Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: Towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study builds on earlier quantitative ethnobotanical studies to develop an approach which represents local values for useful forest species, in order to explore factors affecting those values. The method, based on respondents’ ranking of taxa, compares favourably with more time-consuming quantitative ethnobotanical techniques, and allows results to be differentiated according to social factors (gender and ethnic origin), and ecological and socio-economic context. We worked with 126 respondents in five indigenous and five immigrant communities within a forest-dominated landscape in the Peruvian Amazonia. There was wide variability among responses, indicating a complex of factors affecting value. The most valued family is Arecaceae, followed by Fabaceae and Moraceae. Overall, fruit and non-commercialised construction materials predominate but women tend to value fruit and other non-timber species more highly than timber, while the converse is shown by men. Indigenous respondents tend to value more the species used for fruit, domestic construction and other NTFPs, while immigrants tend to favour commercialised timber species. Across all communities, values are influenced by both markets and the availability of the taxa; as the favourite species become scarce, others replace them in perceived importance. As markets become more accessible, over-exploitation of the most valuable species and livelihood diversification contribute to a decrease in perceived value of the forest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

INRENA:

Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (National Institute of Natural Resources)

NTFP:

non-timber forest product

References

  • Baker T., Phillips O.L., Malhi Y., Almeida S., Arroyo L., Di Fiore A. et al. 2004. Increasing biomass in Amazonian forest plots. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 359: 353–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boom B. 1987. Ethnobotany of the Chácobo Indians, Beni, Bolivia. Advances in Economic Botany 4: 1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown K. and Lapuyade S. 1999. ‘I have become the man of the family’. Gendered visions of social, economic and forest change in southern Cameroon. ODG Research Working Paper Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camara Nacional Forestal 2002. Sistema de Información Técnica y Comercial de Productos Forestales (System of Technical and Commercial Information on Forest Products). Website: http://www.madebolsaperu.com/index.htm.

  • Coomes O.T. and Burt G.J. 2001. Peasant charcoal production in the Peruvian Amazon: rainforest use and economic reliance. Forest Ecology and Management 140: 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin T. 1984. Tambopata Reserved Zone, Madre de Dios, Peru: history and description of the reserve. Revista Peruana de Entomología 27: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galeano G. 2000. Forest use at the Pacific coast of Chocó, Colombia: a quantitative approach. Economic Botany 54: 358–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry A.H. 1988. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 75: 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore M.P., Hardy Eshbaugh W. and Greenberg A.M. 2002. The use, construction, and importance of canoes among the Maijuna of the Peruvian Amazon. Economic Botany 56: 10–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould K., Howard A.F. and Rodriguez G. 1998. Sustainable production of non-timber forest products: natural dye extraction from El Cruce Dos Aguadas, Peten, Guatemala. Forest Ecology and Management 111: 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanazaki N., Tamashiro J.Y., Leitao Filho H.F. and Begossi A. 2000. Diversity of plant uses in two Caicara communities from the Atlantic Forest coast, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 597–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris M. 1964. The Nature of Cultural Things. Random House, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston M. 1998. Tree population studies in low-diversity forests, Guyana. II. Assessments on the distribution and abundance of non-timber forest products. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird S. 2002. Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. Earthscan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamas G. 1994. List of Butterflies from Tambopata (Explorer’s Inn Reserve). In: Barkley L.J. (ed) The Tambopata-Candamo Reserved Zone of Southeastern Perú: A Biological Assessment. Rapid Assessment Program Working Papers 6, Conservation International, Washington, DC, pp. 162–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A. 1999. Tree-cultivation in upland livelihoods in the Philippines: implications for biodiversity conservation and forest policy. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading, Reading, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A. 2003. No forest without timber? International Forestry Review 5: 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A., Ambrose-Oji B., Lysinge R. and Tako C. 2000. Exploring local values for forest biodiversity on Mount Cameroon. Mountain Research and Development 20: 112–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahapatra A. and Mitchell C.P. 1997. Sustainable development of non-timber forest products: implication for forest management in India. Forest Ecology and Management 94: 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhi Y., Phillips O.L., Baker T., Almeida S., Frederiksen T., Grace J. et al. 2002. An international network to understand the biomass and dynamics of Amazonian forests (RAINFOR). Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 439–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell S. and Bart C. 1995. Beyond ranking: exploring relative preferences in P/RRA. PLA Notes (IIED, London) 22: 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misra M.K. and Dash S.S. 2000. Biomass and energetics of non-timber forest resources in a cluster of tribal villages on the Eastern Ghats of Orissa, India. Biomass and Bioenergy 18: 229–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moerman D.E. 1991. The medicinal flora of native North America: an analysis. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 31: 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohit G. and Baghel L.M.S. 2000. Promising partnerships: a socio-economic profile of villages in Sambalpur with reference to NTFP. Wastelands-News 15: 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndoye O., Perez M.R. and Eyebe A. 1998. The markets of non-timber forest products in the humid forest zone of Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network 22c: 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker T.A.I., Donahue P. and Schulenberg T. 1994. Birds of the Tambopata Reserve. In: Barkley L.J. (ed) The Tambopata-Candamo Reserved Zone of Southeastern Perú: A Biological Assessment. Rapid Assessment Program Working Papers 6, Conservation International, Washington, DC, pp. 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paz y Miño C.G., Balslev H. and Valencia R. 1995. Useful lianas of the Siona-Secoya Indians from Amazonian Ecuador. Economic Botany 49: 269–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson D. 1984. The tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) of the Tambopata Reserved Zone, Madre de Dios, Peru. Revista Peruana de Entomología 27: 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez M.R. and Byron N. 1999. A methodology to analyze divergent case studies of non-timber forest products and their development potential. Forest Science 45: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters C.M., Balick M.J., Kahn F. and Anderson A.B. 1989. Oligarchic forests of economic plants in Amazonia: utilization and conservation of an important tropical resource. Conservation Biology 3: 341–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O.L. 1996. Some analytical methods in quantitative ethnobotany. In: Alexiades M. (ed) Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: A Field Manual. Advances in Economic Botany Vol. 10. New York Botanical Garden, New York, pp. 171–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O.L. and Gentry A.H. 1993a. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru. I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47: 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O.L. and Gentry A.H. 1993b. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru. II. Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O.L., Gentry A.H., Reynel C., Wilkin P. and Gálvez-Durand B.C. 1994. Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation. Conservation Biology 8: 225–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O.L., Martínez R.V., Vargas P.N., Monteagudo A.L., Zans M.E.C., Sánchez W.G. et al. 2003a. Efficient plot-based floristic assessment of tropical forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 629–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O.L., Vargas P.N., Monteagudo A.L., Cruz A.P., Zans M.E.C., Sánchez W.G. et al. 2003b. Habitat association among Amazonian tree species: a landscape-scale approach. Journal of Ecology 91: 757–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike K.L. 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour. Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piñedo-Vasquez M., Zarin D., Jipp P. and Chota-Inuma J. 1990. Use-values of tree species in a communal forest reserve in northeast Peru. Conservation Biology 4: 405–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitman N., Terborgh J., Silman M.R. and Núñez V.P. 1999. Tree species distributions in an upper Amazonian forest. Ecology 80: 2651–2661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prance G.T., Bale W., Boom B.M. and Carbeuri R.L. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1: 296–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards M. 1993. The potential of non-timber forest products in sustainable natural forest management in Amazonia. Commonwealth Forestry Review 72: 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D., Puri R.K., Basuki I., Van Heist M., Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, Sardjono M.A. et al. 2002. Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto H., Ruokolainen K., Kalliola R., Linna A., Danjoy W. and Rodriguez Z. 1995. Dissecting Amazonian biodiversity. Science 269: 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rijsoort J. 2000. Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs): Their Role in Sustainable Forest Management in the Tropics. 1. Theme Studies Series: Forests, Forestry and Biological Diversity Support Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollenberg E. and Ingles A. 1998. Incomes from the Forest: Methods for the Development and Conservation of Forest Products for Local Communities. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jakarta, Indonesia.

    Google Scholar 

  • WongJ., Ambrose-OjiB., LawrenceA., LysingeR. and HealeyJ. 2002. tRanks, counts and scores as a means of quantifying local biodiversity values. ETFRN workshop on participatory monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity; 7–25 January 2002. Website: http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/biodiversity/documents.html

  • Zent S. 1996. Behavioural orientations toward ethnobotanical quantification. In: Alexiades M.N. (ed) Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: A Field Manual. New York Botanical Garden, New York, pp. 199–239.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. David Wood

    Present address: Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, OX1 3PS, Oxford, UK

    Anna Lawrence

  2. Earth and Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Oliver L. Phillips & Sam Rose

  3. Centro EORI, Puerto Maldonado, Madre de Dios, Peru

    Adela Reategui Ismodes

  4. Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana, Puerto Maldonado, Madre de Dios, Peru

    Marcial Lopez & Alejandro José Farfan

  5. School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    David Wood

Authors
  1. Anna Lawrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oliver L. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adela Reategui Ismodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcial Lopez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sam Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alejandro José Farfan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Lawrence.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawrence, A., Phillips, O.L., Ismodes, A.R. et al. Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: Towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodivers Conserv 14, 45–79 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-4050-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-4050-8

Key words

Search

Navigation