, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 67–78 | Cite as

The “How” and “Why” of Including Gender and Age in Ethnobotanical Research and Community-Based Resource Management

  • Jocelyn G. Müller
  • Riyana Boubacar
  • Iro Dan Guimbo


This paper examines the process and outcome of participatory methods for stakeholder identification. We used focus group style participatory methodology to engage local residents in identifying key sub-groups relevant to conservation in Boumba, Niger. We then conducted a quantitative pictorial recognition study to measure the diversity of local useful plant knowledge across groups. The community identified six gender and age-class groupings relevant to the study. The effect of a participant's gender, socially-defined age class or the interaction of the two factors on the number of plants recognized varied by plant use. Medicinal plant knowledge was highest among elders. Food plant knowledge of food plants increased with age for women only. Where as the interaction of age and gender was strongest on fodder plant knowledge, where mid-aged men scored highest. We reflect on the impact that heterogeneity of local botanical knowledge has on our understanding of local natural resource use and the strengths of using a participatory approach to identifying the stakeholder groups which underlie this heterogeneity.


Participatory research methods Stakeholder participation Local ethnobotanical knowledge West Africa Niger 



This research would not have been possible without the generous support of the Boumba community, including the assistance of Lt. Abdoulaye Soumana, Hassan Kobia, and Isa Boumba. Additionally, we thank Mme. Haouaou Noma, Prof. Pearl Robinson, Prof. Mahamane Saadou, and Prof. Ali Mahamane for assistance in fieldwork implementation and design, and Dr. Astier Almedom, and Dr. Larwanou. We thank Xin Wang for help with statistics. This research was funded by Anne S. Chatham Fellowship (Garden Club of America), Tufts Institute of the Environment, the Robert and Patricia Switzer Foundation, the Graduate Women in Science, and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.


  1. Almedom, A.M., U. Blumenthal, and L. Manderson. 1997. Hygiene evaluation procedures: approaches and methods for assessing water and sanitation related hygiene practices. Boston: International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries.Google Scholar
  2. Batterbury, S., and T. Forsyth. 1999. Fighting back: human adaptations in marginal environments. Environment 41: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10: 1251–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheveau, M., L. Imbeau, P. Drapeau, and L. Belanger. 2008. Current status and future directions of traditional ecological knowledge in forest management: a review. Forestry Chronicle 84: 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dan Guimbo, I., M. Saadou and M. Larwanou. 2007. Patterns of botanical resource use in three rural villages in southwest Niger. 48th Meeting of the Society for Economic Botany. Society of Economic Botany.Google Scholar
  6. Dan Guimbo, I., J. Muller, and M. Larwanou. 2011. Ethnobotanical knowledge of men, women and children in rural Niger: A mixed methods approach. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 9: 235–242.Google Scholar
  7. Kalland, A. 2000. Indigenous knowledge: Prospects and limitations. In Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: Critical anthropological perspectives, ed. R. Ellen, P. Parkes, and A. Bicker, 319–335. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Krog, M., I. Theilade, H.H. Hansen, and C.K. Ruffo. 2005. Estimating use-values and relative importance of trees to the Kaguru people in semi-arid Tanzania. Forests Trees and Livelihoods 15: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany: A methods manual. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mueller, J.G. 2009. Including local voices in global discourse in biodiversity conservation. An ethnobotanical study in Boumba, Niger (Park W). PhD Thesis. Medford, MA: Tufts University.Google Scholar
  11. Mueller, J.G., I.B. Assanou, I. Dan Guimbo, and A.M. Almedom. 2010. Evaluating rapid participatory rural appraisal as an assessment of ethnoecological knowledge and local biodiversity patterns. Conservation Biology 24: 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Muller, J. 2007. Seeking women’s participation in ethnoecological fieldwork. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 13: 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muller, J., and I. Dan Guimbo. 2008. Eats shoots and leaves: Adding local understanding to the discussion of famine food resources in Niger. Practicing Anthropology 30: 29–32.Google Scholar
  14. Muller, J., and A.M. Almedom. 2008. What is “famine food”? Distinguishing between traditional vegetables and special foods for times of hunger/scarcity (Boumba, Niger). Human Ecology 36: 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Müller, J.G., and I.D. Guimbo. 2011. Letting wood rot: A case study on local perceptions of global conservation initiatives (Boumba, Niger). Ethnobiology Letters 1: 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oba, G., and L.M. Kaitira. 2006. Herder knowledge of landscape assessments in arid rangelands in northern Tanzania. Journal of Arid Environments 66: 168–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ohmagari, K., and F. Berkes. 1997. Transmission of indigenous knowledge and bush skills among the Western James Bay Cree Women of Subarctic Canada. Human Ecology 25: 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Overseas Development Administration, ODA. 1995. Guidance note on indicators for measuring and assessing primary stakeholder participations, 10. London: Department for International Development (DFID).Google Scholar
  19. Paulson Priebe, M., and J.G. Müller. 2013. Extant forest plantations as a potential bridge between social needs and ecological management: A comparative case study analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 129: 608–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfeiffer, J.M., and R.J. Butz. 2005. Assessing cultural and ecological variation in ethnobiological research: The importance of gender. Journal of Ethnobiology 25: 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phillips, O., A.H. Gentry, C. Reynel, P. Wilkin, and B.C. Galvez-Durand. 1994. Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation. Conservation Biology 8: 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reed, M., A. Dougill, and T. Baker. 2008. Participatory indicator development: What can ecologists and local communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications 18: 1253–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reyes-Garcia, V., V. Vadez, T.S. Huanca, W. Leonard, and T. Mcdade. 2007a. Economic development and local ecological knowledge: A deadlock? Quantitative research from a native Amazonian Society. Human Ecology 35: 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reyes-Garcia, V., N. Martí, T. Mcdade, S. Tanner, and V. Vadez. 2007b. Concepts and methods in studies measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge. Journal of Ethnobiology 27: 182–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruddle, K. 1993. The transmission of traditional ecological knowledge. In Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases, ed. J. Inglis, 17–23. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
  27. Salick, J., A. Amend, D. Anderson, K. Hoffmeister, B. Gunn, and F. Zhendong. 2007. Tibetan sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stringer, L.C., and M.S. Reed. 2007. Land degradation assessment in southern Africa: Integrating local and scientific knowledge bases. Land Degradation and Development 18: 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ticktin, T., and T. Johns. 2002. Chinanteco management of Aechmea Magdalenae: Implications for the use of TEK and TRM in management plans. Economic Botany 56: 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Voeks, R.A. 2007. Are women reservoirs of traditional plant knowledge? Gender, ethnobotany and globalization in northeast Brazil. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28: 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Voeks, R.A., and A. Leony. 2004. Forgetting the forest: Assessing medicinal plant erosion in eastern Brazil. Economic Botany 58: S294–S306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkerveer, D. Brokensha, and W. Dechering (eds.). 1995. The cultural dimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jocelyn G. Müller
    • 1
  • Riyana Boubacar
    • 2
  • Iro Dan Guimbo
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and ManagementPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Direction Générale des Eaux et ForêtsMinistère de l’Hydraulique et de l’EnvironnementNiameyNiger
  3. 3.Faculté d’AgronomieUniversité Abdou MoumouniNiameyNiger

Personalised recommendations