What Is the Most Efficient Methodology for Gathering Ethnobotanical Data and for Participant Selection? Medicinal Plants as a Case Study in the Peruvian Andes

Economic Botany (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

What Is the Most Efficient Methodology for Gathering Ethnobotanical Data and for Participant Selection? Medicinal Plants as a Case Study in the Peruvian Andes. The loss of traditional knowledge (TK) invariably continues worldwide and there is an urgent need to document and safeguard it before it vanishes. Researchers need efficient methods to document TK, taking fieldwork time and costs into account. In this study, we focused on medicinal plants to compare (1) the information provided by 600 expert and general participants from 12 localities in northern Peruvian Andes; and (2) the information gathered in semi–structured and structured interviews with 81 informants at two localities in the same area. We found that expert informants reported 91% of medicinal species and 67% of medicinal indications in less than half the time than was required to gather information from general informants. Using structured interviews yielded an increase of 18% of medicinal species and 21% of medicinal indications, but the time spent interviewing was 100% higher than in the semi–structured interviews. Overall, since time and costs are key factors often limiting ethnobotanical research, we suggest focusing on interviews with expert informants to gain efficiency. Regarding the interview method, the most efficient use of structured interviews would be in the cases or areas where (some) ethnobotanical data have been reported previously. If a researcher starts a new project and little or no previous TK data exist for a given area, we would recommend the use of semi–structured interviews. However, the available time and budget will always be key factors to be taken into account in order to select the best methodology of any TK study. ¿Cuál es la metodología más eficiente para recopilar datos etnobotánicos y para la selección de participantes? Las plantas medicinales como un estudio de caso en los Andes peruanos. La pérdida del conocimiento tradicional (CT) continúa invariablemente en todo el mundo, por lo que hay una necesidad urgente de documentarlo y rescatarlo antes de que desaparezca. Los investigadores necesitan métodos eficientes para documentar el CT, teniendo en cuenta el tiempo y el coste del trabajo de campo. En este estudio, nos enfocamos en plantas medicinales para comparar (1) la información obtenida de 600 participantes expertos y generales en 12 localidades del norte de los Andes peruanos; y (2) la información recopilada de entrevistas semiestructuradas y estructuradas con 81 informantes de dos localidades en la misma área. Documentamos que los informantes expertos conocían el 91% de las especies medicinales y el 67% de las indicaciones medicinales, dedicando menos de la mitad del tiempo que se requirió para documentar la misma información con los informantes generales. Al utilizar entrevistas estructuradas, obtuvimos un aumento del 18% de las especies medicinales y del 21% de las indicaciones medicinales, pero el tiempo dedicado fue 100% mayor que con respecto a las entrevistas semiestructuradas. En conjunto, dado que el tiempo y el coste son factores clave que a menudo limitan la investigación etnobotánica, sugerimos enfocar las entrevistas con los informantes expertos para ganar eficiencia. Respecto al método de entrevista, el uso más eficiente de entrevistas estructuradas se daría en los casos o áreas donde se han registrado (algunos) datos etnobotánicos previamente. Si un investigador inicia un nuevo proyecto y existen pocos o ningún dato previo de CT para un área determinada, recomendaríamos el uso de entrevistas semiestructuradas. Sin embargo, el tiempo disponible y el presupuesto siempre serán factores clave a tener en cuenta para seleccionar la mejor metodología de cualquier estudio sobre CT.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Ajibesin, K. K., B. A. Ekpo, D. N. Bala, E. E. Essien, and S. A. Adesanya. 2008. Ethnobotanical survey of Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 115(3):387–408.

  2. Albuquerque, U. P., R. M. Alves, R. F. P. Lucena, and N. L. Alencar. 2014. Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. In: Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology, eds., U. P. Albuquerque, R. F. P. Lucena, L. V. Cunha, and R. M. Alves, 15–37. New York: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Albuquerque, U. P. and N. Hanazaki. 2009. Five problems in current ethnobotanical research—And some suggestions for strengthening them. Human Ecology 37(5):653–661.

  4. Alexiades, M. N. 1996. Collecting ethnobotanical data: An introduction to basic concepts and techniques. Advances in Economic Botany 10:53–94.

  5. Almeida, C. D. F. C., B. Rangel, M. A. Ramos, R. R. V. Silva, J. G. Melo, M. F. T. Medeiros, T. A. S. Araújo, A. L. S. Almeida, E. L. C. Amorim, R. N. N. Alves, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2012. Intracultural variation in the knowledge of medicinal plants in an urban–rural community in the Atlantic Forest from Northeastern Brazil. Evidence–Based Complementary Alternative Medicine, Vol. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/679373.

  6. Almeida-Campos, J. L., E. Lima Araújo, O. G. Gaoue, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2019. Socioeconomic factors and cultural changes explain the knowledge and use of Ouricuri Palm (Syagrus coronata) by the Fulni–ô Indigenous People of Northeast Brazil. Economic Botany 73(2):187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Assefa, E. and B. Hans-Rudolf. 2015. Farmers’ perception of land degradation and traditional knowledge in southern Ethiopia—Resilience and stability. Land Degradation Development 27(6):1552–1561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baldauf, C. and F. A. M. dos Santos. 2012. Ethnobotany, traditional knowledge, and diachronic changes in non–timber forest products management: A case study of Himatanthus drasticus (Apocynaceae) in the Brazilian savanna. Economic Botany 67(2):110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Becker, C. D. and K. Ghimire. 2003. Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology 8(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Belayneh, A., Z. Asfaw, S. Demissew, and N. F. Bussa. 2012. Medicinal plants potential and use by pastoral and agro–pastoral communities in Erer Valley of Babile Wereda, Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 8(1):42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bellia, G. and A. Pieroni. 2015. Isolated, but transnational: The global nature of Waldensian ethnobotany, Western Alps, NW Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11(1):37.

  12. Bernard, H. R. 2006. Research methods in cultural anthropology, 4th ed. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bussmann, R. W. and A. Glenn. 2010. Medicinal plants used in Northern Peru for reproductive problems and female health. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 6(1):30.

  14. Bussmann, R. W., D. Sharon. 2014. Two decades of ethnobotanical research in Southern Ecuador and Northern Peru. Ethnobiology and Conservation 3:3.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cámara-Leret, RN. Paniagua-Zambrana, H. Balslev, and M. J. Macía. 2014. Ethnobotanical knowledge is vastly under–documented in northwestern South America. PLoS ONE 9(1):e85794.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cartaxo, S. L., M. M. Almeida Souza, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2010. Medicinal plants with bioprospecting potential used in semi–arid northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 131(2):326–342.

  17. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. https://www.cbd.int/ (October 2019).

  18. Ceuterick, M., I. Vandebroek, and A. Pieroni. 2011. Resilience of Andean urban ethnobotanies: A comparison of medicinal plant use among Bolivian and Peruvian migrants in the United Kingdom and in their countries of origin. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 136(1):27–54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chase, M. W., M. J. M. Christenhusz, M. F. Fay, J. W. Byng, W. S. Judd, D. E. Soltis, D. J. Mabberley, A. N. Sennikov, P. S. Soltis, and P. F. Stevens. 2016. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 181(1):1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen, S., H. Yao, J. Han, C. Liu, J. Song, L. Shi, Y. Zhu, X. Ma, T. Gao, X. Pang, K. Luo, Y. Li, X. Jia, Y. Lin, and C. Leon. 2010. Validation of the ITS2 region as a novel DNA barcode for identifying medicinal plant species. PLoS ONE 5(1):e8613.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Corroto, F., O. A. G. Torres, and M. J. Macía. 2019. Different patterns in medicinal plant use along an elevational gradient in northern Peruvian Andes. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 239:111924.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Davis, A. and J. R. Wagner. 2003. Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 31(3):463–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. De Feo, V. 2003. Ethnomedical field study in northern Peruvian Andes with particular reference to divination practices. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 85(2–3):243–256.

  24. Demie, G., M. Negash, and T. Awas. 2018. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by indigenous people in and around Dirre Sheikh Hussein heritage site of South–eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 220:87–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Espinosa, M. M., I. G. Bieski, and D. T. Martins. 2012. Probability sampling design in ethnobotanical surveys of medicinal plants. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia 22(6):1362–1367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. FAO. 2009. FAO and traditional knowledge: The linkages with sustainability, food security and climate change impacts. 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy.

  27. Gómez-Baggethun, E., S. Mingorria, V. Reyes-García, L. Calvet, and C. Montes. 2010. Traditional ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a market economy: Empirical study in the Doñana natural areas. Conservation Biology 24(3):721–729.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gómez-Baggethun, E. and V. Reyes-García. 2013. Reinterpreting change in traditional ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 41(4):643–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gruca, M., R. Cámara-Leret, M. J. Macía, and H. Balslev. 2014. New categories for traditional medicine in the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 155:1388–1392.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and opportunities for Canadian co–management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2):34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. ICPC–2 (International Classification of Primary Care), revised 2nd edition. 2005. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática). 2015. Síntesis estadística 2015. Boletín especial, N° 18, Septiembre, Lima. https://www.inei.gob.pe/estadisticas/indice–tematico/poblacion–y–vivienda (May 2019).

  33. IPBES. 2018. M. Fischer, M. Rounsevell, A. Torre–Marin Rando, A. Mader, A. Church, M. Elbakidze, V. Elias, T. Hahn, P. A. Harrison, J. Hauck, B. Martín–López, I. Ring, C. Sandström, I. Sousa Pinto, P. Visconti, N. E. Zimmermann, and M. Christie, eds. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat. https://www.ipbes.net/assessment–reports/eca (May 2019).

  34. Júnior, W. S. F., T. G. da Silva, I. R. A. Menezes, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2016. The role of local disease perception in the selection of medicinal plants: A study of the structure of local medical systems. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 181:146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Macía, M. J., P. J. Armesilla, R. Cámara-Leret, N. Paniagua-Zambrana, S. Villalba, H. Balslev, and M. Pardo-de-Santayana. 2011. Palm uses in northwestern South America: A quantitative review. The Botanical Review 77:462–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Martin, G. J. 1995. Ethnobotany: A people and plants conservation manual. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Martins, R. C., T. S. Filgueiras, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2012. Ethnobotany of Mauritia flexuosa (Arecaceae) in a maroon community in central Brazil. Economic Botany 66(1):91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McMillen, H. 2012. Ethnobotanical knowledge transmission and evolution: The case of medicinal markets in Tanga, Tanzania. Economic Botany 66(2):121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Monigatti, M., R. W. Bussmann, and C. S. Weckerle. 2013. Medicinal plant use in two Andean communities located at different altitudes in the Bolívar Province, Peru. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 145(2):450–464.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mugisha, M. K., S. Asiimwe, A. Namutebi, A. K. Borg-Karlson, and E. K. Kakudidi. 2014. Ethnobotanical study of indigenous knowledge on medicinal and nutritious plants used to manage opportunistic infections associated with HIV/AIDS in western Uganda. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 155(1):194–202.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nguyen, M. L. T. 2003. Comparison of food plant knowledge between urban Vietnamese living in Vietnam and in Hawaii. Economic Botany 57(4):472–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Odonne, G., C. Valadeau, J. Albán–Castillo, D. Stien, M. Sauvain, and G. Bourdy. 2013. Medical ethnobotany of the Chayahuita of the Paranapura basin (Peruvian Amazon). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 146(1):127–153.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Paniagua-Zambrana, N. YRW Bussmann, R. E. Hart, A. L. Moya Huanca, G. Ortiz Soria, M. Ortiz Vaca, D. Ortiz Álvarez, J. Soria Morán, M. Soria Morán, S. Chávez, B. Chávez Moreno, G. Chávez Moreno, O. Roca, and E. Siripi. 2018. To list or not to list? The value and detriment of freelisting in ethnobotanical studies. Nature Plants 4:201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pasquini, M. W., J. S. Mendoza, and C. Sánchez–Ospina. 2018. Traditional food plant knowledge and use in three afro–descendant communities in the Colombian Caribbean Coast: Part I Generational Differences. Economic Botany 72(3):278–294.

  45. Quinlan, M. B. 2005. Considerations for collecting freelists in the field: Examples from ethnobotany. Field Methods 17(3):219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Quinlan, M. B. R. J. Quinlan. 2007. Modernization and medicinal plant knowledge in a Caribbean horticultural village. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21(2):169–192.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. R Development Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.6.3. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  48. Reyes-García, V. 2014. The values of traditional ecological knowledge. In: Handbook of ecological economics, eds., J. Martíne-Zalier, R. Muradian. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Reyes–García, V., A. C. Luz, M. Gueze, J. Paneque–Gálvez, M. J. Macía, M. Orta–Martínez, J. Pino, and TAPS Bolivian Study Team. 2013a. Secular trends on traditional ecological knowledge: An analysis of changes in different domains of knowledge among Tsimane’ men. Learning and Individual Differences 27:206–212.

  50. Reyes-García, V., M. Guèze, A. C. Luz, J. Paneque-Gálvez, M. J. Macía, M. Orta-Martínez, J. Pino, and X. Rubio-Campillo. 2013b. Evidence of traditional knowledge loss among a contemporary indigenous society. Evolution and Human Behavior 34:249–257.

  51. Salpeteur, M., H. H. Patel, JL. Molina, A. L. Balbo, X. Rubio–Campillo, V. Reyes–García, and M. Madella. 2016. Comigrants and friends: Informal networks and the transmission of traditional ecological knowledge among seminomadic pastoralists of Gujarat, India. Ecology and Society 21(2).

  52. Saslislagoudakis, C. HJ. A. Hawkins, S. J. Greenhill, C. A. Pendry, M. F. Watson, W. Tuladhardouglas, S. R. Baral, and V. Savolainen. 2014. The evolution of traditional knowledge: Environment shapes medicinal plant use in Nepal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1780):20132768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2002. Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

    Google Scholar 

  54. ———. 2011. Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Singh, A. G., A. Kumar, and D. D. Tewari, 2012. An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants used in Terai forest of western Nepal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8(1):19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Souto, T. and T. Ticktin. 2012. Understanding interrelationships among predictors (age, gender, and origin) of local ecological knowledge. Economic Botany 66(2):149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Srithi, K., H. Balslev, P. Wangpakapattanawong, P. Srisanga, and C. Trisonthi. 2009. Medicinal plant knowledge and its erosion among the Mien (Yao) in northern Thailand. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 123(2):335–342.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sujarwo, W., I. B. K. Arinasa, F. Salomone, G. Caneva, and S. Fattorini. 2014. Cultural erosion of Balinese indigenous knowledge of food and nutraceutical plants. Economic Botany 68(4):426–437.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. The Plant List: A working list of all known plant species. 2018. http://www.theplantlist.org (January 2019).

  60. Thomas, E., I. Vandebroek, S. Sanca, and P. Van Damme. 2009. Cultural significance of medicinal plant families and species among Quechua farmers in Apillapampa, Bolivia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 122(1):60–67.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Thomas, E., L. Vandebroek, and P. Van Damme. 2007. What works in the field? A comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special reference to the use of photographs. Economic Botany 61(4):376–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tongco, M. D. C. 2007. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5:147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Tsioutsiou, E. E., P. Giordani, E. Hanlidou, M. Biagi, V. De Feo, and L. Cornara. 2019. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used in Central Macedonia, Greece. Evidence–Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol. 2019.

  64. UNESCO. 2017. Local Knowledge, Global Goals. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/ILK_ex_publication_E.pdf (May 2019).

  65. Van Andel, T. and L. G. Carvalheiro. 2013. Why urban citizens in developing countries use traditional medicines: The case of Suriname. Evidence–Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol. 2013.

  66. Vandebroek, I. and M. J. Balick. 2012. Globalization and loss of plant knowledge: Challenging the paradigm. PLoS ONE 7(5):e37643.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Vandebroek, I., P. Van Damme, L. Van Puyvelde, S. Arrazola, and N. De Kimpe. 2004. A comparison of traditional healers’ medicinal plant knowledge in the Bolivian Andes and Amazon. Social Science and Medicine 59(4):837–849.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Voeks, R. A.. 1996. Tropical forest healers and habitat preference. Economic Botany 50(4):381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. ———. 2007. Are women reservoirs of traditional plant knowledge? Gender, ethnobotany and globalization in northeast Brazil. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28(1):7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Voeks, R. A. and A. Leony. 2004. Forgetting the forest: Assessing medicinal plant erosion in eastern Brazil. Economic Botany 58(1):294–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Vogl, C. R.B. Vogl–Lukasser, and R. K. Puri. 2004. Tools and methods for data collection in ethnobotanical studies of homegardens. Field Methods 16(3):285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. WHO (World Health Organization). 2000. Estrategia de la OMS sobre medicina tradicional 2002–2005. https://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s2299s/s2299s.pdf. (May 2019).

  73. ———. 2013. Estrategia de la OMS sobre medicina tradicional 2014–2023. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/es/m/abstract/Js21201es. (May 2019).

  74. Williams, S. J., J. M. Gibbons, C. Clubbe, A. Dibble, A. Marroquín, and J. P. Jones. 2012. Who harvests and why? Characteristics of Guatemalan households harvesting xaté (Chamaedorea ernesti–augusti). Economic Botany 66(4):357–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Zank, S., L. Araujo, and N. Hanazaki. 2019. Resilience and adaptability of traditional healthcare systems: A case study of communities in two regions of Brazil. Ecology and Society 24(1):13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the 600 participants from the 12 Peruvian localities who shared their knowledge and time with us, and doubly grateful to the 81 informants who were interviewed twice or more times. We are also grateful to the political authorities of all the localities that allowed us to conduct the study. We thank Rainer Bussmann and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. M. J. Macía received support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grant number CGL2016–75414–P.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Investigación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Ceja de Selva, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza, Chachapoyas, Amazonas, Peru

    Fernando Corroto

  2. Departamento de Biología, Área de Botánica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Fernando Corroto & Manuel J. Macía

  3. Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Cambio Global (CIBC–UAM), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Manuel J. Macía

Authors
  1. Fernando Corroto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuel J. Macía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel J. Macía.

Additional information

Submitted 19 June 2020

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corroto, F., Macía, M.J. What Is the Most Efficient Methodology for Gathering Ethnobotanical Data and for Participant Selection? Medicinal Plants as a Case Study in the Peruvian Andes. Econ Bot (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-021-09514-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biocultural conservation
  • Cultural ecosystem services
  • Expert informants
  • Livelihood
  • Quantitative ethnobotany
  • Semi–structured vs. structured interviews
  • Sustainability
  • Traditional knowledge