Ready for phase 5 - current status of ethnobiology in Southeast Asia

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Rainer W Bussmann¹  F Merlin Franco²  Syafitri Hidayati² 

[1] William L. Brown Center, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis 63166-0299, MO, USA;Curtin Sarawak Research Institute, Curtin University Sarawak Malaysia, Miri, 98009, Sarawak, Malaysia

关键词: Five phases;    Review;    Ethics;    Ethnobotany;    Biodiversity;    Indigenous people;    Traditional knowledge;    Socio-ecological systems;    Biocultural diversity;   

Others  :  1133315
DOI  :  10.1186/s13002-015-0005-7

 received in 2014-08-29, accepted in 2015-01-29,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Southeast Asia is known for its rich linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. While ethnobiology in the west has benefitted greatly from intellectual and methodological advances over the last decades, the status of Southeast Asian ethnobiology is largely unknown. This study aims to provide an analysis of the current status of ethnobiology in Southeast Asia and outlines possibilities for future advancements.

Methods

We accessed papers cited in the Scopus and Web of Science databases for the period of 1960 to 2014 using the current as well as previous names of the 11 Southeast Asian countries and various disciplines of ethnobiology as key words. We juxtaposed the number of publications from each country against its number of indigenous groups and languages, to see if ethnobiology research has addressed this full spectrum of ethnical diversity. The available data for the last ten years was analysed according to the five phases concept to understand the nature of studies dominating Southeast Asian ethnobiology.

Results and conclusions

A total number of 312 publications were recorded in the databases for the period 1960–2014. Indonesia ranks highest (93 studies), followed by Thailand (68), Malaysia (58) Philippines (42), Vietnam (31), Laos (29), and other Southeast Asian countries (44). A strong correlation was found between the number of publications for each country, the number of indigenous groups, and the number of endangered languages. Comparing the data available for the period 2005–2009 with 2010–2014, we found a strong increase in the number of phase 5 publications. However, papers with bioprospecting focus were also on the rise, especially in Malaysia. Our study indicates that ethnobiologists still need to realise the full potential of the Biocultural Diversity of Southeast Asia, and that there is a strong need to focus more on socially relevant research.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Hidayati et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Powers S: Aboriginal botany. Proc Calif Acad Sci 1874, 5:373-9.
• [2]Harshberger JW: The purpose of ethnobotany. Bot Gaz 1896, 21:146-54.
• [3]Cotton CM: Ethnobotany: principles and applications. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York; 1996.
• [4]Castetter EF: The domain of ethnobiology. Am Nat 1944, 78(774):158-70.
• [5]Conklin H: An ethnoecological approach to shifting agriculture. Trans N Y Acad Sci 1954, 17(2):133-42.
• [6]Ford RI: History of ethnobiology. In Ethnobiology. Edited by Anderson EN, Pearsall D, Hunn ES, Turner NJ. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011:15–26.
• [7]Bala P: Indigenous medicine and the state in ancient India. Anc Sci Life 1985, 5(1):1-4.
• [8]Žuškin E, Lipozenčić J, Cvetković P, Mustajbegović J, Schachter N, Mučić-Pučić B, et al.: Ancient medicine – a review. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat 2008, 16(3):149-57.
• [9]Ravishankar B, Shukla VJ: Indian systems of medicine: a brief profile. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med 2007, 4(3):319-37.
• [10]Van Rheede DHA. Hortus indicus malabaricus. Amsterdam: Joannis van Someren and Joannis van Dyck; 1678-703.
• [11]Babulka P: Evaluation of medicinal plants used in Hungarian ethnomedicine, with special reference to the medicinally used food plants. In Medicaments et aliments: approche ethnopharmacologique. Edited by Schroder E, Balansard G, Cabalion P, Fleurentin J, Mazars G. Ostrom, Paris; 1996:129-39.
• [12]Clement D: The historical foundations of ethnobiology (1860–1899). J Ethnobiol 1998, 18(2):161-87.
• [13]Hunn E: Ethnobiology in four phases. J Ethnobiol 2007, 27(1):1-10.
• [14]Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Raven PH: General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. Am Anthropol 1973, 75(1):214-42.
• [15]Hunn E: The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. Am Anthropol 1982, 84(4):830-47.
• [16]Escobar A: After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Curr Anthropol 1999, 40(1):1-30.
• [17]Hunn ES: Traditional environmental knowledge: alienable or inalienable intellectual property. In Ethnobiology and Bioculturaldiversity. Edited by Stepp JR Wyndham FS, Zarger RK. University of Georgia Press, Athens; 2002:3-10.
• [18]International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE): The ISE code of ethics; 2006 [http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/].
• [19]Posey DA: The relation between cultural diversity and biodiversity. In Biodiversity and International Law. Edited by Bilderbeek S. Ios Press, Amsterdam; 1992:44-7.
• [20]Maffi L: Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu Rev Anthropol 2005, 29:599-617.
• [21]Davidson-Hunt IJ, Turner KL, Mead ATP, Cabrera-Lopez J, Bolton R, Idrobo CJ, et al.: Biocultural design: a new conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. Sapiens 2012, 5:33-45.
• [22]Folke C: Traditional knowledge in social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc 2004, 9(3):7.
• [23]Manne LL: Nothing has yet lasted forever: current and threatened levels of biological and cultural diversity. Evol Ecol Res 2003, 5:517-27.
• [24]Sutherland WJ: Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species. Nature 2003, 423(6937):276-9.
• [25]Stepp JR, Cervone S, Castaneda H, Lasseter A, Stocks G, Gichon Y: Development of a GIS for global biocultural diversity. Policy Matters 2004, 13:267-70.
• [26]Michalopoulos S: The origins of ethnolinguistic diversity: theory and evidence. MPRA Paper No. 11531; 2008. [http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11531/1/MPRA_paper_11531.pdf].
• [27]Zent S, Maffi L: Final report on indicator No. 2: methodology for developing a vitality index of traditional environmental knowledge (VITEK) for the project. Global indicators of the status and trends of linguistic diversity and traditional knowledge. Terralingua, Canada; 2009.
• [28]Gavin MC, Botero CA, Bowern C, Colwell RK, Dunn M, Dunn RR, et al.: Toward a mechanistic understanding of linguistic diversity. Bioscience 2013, 63(7):524-35.
• [29]Wyndham FS, Lepofsky D, Tiffany S: Taking stock in ethnobiology: where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? J Ethnobiol 2011, 31(1):110-27.
• [30]Wolverton S: Ethnobiology 5: interdisciplinarity in an era of rapid environmental change. Ethnobiol Lett 2013, 4:21-5.
• [31]Maybury-Lewis D: Indigenous peoples, ethnic groups, and the state. 2nd edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston; 2002.
• [32]Hall G, Patrinos H: Indigenous peoples, poverty and development. Cambridge University, New York; 2010.
• [33]Albuquerque UP, Silva JS, Campos JLA, Sousa RS, Silva TC, Alves RRN. The current status of ethnobiological research in Latin America: gaps and perspectives. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013; 9 (72).
• [34]Winzeler RL: The peoples of Southeast Asia today: ethnography, ethnology, and change in a complex region. Alta Mira Press, Lanham; 2010.
• [35]Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G: Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008, 22:338-42.
• [36]Jasco P: Google scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Inform Rev 2005, 29(2):208-14.
• [37]DIVA-GIS [http://www.diva-gis.org].
• [38]Bisset NG: The Asian species of strychnos. Part I. Strychnos as a source of the drug lignum colubrinum (snake-wood). Lloydia 1972, 35(2):95-116.
• [39]Ellen RF: Problems and progress in the ethnographic analysis of small scale human ecosystems. Man, New Series 1978, 13(2):290-303.
• [40]Neumann AK, Lauro P: Ethnomedicine and biomedicine linking. Soc Sci Med 1982, 16(21):1817-24.
• [41]Houghton PJ: Ethnopharmacology of some Buddleja species. J Ethnopharmacol 1984, 11(3):293-308.
• [42]Anderson EF: Ethnobotany of hill tribes of northern Thailand. II. Lahu medicinal plants. Econ Bot 1986, 40(4):442-50.
• [43]Stephenson PH: Vietnamese refugees in Victoria, B.C.: an overview of immigrant and refugee health care in a medium-sized Canadian urban centre. Soc Sci Med 1995, 40(12):1631-42.
• [44]Bernstein JH: Higher-order categories in Brunei Dusun ethnobotany: the folk-classification of rainforest plants. In Tropical rainforest research--current issues. Edited by Edwards DS, Booth WE, Choy SC. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands; 1996:435-50.
• [45]Rao AS, Bounphanousay V, Schiller JM, Alcantara AP, Jackson MT: Naming of traditional rice varieties by farmers in the Lao PDR. Genet Resour Crop Ev 2002, 49(1):83-8.
• [46]Fujisaka S, Moody K, Ingram K: A descriptive study of farming practices for dry seeded rainfed lowland rice in India, Indonesia, and Myanmar. Agric Ecosyst Environ 1993, 45:115-28.
• [47]Collins S, Martins X, Mitchell A, Teshome A, Arnason JT: Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorese cultures. Econ Bot 2006, 60(4):347-61.
• [48]Eisenbruch M: Children with failure to thrive, epilepsy and STI/AIDS: indigenous taxonomies, attributions and ritual treatments. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 1998, 3(4):505-18.
• [49]Loh CH: Use of traditional Chinese medicine in Singapore children: perceptions of parents and paediatricians. Singapore Med J 2009, 50(12):1162-8.
• [50]Singapore Department of Statistics: Population in brief; 2013. [http://www.nptd.gov.sg/portals/0/news/population-in-brief-2013.pdf].
• [51]Ceuterick M, Vandebroek I, Torry B, Pieroni A: Cross-cultural adaptation in urban ethnobotany. The Colombian folk pharmacopoeia in London. J Ethnopharmacol 2008, 120:342-59.
• [52]Mrozowski SA: Ethnobiology for a diverse world spaces and natures: archaeology and the political ecology of modern cities. J Ethnobiol 2012, 32(2):129-33.
• [53]Shirai Y, Rambo AT: Urban demand for wild foods in northeast Thailand: a survey of edible wild species sold in the Khon Kaen municipal market. Ethnobot Res Appl 2014, 12:113-29.
• [54]AIPP, IWGIA, FORUM-ASIA. ASEAN’s indigenous people. Chiang Mai: Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP), the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA); 2010 [http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/0511_ASEAN_BRIEFING_PAPER_eb.pdf].
• [55]Currie TE, Mace R: The evolution of ethnolinguistic diversity. Adv Complex Syst 2012, 15:1150006.
• [56]Moseley C: Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. 3rd edition. UNESCO Publishing, Paris; 2010.
• [57]Lewis MP, Simons GF, Fennig CD: Ethnologue: languages of the world. seventeen edition. SIL International, Dallas, Texas; 2014.
• [58]McNally A, Magee D, Wolf AT: Hydropower and sustainability: resilience and vulnerability in China’s powersheds. J Environ Manag 2009, 90(Suppl 3):S286-93.
• [59]Hardison P, Bannister K: Ethics in ethnobiology: history, international law and policy, and contemporary issues. In Ethnobiology. Edited by Anderson EN, Pearsall D, Hunn E, Turner N. John and Sons, Canada; 2011:27-49.
• [60]Mertz O, Padoch C, Fox J, Cramb RA, Leisz SJ, Lam NT, et al.: Swidden change in Southeast Asia: understanding causes and consequences. Hum Ecol 2009, 37:259-64.
• [61]Khor GL: Food-based approaches to combat the double burden among the poor: challenges in the Asian context. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2008, 17(Suppl 1):111-5.
• [62]Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL: Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 2004, 19(12):654-60.
• [63]Davis JT, Mengersen K, Abram NK, Ancrenaz M, Wells JA, Meijaard E: It’s not just conflict that motivates killing of orangutans. PLoS One 2013, 8(10):e75373.
• [64]Vaz J, Agama AL: Seeking synergy between community and state-based governance for biodiversity conservation: the role of indigenous and community-conserved areas in Sabah. Malaysian Borneo Asia Pac Viewp 2013, 54(2):141-57.
• [65]Clarke G: From ethnocide to ethnodevelopment? Ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia. Third World Q 2001, 22(3):413-36.