
re
´
cent, prend de l’importance. E
´
galement, il prend davantage racine parmi les
Premie
`
res Nations des pays en de
´
veloppement. De plus, les e
´
tudes diffe
`
rent dans
la fac¸on de conceptualiser et de mesurer le savoir ethnobotanique individuel. A
`
l’instar des autres recherches pluridisciplinaires, le manque de similitude
conceptuelle et de donne
´
es comparables re
´
duisent la porte
´
des conclusions que
l’on peut tirer des analyses empiriques faites sur le savoir ethnobotanique. Les
recherches ulte
´
rieures doivent 1) ve
´
rifier la rigueur des mesures sur le savoir
ethnobotanique individuel, 2) e
´
valuer la fiabilite
´
des donne
´
es ge
´
ne
´
re
´
es par les
diffe
´
rentes me
´
thodes de
´
veloppe
´
es ce jour et 3) aborder les relations entre les
diverses dimensions du savoir ethnobotanique. Les e
´
tudes portant sur le savoir
ethnobotanique individuel posse
`
dent un important potentiel pouvant aider a
`
la
compre
´
hension de la plus ancienne forme de savoir issue de l’humanite
´
, laquelle
forme est e
´
galement la plus re
´
pandue.
INTRODUCTION
A fundamental step in the development of research on ethnobiology in
general and ethnobotany in particular has been the move from a descriptive to
a more analytical and quantitative approach (Phillips 1996). Interest in
quantitative ethnobiology has grown in the last two decades with the majority
of research focusing on plants, remedies, animals, or ecosystems as units of
analysis. This research has improved our understanding of the relative
importance of the environment for cultural groups (Medin and Atran 1999).
But until recently, quantitative research in ethnobiology did not pay much
attention to people as units of analysis, thus we have a more limited
understanding of the factors that predict individual-level variation in knowledge
of the natural environment or of the benefits provided by this knowledge.
Previous quantitative studies aimed at measuring individual levels of
ethnobotanical knowledge have focused on how knowledge varies by de-
mographic (Boster 1986; Caniago and Siebert 1998), social (Benz et al. 2000;
Sternberg et al. 2001; Zent 2001), and economic (Godoy et al. 1998; Guest 2002;
Reyes-Garcı
´
a et al. 2005) characteristics of subjects. However, this research has
generated conflicting results. For example, some authors have provided evidence
of a negative effect of acculturation and market integration on ethnobotanical
knowledge (Benz et al. 2000; Caniago and Siebert 1998), while others have found
persistence in ethnobotanical knowledge through time despite major economic
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 183

changes (Zarger and Stepp 2004). Still others have found that only certain aspects
of market integration affect ethnobotanical knowledge (Godoy et al. 1998).
Research on how ethnobotanical knowledge varies across demographic and
social characteristics also shows contradictory results (e.g., Godoy et al. 2005).
A likely explanation for the inconsistency across findings may be that
definitions and methods used to measure individual ethnobotanical knowledge
vary across studies. For example, while some authors have proxied ethnobotan-
ical knowledge by studying medicinal plants (Sternberg et al. 2001), others have
centered on the many uses of wild plants (Reyes-Garcı
´
a et al. 2005), and some
authors have focused on crops (Boster 1986). Researchers have also used a variety
of methods to measure individual ethnobotanical knowledge. Some authors have
measured individual ethnobotanical knowledge by using results from transect
surveys (Zarger and Stepp 2004) and specimen identification (Begossi 1996).
Others have used cognitive methods (Atran et al. 2002; Boster 1986; Zent 2001), or
objective tests (Godoy et al. 1998).
The differences in methods and concepts used in previous studies measuring
individual ethnobotanical knowledge are mainly due to different theoretical
goals of authors. But, to develop a theory about what drives the creation, loss, or
persistence of ethnobotanical knowledge across cultures in the world, we need
a methodology that allows us to quantify individual ethnobotanical knowledge
in a consistent way. Such a methodology should allow comparability across
studies, making it possible to draw generalizations about what it is that shapes
ethnobotanical knowledge distribution. For that goal, empirical research on
individual ethnobiological knowledge must overcome two major burdens:
conceptual inconsistency and the lack of methodology that provides data
comparable at cross-cultural level.
In this article we offer a review of quantitative studies that have measured
individual-level variations in ethnobotanical knowledge. The article does not
claim to provide a census of all the work that has been done in the topic, but
rather aims at providing a good example of the methods used to measure
individual ethnobotanical knowledge, the potential of those methods in
quantitative ethnobiology, and the challenges ahead. We focus on ethnobotanical
knowledge because ethnobotany is a popular field within ethnobiology, andwe
expected to find more articles in this topic than in others (e.g., ethnoentomology).
For the review presented in this paper, we conducted a bibliographic search
to find articles that have used a formal method to measure individual variation in
ethnobotanical knowledge. We restricted the search to studies that were: 1)
quantitative; 2) published between 1986 and 2005; and 3) published in refereed
journals, plus three articles published in an edited book (Heckler 2002; Hunn
2002; Zent 2001). We restricted the search to articles published in refereed
journals because those are more easily available. Although the selection of
articles might be biased (i.e., overestimating research published in English and
research conducted at North American institutions), it provides some indication
of the direction that the field is taking. We report on 34 studies with those
characteristics (Table 1). The list of articles is certainly not exhaustive, but
includes all the articles known to us that had studied variations in individual
ethnobotanical knowledge and met the criteria mentioned above.
184 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

TABLE 1.—Sample of studies measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge (1986–2005).
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H]
# Reference Discipline
Population and
geographic area Sample Domain Dimension
Method to
collect data
Method to
analyze data
1 Boster 1986 Anthropology Aguaruna*, Peru 79 Crops Skills Identification Cultural
consensus
2 Johns et al. 1990 Anthropology Luo*, Kenya 45 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
between
informants
3 Figueiredo et al.
1993
Biology Caic¸aras*, Brazil 58 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Number of
plants
reported
4 Phillips and
Gentry 1993b
Biology Mestizo, Peru 20 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
between
informants
5 Johns et al.
1994
Anthropology Batemi*, Tanzania 22 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
between
informants
6 Joyal 1996 Biology Farmers, Mexico 47 Useful
plants
Knowledge Questionnaire
(Multiple-
choice)
Matching
ecological
data
Skills Observation Matching
ecological
data
7 Hynes et al.
1997
Biology Farmers, Argentina
ˆ
Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Number of
plants
reported
8 Caniago and
Siebert 1998
Biology Kalimantan*,
Indonesia
32 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
with
experts
9 Godoy et al.
1998
Anthropology Tawahka*,
Honduras
80 Wild plants Knowledge Questionnaire
(Multiple-
choice)
Matching
ecological
data
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 185

TABLE 1.—Continued.
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H]
# Reference Discipline
Population and
geographic area Sample Domain Dimension
Method to
collect data
Method to
analyze data
10 Benz et al. 2000 Biology Huastec* and
mestizo, Mexico
259 Wild plants Skills Identification Matching
between
informants
11 Hanazaki et al.
2000
Biology Caic¸aras*, Brazil 102 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Number of
plants
reported
12 Byg and Balslev
2001
Biology Betsimisaraka*,
Madagascar
54 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
between
informants
Skills Observation Matching
ecological
data
13 Prince et al. 2001 Anthropology Luo*, Kenya 86 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Interview Number of
plants
reported
14 Sternberg et al.
2001
Psychology Luo*, Kenya 85 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Questionnaire
(Multiple-
choice)
Matching
with
experts
15 Zent 2001 Anthropology Piaroa*, Venezuela 104 Wild plants Knowledge Interview Cultural
consensus
Skills Identification Matching
ecological
data
16 Atran et al. 2002 Anthropology Itza’*, Ladino &
Q’eqchi’,
Guatemala
36 Wild plants Knowledge Questionnaire
(Free listing)
Cultural
consensus
17 De Albuquerque
and Andrade
2002
Biology Farmers, Brazil 30 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
between
informants
186 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

TABLE 1.—Continued.
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H]
# Reference Discipline
Population and
geographic area Sample Domain Dimension
Method to
collect data
Method to
analyze data
18 Geissler et al.
2002
Anthropology Luo*, Kenya 7 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Interview Number of
plants
reported
19 Heckler 2002 Biology Piaroa*, Venezuela 178 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
between
informants
Skills Identification Matching
between
informants
20 Hunn 2002 Anthropology Zapotec*, Mexico 6 Wild plants Skills Identification Matching
ecological
data
21 Peroni and
Hanazaki
2002
Biology Agriculturalists,
Brazil.
33 Crops Knowledge Questionnaire
(Free listing)
Number of
plants
reported
Skills Observation Diversity
indices
22 Ross 2002 Anthropology Lacandon*, Mexico
ˆ
Wild plants Knowledge Questionnaire
(Free listing)
Cultural
consensus
23 Ticktin and
Johns 2002
Biology Chinanteco*, Mexico 18 Useful
plants
Skills Self-report Matching
ecological
data
24 Kristensen and
Lykke 2003
Biology Gourounsi*, Burkina
Faso
200 Useful
plants
Knowledge Questionnaire Matching
between
informants
25 Reyes-Garcı
´
a
et al. 2003
Anthropology Tsimane’*, Bolivia 511 Useful
plants
Knowledge Questionnaire
(Multiple-
choice)
Cultural
consensus
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 187

TABLE 1.—Continued.
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H]
# Reference Discipline
Population and
geographic area Sample Domain Dimension
Method to
collect data
Method to
analyze data
26 Casagrande 2004 Anthropology Tzeltal*, Mexico, 26 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Cultural
consensus
27 Ghimere et al.
2004
Biology Agropastoralists,
Nepal
120 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
ecological
data
Skills Identification Matching
ecological
data
28 Ladio and
Lozada 2004
Biology Mapuche*,
Argentina
57 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Number of
plants
reported
Skills Self-report Number of
plants
reported
29 Uma Shaanker
et al. 2004
Biology Soliga*, India 206 Useful
plants
Knowledge Interview Matching
ecological
data
30 Vandebroek
et al. 2004
Biology Quechua* and
Yuracare*, Bolivia
125 Medicinal
plants
Knowledge Interview Number of
plants
reported
31 Zarger and
Stepp 2004
Anthropology Tzeltal*, Mexico 29 Wild plants Skills Identification Matching
ecological
data
32 Reyes-Garcı
´
a
et al. 2005
Anthropology Tsimane’*, Bolivia 150 Useful
plants
Knowledge Questionnaire
(Multiple-
choice)
Cultural
consensus
33 Rocha 2005 Anthropology Farmers, Peru 37 Crops Knowledge Questionnaire
(Pile sorting)
Cultural
consensus
188 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

TABLE 1.—Continued.
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H]
# Reference Discipline
Population and
geographic area Sample Domain Dimension
Method to
collect data
Method to
analyze data
34 Ross et al. 2005 Anthropology Tzotzil*, Mexico 51 Wild plants Knowledge Questionnaire
(Triad)
Cultural
consensus
* Indigenous population
ˆ
Exact sample size not reported.
[A] author and year of publication; [B] discipline of the lead author; [C] population and geographic area of the research; [D] sample size; [E] domain of
knowledge addressed on the research; [F] type of knowledge collected; [G] method used to collect data; [H] method used for data analysis.
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 189

The remainder of the article is organized in five parts. First, we provide an
overview of the development of quantitative ethnobiology, emphasizing the
recent growth and geographical distribution of research measuring individual
ethnobotanical knowledge. The second section addresses the complexity of the
concept ‘‘individual ethnobotanical knowledge’’ by analyzing how the selected
studies focus on different domains and dimensions of ethnobotanical knowledge.
In the third section we review different methodological approaches to collect and
analyze individual ethnobotanical knowledge. The fourth section offers sugges-
tions that might bring researchers closer to the development of a common metric
to measure individual-level variations in ethnobotanical knowledge. In the fifth
section we conclude.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS
The content of the knowledge that human groups have of their local
environment has attracted the interest of researchers since the beginning of the
19th century (see Berkes 1999 for a review). Initial studies focused on
documenting the knowledge itself and how native peoples used to classify their
environment (Berlin et al. 1966; Conklin 1954). By the 1990s, researchers adopted
a more utilitarian approach and started to study how knowledge of the local
environment contributed to human adaptation (Balee 1994). At that point,
quantitative ethnobotany began flourishing (e.g., Alexiades and Sheldon 1996;
Phillips and Gentry 1993a, 1993b; Phillips et al. 1994).
Most of the first studies on quantitative ethnobiology focused on the
importance of plants, remedies, animals, and ecosystems for specific cultural
groups. For example, Trotter (1981) analyzed a large sample of home remedies
(focusing on the occurrence of folk remedies in the data) to determine the
characteristics of the ethnopharmacological resources in use in Mexican-
American communities. Ngokwey (1995) analyzed popular notions and practices
concerning home remedies and pharmaceutical drugs in Feira (Brazil). In a cross-
cultural study, Heinrich and colleagues (1998) examined the use of medicinal
plants in five groups in Mexico to calculate the relative importance of a given
medicinal plant within a culture. These papers focused on the relative
importance of plants for different groups, but not on the variation on the
ethnobotanical knowledge of informants.
The idea that there is individual variation in cultural knowledge is not new,
but the quantitative measurement of individual variation of ethnobotanical
knowledge is recent. As early as 1936, anthropologists pointed out the
importance of systematic variation in cultural knowledge (for a review see
D’Andrade 1987; Romney and Moore 1998), and since the 1960s the idea that
culture is heterogeneous and that intra-cultural variation is patterned became
popular in anthropology (Furbee and Benfer 1983; Mathews 1983; Sankoff 1971;
Wallace 1961). The idea was first applied to the study of variations on biological
knowledge during the 1970s (Ellen 1979; Gardner 1976; Hays 1976). Since then,
the interest in understanding the patterns in which individual ethnobotanical
knowledge is distributed within a cultural group has grown. For example, in
Table 1 (Column [A]), we found one of such studies between 1986 and 1990, but
190 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

we found 23 studies between 2001 and 2005. Using the publications in Table 1,
we found a 9% yearly increase in the number of articles measuring individual
ethnobotanical knowledge from 1986 until 2005, which shows a growing interest
in the field.
Results from Table 1 (Column [B]) also show that interest in the topic comes
mainly from anthropology and biology. From the 34 studies analyzed, the first
authors of 50% of the articles (n 5 19) were biologists. The first authors of 73% of
the articles (n 5 16) were anthropologists. Psychologists wrote one of the articles
in Table 1. Relative to biologists, it appears that anthropologists have more
recently started to use quantitative methods to measure individual ethnobotan-
ical knowledge. Only 13% of the articles published by anthropologists appeared
before 2000 (n 5 2), whereas 47% of the articles published by biologists appeared
before 2000 (n 5 9) (Figure 1). Few studies combine the strengths of anthropology
and biology.
Researchers have argued that ethnobotanical knowledge emerges from the
interaction of a given culture or society with a local biophysical environment
(Warren and Rajasekaran 1993). This implies that ethnobotanical knowledge is
not restricted only to indigenous peoples nor only to developing countries.
Indigenous groups possess ethnobotanical knowledge developed through
generations of interactions with the local environment (Brookfield and Padoch
1994; Turner et al. 2000), but similar knowledge has been found among non-
indigenous groups such as farmers (Barrera-Bassols and Toledo 2005; Pieroni et
FIGURE 1.—Evolution of the number of studies measuring individual ethnobotanical
knowledge (n 5 34) (1986–2005). From Table 1.
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 191

al 2004). Researchers have also argued about the importance of ethnobotanical
knowledge for rural people of industrialized countries (Agelet and Valle
`
s 2001;
Pieroni et al. 2004).
Despite those claims, most studies measuring individual ethnobotanical
knowledge have been conducted among indigenous populations and mainly in
Latin America. We found that researchers have given more attention to the
measure of the ethnobotanical knowledge of indigenous peoples than to the
knowledge of non-indigenous peoples (Table 1, column [C]). Seventy-four
percent (n 5 26) of the studies in Table 1 were conducted among indigenous
populations and only 21% (n 5 7) among non-indigenous populations (Table 2).
We found that only two studies had a mixed sample comparing the
ethnobotanical knowledge of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples inhabiting
the same area.
We also found an uneven distribution of the geographical areas covered. The
totality of the studies in our list were conducted in developing countries. Of the
34 studies examined, 70% took place in Latin America, 21% in Africa, and 9% in
Asia. We did not find any study measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge
with European or North American populations. The uneven distribution across
geographical areas can be explained by the effort of a few active research groups.
For example, researchers and students from the University of Georgia and
TABLE 2.—Comparison of studies measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge (n 5
34), by the discipline of the lead author.
Anthropology Biology Total
N % N % N %
[C] Population Indigenous
a
14 41 10 29 25 74
Non-indigenous
b
13618721
Both
c
131326
Total 16 47 17 50 34 100
[E] Domain Medicinal
a
41239824
Useful
b
3 9 12 35 15 44
Wild
c
72113824
Crop 2 6 1 3 3 9
Total 16 47 17 50 34 100
[F] Dimension Knowledge
a
12 35 9 26 22 65
Skills
b
3926515
Both
c
13618721
Total 16 47 17 50 34 100
[G] Method of data collection Interview
a
5 15 8 24 13 38
Other
b
10 29 5 15 16 47
Both
c
13412515
Total 16 47 17 50 34 100
[H] Method of data analysis Consensus
a
9 26 6 18 15 44
No-consensus
b
5 15 9 26 15 44
Both
c
2626412
Total 16 47 17 50 34 100
Note: To construct Table 2, we generated dummy variables for each of the columns in Table 1. For
example, to analyze differences in the population studied (column [C]), we generated a dummy
variable - indigenous- that took the value of one if the study was conducted among an indigenous
population and zero otherwise.
192 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

researchers of a team led by Atran have conducted much of the research in
Central America and Mexico, and a group of researchers led by Begossi carried
out most of the research in Brazil. Thus, the concentration in the studied
populations is even larger than it appears. The finding is surprising because
studies on other aspects of European and North American ethnobotany and
ethnobiology have been on the rise over the last two decades, including studies in
Italy (Pieroni 2001), Austria (Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser 2004), Spain (Agelet et al
2000; Agelet and Valles 2001; Pardo de Santayana et al. 2005), the United States
(Stoffle et al. 1999), and Canada (Berkes and Jolly 2002; Chipeniuk 1998; Olsson et
al. 2004; Turner et al. 2000), to name some examples.
In sum, the list of publications in Table 1 suggests that research on individual
ethnobotanical knowledge is recent but growing, mainly conducted by biologists
and anthropologists, and concentrated in indigenous peoples of developing
countries (especially Latin America).
CONCEPTUALIZING INDIVIDUAL ETHNOBOTANICAL KNOWLEDGE
The first major burden for empirical research on individual ethnobotanical
knowledge is the lack of conceptual consistency. Providing an exact definition of
‘‘individual ethnobotanical knowledge’’ is beyond the scope of this paper, but in
trying to synthesize methodological lessons from quantitative research on
individual ethnobotanical knowledge we will mainly focus on 1) the many
fields or domains included in the concept of ‘‘ethnobotany;’’ and 2) the several
dimensions included in the concept of ‘‘knowledge.’’ Below we discuss the
incidence of those two characteristics in empirical research on individual
ethnobotanical knowledge.
Domains of Knowledge.—Plant knowledge can be gathered from undertaking
several different pursuits such as harvest, medicinal collection, preparation for
spiritual ceremonies, or maintenance of a household economy. Therefore,
ethnobotanical knowledge spans many different sub-fields of knowledge, as it
is reflected in the topics covered by articles listed in Table 1 (Column [E]). For
example, some authors have proxied ethnobotanical knowledge by studying
medicinal plants (Geissler et al. 2002; Sternberg et al. 2001). Others have centered
in wild plant uses (Caniago and Siebert 1998; Reyes-Garcı
´
a et al. 2005; Zent 2001),
and some authors have only considered crops (Boster 1986; Rocha 2005). Out of
the 34 studies of individual ethnobotanical knowledge listed in Table 1, we found
eight in which authors studied all the wild plants known by an ethnic group, 15
that centered on useful wild plants, eight that centered only on medicinal plants,
and three that focused on edible crops.
Differentiating between specific domains of knowledge is important for
comparative purposes. For example, in his study on manioc varieties, Boster
(1986) found that Aguaruna women in Peru knew more about manioc than men,
but in their study of useful plants among the Tsimane’, Reyes-Garcı
´
a and
colleagues (2005) found that men knew more about wild plants than women.
Those results are not comparable because they refer to different domains of
knowledge within ethnobotany (e.g., crops and wild plants).
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 193

Dimensions of Knowledge.—Researchers argue that local ecological knowledge,
including ethnobotanical knowledge, is better understood as a complex system
that might include a system of classification (Berlin 1992), a set of empirical
observations about the local environment, a system of self-management that
governs resource use (Ostrom 1990), and a set of beliefs about the environment
(Berkes and Henley 1997). However, operationalizing this complexity in
empirical research has proven difficult.
Empirical research has successfully differentiated between the theoretical
and the practical dimensions of ethnobotanical knowledge. Theoretical or passive
ethnobotanical knowledge refers to the intellectual ability, such as the ability to
name plants, whereas practical ethnobotanical knowledge, or skills, refers to the
practical dimension, such as the ability to put the knowledge into practice (Atran
et al. 2004). For example, some people may know the potential uses of a plant, but
they may not know how to use the plant. We found that 65% of the 34 studies
(n 5 22) measured theoretical ethnobotanical knowledge and only five (15%)
measured practical ethnobotanical knowledge (Table 1, column [F]). The bias
towards measuring the theoretical dimension might be partially related to the
costs of assessing skills through observations and the potential errors associated
with self-reports.
Only in eight studies did researchers measure both theoretical knowledge
and practical skills of the same individuals, and in only three of them did
researchers compare results across the two dimensions. Byg and Balslev (2001)
carried out interviews on the knowledge and observations on the use of Dypsis
fibrosa (Arecaceae) in Eastern Madagascar. They found no correlation between an
individual’s knowledge of plants, as elicited in surveys, and the actual extent of
use of different plant resources by the same individual. Similarly, in a study
among the Mapuche from northwestern Patagonia, Ladio and Lozada (2004)
found that people knew significantly more about edible plants than actually
consume those plants. These few case studies suggest that different dimensions
of ethnobotanical knowledge might not be well captured with only a single
measure.
Furthermore, research on the transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge
suggests that most of the ethnobotanical nomenclature is acquired by
adolescence (Hunn 2002; Reyes-Garcı
´
a et al. 2005; Stross 1973; Zarger 2002),
but the acquisition of practical skills is not always gained at the same time and, in
some cases, begins during adulthood (Hewlett and Cavalli-Sforza 1986;
Ohmagari and Berkes 1997). Thus differentiating between the theoretical and
practical dimensions of ethnobotanical knowledge might be key in studies on the
transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge.
Researchers have also argued that ethnobotanical knowledge also encom-
passes belief systems that may be instrumental in managing natural areas and
institutional systems that allow groups to maintain sustainable uses of
ecosystems (Berkes et al 2000; Byers et al. 2001; Toledo et al. 2003) and
institutional systems that govern resource use (Ostrom 1990). Measuring those
aspects at the individual level has proven challenging, as studies relating to
individual-level religious or institutional values of local plants are uncommon.
194 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

MEASURING INDIVIDUAL ETHNOBOTANICAL KNOWLEDGE
The second major burden for empirical research on individual ethnobotanical
knowledge is the lack of attention to the reliability and consistency of the various
methods used. Methodological issues are becoming a growing concern for
quantitative research in ethnobiology as they provide the key for a shift towards
comparative and statistical research rather than single-case analyses. Below we
use the articles of Table 1 to discuss three methodological issues related to the
measurement of individual ethnobotanical knowledge: sampling strategy,
methods used to collect data, and methods used to analyze data.
Sampling.—About ten years ago, Begossi (1996) conducted a literature review on
the number of informants interviewed in ethnobotanical studies. She noticed that
little effort had gone to obtain samples of more than 50 people. She also noted
a paucity of studies reporting variability of ethnobotanical knowledge between
people. The information in Table 1 suggests that researchers may have
responded to Begossi’s plea
1
. We found that the average study in our list had
a sample size of 90 people (699). Only two studies did not report the sample size
(Table 1, Column [D]). Furthermore, we found that the average sample size of the
studies has doubled between 1986–1995 and 1996–2005: from 45 (625) people/
study during 1986–1995, before Begossi’s study, to 99 (6105) people/study after
Begossi’s study.
Researchers, however, have paid scarce attention to other issues when
selecting the study samples. For example, previous studies suggest that
ethnobotanical knowledge is distributed across age and sex groups (Begossi et
al. 2002; Boster 1986; Caniago and Siebert 1998), or according to the lengthof
residence in the community (Guest 2002; Nyhus et al. 2003), yet researchers have
not always stratified their samples taking into account these variables.
Considerations, other than a sufficient sampling size, should be added to the
design of sampling strategies. Additionally, the field can benefit from studies
targeted to specific groups. For example, studies with children might helpusto
understand better how ethnobotanical knowledge is acquired and accumulated.
Methods of Data Collection.—Researchers have used a variety of methods to collect
data on individual ethnobotanical knowledge (Table 1, Column [G]). The
selection of the method partially depends on whether the researcher assessed
informants’ theoretical knowledge or practical skills. For example, to measure
theoretical knowledge, some authors have used cognitive methods such as free
lists (Atran et al. 2002), but others have used objective botanical tests (Godoy et
al. 1998). To measure practical knowledge, authors have used transect surveys
(Zarger and Stepp 2004) and specimen identification (Begossi 1996), but also self-
reports (Ticktin and Johns 2002).
To elicit information on the theoretical dimension of individual ethnobotan-
ical knowledge, researchers have shown an almost equal preference for
interviews (38%; n 5 13) and formal, structured questionnaires (29%; n 5 10).
From the ten studies that used questionnaires to assess individual ethnobotanical
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 195

knowledge, five used multiple-choice questionnaires, three used free lists, one
used pile sorts, and one used a triad tests (see Bernard 2004 for a description of
those methods).
When eliciting information on theoretical knowledge, it may be enough to
simply ask people about the domain of interest, whereas when assessing skills
researchers can choose between self-reported evaluations of skills or actual
observations. We found that researchers have preferred observations to self-
reports to assess individuals’ ethnobotanical skills. Of the 12 studies that
measured individual ethnobotanical skills, in seven researchers asked informants
to identify specimens (in the field, in vouchers, or in pictures) and in three they
directly observed the informant’s abilities using the skills. Only two of the studies
that measure ethnobotanical skills did so by asking informants to self-report their
abilities.
We have scarce evidence of the correspondence (or lack of correspondence)
of data collected using such a diversity of methods. Few studies have exactly
replicated methods used in previous research (but see Zarger and Stepp 2004 for
a notable exception) or compared results across different methods (but see Reyes-
Garcı
´
a et al. 2004). As a consequence, results from different studies are difficult to
compare. Different methods might capture different dimensions of ethnobotan-
ical knowledge that do not necessarily overlap. This implies that researchers
should either select the method of data collection to ensure that it captures the
desired dimension, or they should include a variety of methods to get
a comprehensive understanding of individual ethnobotanical knowledge.
Methods to Analyze Data.—When studying local ethnobotanical knowledge,
researchers typically lack answers to the questions they pose. In contrastto
a classroom instructor who asks questions but who also has an answer key,
researchers who ask about local plants do not necessarily have an answer keyto
evaluate the correctness of the answers provided by informants. To overcome the
problem, researchers have used three different methods to analyze individual
ethnobotanical knowledge.
Most authors (52%; n 5 19) have analyzed individual ethnobotanical
knowledge by comparing informants’ answers with the information provided
by other informants in the same cultural group. Researchers have developed the
idea that agreement between informants stands for cultural knowledge but have
developed different metrics and indices to quantify agreement. One method
known as ‘‘informant consensus’’ was initially developed by Friedman and
colleagues (1986) and Trotter and Logan (1986) and was later adapted by other
authors (Johns et al. 1990; Phillips and Gentry 1993b). The method of informant
consensus states that the degree of agreement between informants’ answers
indicates the importance of a given use of a plant; in other words, a plant more
frequently cited has a more important use than a plant less frequently cited.
Three authors have used a variant of this method, i.e., evaluating individual’s
answers by comparing it with information collected from a group of local
experts, not with the whole group. A more sophisticated approach known as
cultural consensus analysis has come from Romney and colleagues (1986). Rather
than rely on simply frequency of responses by informants, cultural consensus
196 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

analysis uses factor analysis to weight the responses of those informants who
agree with each other more often. Using this approach, one can accurately
determine the culturally ‘‘correct’’ answer if the assumptions of the technique are
met. Conversely, it can also indicate lack of consensus in a particular domain and
demonstrate large intra-cultural variation within ethnobiological knowledge.
In Table 1 we refer to the ‘‘informant consensus’’ method of data analysis as
‘‘matching with other informants’’ to avoid confusion with the term ‘‘cultural
consensus.’’
A second group of authors (26%; n 5 9) has checked informants’ answers
against ecological data collected during the same study or previously recorded in
the literature. For example, researchers have asked textbook questions such as
‘‘What is the color of a flower of a mahogany tree?’’ and evaluated the
informant’s answer against the information provided by the scientific literature.
The method works when evaluating how well people converge to the scientific
standards, but it does not capture people’s knowledge of local resources to
provide goods and services deemed important by the culture. The method can
also be problematic when scientific ecological data is not fully available in the
area of study (Henfrey 2002).
The third group of authors (43%; n 5 8) has evaluated informants’
knowledge using indices used in ecology, such as Shannon’s Index and
Simpson’s Index, which look at species richness and eveness as a measure of
biological diversity. These measures were originally developed as a way to
quantify information (Stepp 1999), and Begossi (1996) suggests using them in this
manner to look at ethnobotanical knowledge. The method is limited in that it
only allows for the analysis of local biological resources inventories, but it does
not allow the analysis of other types of knowledge that are less easily quantified
(e.g., relations between different species).
As is true with methods of data collection, few studies have addressed the
reliability of results obtained by analyzing data in different ways.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In this section we offer four suggestions that might bring researchers closer to
the development of a common metric to measure individual-level variationsin
ethnobotanical knowledge.
First, researchers should explore regions of the world (e.g., Europe) and
types of populations (e.g., pastoralists) that have been less studied in previous
research on individual variation of ethnobotanical knowledge. This type of
research would benefit the general pool of distribution of ethnobotanical
knowledge because those populations might show different patterns of
distribution of ethnobotanical knowledge that can provide new insight in
cross-cultural research. For example, researchers could study with formal
methods the variation in distribution of ethnobotanical knowledge of farmers
living in rural areas of developing countries. Previous research has shown that
farmers can adopt modern, high-yielding agricultural techniques while main-
taining local management practices (Bellon and Brush 1994). The study of
individual-level variation in farmers’ ethnobotanical knowledge might help
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 197

understand how modern and traditional practices can be merged. Similarly,
research suggests that people who take up new occupations related to the
environment might acquire new information (Guest 2002), which might help us
understand how ethnobotanical knowledge is generated.
Second, future research should validate the consistency of quantitative
measures of individual ethnobotanical knowledge previously used. A way of
doing so is to collect individual measures of ethnobotanical knowledge twice
from the same sample of subjects and evaluate within-subjects consistencyof
data for each method.
Third, future research should analyze the reliability of data generated by the
different methods of data collection developed so far. Methods previously used
to generate measures of individual ethnobotanical knowledge have rarely been
tested for reliability, so we lack of a correspondence between data produced for
each method. Exploring within-subject correlation of different measures would
allow researchers to assess whether the measures are reliable, and which
measures assess the same dimensions of knowledge.
Last, future research should also test hypotheses about the different
dimensions that compose ethnobotanical knowledge. As we have seen,
ethnobotanical knowledge encompasses various dimensions that might or not
overlap with each other, such as (a) culturally defined theoretical ethnobotanical
knowledge (e.g., naming local plants); (b) culturally defined theoretical
ethnobotanical knowledge of interactions between plants and the environment
(e.g., knowing which plant marks the beginning of the rainy season); (c)
theoretical botanical knowledge (e.g., flowering period); (d) active or practical
knowledge of plants and the environment (e.g., ability to identify plant species);
and (e) culturally defined practical knowledge of uses of plants (e.g., knowing
how to prepare a medicine from a plant). Future research should address the
relationship between the various dimensions of ethnobotanical knowledge and
their contribution to variance in levels of ethnobotanical knowledge. Researchers
should also start considering how to measure individuals’ beliefs that might be
related to ethnobotanical knowledge.
Pursuing the lines of research suggested here should help to develop
a multidimensional scale for measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge.
Advances in other fields or research, such as psychology, suggest that single
dimension scales of complex phenomena have poor reliability (Power et al. 1999).
To devise a measure of individual ethnobotanical knowledge that is both reliable
and valid, a broad range of potentially independent domains covering all of the
important aspects of ethnobotanical knowledge is necessary. Therefore,
a comprehensive measure of ethnobotanical knowledge should include all the
non-overlapping dimensions.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the last two decades have seen an increase in the number of studies
measuring individual levels of ethnobotanical knowledge. Those studies differ in
the concepts and the methods they have used to collect and analyze information.
As is the case in other interdisciplinary research (Poteete and Ostrom 2004), the
198 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

lack of conceptual consistency and comparable data limit the inferences that can
be drawn from empirical analyses of individual ethnobotanical knowledge,
because they hinder comparability across studies. Case studies are extremely
valuable, but without comparisons, it is likely that many conclusions from case
studies are relevant primarily for the sample under consideration. In this paper
we have tried to alert researchers about topics to keep in mind to enhance the
accuracy, replicability, and comparability of their studies. If done well,
individual level studies of ethnobotanical knowledge have the potential to
contribute to a systematic understanding of humanity’s most widespread and
ancient form of knowledge.
NOTE
1
In this article we have focused on studies that measure ethnobotanical knowledge of lay
people, not on specialists (e.g., shamans, healers, etc.), since specialists tend to be limited
in numbers within any given community.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research was funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
(Gr-7250). Thanks go to Ricardo Godoy, William R. Leonard, Craig Seyfried, Jr., Rick Stepp,
and two anonymous reviewers for comments on previous versions of this article. Thanks
also go to ICRISAT-Patancheru for providing Reyes-Garcı
´
a with office facilities. A previous
version of this article was presented in the seminar ‘‘Relevance of Traditional Knowledge
and Wisdom in Contemporary Tribal Society,’’ Hyderabad, India, February 2006.
REFERENCES CITED
Agelet, A., M. Bonet, and J. Valles. 2000.
Homegardens and their role as main
source of medicinal plants in mountain
regions of Catalonia (Iberian Peninsu-
la). Economic Botany 54(3):295–309.
Agelet, A. and J. Valles. 2001. Studies on
pharmaceutical ethnobotany in the re-
gion of Pallars (Pyrenees, Catalonia,
Iberian Peninsula). Part I. General
results and new or very rare medicinal
plants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology
77:57–70.
Alexiades, M. and J.W. Sheldon. 1996.
Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical re-
search: A field manual. New York Botan-
ical Garden, New York.
Atran, S., D. Medin, N. Ross, E. Lynch, V.
Vapnarsky, E. Ucan Ek’, J. Coley, C.
Timura, and M. Baran. 2002. Folkecol-
ogy, cultural epidemiology, and the
spirit of the commons: A garden
experiment in the Maya lowlands,
1991–2001. Current Anthropology 43:
421–451.
Atran, S., D. Medin, and N. Ross. 2004.
Evolution and devolution of knowledge:
A tale of two biologies. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 10:395–420.
Balee, W. 1994. Footprints of the forest:
Ka’apor ethnobotany. The historical ecology
of plant utilization by Amazonian people.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Barrera-Bassols, N. and V. Toledo. 2005.
Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya:
Symbolism, knowledge, and manage-
ment of natural resources. Journal of
Latin American Geography 4:9–41.
Begossi, A. 1996. Use of ecological meth-
ods in ethnobotany: Diversity indices.
Economic Botany 50:280–289.
Begossi, A., N. Hanazaki, and J. Tama-
shiro. 2002. Medicinal plants in the
Atlantic Forest (Brazil): Knowledge,
use, and conservation. Human Ecology
30:281–299.
Bellon, M. and S.B. Brush. 1994. Keepers of
maize in Chiapas, Mexico. Economic
Botany 48:196–209.
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 199

Benz, B.F., J. Cevallos, F. Santana, J.
Rosales, and S. Graf. 2000. Losing
knowledge about plant use in the
Sierra de Manantlan Biosphere Re-
serve, Mexico. Economic Botany 54:
183–191.
Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: Traditional
ecological knowledge and resource manage-
ment. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia.
Berkes, F. and T. Henley. 1997. Co-man-
agement and traditional knowledge:
Threat or opportunity? Policy Options
18(2):29–31.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000.
Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management.
Ecological Applications 10:1251–1262.
Berkes, F. and D. Jolly. 2002. Adapting to
climate change: Social-ecological resi-
lience in a Canadian Western Arctic
community. Conservation Ecology 5:18.
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobotanical classification:
Principles of categorization of plants and
animals in traditional societies. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven.
1966. Folk taxonomics and biological
classification. Science 154:273–275.
Bernard, H.R. 2004. Research methods in
anthropology. Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Altamira Press, Walnut
Creek.
Boster, J.S. 1986. Exchange of varieties and
information between Aguaruna mani-
oc cultivators. American Anthropologist
88:429–436.
Brookfield, H. and C. Padoch. 1994. Ap-
preciating agrodiversity: A look at the
dynamism and diversity of indigenous
farming practices. Environment 36:6–43.
Byers, B.A., R.N. Cunliffe, and A.T. Hu-
dak. 2001. Linking the conservation of
culture and nature: A case study of
sacred forests in Zimbabwe. Human
Ecology 29:187–218.
Byg, A. and H. Balslev. 2001. Traditional
knowledge of Dypsis fibrosa (Araca-
ceae) in eastern Madagascar. Economic
Botany 55:263–275.
Caniago, I. and S.F. Siebert. 1998. Medic-
inal plant economy, knowledge and
conservation in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Economic Botany 52:229–250.
Casagrande, D.G. 2004. Conceptions of
primary forest in a Tzeltal Maya
community: Implications for conserva-
tion. Human Organization 63:189–202.
Chipeniuk, R. 1998. Childhood foraging
as regional culture: Some implications
for conservation policy. Environmental
Conservation 25:198–207.
Conklin, H.C. 1954. An ethnoecological
approach to shifting agriculture. Trans-
actions of the New York Academy of
Sciences 17:133–142.
D’Andrade, R.G. 1987. Modal responses
and cultural expertise. American Behav-
ioral Scientist 31:194–202.
De Albuquerque, U. and L. Andrade. 2002.
The use of plant resources of Caatinga:
The case of farmers in the state of
Pernambuco (Brazilian Northeast). In-
terciencia 27:336.
Ellen, R. 1979. Omniscience and ignorance.
Variation in Nuaulu knowledge, iden-
tification and classification of animals.
Language in Society 8:337–364.
Figueiredo, G.M., H. Leitao-Filho, and A.
Begossi. 1993. Ethnobotany of Atlantic
Forest coastal communities: Diversity
of plant uses in Gamboa (Itacuruca-
Island, Brazil). Human Ecology 21:419–
430.
Friedman, J., Z. Yaniv, A. Dafni, and D.
Palewitch. 1986. A preliminary classi-
fication of the healing potential of
medicinal plants, based on a rational
analysis of an ethnopharmacological
field survey among Bedouins in the
Negev Desert, Israel. Journal of Ethno-
pharmacology 16:275–287.
Furbee, L. and R. Benfer. 1983. Cognitive
and geographic maps: Study of in-
dividual variation among Tojolabal
Mayans. American Anthropologist 85:
305–334.
Gardner, P. 1976. Birds, words and a re-
quiem for the omniscient informant.
American Ethnologist 3:446–468.
Geissler, P., S.A. Harris, R. Prince, A.
Olsen, R.A. Odhiambo, H. Oketch-
Rabah, P.A. Madiega, A. Andersen,
and P. Molgaard. 2002. Medicinal
plants used by Luo mothers and
children in Bondo district, Kenya.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 83:39–54.
Ghimere, S.K., D. McKey, and Y. Aumee-
ruddy-Thomas. 2004. Heterogeneity in
ethnoecological knowledge and man-
agement of medicinal plants in the
200 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

Himalayas of Nepal: Implications for
conservation. Ecology and Society 9:6.
Godoy, R., N. Brokaw, D. Wilkie, D. Colo
´
n,
A. Palermo, S. Lye, and S. Wei. 1998. Of
trade and cognition: Markets and the
loss of knowledge among the Tawahka
Indians of the Honduran rainforest.
Journal of Anthropological Research
54:219–233.
Godoy, R., V. Reyes-Garcı
´
a, E. Byron, W.
Leonard, and V. Vadez. 2005. The effect
of market economies on the well-being
of indigenous peoples and on their use
of renewable natural resources. Annual
Review of Anthropology 34:121–138.
Guest, G. 2002. Market integration and the
distribution of ecological knowledge
within an Ecuadorian fishing commu-
nity. Journal of Ecological Anthropology
6:38–49.
Hanazaki, N., J. Tamashiro, H. Leitao-
Filho, and A. Begossi. 2000. Diversity
of plant uses in two Caic¸ara communi-
ties from the Atlantic Forest coast,
Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation
9:597–615.
Hays, T. 1976. An empirical method for the
identification of cover categories in
ethnobiology. American Ethnologist 3:
489–507.
Heckler, S. 2002. Traditional ethnobotani-
cal knowledge loss and gender among
the Piaroa. In Ethnobiology and biocul-
tural diversity, eds. J.R. Stepp, F.S.
Wyndham and R. Zarger, pp. 532–
548. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.
Heinrich, M., A. Ankli, B. Frei, C. Wei-
mann, and O. Sticher. 1998. Medicinal
plants in Mexico: Healers’ consensus
and cultural importance. Social Science
and Medicine 47:1859–1871.
Henfrey, T. 2002. Ethnoecology, resource
use, conservation and development in
a Wapishana community in the South
Rupununi, Guyana. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Hewlett, B.S. and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1986.
Cultural transmission among Aka Pyg-
mies. American Anthropologist 88:922–
934.
Hunn, E.S. 2002. Evidence for the pre-
cocious acquisition of plant knowledge
by Zapotec children. In Ethnobiology
and biocultural diversity, eds. J.R. Stepp,
F.S. Wyndham and R. Zarger, pp. 604–
613. University of Georgia Press,
Hynes, A., A. Brown, H. Grau, and A.
Grau. 1997. Local knowledge and the
use of plants in rural communities in
the montane forests of northwestern
Argentina. Mountain Research and De-
velopment 17:263–271.
Johns, T., J. Kokwaro, and E. Kimanani.
1990. Herbal remedies of the Luo of
Siaya district, Kenya: Establishing
quantitative criteria for consensus. Eco-
nomic Botany 44:369–381.
Johns, T., E. Mhoro, P. Sanaya, and E.
Kimanani. 1994. Herbal remedies of the
Batemi of Ngorongoro district, Tanza-
nia: A quantitative appraisal. Economic
Botany 48:90–95.
Joyal, E. 1996. The palm has its time: An
ethnoecology of Sabal uresana in So-
nora, Mexico. Economic Botany 50:446–
462.
Kristensen, M. and A.M. Lykke. 2003.
Informant-based valuation of use and
conservation preferences of savanna
trees in Burkina Faso. Economic Botany
57:203–217.
Ladio, A. and M. Lozada. 2004. Patterns of
use and knowledge of wild edible
plants in distinct ecological environ-
ments: A case study of a Mapuche
community from northwestern Patago-
nia. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:
1153–1173.
Mathews, H. 1983. Context specific varia-
tion in humoral classification. American
Anthropologist 85:826–846.
Medin, D. and S. Atran. 1999. Folkbiology.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ngokwey, N. 1995. Home remedies and
doctors’ remedies in Feira (Brazil).
Social Science and Medicine 40:1141–
1153.
Nyhus, P., Sumianto, and R. Tilson. 2003.
Wildlife knowledge among migrants in
southern Sumatra, Indonesia: Implica-
tions for conservation. Environmental
Conservation 30:192–199.
Ohmagari, K. and F. Berkes. 1997. Trans-
mission of indigenous knowledge and
bush skills among the western James
Bay Cree women of subartic Canada.
Human Ecology 25:197–222.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004.
Adaptive co-management for building
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 201

resilience in social-ecological systems.
Environmental Management 34:75–90.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons:
The evolution of institutions for collec-
tive action. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Pardo de Santayana, M., J. Tardı
´
o, and R.
Morales. 2005. The gathering and con-
sumption of wild edible plants in
Campoo (Cantabria, Spain). Internation-
al Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition
56(7):529–542.
Peroni, N. and N. Hanazaki. 2002. Current
and lost diversity of cultivated varie-
ties, especially cassava, under swidden
cultivation systems in the Brazilian
Atlantic Forest. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment 92:171–183.
Phillips, O. 1996. Some quantitative meth-
ods for analyzing ethnobotanical
knowledge. In Selected guidelines for
ethnobotanical research: A field manual,
ed. M. Alexiades, pp. 171–197. New
York Botanical Garden Press, New
York.
Phillips, O. and A.H. Gentry. 1993a. The
useful plants of Tambopata, Peru:
Statistical hypotheses tests with a new
quantitative technique. Economic Bota-
ny 47:15–32.
———. 1993b. The useful plants of Tam-
bopata, Peru II.: Additional hypotheses
testing in quantitative ethnobotany.
Economic Botany 47:33–43.
Phillips, O., A.H. Gentry, C. Reynel, P.
Wilkin, and C. Galvez-Durand. 1994.
Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazo-
nian conservation. Conservation Biology
8:225–248.
Pieroni, A. 2001. Evaluation of the cultural
significance of wild food botanicals
traditionally consumed in northwest-
ern Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Ethnobiol-
ogy 21(1):89–104.
Pieroni, A., C. Quave, and R. Santoro.
2004. Folk pharmaceutical knowledge
in the territory of the Dolomiti Lucane,
inland southern Italy. Journal of Ethno-
pharmacology 95:373–384.
Poteete, A.R. and E. Ostrom. 2004. In
pursuit of comparable concepts and
data about collective action. Agricultur-
al System 82:215–232.
Power, M., M. Bulliger, and A. Harper.
1999. The World Health Organization
WHOQOL-100: Tests of the universal-
ity of quality of life in 15 different
cultural groups worldwide. Health Psy-
chology 18:495–505.
Prince, R.J., P.W. Geissler, K. Nokes, J.O.
Maende, F. Okatcha, and R. Sternberg.
2001. Knowledge of herbal and phar-
maceutical medicines among Luo chil-
dren in western Kenya. Anthropology
and Medicine 8:211–235.
Reyes-Garcı
´
a, V., R. Godoy, V. Vadez, L.
Apaza, E. Byron, E. Pe
´
rez, W. Leonard,
and D. Wilkie. 2003. Ethnobotanical
knowledge shared widely among Tsi-
mane’ Amerindians, Bolivia. Science
299:1707.
Reyes-Garcı
´
a, V., E. Byron, R. Godoy, V.
Vadez, L. Apaza, E. Perez, W. Leonard,
and D. Wilkie. 2004. Measuring culture
as shared knowledge: Do data collec-
tion formats matter? Cultural knowl-
edge of plant uses among the Tsimane’
Amerindians of Bolivia. Field Methods
16:135–156.
Reyes-Garcı
´
a, V., V. Vadez, E. Byron, L.
Apaza, W. Leonard, E. Pe
´
rez, and D.
Wilkie. 2005. Market economy and the
loss of ethnobotanical knowledge: Esti-
mates from Tsimane’ Amerindians, Bo-
livia. Current Anthropology 46:651–656.
Rocha, J. 2005. Measuring traditional agro-
ecological knowledge: An example
from peasants in the Peruvian Andes.
Field Methods 17:356–372.
Romney, A.K., S. Weller, and W. Batch-
elder. 1986. Culture as consensus: A
theory of culture and informant accu-
racy. American Anthropologist 88:313–
338.
Romney, A.K. and C.C. Moore. 1998. To-
ward a theory of culture as shared
cognitive structures. Ethos 26(3):314–337.
Ross, N. 2002. Lacandon Maya intergener-
ational change and the erosion of folk
biological knowledge. In Ethnobiology
and biocultural diversity, eds. J.R. Stepp,
F.S. Wyndham and R. Zarger, pp. 585–
592. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.
Ross, N., T. Barrientos, and A. Esquit-
Choy. 2005. Triad tasks, a multipurpose
tool to elicit similarity judgments: The
case of Tzotzil Maya plant taxonomy.
Field Methods 17:269–282.
Sankoff, G. 1971. Quantitative analysis of
sharing and variability in a cognitive
model. Ethnology 10:389–408.
202 REYES-GARCI
´
A et al. Vol. 27, No. 2

Stepp, J.R. 1999. Prospectus for informa-
tion ecology. Journal of Ecological An-
thropology 3:39–73.
Sternberg, R., C. Nokes, P. Geissler, R.
Prince, F. Okatcha, D. Bundy, and E.
Grigorenko. 2001. The relationship be-
tween academic and practical intelli-
gence: A case study in Kenya. Intelli-
gence 29:401–418.
Stoffle, R., D. Halmo, and M. Evans. 1999.
Puchuxwavaats uapi (To know about
plants): Traditional knowledge and
the cultural significance of Southern
Paiute plants. Human Organization
58:416–429.
Stross, B. 1973. Acquisition of botanical
terminology by Tzeltal children. In
Meaning in Mayan languages, ed. M.S.
Edmonson, pp. 107–141. Mouton, The
Hague.
Ticktin, T. and T. Johns. 2002. Chinanteco
management of Aechmea magdalenae:
Implications for the use of TEK and
TRM in management plans. Economic
Botany 56:177–191.
Toledo, V., B. Ortiz-Espejel, L. Cortes, P.
Moguel, and M. Ordon
˜
ez. 2003. The
multiple use of tropical forests by
indigenous peoples in Mexico: A case
of adaptive management. Conservation
Ecology 7:9.
Trotter, R. 1981. Folk remedies as indica-
tors of common illnesses: Examples
from the United States-Mexico border.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 4:207–221.
Trotter, R. and M.H. Logan. 1986. Infor-
mant consensus: A new approach for
identifying potentially effective medic-
inal plants. In Plants in indigenous
medicine and diet, ed. N. Etkin, pp. 91–
109. Redgrave, New York.
Turner, N.J., M. Ignace, and R. Ignace.
2000. Traditional ecological knowledge
and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in
British Columbia. Ecological Applica-
tions 10:1275–1287.
Uma Shaanker, R., K.N. Ganeshaiah, S.
Krishnan, R. Ramya, C. Meera, N.
Aravind, A. Kumar, D. Rao, G. Vanaraj,
J. Ramachandra, R. Gauthier, J. Gha-
zoul, N. Poole, and B. Chinnappa
Reddy. 2004. Livelihood gains and
ecological costs of non-timber forest
products dependence: Assessing the
roles of dependence, ecological knowl-
edge, and market structure in three
contrasting human and ecological set-
tings in south India. Environmental
Conservation 31:1–13.
Vandebroek, I., J. Calewaert, S. De jonck-
heere, S. Sanca, L. Semo, P. van
Damme, L. van Puyvelede, and N. de
Kimpe. 2004. Use of medicinal plants
and pharmaceuticals by indigenous
communities in the Bolivian Andes
and Amazon. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization 84:243–250.
Vogl, C.R. and B. Vogl-Lukasser. 2004.
Ethnobotanical research in homegar-
dens of small farmers in the alpine
region of Osttirol (Austria): An exam-
ple for bridges built and building
bridges. Ethnobotany Research and Ap-
plications 2(2):111–137.
Wallace, A. 1961. On being just complicat-
ed enough. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 47:458–464.
Warren, D.M. and B. Rajasekaran. 1993.
Putting local knowledge to good use.
International Agricultural Development
13:8–10.
Zarger, R. 2002. Acquisition and trans-
mission of subsistence knowledge by
Q’eqchi’ Maya in Belize. In Ethnobiology
and biocultural diversity, eds. J.R. Stepp,
F.S. Wyndham and R. Zarger, pp. 592–
603. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.
Zarger, R. and J.R. Stepp. 2004. Persistence
of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal
Maya children. Current Anthropology
45:413–418.
Zent, S. 2001. Acculturation and ethnobo-
tanical knowledge loss among the
Piaroa of Venezuela: Demonstration
of a quantitative method for the em-
pirical study of traditional ecological
knowledge change. In On biocultural
diversity: Linking language, knowledge,
and the environment, ed. L. Maffi, pp.
190–211. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Fall/Winter 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 203