Cultural Comparisons in Ethnobiological Research

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

A research focus on cultural comparisons in ethnobiology can answer questions about the incidence, distribution, and causes of cultural variation in ethnobiological knowledge. It also provides insight into the rich diversity of ways in which communities interact with and use biological resources to sustain a living. Cross-cultural research has shown that the same biological resources accessible to different cultural groups are often used and valued in different ways and thus occupy specific cultural niches. This research has also been instrumental in showing that even though native communities tend to possess a larger body of knowledge about natural resources than immigrants and people of mixed ancestry who share the same living areas, the former can still acquire plant knowledge from the latter groups. As such, cross-cultural research adds depth and richness to ethnobiological data and contributes to hypothesis testing and theory building in ethnobiological research. In addition, understanding the patterns by which people know and use their biological resources is of central importance to projects that aim to reconcile biological conservation and local development through the identification of species that hold high cultural importance.

Keywords

Biological Resource Jaccard Index Palm Species Plant Knowledge Mixed Ancestry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alcorn JB (1981) Factors influencing botanical resource perception among the Huastec: questions for future ethnobotanical inquiry. J Ethnobiol 1:221–230Google Scholar
  2. Atran S, Medin D, Ross N et al (2002) Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons. Curr Anthropol 43:421–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campos MT, Ehringhaus C (2003) Plant virtues are in the eyes of the beholders: a comparison of known palm uses among indigenous and folk communities of Southwestern Amazonia. Econ Bot 57:324–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK et al (2005) A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol Lett 8:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins S, Martins X, Mitchell A et al (2006) Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorese cultures. Econ Bot 60:347–361Google Scholar
  6. de Boer HJ, Lamxay V, Bjork L (2012) Comparing medicinal plant knowledge using similarity indices: a case of the Brou, Saek and Kry in Lao PDR. J Ethnopharmacol 141:481–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Heinrich M, Ankli A, Frei B et al (1998) Medicinal plants in Mexico: Healers’ consensus and cultural importance. Soc Sci Med 47:1859–1871Google Scholar
  8. Hoffman B (2013) Exploring biocultural contexts: Comparative woody plant knowledge of an indigenous and Afro-American Maroon community in Suriname, South America. In: Voeks R, Rashford J (eds) African ethnobotany in the Americas. Springer, New York, pp 335–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leonti M, Sticher O, Heinrich M (2003) Antiquity of medicinal plant usage in two Macro-Mayan ethnic groups. J Ethnopharmacol 88:119–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Mustafa B, Hajdari A, Pieroni A et al (2015) A cross-cultural comparison of folk plant uses among Albanians, Bosniaks, Gorani and Turks living in south Kosovo. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 11:39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Nesheim I, Dhillion SS, Stolen KA (2006) What happens to traditional knowledge and use of natural resources when people migrate? Hum Ecol 34:99–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Olatundun IO (2009) What is cross-cultural research? IJPS 1:82–96Google Scholar
  13. Pardo-de-Santayana M, Macia MJ (2015) The benefits of traditional knowledge. Nature 518:487–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pieroni A, Quave CL (2005) Traditional pharmacopoeias and medicines among Albanians and Italians in southern Italy: a comparison. J Ethnopharmacol 101:258–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Quave CL, Pieroni A (2015) A reservoir of ethnobotanical knowledge informs resilient food security and health strategies in the Balkans. Nature Plants 1:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sop TK, Oldeland J, Bognounou F, Schmiedel U, Thiombiano A (2012) Ethnobotanical knowledge and valuation of woody plants species: a comparative analysis of three ethnic groups from the sub-Sahel of Burkina Faso. Environ Dev Sustain 14:627–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Goetghebeur P, Sanca S, Arrázola S, Van Damme P (2008) The relationship between plant use and plant diversity in the Bolivian Andes, with special reference to medicinal plant use. Hum Ecol 36:861–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Andel TR, van ‘t Klooster CIEA, Quiroz D et al (2014) Local plant names reveal that enslaved Africans recognized substantial parts of the New World flora. PNAS 111:E5346–E5353Google Scholar
  19. Vandebroek I, Van Damme P, Van Puyvelde L, Arrazola S, De Kimpe N (2004) A comparison of traditional healers’ medicinal plant knowledge in the Bolivian Andes and Amazon. Soc Sci Med 59:837–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The New York Botanical GardenInstitute of Economic BotanyBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations