Cultural Conservation of Medicinal Plant Use in the Ozarks

Nolan, Justin M.; Robbins, Michael C.

doi:10.17730/humo.58.1.k1854516076003p6

Cited by 57 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The positive trend of ecological knowledge with increased market integration has been previously documented in a fishing community in Ecuador (Guest 2002) and with new rice landraces under the influence of agricultural modernization in Indonesia (Soemarwoto 2007). However, other studies have found the effects of economic change on traditional ecological knowledge (Godoy et al 2005) to be negative (Nolan and Robbins 1999, Reyes-Garcia 2001, Zent 2001, Benz et al 2007, Srithi et al 2009) or neutral (Zarger andStepp 2004, Ayantunde et al 2008). Additionally, as local Akha focus their attention on tea, ecological knowledge of other plants and resources in the community surroundings may be declining.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Increased Market Integration, Value, and Ecological Knowledge of Tea Agroforests in the Akha Highlands of Southwest China

Ahmed¹,

Stepp²,

Toleno³

et al. 2010

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Increased Market Integration, Value, and Ecological Knowledge of Tea Agroforests in the Akha Highlands of Southwest China

Ahmed¹,

Stepp²,

Toleno³

et al. 2010

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lykke et al (2004) and Hoft et al (1999) applied PCA analysis to find links between specific demographic groups and use-value trends. Similarly, Nolan and Robbins (1999) used multiple correlation and regression analysis to look for relationships between useful plant frequencies and socioeconomic factors. They found a strong positive relationship between the number of medicinal plant citations and residence distance away from urban centers in the Ozarks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance Indices in Ethnobotany

Hoffman¹,

Gallaher²

2007

Ethnobot. Res. App.

290

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring the "importance" of plants and vegetation to people is a central concern in quantitative ethnobotany. A common tool to quantify otherwise qualitative data in the biological and social sciences is an index. Relative cultural importance (RCI) indices such as the "use values" developed by Prance et al. (1987) and Phillips and Gentry (1993a, 1993b) are applied in ethnobotany to calculate a value per folk or biological plant taxon. These approaches can provide data amenable to hypothesis-testing, statistical validation, and comparative analysis. The use of RCI indices is a growing trend in ethnobotanical research, yet there have been few attempts to compile or standardize divergent methods. In this review, we compare RCI indices in four broad categories and present a step-by-step guide to some specific methods. Important background topics are addressed, including ethnographic methods, use categorization, sampling, and statistical analysis. We are concerned here only with "value" as a non-monetary concept. The aspiring and veteran researcher alike should find this paper a useful guide to the development and application of RCI indices. IntroductionThe scientific rigor of ethnobotanical research has increased dramatically in the past two decades due to the adoption of quantitative methods (Phillips 1996). By and large, ethnobotanists have recognized and responded to the need for research based upon hallmarks of the scientific method, including testable hypotheses, reproducible methods, and statistical measures of variation. A primary challenge in this quantitative trend is how to produce values that are reliable and comparable measures of less tangible qualitative data. Borrowing from the social sciences and ecology, considerable advances have been made through the development and application of relative cultural importance (RCI) 1 indices that produce numerical scales or values per plant taxon (Alexiades & Sheldon 1996, Kvist et al. 1995, Lykke et al. 2004, Martin 2004, Phillips & Gentry 1993a, 1993b, Phillips et al. 1994, Phillips 1996, Prance et al. 1987, Reyes-García et al. 2006a, Turner 1988).The application of RCI indices in ethnobotany began during the late 1980s. Boom (1990) determined the percentage of plants used by Panare indigenous informants within a 1 hectare forest plot in Venezuela. His research was an important starting point for quantitative inter-cultural comparisons of plant knowledge. Recognizing that not all uses are equal, Prance et al. (1987), applied weighted indices of 1.0 for "important" uses and 0.5 for "minor" uses. This approach was aimed at capturing relative degrees of "importance", but did not address informant variation. Gentry and Phillip's (1993aPhillip's ( , 1993b) publication on RCI "use values" was a watershed event in quantitative ethnobotany. These last authors evaluated variation among informants based upon use-citation frequencies, considering each as a statistical "event."Since the methods of Prance et al.

show abstract

“…Previous research suggests that integration into the global market economy can erode certain indigenous and long-term settler ecological knowledge and understanding, such as plant and animal knowledge (Godoy et al 1998;Nolan and Robbins 1999;Benz et al 2000;Reyes-García et al 2005). Other studies indicate that youth know less than elders in this area, typically as a result of disruption of knowledge transmission caused by a shift from subsistence to market oriented economic activities (Begossi et al 2002;Ladio and Lozada 2004;Pearce et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%