Anthropology and Traditional EcologicalKnowledge: A Summary of QuantitativeApproaches to Traditional Knowledge, MarketParticipation, and Conservation

Elizabeth Anne Olson

Elizabeth Anne Olson is with the Department ofEnvironmental Science, Allegheny College,Meadville, PA

Abstract

In this paper, I summarize some of the current trendsin quantitative anthropological investigations of traditionalecological knowledge (TEK) and political–economicsystems. I first provide an overview of the quantitativestudies of TEK, focusing on the various research methodscommonly employed in ethnoecology. Anthropologists usetechniques such as freelists, pile sorts, objective tests, andsemi-structured interviews with key informants to elicitTEK. Indices or cultural consensus models are constructedfrom the data to identify patterns of distribution of TEK incultural groups. Key variables that are associated with thepatterns of distribution of TEK include gender, age, socialclass, and mode of subsistence. Next, I contextualizecurrent understandings of the nature and distribution ofTEK in the context of political–economic systems. Waysof studying market participation and market integration ofindigenous people are discussed in relationship to explain-ing patterns in TEK. Finally, I suggest some possibleconnections between TEK, economic market integration,and biodiversity conservation. [traditional ecologicalknowledge, ethnoecology, market integration, quanti-tative methods, Indigenous people, conservation]

Introduction

There are good reasons to study the relationshipsbetween traditional knowledge and the use of naturalresources. Cultural groups have highly elaboratedways of being in and utilizing their local environ-ments, and anthropologists continue to be engagedwith studying these cultural dynamics. Anthropologyhas been concerned with relationships between cul-tures and their environments since Julian Steward(1955) in the 20th century, and even prior to hiscultural ecology studies when cultural anthropolo-gists acknowledged the importance of environmentsfor human groups.1 Knowledge about the local envi-ronment, or ecological knowledge, is organized, dis-tributed within a cultural group in a patternedmanner, and transmitted across generations (Berlin1992) and is thus a robust area of anthropologicalinquiries.

Indigenous and rural people have often been atthe focus of these studies of human–nature relation-ships and ecological knowledge. Indigenous technol-ogy is often associated with sustainability and lowernegative impact on the environment. Globally, indig-enous people live in areas that are biodiversity hotspots (Stepp et al. 2005). Indigenous and rural peoplemay comprise a sizable proportion of the populationin developing countries and may live in high levels ofpoverty (United Nations Development Programme[UNDP] 2011). In addition, indigenous and ruralpeople hold most traditional ecological knowledge(TEK) (Cox 2000).

However, economic relationships also shape theways that humans interact with natural environ-ments. One way of thinking about economic andsocial influences on TEK in rural areas is the notion of“market integration,” referring to the types anddegrees of participation that indigenous or rural com-

Dr. Olson is a medical and environmental anthropologist atAllegheny College. Her research includes non-allopathic healingsystems, the relationships between humans and environments,sustainable development, health, and ethnobiology in Utah, theBolivian Amazon, Mexico, and Western Europe.

bs_bs_banner

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment Vol. 35, Issue 2 pp. 140–151, ISSN 2153-9553, eISSN 2153-9561. © 2013 by the American AnthropologicalAssociation. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/cuag.12017

munities have in the political economy of regionaland global markets. The political–economic marketsthat impact local people include the transactions fromtrade, loans, sale, or barter with individuals fromwithin the community and beyond, as well as themarket structures and frameworks at local to globalscales within which these transactions occur. One waythe impacts of neoliberal globalization on indigenouspeople are studied, for instance, is by measuring theimportance of a cash economy in their daily lives. Theimportance of studying market integration in relationto TEK is that the increasing interconnectedness oflocal markets across national boundaries is an unfold-ing process, accompanied by exchanges of knowledgeand value systems, along with social and power rela-tions; the flows of knowledge and resources are notunidirectional. As a result, both human–environmentrelationships and ecological knowledge may beinfluenced.

A good deal of the research regarding TEK fallswithin the field of ethnoecology, which is consideredpart of ethnobiology. The broader field of ethnobiologyis both a scientific and humanistic field, looking at therelationships (both past and present) of humans andbiota (Stepp 2005). The field includes the study ofeconomic, cognitive, social, symbolic, psychological,spiritual, and ecological influences on ethnobiologicalknowledge. Likewise, the field of ethnoecology sharesthis holistic and inclusive approach to understandingthe many facets of human–environment relationships.In this article, I am interested in anthropologicalstudies that look primarily at economic and cognitivedimensions of TEK. These studies generally ask ques-tions along the lines of: How do people know about, orthink about, plants and animals? How do people useplants and animals?

The aim of this review is specifically to provide anoverview of the quantitative methods that have beenused most frequently to investigate TEK in the Ameri-cas. I then look at ways in which quantitative studiesof TEK have considered the importance of globalpolitical–economic systems in relationship to patternsin the nature and distribution of TEK, specificallyamong indigenous and rural peoples. The particularbody of research reviewed is embedded withinstudies of indigenous community development andmanagement of forest resources. I conclude this paperby considering some of the reasons that the study ofTEK in conjunction with market integration is pivotalto biodiversity conservation.

Studying TEK

Quantitative Approaches in EthnoecologyThere are many ways to define TEK (Berkes et al.

1995; Berlin 1992; Romney et al. 1986; Toledo 2002;Zarger 2002); I blend these existing definitions toarrive at my working definition as knowledge that (1)has a patterned distribution, (2) is about how tointeract with the local environment, (3) is shared bymembers of the same cultural group, and (4) is trans-mitted across generations. As globalization increasesthe speed and nature of knowledge exchange, someanthropologists debate whether relatively “recent”knowledge about novel environments (such as urbanlandscapes, for example), which is also shared, cul-turally informed, patterned knowledge about envi-ronments and transmitted across generations, will beconsidered TEK. Thus, anthropologists are findingalternate terminology, such as “local ecological knowl-edge” to perhaps avoid possible constraints or confu-sion related to determining what constitutes“traditional” (Garcia-Quijano 2007). For the sake ofthis review of trends in the literature, I am relying onthe gloss-term TEK to help narrow my focus onindigenous and/or rural people.

Toledo (2002) has suggested that a holisticapproach to studying TEK is imperative. Toledoarticulates three important dimensions: kosmos,corpus, and praxis (2002). The kosmos are the beliefs,corpus the knowledge, and praxis the practices, whichare taken together to constitute TEK (Toledo 2002).Toledo’s argument for this encompassing approach tostudying TEK is central to the development of atheoretical stance in ethnoecology, which he hasdefined as “. . . the entire repertory of symbols,concepts, and perceptions on nature, and the set ofpractical operations through which the materialappropriation of nature takes place” (Toledo2002:513). Ethnoecology is conceived as the study ofnot simply knowledge about nature but also the useof natural resources.

Another way that TEK can be studied is as theo-retical knowledge, the ability to name or list a species;and practical knowledge, the ability to identify anduse a species (Reyes-Garcia 2001). Thus, when Reyes-Garcia and colleagues approached TEK throughboth theoretical and practical knowledge sets,they approximated two of the three dimensions thatToledo indicates are imperative for ethnoecologicalstudies.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 141 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

Most studies of TEK measure theoretical knowl-edge because of the challenges in accurately assessingpractical knowledge, especially for larger studies.Proxy measures for TEK—indicators commonly mea-sured as a means of ascertaining knowledge—frequently include things like the knowledge of usesof wild plants, names of plants and crops, and infor-mation about the interactions between wild plantsand animals. To measure TEK, there are several quan-titative methods commonly used by ethnoecologists:transect surveys, freelisting, multiple choice tests, andgoal-oriented tests such as pile sorts (Bernard 1995).Each of these methodologies depends on the existenceof a common set of cultural knowledge among aself-described or determined cultural group in orderto be effective (Romney et al. 1986) (Figure 1).

Many quantitative studies of TEK begin withfreelists as a way of producing an inventory of knownspecies or other domain of environmental knowledge.However, it is worth noting that freelists are notentirely exhaustive of a category of knowledge thatis large—such as edible plants. Freelists may berestricted to a known domain of natural environmentusage or other category, or researchers may begin byeliciting the local categories of usable biota and thenuse successive freelistings to determine the speciesthat pertain to each category. These structured inter-views can use different techniques to elicit informa-tion about plant and animal knowledge; some useonly naming of species, others use photographs, her-barium voucher specimens, or guided tours throughgardens or specific landscapes as stimuli. Typically,

researchers start with a freelisting exercise and thenproceed to structured interviews with one or morekey informants. Once an inventory of a specific cat-egory or domain of knowledge is determined, it isoften the case that researchers will use additionaltechniques, such as pile sorts, to learn more about theways that the categories of knowledge are con-structed. Local experts from the cultural group canidentify and corroborate the “correct” answer forquestions about the name, qualities, and uses of aspecies as another form of verifying the validity of therecorded information. The “correct” answer is usuallytaken to be the most common response, or mostagreed upon response, within the cultural group(Reyes-Garcia 2003). Furthermore, some of these mea-sures (e.g., pile sorts or other goal-oriented tests) canbe used to construct a cultural consensus model ofTEK. Some analytical techniques for constructingmodels of TEK include multidimensional scaling,coefficient analysis, and cluster analysis (Borgatti1996). A cultural consensus model seeks to identify aset of specialized knowledge that has a patterneddistribution in a community and is shared bymembers accordingly (Romney et al. 1986).

It is important to note that these cognitive tech-niques are limited because we rarely have a reliable orfixed baseline against which knowledge can be mea-sured. Most studies are cross-sectional, representing aparticular snapshot in time, and we only have a fewexamples of longitudinal panel studies that allowa historical perspective (Reyes-Garcia et al. 2006).Studies of TEK are careful to avoid saying that thereis a global “loss” of traditional knowledge, becausewe know that knowledge is a fluid and dynamiccultural phenomenon. Anthropologists in particularresist romanticized accounts of culture in which thereis a perceived “loss” because there has always been acontinual process of creating and re-creating knowl-edge and culture.

Qualitative studies of TEK are based in interpre-tive ethnographic methods, such as participant obser-vation and interviews with key informants. Whilethere is certainly overlap in the field methods used byresearchers interested in exploring TEK, one commondifference is in the rhetorical style and analyticalgoals. Qualitative studies, which are not the focus inthis paper, frequently take constructivist and phenom-enological approaches to understanding the beliefs,knowledge, and practices related to TEK (e.g., seeToledo 2002).

Figure 1.Author with community organizer and representative of awomen’s cooperative, R. Ramirez. Cuzalapa, Mexico.

Photo: E. A. Olson.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 142 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

Studies of TEK in the AmericasResearch on TEK throughout Latin America and

the Caribbean has illuminated some important pat-terns in the distribution of TEK among members ofthe same cultural group. Studies on the relationshipsbetween traditional knowledge and social factorshave focused on various explanations of variation intraditional knowledge, such as gender, moderniza-tion, social status, and income or subsistence activity.

Godoy et al. (1998) found differences in tradi-tional knowledge between men and women associ-ated with the division of labor in Honduras;Reyes-Garcia (2001) found the same in lowlandBolivia. Garro (1986) and Boster (1986) both elected toavoid the confounding factors of sexual division oflabor by sampling only women.

Social status, life experiences, and age have beenfound to be important components of how muchtraditional plant knowledge an individual possesses.Garro (1986) studied the determinants of traditionalknowledge among healers and non-healers inPichataro, Mexico. Garro’s primary objective was todetermine if traditional healers and communitymembers shared the same cognitive models of illnessand illness treatments. She used structured interviewsand a term-frame substitution task (see Bernard 1995)to sample adult women in the community. She foundthat individuals did share the conceptual organizationof ethnomedical knowledge, regardless of healer/non-healer status, but that older women, because ofindividual experiences, were more likely to sharemore traditional plant knowledge. Age was also animportant factor in the amount of traditional plantknowledge an individual possessed. Garro suggestedthat age was an effective proxy measure for life expe-riences. However, it may not always be the case thatindividuals will have more experience with a domainof knowledge simply because of increased age; spe-cialized knowledge is taught and acquired throughinformal educational networks (Zarger 2002). Further-more, cohort effects may be a reason for age patternsin the distribution of cultural knowledge.

In conducting a quantitative comparison of inter-cultural traditional plant knowledge among healers inlowland (Amazon) and highland (Andes) Bolivia,Vandebroek et al. (2004) expected to find a greaterdegree of traditional plant knowledge in the Amazonbecause it is a more diverse environment. Vandebroekand research team used surveys, field trips with keyinformants, and samples to construct semi-structured

interviews regarding the identification and uses ofplants. Socioeconomic information from a regionalcensus was also used to characterize housing typeand language. Their results, again, point to the needto further understand the dynamics of traditionalplant knowledge variation. They found a higherdegree of traditional plant knowledge in the Andeanregion—unrelated to biodiversity, modernization, orhealer status—which they suggest may be associatedwith social factors in the community and family.

Benz et al. (1994) and Benz et al. (2000) analyzedthe relationships between knowledge of plant use andvarious indicators of community change and modern-ization. In eight communities in the Sierra ofManantlán Biosphere Reserve, Benz’s research teamused herbarium voucher specimens collected in thevicinity of each community to elicit individuals’knowledge of useful plants (Benz et al. 2000). Theyused these data to create various community-levelindices of ethnobotanical knowledge, which were inturn used to assess the relative importance of differentplants across communities. The communities wereranked based on national census data in terms ofmarginality. They looked at the percentage of house-holds in a community that had certain housing con-ditions (dirt floors, electricity, plumbing, sewer, orone-room only) along with percent of literacy andprimary school completion. Their results showed thatadoption of modern services in some, but not all,communities does seem to correlate with a decrease inknowledge of local plants. However, the communityof Telcruz confounded their analysis, as there was noapparent relationship between the community’s socio-economic profile and the aggregate measure of plantknowledge for the community. They have suggestedthat further investigation into the economic activityprofile of households and land tenure may moreadequately explain variation in traditional plantknowledge, a topic which I return to in a later section.

Reyes-Garcia and her research colleagues havecontributed extensively to the field of traditionalknowledge and cultural consensus modeling(Reyes-Garcia 2001; Reyes-Garcia et al. 2006). Carriedout under the banner of the Tsimane’ AmazonianPanel Study,2 headed by Godoy and colleagues since1999, the project has produced various studies of theculture and society of the Tsimane’ indigenous peoplewho live in lowland Bolivia. The research team ofGodoy, Reyes-Garcia, and colleagues has lookedat ethnobotanical knowledge held by all adults in

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 143 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

13 villages (Reyes-Garcia et al. 2003). They usedfreelisting to determine a subset of species that weremost commonly listed by the majority of their infor-mants, and this subset of species was used to furtherassess shared TEK. Their study assessed not onlytheoretical ethnobotanical knowledge but alsoreported practical knowledge and skills. Practicalknowledge and skill were approximated by askingparticipants if they have ever actually used the forestresource in the capacity that it is reportedly used andif so, (1) how often and (2) how well they completedthe task. Reyes-Garcia (2001) details the constructionof questionnaires that assessed theoretical and prac-tical knowledge. Cultural consensus analysis wasused to assess the results of the theoretical knowledgeof local forest resources and self-reported skills inusing them. Their research with the Tsimane’ indig-enous people in Bolivia seemed to show that not alltypes of market integration would lead to a so-calledloss of TEK. Instead, some types of economic activitiesthat were based in cultural traditions or capitalized onlocal natural resources seem to support higher reten-tion of TEK (Reyes-Garcia et al. 2007).

Ahmed et al. (2010) used similar methods to thoseof researchers looking at the relationships betweenTEK and market integration, focusing, however, onknowledge of landscapes instead of knowledge ofspecies. They relied on freelists and subsequent inter-views with key informants to identify folk taxonomy.Pile sorts were then completed by study participants,and the data were used to calculate two types ofindividual level scores that represent the folk tax-onomy: the land use importance value was deter-mined by the number of markers (points) assigned toeach sample by individual respondents; and the pro-portion of correctly identified tea samples was theindividual’s ecological knowledge score. I return tothis example later in the section on “Relating TEK toMarket Integration.”

Studying Market Participation andMarket Integration

Economic changes, particularly increased integra-tion with markets outside the community, are relatedto processes of modernization (i.e., acquiring featuresof industrial society, including a formalized educa-tional and political system) or development (i.e.,having an economy based on industrial production),but these concepts are not synonymous. Economic

change does not necessarily imply changes in TEK(Berger and Luckmann 1966). However, consumerproducts and services, labor patterns, and worldvieware interrelated (Godoy 2001). Exposure to foreign-made consumer products and access to new technolo-gies are examples of the pervasiveness of outsidemarkets in periurban and rural Mexico (Gerritsen1998; Olson 2009). Employment, purchases, and rela-tionships with others within the community are allrelated to the broader structures and relationshipsbetween individuals and formal political institutions.Individuals and households increase their stake in themarket economy as they transition from relying ontrade and self-sufficiency to reliance on market inter-actions and products. Across various settings, scholarshave used these related concepts of modernization,development, and market integration in very similarmanners (Figure 2).

Godoy and his colleagues (1998, 2001) have mea-sured and conceptualized “market participation” invarious ways for indigenous, nonindustrialized com-munities. Market participation, or market integration,is a concept that aims to quantify the amount andways that individuals and households are engaging inregional and global economic transactions. Marketparticipation can be measured by taking the sum ofmonetary earnings, along with the monetary value ofitems received by barter or trade, and determining theproportion of cash transactions to total householdincome (again, in monetary values) (Godoy et al.2005). Total household income is the monetary value

Figure 2.Dried herbal remedies for sale at corner market. ElGrullo, Mexico.

Photo: E. A. Olson.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 144 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

of all of the things that are consumed or received(including rented or borrowed items) in the house-hold (Godoy 2001). This requires obtaining informa-tion on the monetary values of the goods and servicesreceived or consumed and also tabulating the moneyspent by the individuals who comprise the house-hold. Because calculating the measure of market par-ticipation in monetary values requires informants andresearchers to determine monetary values for thingsthat are consumed in the household, it can be anarduous and error-prone task to calculate this data fornonindustrialized indigenous people.

There are other measures that are less accurate,including measuring the value of commercial andphysical assets, quantifying the money borrowed fromnoncommunity members, and the distance to village/market town (Godoy et al. 2005; Lu 2007). Marketparticipation can also be inferred from a combinationof proximate measures, including geographic accessi-bility, knowledge of forest resources, and householdconsumption of market items (Godoy et al. 2005).

Quantitative studies of market participationstruggle with a few common shortcomings. The mainareas of concern are the tendency for small samplesizes and lack of many rigorous longitudinal or panelstudies (Godoy et al. 2005). Most anthropologists andsocial scientists interested in the phenomenon ofmarket participation have carried out cross-sectionalor short panel studies spanning a one- or two-yearperiod. As with quantitative studies of TEK, there isno consistent system for measuring key variables,making cross-cultural analysis difficult (Godoy et al.2005). Godoy and his colleagues (2005) also note thatresearchers need to be careful about plausible reversecausality in market participation studies. Further-more, individuals may self-select to participate (ornot) in markets, which will impact the types of marketinteractions that are observed within and across cul-tural groups (Anderson 2002). There are variables thatare related to acculturation that need to be sufficientlyaccounted for, as well, because we know that marketparticipation includes the exchange of knowledge andattitudes, not simply money (Godoy et al. 2005).

Attitudes and values and even language can beimpacted by market participation. In the appliedsocial sciences, there have been a series of comple-mentary hypotheses about why people participate inmarkets (Gonzalez and Nigh 2005; Morgan 1993).Individuals’ attraction to, and the appeal of, foreignand novel goods can be a reason for market partici-

pation. The encroachment of outsiders into rural andindigenous communities also has been linked withincreasing market integration (West et al. 2006), as hasthe increased presence of national governance orbureaucratic programs (Graeber 2011). The combinedimpacts of local community population growth andthe scarcity of local resources can be reasons toincrease market participation, as can the desire toimprove individual well-being and socioeconomicstatus (Alcorn 2001). By contrast, some of the litera-ture has also suggested that there may be distaste forparticipation in markets and outsiders (sometimes aspart of resistance or indigenous-revitalization move-ments), and these can be reasons that individualsconsciously choose to limit market interaction(Anderson 2002; Gerritsen 2004).

Relating TEK to Market Integration

As can been seen, many quantitative studies ofTEK have taken into account issues related to eco-nomic development and market integration, findinggender, age, class, and socioeconomic status, forinstance, to be among important variables (Buenz2005; Chant 1991; Garro 1986; Godoy et al. 1998;Reyes-Garcia 2001; Vandebroek et al. 2004). However,none of these variables are isolable and can be usedalone to explain the variation observed in the distri-bution of TEK within a cultural group. The effects ofintegration with market economies are important forthe social, economic, and cultural dynamics of indig-enous communities, and can have impacts on bothTEK and local subsistence strategies.

While Benz et al. (2000) found that acculturationmight be associated with a loss of TEK in the Sierra deManantlán Biosphere Reserve of west-central Mexico,much research has shown that there is not a directrelationship between increased modernization and adecrease in traditional knowledge (Godoy et al. 1998;Guest 2002; Vandebroek et al. 2004). For instance,Buenz (2005) found that language, generational loss ofknowledge, and a decrease in biodiversity are all poorindicators of traditional plant knowledge loss indeveloping countries. Similarly, no change in TEK ofchildren in relation to socioeconomic change wasfound in southern Mexico in Chiapas (Zarger andStepp 2004).

By contrast, Ahmed et al.’s (2010) results showedthat there are meaningful changes in values, subsis-tence strategy, and TEK with an increased interaction

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 145 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

with a cash economy. Gender was an important vari-able in their findings, because not only did individu-als’ TEK increase with more market participation, butthere was a shift from women to men having higherecological knowledge scores. In this case, an increasein the economic value of tea led to middle-aged menshowing increases in the use of ecological knowledge,involvement with tea production, and the number ofnames and terms of tea (Ahmed et al. 2010). Signifi-cantly, they found that there was no single culturalmodel of tea knowledge because the contents of thespecific body of knowledge were dynamic andtransitioning to meet the needs of communitymembers and markets.

Ahmed et al.’s (2010) work resonates with myfindings regarding medicinal plant knowledge relatedto increased market integration in three communitiesin Mexico (Olson 2009). In the Sierra de ManantlánBiosphere Reserve, I found that the two indigenouscommunities that were closest and furthest from amarket town had the least amount of agreement (i.e.,intragroup consistency and shared responses) abouttheoretical TEK; the indigenous community mid-distant to the market town had the most agreementabout theoretical TEK (Olson 2009). I found that thethree study communities each had distinct sets ofmedicinal plant knowledge, despite sharing similarcultures, albeit with varying socioeconomic commu-nity profiles. The community that was the most geo-graphically isolated had higher rates of internalagreement about the TEK measured than did theother two study communities.

In a similar vein, in Amazonia and Honduras,Godoy found that individuals can have higheramounts of TEK if that knowledge is directly relatedto a market interest (Godoy 2001; Godoy et al. 1998).Godoy et al. (1998) studied the effects of markets onTawahka Indians in Honduras. Individuals who soldmore rice had less knowledge of forest products,while those who sold forest goods had more knowl-edge of plants (but not animals). Taking form oflivelihood into account, they found that those whosell a particular type of wood, which has a highmarket value, in fact had higher knowledge of bothplants and animals in the forest. Thus, they found thatthe type of economic activity correlated with theamount of traditional forest usage knowledge an indi-vidual had: those who sold agricultural products hadless traditional knowledge of uses of forest productsthan those who sold forest products at market (1998).

In lowland Amazonia, Reyes-Garcia (2001) foundthat TEK became more specialized among individualswho worked more extensively in, and with, themarket economy. Guest (2002) studied Ecuadorianfisheries and found that participation in a marketeconomy could spur the development of new areas ofTEK driven by market opportunities.

In sum, studies of changes in TEK in relation tomarket integration have shown a wide variety ofcorrelations. On the one hand, several studies havefound market integration is related to the creation ofnew ecological knowledge. This could be because ofcompetitive advantages gained in relation to marketopportunities (Grant 1996). Indeed, some research hasconfirmed a trend to increased types of specializedTEK with an increase in market interaction (Ahmedet al. 2010; Godoy 2001; Guest 2002). Yet, there havebeen many studies to the contrary, too, which seem toshow a decrease in TEK when market participationincreases (Benz et al. 2007; Nolan and Robbins 1999;Reyes-Garcia 2001; Srithi et al. 2009; Zent 2001). Yeteven other studies have found a neutral or no appar-ent relationship between market integration and TEK(Ayantunde et al. 2008; Zarger and Stepp 2004).

The Importance of TEK and MarketIntegration Studies for BiodiversityConservation

There are some implications of quantitativeethnoecology research for conservation of biodiver-sity. There are good reasons to think that economicdevelopment of indigenous people will be related toshifts in natural resource use and shifts in knowledgeabout natural resources (Zarger 2002). From a histori-cal perspective, increased market participation andpopulation growth has tended to lead to degradationof renewable natural resources because of increasedpressure on the local environment (Alcorn 2001).Moreover, the notion of an “ecologically noblesavage” (Redford 1991) is, in any case, flawed becausetraditional subsistence styles have varying degrees ofimpacts on natural resources, regardless of marketparticipation.

Increased market participation means likelychanges in the ways that local natural resources areused, in addition to associated changes in the diver-sity of crops grown. Some researchers have found thatthe sale of non-timber forest resources and productsin markets can serve to enhance conservation because

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 146 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

of the associated market value (Ahmed et al. 2010;Godoy 2001). By contrast, the production of mono-crops in tropical forests for sale to nonlocal marketsleads to deforestation by virtue of many possiblefactors, including pressures to increase farm produc-tivity in peripheral areas, pressures to increase thesize of the area under production, or the introductionof crops that cause environmental degradation. Withshifts in the usage of local natural resources, we canexpect a ripple effect on the associated bodies ofecological knowledge that may be informing resourcemanagement strategies.

Such changes can have varying implications forboth TEK and conservation. For instance, the increasein the folk taxonomy and names of tea varieties thatAhmed et al. (2010) found corresponds to what Berlinpredicted about an increase in human use of a naturalresource leading to an increase in the affiliated folktaxonomy (Berlin 1992). Possible long-term effects ofmarket integration may include perceptions that someaspects of the social and cultural fabric of a commu-nity are deteriorating (Li 2007). In addition, emigra-tion from traditional landscapes may be associatedwith a reduction in TEK held by community members(Rigg 2006).

Studies of TEK have frequently focused on non-industrialized indigenous people in rural areas. Thecommunities where TEK has been studied are some-times also in natural protected areas, which is an impor-tant element in the content, distribution, and nature ofTEK. Protected areas receive special protection (nor-mally through laws and policies) because of theirunique environmental and/or cultural value. Naturalprotected areas have natural resource managementregimes that may or may not be informed by culturalknowledge, yet constrain the ways that local peopleinteract with their environment, thereby potentiallyaffecting local knowledge of how to identify and usedifferent species (Zarger 2002).

Agroecosystems, with their potential to reconcilebiodiversity conservation with agricultural produc-tion, may have other implications for TEK (Ahmedet al. 2010; Alcorn 2001). Ahmed et al. (2010) carriedout a study of upland communities where indigenousand low-intensity tea agroforests are still used in theYunnan region of Southern China. Their research wasinterested in the role of market integration on TEKand an indigenous agroecosystem. As describedearlier, their measures indicated an increase in theamount of ecological knowledge held by individuals

who become more engaged with the tea market(Ahmed et al. 2010). The findings from Ahmed et al.(2010) were also significant in a number of otherregards. There was an overall increase in the totalquantity of important land use categories. This isrelated to a diversification of subsistence activitiesand an increase in the perceived labor investment indifferent types of cultivation. Additionally, because ofthe increase in the market value of “ecological” tea,tending the tea agroforests became an enterprise forthe entire community whereas in the past, this crophad been tended by women. Along with this came thecreation of new roles as market intermediaries for aset of local men. The impact on the household sub-sistence strategy was marked—and tea agroforestrywas now the key cash income for most households.The income from tea agroforestry was associated withan increase in modern household items such as cars,TVs, clothes, meat, snack foods, and so on. The shiftsin material consumption were also accompanied byshifts in social capital and the construction of roads,schools, and other institutions that help transmit ide-ologies and knowledge (Ahmed et al. 2010).

Although the studies reviewed do not show alinear relationship between increased integrationwith outside markets and a loss of TEK, increasedunderstanding of this relationship as well as pro-cesses that are inclusive of indigenous and ruralpeople and their TEK offer opportunities for creativeapproaches to conservation and development(Anderson 2002).

Conclusion

Quantitative studies of TEK have looked at avariety of relationships, such as the well-being ofindigenous peoples, the role of participation in themarket economy, and the use of renewable forest andother natural resources. However, quantitative studiesstruggle to find a consistent form of measurement thatwould enable developing broader hypotheses andtheories about these relationships (for more on this,see Godoy et al. 2005). While anthropologists havebeen essential in working on the question of whatroles market participation plays in the transmissionand creation of TEK, and in documenting TEK, Cox(2000) points out that studies of ethnobotany havealso been an important area of inquiry for other fields,such as pharmacology and conservation biology.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 147 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

Interdisciplinary and multifocal research may havethe potential to illuminate more of the ways that thecreation, distribution, and transmission of TEK arerelated to the ever-growing prevalence of outsidemarkets in small, rural, indigenous communities.Investigations about TEK will need to continue to beattentive to equity issues related to the protection ofindigenous peoples’ intellectual property (Berlin andBerlin 2004).

Forest and other natural resources have multiplekinds of value, and economic factors, particularlymarkets, play important roles in the arena of con-servation and natural resource management. Thereare both theoretical and practical benefits of study-ing the topic of TEK and market participation. Theo-retically, understanding the complexities of TEK,particularly its patterned distribution, advances ourunderstandings of the ways that humans interactwith diverse environments and cope with noveltiesin environments. Practically, there is great interest inmanaging the human impact on our environments(and the impact of our environments on us). Anthro-pologists have advanced hypotheses about the waysthat sociocultural change unfolds in relation to glo-balization and increasing market integration. Testingthese hypotheses informs the ongoing programsassociated with conservation and sustainabledevelopment.

There are direct implications of this research forconservation. Parks and natural resource-protectedareas are a hotly discussed model for conservation(West et al. 2006). In the global North (or Westerncountries), conservation of natural resources is beingtaken up in a neoliberal capitalist model thatdirectly impacts conservation in the global South.The commoditization of natural resource knowledgein conservation and sustainable development pro-grams is related to these capitalist models ofresource use and to assumptions that forest knowl-edge will be reified when it has economic (market)value. For these reasons, anthropologists continue tostudy the relationships between economic activitiesand TEK, to date finding both positive and detri-mental interactions.

Acknowledgments

I thank S. Paladino and three anonymous peerreviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Notes

1. It is worth noting that Franz Boas was an early Americananthropologist who, by way of his research with Ameri-can Indian tribes, took frequent note of the indigenousknowledge of environments and wildlife (as republishedin 1989). Other early anthropological accounts of tradi-tional ecological knowledge were done by Frank Hamil-ton Cushing (for example, see Cushing and Green 1979).For additional discussion of the origins of the term“ethnobotany,” see Harshbarger (1896) and the laterwork of J. P. Harrington. For additional informationabout the history of anthropologists working in ethno-botany, see the article by Ford (1985).

2. For more information about the Tsimane’ AmazonianPanel Study, visit http://heller.brandeis.edu/academic/sid/tsimane/.

References Cited

Ahmed, Selena, John R. Stepp, Robban A. J. Toleno, andCharles M. Peters

2010 Increased Market Integration, Value and EcologicalKnowledge of Tea Agroforests in the Akha High-lands of Southwest China. Ecology and Society15:27.

Alcorn, Janis B.2001 Good Governance, Indigenous Peoples and Biodi-

versity Conservation: Recommendations forEnhancing Results Across Sectors. Washington,DC: Biodiversity Support Program.

Anderson, Eugene N.2002 Biodiversity Conservation: A New View from

Mexico. In Seventh International Congress ofEthnobiology. John R. Stepp, Felice S. Wyndham,and Rebecca K. Zarger, eds. Pp. 113–122. Athens,GA: The International Society of Ethnobiology.

Ayantunde, Augustine, Mirjam Briejer, Pierre Hiernaux,Henk Udo, and Ramadjita Tabo

2008 Botanical Knowledge and Its Differentiation byAge, Gender and Ethnicity in Southwestern Niger.Human Ecology 36:881–889.

Benz, Bruce F., Francisco M. Santana, Rosario L. Pineda,Judith E. Cevallos, Luis H. Robles, and Domitila L. de Niz

1994 Characterization of Mestizo Plant Use in the Sierrade Manantlan, Jalisco-Colima, Mexico. Journal ofEthnobiology 14:23–41.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 148 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

Benz, Bruce F., Judith E. Cevallos, Francisco M. Santana,Jesus A. Rosales, and Sergio M. Graf

2000 Losing Knowledge about Plant Use in the SierraDe Manantlan Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Eco-nomic Botany 54:183–191.

Benz, Bruce, Hugo Perales, and Stephen Brush2007 Tzeltal and Tzotzil Farmer Knowledge and Maize

Diversity in Chiapas, Mexico. Current Anthropol-ogy 48:289–300.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann1966 The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: AnchorBooks.

Berkes, Fikret, Carl Folke, and Madhav Gadgil1995 Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity,

Resilience and Sustainability. In Biodiversity Con-servation: Problems and Policies. Charles A.Perrings, Karl-Göran Mäler, Carl Folke,C. S. Holling, and Beng-Owe Jansson, eds. Pp.281–299. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Berlin, Brent1992 Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Cat-

egorization of Plants and Animals in TraditionalSocieties. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Berlin, Brent, and Elois Ann Berlin2004 Community Autonomy and the Maya ICBG Project

in Chiapas, Mexico: How a Bioprospecting ProjectThat Should Have Succeeded Failed. Human Orga-nization 63:472–486.

Bernard, H. Russell1995 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative

and Quantitative Approaches. New York: AltamiraPress.

Boas, Franz1989 From Geographical Surroundings to Historical

Facts. In A Franz Boas Reader: The Shaping ofAmerican Anthropology, 1883–1911. G. W.Stocking, ed. Pp. 59–61. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Borgatti, Stephen P.1996 ANTHROPAC 4.0 Methods Guide. Natick, MA:

Analytic Technologies.

Buenz, Eric J.2005 Country Development Does Not Presuppose the

Loss of Forest Resources for Traditional MedicineUse. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 100:118–123.

Chant, Sylvia1991 Women and Survival in Mexican Cities: Perspec-

tives on Gender, Labour, Markets and Low-IncomeHouseholds. New York: Manchester UniversityPress.

Cox, Paul A.2000 Will Tribal Knowledge Survive the Millennium?

Science 287:44–45.

Cushing, Frank Hamilton, and Jesse Green1979 Zuñi: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton

Cushing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ford, Richard I.1985 Anthropological Perspective of Ethnobotany in the

Greater Southwest. Economic Botany 39:400–415.

Garcia-Quijano, Carlos G.2007 Fishers’ Knowledge of Marine Species Assem-

blages: Bridging between Scientific and Local Eco-logical Knowledge in Southeastern Puerto Rico.American Anthropologist 109:529–536.

Garro, Linda1986 Intracultural Variation in Folk Medicinal Knowl-

edge: A Comparison between Groups. AmericanAnthropologist 88:351–370.

Gerritsen, Peter R. W.1998 Community Development, Natural Resource Man-

agement and Biodiversity Conservation in theSierra De Manantlán Biosphere, Mexico. Commu-nity Development Journal 33:314–324.

2004 Estilos Agrarios Y La Forestería Comunitaria.Autlán: Universidad de Guadalajara, CentroUniversitario de la Costa Sur.

Godoy, Ricardo2001 Indians, Markets, and Rainforests: Theory,

Methods, Analysis. New York: Columbia Univer-sity Press.

Godoy, Ricardo, Nicholas Brokaw, David Wilkie,Daniel Colon, Adam Palermo, Suzanne Lye, andStanley Wei

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 149 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

1998 Of Trade and Cognition: Markets and the Loss ofFolk Knowledge among the Tawahka Indians.Journal of Anthropological Research 54:219–233.

Godoy, Ricardo, Victoria Reyes-García, Elizabeth Byron,William R. Leonard, and Vincent Vadez

2005 The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Beingof Indigenous Peoples and on Their Use of Renew-able Natural Resources. Annual Review of Anthro-pology 34:121–138.

Gonzalez, Alma A., and Ronald Nigh2005 Smallholder Participation and Certification of

Organic Farm Products in Mexico. Journal of RuralStudies 21:449–460.

Graeber, David2011 Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Brooklyn, NY: Melville

House.

Grant, Robert M.1996 Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environ-

ments: Organizational Capability as KnowledgeIntegration. Organization Science 7:375–387.

Guest, Greg2002 Market Integration and the Distribution of Ecologi-

cal Knowledge within an Ecuadorian Fishing Com-munity. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 6:38–49.

Harshbarger, John1896 The Purposes of Ethno-Botany. Botanical Gazette

21:146–154.

Li, Tania2007 The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Develop-

ment, and the Practice of Politics. Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Lu, Flora2007 Integration into the Market among Indigenous

Peoples: A Cross-Cultural Perspective from theEcuadorian Amazon. Current Anthropology48:593–602.

Morgan, Lynn1993 Community Participation in Health: The Politics of

Primary Care in Costa Rica. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Nolan, Justin M., and Michael C. Robbins1999 Cultural Conservation of Medicinal Plant Use in

the Ozarks. Human Organization 58:67–72.

Olson, Elizabeth Anne2009 Nahua People of the Sierra of Manantlan Biosphere

Reserve: Livelihoods, Health Experiences, andMedicinal Plant Knowledge in Mexico. Cleveland,OH: Case Western Reserve University.

Redford, Kent H.1991 The Ecologically Noble Savage. Orion 9:24–29.

Reyes-Garcia, Victoria2001 Indigenous People, Ethnobotanical Knowledge,

and Market Economy. A Case Study of theTsimane’ Amerindians in Lowland Bolivia. Depart-ment of Graduate Studies, University of Florida.

2003 Indigenous People, Ethnobotanical Knowledge,and Market Economy. A Case Study of theTsimane’ Amerindians in Lowland Bolivia. Depart-ment of Graduate Studies, University of Florida.

Reyes-Garcia, Victoria, Ricardo Godoy, Vincent Vadez,Lilian Apaza, Elizabeth Byron, Tomas Huanca,William R. Leonard, Eddy Perez, and David Wilkie

2003 Ethnobotanical Knowledge Shared Widely amongTsimane’ Amerindians, Bolivia. Science 299:1707.

Reyes-Garcia, Victoria, Vincent Vadez, Tomas Huanca,William R. Leonard, and Thomas McDade

2007 Economic Development and Local EcologicalKnowledge: A Deadlock? Quantitative Researchfrom a Native Amazonian Society. Human Ecology35:371–377.

Reyes-Garcia, Victoria, Vincent Vadez, Susan Tanner,Tomas Huanca, William R. Leonard, and Thomas McDade

2006 Measuring What People Know about the Environ-ment. A Review of Quantitative Studies. InTsimane’ Amazonian Panel Study Working PaperSeries. P. 41. Boston.

Rigg, Jonathan2006 Land, Farming, Livelihoods, and Poverty: Rethink-

ing the Links in the Rural South. World Develop-ment 34:180–202.

Romney, A. Kimball, Susan C. Weller, andWilliam H. Batchelder

1986 Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture andInformant Accuracy. American Anthropologist88:313–338.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 150 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013

Srithi, Kamonnate, Henrik Balslev, PrasitWangpakapattanawong, Prachaya Srisanga, andChusie Trisonthi

2009 Medicinal Plant Knowledge and Its Erosion amongthe Mien (Yao) in Northern Thailand. Journal ofEthnopharmacology 123:335–342.

Stepp, John R.2005 Advances in Ethnobiological Field Methods. Field

Methods 17:211–218.

Stepp, John Richard, Hector Castaneda, and Sarah Cervone2005 Mountains and Biocultural Diversity. Mountain

Research and Development 25:223–227.

Steward, Julian Haynes1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of

Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illi-nois Press.

Toledo, Victor M.2002 Ethnoecology: A Conceptual Framework for the

Study of Indigenous Knowledge of Nature. InSeventh International Congress of Ethnobiology.John R. Stepp, Felice S. Wyndham, and Rebecca K.Zarger, eds. Pp. 511–522. Athens, GA: The Interna-tional Society of Ethnobiology.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)2011 The Human Development Report 2011.

Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All.New York: United Nations Development Pro-gramme.

Vandebroek, Ian, Patrick Van Damme, Luc Van Puyvelde,Susana Arrazola, and Norbert De Kimpe

2004 A Comparison of Traditional Healers’ MedicinalPlant Knowledge in the Bolivian Andes andAmazon. Social Science and Medicine 59:837–849.

West, Paige, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington2006 Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected

Areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:251–277.

Zarger, Rebecca K.2002 Acquisition and Transmission of Subsistence

Knowledge by Q’eqchi’ Maya in Belize. In SeventhInternational Congress of Ethnobiology. John R.Stepp, Felice S. Wyndham, and Rebecca K. Zarger,eds. Pp. 593–603. Athens, GA: The InternationalSociety of Ethnobiology.

Zarger, Rebecca K., and John R. Stepp2004 Persistence of Botanical Knowledge among Tzeltal

Maya Children. Current Anthropology 45:413–418.

Zent, Stanford2001 Acculturation and Ethnobotanical Knowledge Loss

among the Pairoa of Venezuela: Demonstration ofa Quantitative Method for the Empirical Study ofTEK Change. In On Biocultural Diversity: LinkingLanguage, Knowledge, and the Environment.Luisa Maffi, ed. Pp. 190–211. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institute Press.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 151 Vol. 35, No. 2 December 2013