Techniques for Analysis of Quantitative Ethnobiological Data: Use of Indices

  • Valdeline Atanazio da Silva
  • Viviany Teixeira do Nascimento
  • Gustavo Taboada Soldati
  • Maria Franco Trindade Medeiros
  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque
Protocol
First Online:
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)

Abstract

Quantitative techniques for the analysis of collected data have become increasingly popular among ethnobiologists and ethnobotanists in particular. Since the 1990s, a number of techniques have been proposed, and many authors have adopted them in their research. However, this acceptance of quantitative techniques was not accompanied by an analysis of their limitations and weaknesses. This chapter presents a discussion of the role of quantitative techniques for the analysis of plant data and an overview showing some of the most commonly used techniques. These include examples cited in some reviews, along with more recently proposed additions and limitations for some of these examples. The techniques discussed here were extracted from ethnobotanical works but are nevertheless applicable in other fields of ethnobiology.

Key words

Quantitative ethnobotany Quantitative indices Data analysis in ethnobiology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Phillips O (1996) Some quantitative methods for analyzing ethnobotanical knowledge. In: Alexiades M (ed) Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: a field manual. The New York Botanical Garden, New York, pp 171–197Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Medeiros MFT, Silva PS, Albuquerque UP (2011) Quantification in ethnobotanical research: an overview of indices used from 1995 to 2009. SientibussérieCienciasBiológicas 11(2):211–230Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reyes-García V, Huanca T, Vadez V et al (2006) Cultural, practical, and economic value of wild plants: a quantitative study in the Bolivian Amazon. Econ Bot 60:62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoffman B, Gallaher G (2007) Importance indices in ethnobotany. Ethnobot Res Appl 5:201–218Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amiguet VT, Arnason JT, Maquim P et al (2005) A consensus ethnobotany of the Q’ Eqchi’ Maya of Southern Belize. Econ Bot 59:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phillips O, Gentry AH (1993) The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypothesis tests with a new quantitative technique. Econ Bot 47:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phillips O, Gentry AH (1993) The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Econ Bot 47:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turner NJ (1988) “The importance of a rose”: evaluating the cultural significance of plants in Thompson and Lillooet interior Salish. Am Anthropol 90(2):272–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stoffle RW, Halmo DB, Evans MJ et al (1990) Calculating the cultural significance of American Indian plants: Paiute and Shoshone ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Am Anthropol 92:416–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carneiro RL (1978) The knowledge and use of rain forest trees by the Kuikuru Indians of central Brazil. In: Ford RI (ed) The nature and status of ethnobotany, Anthropological papers. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp 202–216Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedman J, Yaniv Z, Dafni A et al (1986) A preliminary classification of the healing potencial of medicinal plants, based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacological field survey among bedouins in the Negev desert, Israel. J Ethnopharmacol 16:275–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Albuquerque UP, Andrade LHC (2002) Uso de recursos vegetais da caatinga: o caso do agreste do estado de Pernambuco. Interciencia 27:336–346Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amaral CN, Guarim-Neto G (2008) Os quintais como espaços de conservação e cultivo de alimentos: um estudo na cidade de Rosário Oeste (Mato Grosso, Brasil). Bol Mus Par Emílio Goeldi 3(3):329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amorozo MCM, Gély A (1988) Uso de plantas medicinais por caboclos do Baixo Amazonas. Barcarena, PA, Brasil. Bol Mus Par Emílio Goeldi Sér Bot 4:47–131Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vendruscolo GS, Mentz LA (2006) Estudo da concordância das citações de uso e importância das espécies e famílias utilizadas como medicinais pela comunidade do bairro Ponta Grossa, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. Acta Bot Bras 20:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Troter R, Logan M (1986) Informant consensus: a new approach for identifying potentially effective medicinal plants. In: Etkin NL (ed) Indigenous medicine and diet: biobehavioural approaches. Redgrave Bedford Hills, New York, pp 91–112Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albuquerque UP, Medeiros PM, Almeida ALS et al (2007) Medicinal plants of the caatinga (semi-arid) vegetation of NE Brazil: a quantitative approach. J Ethnopharmacol 114:325–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teklehaymanot T, Giday M, Medhin G et al (2007) Knowledge and use of medicinal plants by people around DebreLibanos monastery in Ethiopia. J Ethnopharmacol 111:271–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akerreta S, Cavero RY, López V et al (2007) Analyzing factors that influence the folk use and phytonomy of 18 medicinal plants in Navarra. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 3:16PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torre-Cuadros MLA, Islebe GA (2003) Traditional ecological knowledge and use of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo. Biodivers Conserv 12:2455–2476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lucena RFP, Araújo EL, Albuquerque UP (2007) Does the local availability of woody caatingaplants (Northeastern Brazil) explain their use value? Econ Bot 61:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Molares S, Ladio A (2009) Ethnobotanical review of the Mapuche medicinal flora: use patterns on a regional scale. J Ethnopharmacol 122:251–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Dammea PV et al (2009) The relation between accessibility, diversity and indigenous valuation of vegetation in the Bolivian Andes. J Arid Environ 73:854–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Albuquerque UP, Lucena RFP, Monteiro JMM et al (2006) Evaluating two quantitative ethnobotanical techniques. Ethnobot Res Appl 4:51–60Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rossato SC, LeitãoFilho H, Begossi A (1999) Ethnobotany of Caiçaras of the Atlantic Forest Coast (Brazil). Econ Bot 53:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gomez-Beloz A (2002) Plant knowledge of the WinikinaWarao: the case for questionnaires in ethnobotany. Econ Bot 56:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bennett BC, Prance GT (2000) Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of Northern South America. Econ Bot 54:90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Byg A, Balslev H (2001) Diversity and use of palms in Zahamena, Eastern Madagascar. Biodivers Conserv 10:951–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawrence A, Phillips OL, Ismodes AR et al (2005) Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodivers Conserv 14:45–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Castaneda H, Stepp JR (2007) Ethnoecological importance value (EIV) methodology: assessing the cultural importance of ecosystems as sources of useful plants for the Guaymi people of Costa Rica. Ethnobot Res Appl 5:249–257Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prance GT, Balée W, Boom BM et al (1987) Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazônia. Conserv Biol 1:296–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hunn ES (1982) The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. Am Anthropol 84:830–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Laughlin RM et al (1973) Culturalsignificance and lexical retention in Tzeltal-Tzotzilethnobotany. In: Edmonson MS (ed) Meaning in Mayan languages. Mounton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Silva VA, Andrade LHC, Albuquerque UP (2006) Revising the cultural significance index: the case of the Fulni-ô in Northeastern Brazil. Field Methods 18:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Balée W (1986) A etnobotânica quantitativa dos índios Tembé (Rio Gurupi, Pará). Bol Mus Par Emílio Goeldi Sér Bot 3:29–50Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Balée W, Gély A (1989) Managed forest succession in Amazonia: the Ka’apor case. Adv Econ Bot 7:129–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valdeline Atanazio da Silva
    • 1
  • Viviany Teixeira do Nascimento
    • 2
  • Gustavo Taboada Soldati
    • 2
  • Maria Franco Trindade Medeiros
    • 3
  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque
    • 2
  1. 1.Botânica—Unidade Acadêmica de Serra TalhadaUniversidade Federal Rural de PernambucoSerra TalhadaBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratory of Applied and Theoretical Ethnobiology, Department of BiologyFederal Rural University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  3. 3.Health and Education CenterFederal University of Campina GrandeCuitéBrazil

Personalised recommendations