Local Knowledge and Scientific Perceptions: Questions of Validity in Environmental Knowledge



Local ecological knowledge has been subject to a great deal of debate in recent decades. Early strands of this literature could be easily classified into two camps – one which purports the adaptive logic and scientific validity of local knowledge, and the other which seeks to expose its flaws by illustrating its divergence from scientific understandings. While acknowledging subsequent attempts to question this dichotomy (Agrawal (Development and Change 26:413–439, 1995); Long (Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, 2001); Pottier et al. (Negotiating Local Knowledge: Power and Identity in Development. London: Pluto Press, 2003)), this chapter maintains the distinction as a means of exploring claims to validity of diverse bodies of knowledge. It does this through a series of case studies on biophysical processes that have been subject to much debate and misunderstanding in both public and scientific spheres. Local and scientific knowledge are juxtaposed in two ways. By highlighting biophysical processes for which local and scientific understandings diverge but for which local ecological knowledge is nevertheless functionally sound, the adaptive capacity of local knowledge is illustrated. As is shown, empirical foundations to local ecological knoweldge may be found even behind purportedly “erroneous” perceptions of cause and effect. Secondly, by exposing the subjectivities of scientific understandings on certain biophysical processes, the grounding of even the most “objective” knowledge in perceptual and political biases is illustrated. Case studies on shifting agriculture, watershed function, and ecological processes that challenge our predictive capacities help to illustrate both the scientific foundations of local knowledge and the “perceptual” foundations of science. The intention is neither to discredit scientific understandings nor to place undue emphasis on the merits of local ways of knowing, but rather to expose the unfair value judgements leveraged against the latter historically – and to call for a more even playing field in the politics of environmental knowledge.


Complexity Fire Local knowledge Science Shifting agriculture Validity 


  1. Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibald, S., Bond, W. J., Stock, W. D., & Fairbanks, D. H. K. (2005). Shaping the landscape: Fire-grazer interactions in an African Savanna. Ecological Applications, 15(1), 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atran, S. (1990). The cognitive foundations of natural history: Towards an anthropology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Batterbury, S., Forsyth, T., & Thomson, K. (1997). Environmental transformations in developing countries: Hybrid research and democratic policy. Geographical Journal, 163(2), 126–132.Google Scholar
  5. Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2002). Navigating social–ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. C. (Eds.). (1987). Land degradation and society. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Bollig, M., & Schulte, A. (1999). Environmental change and pastoral perceptions: Degradation and indigenous knowledge on two African pastoral communities. Human Ecology, 27(3), 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brokensha, D. W., Warren, D. M., & Werner, O. (1980). Indigenous knowledge systems and development (p. 473). Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  11. Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, 185–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bryant, R. L. (1994). Shifting the cultivator: The politics of teak regeneration in colonial Burma. Modern Asian Studies, 28, 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calder, I. R., Rosier, P. T. W., Prasanna, K. T., & Parameswarappa, S. (1997). Eucalyptus water use greater than rainfall input: A possible explanation from Southern India. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 1, 246–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrere, R., & Lohmann, L. (1996). Pulping the south: Industrial tree plantations and the world paper economy. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  15. Casson, A. (1997). The controversy surrounding eucalypts in social forestry programs of Asia. Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Working Paper No. 3. Canberra: Research School for Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  16. Chambers, R., Pacey, R., & Thrupp, L. (Eds.). (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Checkland, P. (1991). From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of action research. In H. Nissen, H. Klein, & R. Hirscheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christensen, N. L., Agee, J. K., Brussard, P. F., Hughes, J., Knight, D. H., Minshall, G. W., et al. (1989). Interpreting the Yellowstone fires of 1988. BioScience, 39(10), 678–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clements, F. E. (1936). The nature and structure of climax. The Journal of Ecology, 24(1), 252–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Colfer, C. J. P. (2005). The complex forest: Communities, uncertainty, and adaptive collaborative management (p. 370). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future and CIFOR.Google Scholar
  22. Conklin, H. C. (1954). The ethnoecological approach to shifting agriculture. Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, 17, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Conklin, H. C. (1957). Hanunoo agriculture: A report on an integral system of shifting cultivation in the Philippines. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  24. Conway, G. (1999). The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for all in the twenty-first century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cruz, M. E., & Rivera, R. (1983). Cambios Ecológicos y de Poblamiento en el Sector Forestal Chileno. Santiago: GIA.Google Scholar
  26. DeBano, L. F., Neary, D. G., & Ffolliot, P. F. (1998). Fire’s effects on ecosystems. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Denevan, W. M., & Padoch, C. (Eds.). (1987). Swidden-fallow agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon, advances in economic botany (Vol. 5). New York: New York Botanical Garden.Google Scholar
  28. DeWalt, B. (1994). Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource management. Human Organization, 53(22), 123–131.Google Scholar
  29. Dove, M. (1983). Theories of swidden agriculture and the political economy of ignorance. Agroforestry Systems, 1, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dove, M. (1993a). A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development. Environmental Conservation, 20(1), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dove, M. (1993b). Uncertainty, humility and adaptation in the tropical forest: The agricultural augury of the Kantu. Ethnology, 32, 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dove, M. (1996). Process versus product in Bornean Augury: A traditional knowledge system’s solution to the problem of knowing. In R. Ellen & K. Fukui (Eds.), Redefining nature: Ecology, culture and domestication (pp. 557–597). Oxford/Washington, DC: Berg.Google Scholar
  33. Dove, M. R., & Kammen, D. M. (1997). The epistemology of sustainable resource use: Managing forest products, swiddens and high-yielding variety crops. Human Organization, 56(1), 91–101.Google Scholar
  34. Ellen, R. (1993). The cultural relations of classification: An analysis of Nuaulu animal categories from Central Seram. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Farley, K. A., Jobbagy, E. G., & Jackson, R. B. (2005). Effects of afforestation on water yield: A global synthesis with implications for policy. Global Change Biology, 11, 1565–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, F. (2002). Synthesis: Building resilience for adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social–ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 352–387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (p. 228). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gardner, A. (2005). The new calculus of Bedouin pastoralism in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In S. Paulson & L. Gezon (Eds.), Political ecology across spaces, scales, and social groups (pp. 76–93). London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  40. German, L. (2001). The dynamics of Terra Preta: An integrated study of human-environmental interaction in a nutrient-poor Amazonian ecosystem. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Georgia, 313 pp.Google Scholar
  41. German, L. (2003). Ethnoscientific understandings of Amazonian Dark Earths. In J. Lehmann, D. C. Kern, B. Glaser, & W. I. Woods (Eds.), Amazonian Dark Earths: Origins, properties, management (pp. 179–201). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. German, L. (2004). Ecological praxis and blackwater ecosystems: A case study from the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology, 32(6), 653–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. German, L. (2006). Moving beyond component research in mountain regions: Operationalizing systems integration at farm and landscape scale. Journal of Mountain Science, 3(4), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. German, L., Charamila, S., & Tesema, T. (in press). Managing trade-offs in agroforestry: From conflict to collaboration in natural resource management. In S. Klappa & D. Russell (Eds.), Transformations in agroforestry systems. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  45. German, L., Kidane, B., & Shemdoe, R. (2006). Social and environmental trade-offs in tree species selection: A methodology for identifying niche incompatibilities in agroforestry. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8, 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. German, L., Tolera, T., Alemu, G., & Shemdoe, R. (2004). The role of traditional ecological knowledge, beliefs and practices in NRM: A case study from the Eastern African Highlands. Paper given at the 9th International Congress of Ethnobiology. Kent, 13–17 June.Google Scholar
  47. Glaser, B., & Woods, W. I. (2004). Amazonian Dark Earths: Explorations in space and time. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Golley, F. B. (1996). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology: More than the sum of the parts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Gordon, L. J., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2007). Agricultural modifications of hydrological flows create ecological surprises. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(4), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Grove, R. (1997). Green imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  52. Hagmann, J., & Chuma, E. (2002). Enhancing the adaptive capacity of the resource users in natural resource management. Agricultural Systems, 73(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hart, S. C., DeLuca, T. H., Newman, G. S., MacKenzie, M. D., & Boyle, S. I. (2005). Post-fire vegetative dynamics as drivers of microbial community structure and function in forest soils. Forest Ecology and Management, 220, 166–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hecht, S. B. (2003). Indigenous soil management and the creation of Amazonian Dark Earths: Implications of Kayapó practices. In J. Lehmann, D. C. Kern, B. Glaser, & W. I. Woods (Eds.), Amazonian Dark Earths: Origins, properties, management (pp. 355–372). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  55. Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kato, M. S. A., Kato, O. R., Denich, M., & Vlek, P. L. G. (1999). Fire-free alternatives to slash-and-burn for shifting cultivation in the eastern Amazon region: The role of fertilizers. Field Crops Research, 62(2), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  59. Knorr-Cetina, K. D., & Mulkay, M. (1983). Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Knox, K. J. E., & Clarke, P. J. (2005). Nutrient availability induces contrasting allocation and starch formation in resprouting and obligate seeding shrubs. Functional Ecology, 19(4), 690–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kramp, B. A., Patton, D. R., & Brady, W. W. (1986). Run wild: Wildlife–habitat relationships. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region.Google Scholar
  62. Kull, C. A. (2004). Isle of fire: The political ecology of landscape burning in Madagascar. Chicago, IL/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Latour, B. (1990). Postmodern? No, simply amodern! Steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 21(1), 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., et al. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19.Google Scholar
  65. Lehmann, J., Kern, D. C., Glaser, B., & Woods, W. I. (2003). Amazonian Dark Earths: Origins, properties, management. Dordrecht, The Nethelands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  66. Leigh, J. H., & Noble, J. C. (1981). The role of fire in the management of rangelands in Australia. In A. M. Gill, R. H. Groves, & I. R. Noble (Eds.), Fire and the Australian biota (pp. 471–496). Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  67. Li, C. (2000). Population differences in water-use efficiency of Eucalyptus microtheca seedlings under different watering regimes. Physiologia Plantarum, 108(2), 134–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lowood, H. E. (1990). The calculating forester: Quantification, cameral science, and the emergence of scientific forestry management in Germany. In T. Frängsmyr, J. L. Heilbron, & R. E. Rider (Eds.), The quantifying spirit in the eighteenth century (pp. 315–342). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  70. Markakis, J. (2004). Pastoralism on the margin (p. 37). London: Minority Rights Group International.Google Scholar
  71. McCullough, D. G., Werner, R. A., & Neumann, D. (1998). Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest ecosystems of North America. Annual Review of Entomology, 43, 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Minnich, R. A. (1983). Fire mosaics in southern California and northern Baja California. Science, 219, 1287–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Morgan, G., & Ramirez, R. (1983). Action learning: A holographic metaphor for guiding social change. Human Relations, 37(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Norgaard, R. B. (2004). Learning and knowing collectively. Ecological Economics, 49(2), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nye, P. H., & Greenland, D. J. (1960). The soil under shifting cultivation. Farnham: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
  76. Odum, E. (1953). Fundamentals of ecology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  77. Ortiz, S. (1979). Expectations and forecasts in the face of uncertainty. Man, 14(1), 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pfund, J. -L. (2000). Culture sur brûlis et gestion des ressources naturelles. Evolution et perspectives de trois terroirs ruraux du versant Est de Madagascar, Thesis. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), and Lausanne, Switzerland: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.Google Scholar
  79. Posey, D. A. (1985). Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: The case of the Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems, 3(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pottier, J., Bicker, A., & Sillitoe, P. (2003). Negotiating local knowledge: Power and identity in development. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  81. Pyne, S. J. (1984). Introduction to wildland fire: Fire management in the United States. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  82. Pyne, S. J. (1997a). Vestal fire: An environmental history, told through fire, of Europe and Europe’s encounter with the world. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  83. Pyne, S. J. (1997b). World fire: The culture of fire on earth. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  84. Raintree, J. B. (1996). The Great Eucalyptus Debate: What is it really all about? RAP Publication No. 1996/44. Bankok: FAO.Google Scholar
  85. Resilience Alliance (2009). Resilience. Available at: http://www.resalliance.org/576.php. Accessed 2 Mar 2009.
  86. Richards, P. W. (1952). The tropical rain forest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Richards, P. (1980). Community environmental knowledge in African rural development. In D. Brokensha, D. Warren, & O. Werner (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems and development (pp. 183–195). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  88. Roe, E. (1991). Development narratives, or making the best of blueprint development. World Development, 19(4), 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Röling, N. G. (1996). Towards an interactive agricultural science. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2(4), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rumley, R., & Ong, C. (2006). The right tree for a dry place. Tree water use synthesis 1. Nairobi: ICRAF.Google Scholar
  91. Sakai, A. K., Allendorf, F. W., Holt, J. S., Lodge, D. M., Molofsky, J., With, K. A., et al. (2001). The population biology of invasive species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sanchez, P. A., Bandy, D. E., Villachica, J. H., & Nicholaides, J. J. (1982). Amazon Basin soils: Management for continuous crop production. Science, 216, 821–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Savage, M., & Mast, J. N. (2005). How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35, 967–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Scott, D. F. (1999). Managing riparian zone vegetation to sustain streamflow: Results of paired catchment experiments in South Africa. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research, 29(7), 1149–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Scott, D. F., & Lesch, W. (1997). (1997) Streamflow responses to afforestation with Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus patulu and to felling in the Mokobulaan experimental catchments, South Africa. Journal of Hydrology, 199, 360–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Scott, D. F., & Smith, R. E. (1997). Preliminary empirical models to predict reductions in total and low flows resulting from afforestation. Water South Africa, 23(2), 135–140.Google Scholar
  100. Shiva, V., & Bandyopadhyay, J. (1987). Ecological audit of eucalyptus cultivation. Dehra Dun: Research Foundation for Science and Ecology.Google Scholar
  101. Sillitoe, P. (1988). Knowing the land: Soil and land resource evaluation and indigenous knowledge. Soil Use and Management, 14, 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sinclair, F. L., & Walker, D. H. (1999). A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and extension. In L. E. Buck, J. P. Lassoie, & E. C. M. Fernandes (Eds.), Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems (pp. 245–275). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
  103. Sivaramakrishnan, K. (1996). The politics of fire and forest regeneration in colonial Bengal. Environment and History, 2(2), 145–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stape, J. L., Binkley, D., Ryan, M. G., & do Nascimento Gomes, A. (2004). Water use, water limitation and water use efficiency in a Eucalyptus plantation. Bosque, 25(2), 35–41.Google Scholar
  105. Swallow, B. M., & Bromley, D. W. (1995). Institutions, governance and incentives in common property regimes for African rangelands. Environmental and Resource Economics, 6(2), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tinker, P. B., Ingram, J. S. I., & Struwe, S. (1996). Effects of slash-and-burn agriculture and deforestation on climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 58(1), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Vosti, S. A., & Witcover, J. (1998). Agricultural development with rainforest conservation: Methods for seeking best bet alternatives to slash-and-burn, with applications to Brazil and Indonesia. Agricultural Economics, 19(1–2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Trouiller, P., Torreele, E., Olliaro, P., White, N., Foster, S., Wirth, D., et al. (2001). Drugs for neglected diseases: A failure of the market and a public health failure? Tropical Medicine and International Health, 6(11), 945–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Uhl, C. (1987). Factors controlling succession following slash-and-burn agriculture in Amazonia. The Journal of Ecology, 75(2), 377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. van den Brink, R., Bromley, D. W., & Chavas, J. P. (1995). The economics of Cain and Abel: Agro-pastoral property rights in the Sahel. Journal of Development Studies, 31(3), 373–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. van Noordwijk, M., Poulsen, J. G., & Ericksen, P. J. (2004). Quantifying off-site effects of land use change: Filters, flows and fallacies. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Walker, B. H., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. P., & Ryan, P. (2006). Exploring resilience in social–ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: Introduction to the special issue. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 12.Google Scholar
  113. Warren, D. M. (1990). Using indigenous knowledge in agricultural development. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 127. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  114. Wickama, J. & Mowo, J. G. (2001). Using local resources to improve soil fertility in Tanzania. Managing Africa’s soils No. 21. London: IIED.Google Scholar
  115. Wisheu, I. C., Rosenzweig, M. L., Olsvig-Whittaker, L., & Shmida, A. (2000). What makes nutrient-poor Mediterranean heathlands so rich in plant diversity? Evolutionary Ecology Research, 2, 935–955.Google Scholar
  116. Zarger, R. K., & Stepp, J. R. (2004). Persistance of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children. Current Anthropology, 45(3), 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zent, S. (2001). Acculturation and ethnobotanical knowledge knowledge loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela. In L. Maffi (Ed.), On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge and the environment (pp. 190–211). Washington, DC: Smithsonian.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)BogorIndonesia

Personalised recommendations