Ready for phase 5 - current status of ethnobiology in Southeast Asia
© Hidayati et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015
Received: 29 August 2014
Accepted: 29 January 2015
Published: 22 February 2015
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.
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.
Ethnobotany as an academic discipline surfaced in the 19th century. Initially named ‘Aboriginal Botany’ by Powers in 1874 , the discipline received its widely accepted name from Harshberger in 1895 [2,3]. True to its name and a research ethics dominated by colonial principles, ethnobotanical research primarily dealt with the relationship between ethnic communities and plants until 1944, when Castetter coined the term ‘ethnobiology’ to signify the use of plants and animals by ‘primitive’ people . Today, ethnobiology encompasses a wide range of sub-disciplines such as ethnozoology, ethnoecology, ethnopharmacology, ethnomedicine, ethnomycology, and ethnoveterinary, with often-amorphous boundaries . Even before the emergence of ethnobotany and ethnobiology as disciplines, various societies and individuals explored the relationship between humans and plants and animals . The development of ethnobiology in fact started with the compilation of ancient medicinal knowledge, e.g. in Greece, Egypt and Asia [7,8], and 1874 only marks the beginning of western style academic research. Old systems of medicine are believed to be the written compilation of contemporary folk knowledge, and thus folk knowledge can be considered as the precursor of all traditional medicinal systems. For instance, traditional Indian medicinal systems such as the Ayurvedha, Siddha and Yoga, acknowledge folk medicinal knowledge as the root source of information . Later, Renaissance texts such as the meticulously compiled Hortus Malabaricus were also documenting the folk botanical knowledge .
In the late 19th century, ethnobiology research was mostly spearheaded by ethnographers and linguists , while interdisciplinary approaches only gained prominence in the 20th century. Clement  categorises the development of ethnobiology as a discipline from the late 19th century onwards into three phases: (1) the preclassical period (1860–1899), when terms such as ethnobotany and ethnozoology were first coined, (2) the classical period (1950-1980s), when ethnobiologists started emphasizing more on ‘emic’ and (3) the post classical period (1990s), marked by the emergence of real collaborations between western scientists and indigenous people. Hunn  later expanded these three phases into four - Phase 1 (1895–1950): documentation of ‘useful’ plants and animals beginning with the coining of the word ‘ethnobotany’ in 1895; Phase 2 (1954-1970s): the phase of ‘cognitive ethnobiology’ or ‘ethnoscience’ where cognitive psychology and linguistics played an important role, with Berlin’s work on folk biological classification system as a remarkable achievement of this phase [14,15]; Phase 3 (1970s-1980s): emergence of ethnobiology with an ecological focus, with ethnoecological concepts of Traditional Ecological/Environmental Knowledge, Indigenous Knowledge, Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom, Local Ecological/Environmental Knowledge, and Socio-ecological systems emerging ; Phase 4 (1990s): with the development of collaborative research, equitably involving both the researcher and the community, with emphasis on community rights . The principles of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) became essential components of ethnobiological research. By 1992, the first Code of Conduct was issued by the International Society of Ethnobiology, and amended in 2001, 2006, and 2008 . One important development of phase 4 was the development of biocultural concepts [19-21]. Another concept that is similar to the biocultural diversity, but uses a ‘systems’ based approach is the concept of socio-ecological systems . Later, various researchers explored the links between linguistic, cultural and biological diversity to give shape to the concept of biocultural diversity [20,23-28].
Researchers have called for a phase 5 of ethnobiology with increased networking among researchers of various discipline, to face the challenges of rapid ecological change and shifting political economies . According to Wolverton , the Phase 5 of ethnobiology needs to cross traditional academic boundaries, focusing on solving problems related to contemporary environmental and cultural crises. If phase 4 was about collaboration between researchers and communities, then phase 5 needs to focus on inter-disciplinary collaboration. While the idea of phase 5 is gradually shaping up, the concern for vanishing cultures and biodiversity, and the capability of interdisciplinary research to meet such challenges has already led to the development of the concept of Biocultural Diversity (BCD); thus, considering the increasing understanding of the language-knowledge-culture-biodiversity matrix and the collaborations happening between linguists-anthropologists-ethnobiologists, phase 5 could very well be the phase of BCD. Ethnobiological research is however still often undertaken by the western scientists. Of an estimated 300 million indigenous people in the world, 50-60% live in Asia [31,32]. Southeast Asia in particular is a very heterogeneous region, characterised by enormous ethnic, linguistic and biological diversity. Yet, ethnobiological research in Southeast Asia has yet to mirror this diversity. In this paper, we present a review of the status ethnobiology studies undertaken so far in Southeast Asia and the possible scope lying ahead.
We considered a publication to be of ethnobiological in nature when it dealt with the relationship between human beings and any natural resource; studies that were purely pharmacological in nature were excluded. After identifying the studies, information such as country where the research was conducted, year of publishing, area of study (ethnobiology, ethnopharmacology, etc.), nature of the study according to the concept of five phases [13,30] and number of international collaborations were extracted. Publications that mainly intend to catalogue the plants/animals used by a group of people were considered as phase 1 in nature, those dealing with cognitive ethnobiology/linguistic ethnobiology were considered of phase 2 in nature, publications on ethnoecology were considered as phase 3, those resulting from collaboration between the communities and researchers with emphasis on community rights, PIC and IPR were considered as phase 4 and those dealing with BCD and socio-ecological systems were considered as phase 5. The number of publications from each country was juxtaposed against the number of indigenous groups and endangered languages in each country, to see if ethnobiological research has managed to realise its full potential on the biocultural front. The phase wise data for the last ten years was analysed according to the five phases concept [13,30], to see i) if the trend is applicable to Southeast Asia ii) the nature of studies dominating Southeast Asian ethnobiology.
Results and discussion
Ethnobiology in Southeast Asia- country wise analysis
Country wise data for languages, ethnic groups and number of publications
Total Endangered languages
Southeast Asian ethnobiology- moving towards phase 5?
Publications about research in Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand on ‘cognitive ethnobiology’ or ‘ethnoscience’ (phase 2) were lower when compared with the total publications of phase 1. One of the publications from Mynmar  was about hydropower and sustainability, tagged with ethnoecology as key word (phase 3).
During the period 2010–2014, the total publication rate increased. Interestingly, Malaysia’s publication count of phase 1 papers increased from three in 2005–2009 to 20 during 2010–2014, indicating the increasing emphasis on bioprospecting (Figures 4,5). However, it is encouraging to note that 21 publications from Malaysia during the same period were of phase 3, 4 and phase 5 in nature. This trend is also observed in data from Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia, which were producing ethnobiology publications in all five phases during that time. In these countries, research of phase 4 type, especially studies concerned with indigenous people’s rights, dominated. It is encouraging to note that researchers from Southeast Asian countries are putting greater emphasis on conforming to ethical guidelines (of their institution, government, or codes of ethics), establishing prior consent (written, oral, and direct agreement between researcher and community), and acknowledging indigenous people as knowledge holders by establishing benefit sharing agreements with the community. All 11 countries had ethnobiology studies involving international collaboration (Phase 4), giving importance to ethical issues including Prior Informed Consent (PIC), recognition of indigenous peoples right over knowledge and resources [18,59]. Seventy-two publications could be considered as phase 4; although some of these focused on cataloguing, they also considered knowledge holders’ rights by obtaining prior informed consent and were guided by various code of ethics. In addition, they were also collaborating with local researchers .
During 2005–2014, eight out of the 11 countries had shown interest in the biocultural diversity and socio-ecological systems. In their paper, Wyndham et al.  underline the importance to make ethnobiology relevant to today’s biocultural crisis. This message has clearly reached Southeast Asia. Comparing the data available for the periods of 2005–2009 and 2010–2014, we found an increase in the number of publications of phase 5. However, given the tremendous Biocultural Diversity of Southeast Asia, there is a wide scope for increasing the number of publications. Deforestation, mining, land rights, loss of agrobiodiversity, change of agricultural patterns, climate change impacts for example have turned out to be the major problems faced both by indigenous communities and the environment. Swidden agriculture, the most common form of agriculture practiced throughout Southeast Asia, is yet to be fully understood, while at the same time around 163 million people in East Asia are said to be undernourished [60,61]. Ethnobiologists could help to ensure better nutritional security by promoting agrobiodiversity and diversification of food sources. Laos, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Indonesia have lost millions of hectares of forest and land to oil palm and rubber plantations, and large scale mining operations . These activities clearly endanger both cultural and biological diversity. The occupation of native lands for these purposes is leading to increasing social conflicts. Ethnobiologists need to work with communities and governments to mitigate the impact of deforestation by fostering community based conservation [62,63]. Native land rights are becoming an important issue, especially in Malaysia where there is tremendous scope for researchers to work with both communities and governments to mitigate conflicts. Yet, most of the ethnobiology studies from Malaysia still deal with documenting natural resources and traditional knowledge on plant or animal uses, while land issues have so far been sidelined. One reason for this could be the ‘politically-safe’ nature of bioprospecting, which, unlike deforestation and land issues, does not attract controversy in the region. A single lone study by Vaz and Agama, discussed the role of indigenous and community-conserved areas in Sabah, Malaysia . Favourable government policies are an essential factor for empowering indigenous communities; such policies are also essential for undertaking ethnobiology research .
Though Southeast Asian ethnobiology only started after more than a century after the dawn of ethnobiology, it is encouraging to note that the region has kept up with the pace of developments happening in the field. In the future, the international research community should especially work with researchers from Cambodia, East Timor, and Singapore to fill large existing gaps in ethnobiology studies. Of the three countries, Singapore is a developed country with a robust economy, which would facilitate local mobilisation of resources. While working with researchers from least developed countries such as Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and East Timor, collaborations need to emphasize local capacity building and mobilisation of external financial resources. Although our analysis shows that Southeast Asian ethnobiology has not reflected the existing biocultural diversity adequately, it also indicates that there is a great potential for ethnobiologists, to help conserving the rich biocultural heritage of Southeast Asia.
We thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOE), Malaysia for funding this project through its FRGS scheme. We also thank the Curtin Sarawak Research Institute for providing financial assistance to meet the open access publishing charges, and Dr. Vijith Hamza, Department of Applied Geology, Curtin University Sarawak Malaysia for all helps received.
- Powers S. Aboriginal botany. Proc Calif Acad Sci. 1874;5:373–9.Google Scholar
- Harshberger JW. The purpose of ethnobotany. Bot Gaz. 1896;21:146–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cotton CM. Ethnobotany: principles and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Chichester; 1996.Google Scholar
- Castetter EF. The domain of ethnobiology. Am Nat. 1944;78(774):158–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Conklin H. An ethnoecological approach to shifting agriculture. Trans N Y Acad Sci. 1954;17(2):133–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ford RI: History of ethnobiology. In Ethnobiology. Edited by Anderson EN, Pearsall D, Hunn ES, Turner NJ. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011:15–26.Google Scholar
- Bala P. Indigenous medicine and the state in ancient India. Anc Sci Life. 1985;5(1):1–4.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ravishankar B, Shukla VJ. Indian systems of medicine: a brief profile. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med. 2007;4(3):319–37.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Van Rheede DHA. Hortus indicus malabaricus. Amsterdam: Joannis van Someren and Joannis van Dyck; 1678-703.Google Scholar
- Babulka P. Evaluation of medicinal plants used in Hungarian ethnomedicine, with special reference to the medicinally used food plants. In: Schroder E, Balansard G, Cabalion P, Fleurentin J, Mazars G, editors. Medicaments et aliments: approche ethnopharmacologique. Paris: Ostrom; 1996. p. 129–39.Google Scholar
- Clement D. The historical foundations of ethnobiology (1860–1899). J Ethnobiol. 1998;18(2):161–87.Google Scholar
- Hunn E. Ethnobiology in four phases. J Ethnobiol. 2007;27(1):1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Raven PH. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. Am Anthropol. 1973;75(1):214–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hunn E. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. Am Anthropol. 1982;84(4):830–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Escobar A. After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Curr Anthropol. 1999;40(1):1–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hunn ES. Traditional environmental knowledge: alienable or inalienable intellectual property. In: Stepp JR Wyndham FS, Zarger RK, editors. Ethnobiology and Bioculturaldiversity. Athens: University of Georgia Press; 2002. p. 3–10.Google Scholar
- International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE): The ISE code of ethics; 2006 [http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/].
- Posey DA. The relation between cultural diversity and biodiversity. In: Bilderbeek S, editor. Biodiversity and International Law. Amsterdam: Ios Press; 1992. p. 44–7.Google Scholar
- Maffi L. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2005;29:599–617.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Folke C. Traditional knowledge in social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 2004;9(3):7.Google Scholar
- Manne LL. Nothing has yet lasted forever: current and threatened levels of biological and cultural diversity. Evol Ecol Res. 2003;5:517–27.Google Scholar
- Sutherland WJ. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species. Nature. 2003;423(6937):276–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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].
- 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. Canada: Terralingua; 2009.Google Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wolverton S. Ethnobiology 5: interdisciplinarity in an era of rapid environmental change. Ethnobiol Lett. 2013;4:21–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Maybury-Lewis D. Indigenous peoples, ethnic groups, and the state. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2002.Google Scholar
- Hall G, Patrinos H. Indigenous peoples, poverty and development. New York: Cambridge University; 2010.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- Winzeler RL. The peoples of Southeast Asia today: ethnography, ethnology, and change in a complex region. Lanham: Alta Mira Press; 2010.Google Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jasco P. Google scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Inform Rev. 2005;29(2):208–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- DIVA-GIS [http://www.diva-gis.org].
- 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ellen RF. Problems and progress in the ethnographic analysis of small scale human ecosystems. Man, New Series. 1978;13(2):290–303.Google Scholar
- Neumann AK, Lauro P. Ethnomedicine and biomedicine linking. Soc Sci Med. 1982;16(21):1817–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Houghton PJ. Ethnopharmacology of some Buddleja species. J Ethnopharmacol. 1984;11(3):293–308.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Anderson EF. Ethnobotany of hill tribes of northern Thailand. II. Lahu medicinal plants. Econ Bot. 1986;40(4):442–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bernstein JH. Higher-order categories in Brunei Dusun ethnobotany: the folk-classification of rainforest plants. In: Edwards DS, Booth WE, Choy SC, editors. Tropical rainforest research--current issues. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1996. p. 435–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Collins S, Martins X, Mitchell A, Teshome A, Arnason JT. Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorese cultures. Econ Bot. 2006;60(4):347–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Loh CH. Use of traditional Chinese medicine in Singapore children: perceptions of parents and paediatricians. Singapore Med J. 2009;50(12):1162–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Singapore Department of Statistics: Population in brief; 2013. [http://www.nptd.gov.sg/portals/0/news/population-in-brief-2013.pdf].
- 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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].
- Currie TE, Mace R. The evolution of ethnolinguistic diversity. Adv Complex Syst. 2012;15:1150006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Moseley C. Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing; 2010 [http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas].Google Scholar
- Lewis MP, Simons GF, Fennig CD. Ethnologue: languages of the world. seventeenth ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International; 2014 [http://www.ethnologue.com].Google Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hardison P, Bannister K. Ethics in ethnobiology: history, international law and policy, and contemporary issues. In: Anderson EN, Pearsall D, Hunn E, Turner N, editors. Ethnobiology. Canada: John and Sons; 2011. p. 27–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL. Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19(12):654–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Clarke G. From ethnocide to ethnodevelopment? Ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia. Third World Q. 2001;22(3):413–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.