A methodological approach for the analysis of ecosystem services from the local communities' perspective.

In this paper, we developed an innovative and plural methodology for a socio-cultural assessment of ecosystem services (ES). This methodology was performed using diverse and interdependent tools applied within the framework of ethnoecology and post-normal science, with the aim of identifying ES from the perspective of local communities that inhabit different socio-ecosystems, highlighting the relevance of Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK). As examples of how this methodology works, we analyzed a multiple case study performed in three peasant communities of the Dry Chaco eco-region, Argentina. We identified ES in all the categories and their fundamental contributions to the particular way of life in this area. The method is flexible enough to be used in other socio-ecosystems with different environmental and social features.

Cultural consensus and intracultural diversity in ethnotaxonomy: lessons from a fishing community in Northeast Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Traditional fishing communities are strongholds of ethnobiological knowledge but establishing to what degree they harbor cultural consensus about different aspects of this knowledge has been a challenge in many ethnobiological studies. METHODS: We conducted an ethnobiological study in an artisanal fishing community in northeast Brazil, where we interviewed 91 community members (49 men and 42 women) with different type of activities (fishers and non-fishers), in order to obtain free lists and salience indices of the fish they know. To establish whether there is cultural consensus in their traditional knowledge on fish, we engaged a smaller subset of 45 participants in triad tasks where they chose the most different fish out of 30 triads. We used the similarity matrices generated from the task results to detect if there is cultural consensus in the way fish were classified by them. RESULTS: The findings show how large is the community's knowledge of fish, with 197 ethnospecies registered, of which 33 species were detected as salient or important to the community. In general, men cited more fish than women. We also found that there was no cultural consensus in the ways fish were classified. CONCLUSIONS: Both free-listing and triad task methods revealed little cultural consensus in the way knowledge is structured and how fish were classified by community members. Our results suggest that it is prudent not to make assumptions that a given local community has a single cultural consensus model in classifying the organisms in their environment.