Cultural Dimensions of

Development and UNIT 4 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL

Biodiversity Conservation
ANTHROPOLOGY

Contents
4.1 Introduction
4.2 History and Development of Applied Anthropology
4.3 Domains of Application in Environmental Anthropology
4.3.1 Agriculture
4.3.2 Human and the Environment
4.3.3 Indigenous Knowledge: A New Applied Anthropology
4.4 Application of Indigenous Environmental Knowledge in Biodiversity
Conservation
4.4.1 Conservation of Forest Resources
4.4.2 Conservation of Fisheries
4.4.3 Applied Medical Anthropology
4.5 Summary
4.6 References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives
&
After reading this Unit, you will be able to learn:
• the brief history and development of applied anthropology;
• major areas of applied work in environmental anthropology;
• commonly referred to domains in which applied anthropology is carried
out; and
• the application and use of indigenous environmental knowledge in
Conservation and Management of Natural Resources.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Anthropology, the study of human beings, is a discipline that incorporates theory,
method, applied and action. The most rapidly growing area within the discipline
is applied anthropology, and there are more anthropologists employed outside
academic institutions than within them. Applied Anthropology is the practical
application of anthropological knowledge, theory and methods to areas of social
concern and to the growth and development of society. As countries and regions
around the world continue to experience environmental degradation and natural
resource depletion, it is becoming increasingly important for applied
anthropologists, to engage in efforts that mitigate this destruction by managing
natural resources and protecting ecosystems. Applied anthropologists work for
groups that promote, manage, and assess programs aimed at influencing human
behavior social conditions. The scope of applied anthropology includes change
and development.
52
In recent decades a number of terms have been given to these attempts to use Applied Environmental
Anthropology
anthropological research for the improvement of human conditions: action
anthropology, development anthropology, practical/practicing anthropology, and
advocacy anthropology. For the purpose of this unit, however, we will use the
more widely accepted and generic term applied anthropology. This unit covers a
comprehensive understanding of applied environmental anthropology, including
the history of applied anthropology, environmental issues like biodiversity
conservation, sustainable agriculture, and indigenous knowledge etc.

4.2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF APPLIED

ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology has two dimensions: (1) theoretical/ academic anthropology and
(2) practicing or applied anthropology. Applied Anthropology encompasses the
four sub-disciplines traditionally recognized in anthropology: archaeology,
biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, and linguistic anthropology. Each
of these contributes their own significant theoretical contributions and do not
replicate the existing knowledge base of the others. Applied Anthropology fits
this definition and therefore is considered to be the fifth subfield of anthropology.

Anthropology is conceptually and methodologically extensive, and thus is broadly

applicable to virtually any topical domain. What makes anthropology applicable
to any particular topical domain depends largely on the nature of the problem
being addressed and the specific informational needs of those who are addressing.
Before going to know the details about the applied environmental anthropology,
it is important to first understand what is ‘applied anthropology’. According to
Erve Chambers (1987) applied anthropology is the “field of inquiry concerned
with the relationships between anthropological knowledge and the uses of that
knowledge in the world beyond anthropology.” The term applied anthropology
is used in both Britain and the United States to refer mainly to the employment
of anthropologists by organisations involved in inducing change or enhancing
human welfare (Bennett, 1996). A simple definition of applied anthropology is
offered by van Willigen (1993) “anthropology put to use”. Applied anthropology
is broadly defined, as the direct use of anthropological theory, method, data,
skills, and perspectives to identify, assess and solve specific human problems.
Applied anthropologists or practicing anthropologists work (regularly or
occasionally full or part time) for nonacademic clients. These clients in-clude
governments, development agencies, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs),
tribal and ethnic associations, interest groups, social service and educational
agencies, industry and businesses.

The concept of “applied anthropology” dates back to at least 1906, when it was
used to announce the establishment of a diploma program at Oxford, while the
term “practical anthropology” was used as early as the 1860s by James Hunt,
founder of the Anthropological Society of London (Eddy and Partridge 1987).
The British were the first to formally recognise the practical value of anthropology
and also the first to employ applied anthropologists. E. B. Tylor considered
anthropology to be a “policy science” and advocated its use in improving the
human condition. Anthropology was first used in the administration of the British
colonies under the rubric of indirect rule (originated by Lord Lugard) by Northcote
Thomas in Nigeria in 1908 (Reed 1998).
53
Cultural Dimensions of Later on in the course of time a number of scholars in different parts of the world
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
have written about applied anthropology. In United States scholars addressed
anthropology’s history of application. van Willigen (1993) in particular presents
the broadest overview, as he integrates the work of these and other scholars in
his discussion of the development of the field.

Anthropologists have historically involved themselves in matters of practical

relevance both inside and outside the academy, where they have applied their
expertise to specific social problems, in effect, field testing existing
anthropological theories and methods and developing new ones. For example,
applied anthropology developed first around the policy research and colonial
administrative training needs of governments during the latter half of the 19th
Century and the beginning of the 20th (Tax, 1945). From this experience grew a
period of federal service in specific problem areas and political contexts, for
instance, social problems associated with the administration of American Indian
tribes (Collier, 1936), World War II (American Anthropological Association,
1942), and incarceration camps for Japanese-Americans during the war (Spicer,
1946). It was during this period that the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)
was founded, primarily to provide a formal network and professional identity
among applied anthropologists. The SfAA developed and published the journal
“Applied Anthropology,” subsequently named “Human Organisation,” which
functioned as a compendium of applied anthropological research being conducted
during that period.

During the next quarter century anthropologists became increasingly involved

in designing and implementing strategies for social change, and in the process
created a host of action-oriented approaches to human problems, within which
an expanded array of research based roles was being developed. The
anthropological literature of this period reveals the breadth of contexts and
approaches in which anthropologists were intervening in human problems; for
instance, in technological change (Spicer, 1952), development (Tax, 1960), culture
change (Niehoff, 1966), and community advocacy and cultural brokerage
(Schensul, 1973). Through anthropological involvement in these areas, guidelines
of ethical behavior and professional responsibility were developed (SfAA, 1948)
and revised (SfAA, 1975) during this period.

Anthropology’s history of application to human problems is reflected in the wide

array of contexts to which it has been applied. For example, van Willigen (1991)
has compiled a “Source Book on Anthropological Practice” that contains
descriptions of these contexts, from which he has gleaned at least 39 such “content
areas” ranging from “agriculture” to “women in development” (van Willigen
1993).

Anthropologists have occupied an assortment of practitioner roles within the

content areas identified by van Willigen. He identifies and describes these roles:
“policy researcher, evaluator, impact assessor, needs assessor, planner, research
analyst, advocate, trainer, culture broker, expert witness, public participation
specialist, administrator/manager, change agent, and therapist” (van Willigen,
1993). Practitioner roles are not mutually exclusive and thus are likely to overlap
within and vary between the content areas in which one practices. Anthropologists’
practical experience in such matters has enabled them to further define practitioner
roles across numerous contexts (Kushner, 1994), and it has inspired further
54
revisions to their ethical codes (AAA 1990; NAPA 1988; SfAA 1983). Applied Environmental
Anthropology
Departments of anthropology have responded to these developments by creating
training programs for non-academic careers in applied anthropology (Trotter,
1988), such as at the University of South Florida (Kushner 1994).

While in the past, the application of anthropology was generally use to various
public sociopolitical issues and problems, now it has broadened in all the sub-
discipline of anthropology significantly in recent times. The application or actual
use of applied anthropological perspectives, now extends to various areas such
as environment, health and disease, conservation, natural resources, hazards,
disasters, cultural resource management and sacred places etc. More and more
anthropologists from the four subfields now work in such “applied” areas. Applied
anthropologists work for groups that promote, manage, and assess programs
aimed at in?uencing human behavior and social conditions. The scope of applied
anthropology includes change and development abroad and social problems and
policies Applied Anthropologists examine social issues, recommend policies,
and address the practical needs of community groups, businesses, and public
sector organisations.

Environmental Anthropology is a more recent outgrowth of Ecological

Anthropology, which can be characterized as the study of the interrelationship
between human groups, cultures, and societies and the ecosystems in which they
are embedded in all times and all places across planet earth. Scholars have
delineated environmental anthropology as becoming more prominent in the 1980s
and typically focusing on analysis and application of anthropological knowledge
to contemporary environmental issues. Ecological and Environmental
anthropology can most productively be viewed as a single interrelated discipline,
with ecological anthropology focusing more on basic academic research and
environmental anthropology being more focused on contemporary environmental
issues and having more of an applied, practicing, or advocacy approach.

Activity
Define what applied anthropology?

4.3 DOMAINS OF APPLICATION IN

ENVIRONMENTAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology is conceptually and methodologically extensive, and thus is broadly
applicable to virtually any topical domain. What makes anthropology applicable
to any particular topical domain depends largely on the nature of the problem
being addressed and the specific informational needs of those who are addressing
it. Major subfields of anthropology evolved out of applied research, including
formative work in urban, nutritional, political, legal, agricultural, maritime,
environmental, and educational anthropology. Anthropology is particularly
applicable because, unlike other disciplines, it incorporates scientific and
humanistic aspects, biological and cultural components, and a range of unique
perspectives and theoretical orientations that integrate these into a unified
discipline. Moreover, it contains numerous fields and sub-fields of inquiry, each
with its respective research methods and interpretive frameworks; it contributes
a history of application to the practical resolution of human problems; and it
55
Cultural Dimensions of provides clearly articulated guidelines of ethical and professional responsibility.
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
Thus, from its historical beginnings, application played a key role in shaping the
foundation of academic anthropology. Anthropology, as a discipline rooted firmly
in both the biological and social sciences, can make a difference in environmental
management. Conceptually, it broadens our focus to consider human/ environment
interrelationships.

The domains where applied environmental anthropology includes topics as

diverse and the number continues to increase. They can be defined narrowly or
broadly. For your information provides a list of common domains, though not
exhaustive, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, and other resource
development; pesticide exposure, toxic waste disposal, and other environmental
health issues; environmental restoration; tourism, public lands, and cultural
resource management; the protection of traditional knowledge, values, and
resource rights; ethnoecology, agararian ecology, pastoral ecology, historical
ecology, political ecology, ecofeminism, environmentalism, environmental
justice, symbolic ecology, human ecology, sustainable development, biodiversity
conservation, wildlife management, environmental risk, environmental education
and a number of other areas, many of them interdisciplinary in scope and
methodology. The domains of application for applied anthropology are quite
varied and have led to a growing number of specialisations. In this unit let us
discussed some of the domains in applied environmental anthropology.

Socio-cultural anthropology in its classical forms has been concerned more with
understanding than with changing, but especially in the 1980s, applied and
development aspects in anthropology, became more recognised as legitimate
and useful activities. In the USA, the Institute for Development Anthropology
established a network and a regular Bulletin. Development anthropology is the
study of development problems, such as poverty, environmental degradation,
and hunger and the application of anthropological knowledge to solve those
problems. It clearly emerged as a subfield in applied anthropology in the 1970s
(Little, 2005). Development anthropology since, it’s begin accompanying changes
in government policies, international and local opportunities for anthropologists.
Little, describes development anthropology practices as interdisciplinary
collaborations with other social scientists, economists, ecologists and
agriculturalists. He also notes the benefits of collaborative effort and sustaining
methods like PAR but also stresses and work toward an integration of theory,
method and practice to elevate the field into a noted sub-branch. For example he
details how development anthropologists’ key theoretical contributions have led
to program modifications. To further demonstrate the importance of integrating
theory, method and practice, he offers a case study of his work with the Kenya
Wildlife Services to establish a project monitoring their initiative to protect the
pastoral tradition in East Africa. He suggest that since development anthropologists
are knowledgeable about indigenous peoples’ use of natural resources in key
wildlife regions, environmental organisations will continue to solicit their
expertise on potential outcomes at the local level.

4.3.1 Agriculture
A very few social anthropologists found their way into the International
Agricultural Research Centres, where they had an influence disproportionate to
their tiny numbers, and the social anthropologists in aid agencies rose in numbers
56
and status, though they were still few. Applied anthropology in agriculture looks Applied Environmental
Anthropology
at the intersection between culture and agricultural practice. It also take into
account economic situations and technologies of native population Rhoades
states that “Agricultural anthropology is the comparative, holistic, and temporal
study of the human element in agricultural activity, focusing on the interactions
of environment, technology, and culture within local and global food systems…”
(1984). Farmers practice methods that they feel will work best for them based on
the peculiarities of their farm and the information they have inherited or
accumulated through experience. Robert E Rhoades explains just how significant
agriculture is to all humans it affects culture, technology, economics, societies
and religions. He describes the domain of agricultural anthropology as concerned
with the “human element in the agrarian system,” from production to consumption
and symbolic systems of culture, from the origins of the agriculture to future
developments. However, as Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) suggest, there are
many outside forces based on social, economic, and political relationships that
have a great deal of influence on the decisions they make. Farmers are constantly
making changes in order to improve what they feel are the most important aspects
of their operations due to constantly shifting external problems and policies.
Because the farmer is the one who is held accountable for decisions made on the
farm, “Research must come full circle from proper problem identification to
farmer acceptance or rejection” (Rhoades 1984). He states that agriculture
anthropologists strive to translate their knowledge of agriculture as a social and
cultural practice to “technical and policy advances,” some working in academia
and many more employed by international institutes, NGOs and governmental
agencies.

The sub-branch agricultural anthropology is relatively young but Rhoades argues

that intellectual work in agriculture done by early anthropologists was kept
distanced, though it was often a part of ethnographies and a source of employment,
with practitioners serving as liaisons among governments, colonies and peasants.
He points to the new Deal’s Soil Conservation Service of the 1930s as the first
time anthropologists worked in agriculture. Though applied and theoretical studies
of agriculture practices published in other fields (such as sociology and
economics) used anthropological field research, agriculture and anthropology
failed to synthesize until the 1970s, when new doctoral research began to seek
work as professional anthropologists in private and non-profit sectors.

Rhoades details stereotypes that have held back the profession and outlines
strategies for developing a better model to secure employment: develop good
communication; have basic familiarity with bio-scientific terminology;
demonstrate clearly how anthropological methods can make a difference in terms
of production, income, or nutrition; show how farmers are “expert ethno-
botanists” with indigenous knowledge that is very useful to project goals; negotiate
an integral place for themselves and their contribution early in the research
process; and ensure that professional status is perceived as commensurate with
the other affiliated scientists. He then describes three case studies in which
agricultural anthropologists at the International Potato Center in Lima, Peru. He
concludes his chapter by arguing agricultural anthropologists to develop a
professional relationship with a public constituency, to the extent seen in other
fields, such as economics, law, or education, as a means “to declare its relevance
through action.” This will entail the communication of agricultural anthropological
skills and ideas to an audience wider than the narrow community of practitioners,
57
Cultural Dimensions of as well as a modification of university training to incorporate coursework on
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
application and policy, the material base of agriculture and the languages of
agriculture sciences. His studies were widely read and influential far beyond and
initiated key technological and policy changes. Social anthropologists helped
development professionals generally better to appreciate the richness and validity
of rural people’s knowledge (e.g. IDS 1979; Brokensha, Warren and Werner
1980).

4.3.2 Human and the Environment

There are a number of approaches to a human ecology that have been applied
since the early 1980s. These represent the increasing specialisation in anthropology,
not only by the subfields that were described earlier on, but also by different
theoretical approaches. Ecological anthropology there has been a long history of
research on the formal systems of folk knowledge of natural resources. During
the first quarter of the twentieth century, descriptive particularists emphasized
the uniqueness of each culture as demonstrated in its particular knowledge of
plants, animals, astronomy, etc. (e.g., Boas 1998; Kroeber c1948). In the eyes of
descriptive particularists, the natural environment sets certain possibilities from
which cultures, conditioned by their history and particular customs, elaborate
their knowledge.

By the middle of the twentieth century, cultural ecologists tried to explain how
subsistence patterns (“the culture core”) evolve in response to the relevant parts
of the environment and how they shape other cultural features such as social
organisation (Steward, 1955). Cultural ecologists stressed the role of local
knowledge in adapting to specific physical conditions (Orlove and Custred, 1980)
and saw material causes behind the development of a system of traditional
knowledge (Rappaport, 1967). Cultural ecologists were not far from the assertion,
still prevalent, that groups which live in close relationship with natural ecosystems
and depend on them have strong incentives to manage their resources in a
sustainable way, which is reflected in their system of knowledge (Berkes et al.
1995). Human ecology searched for the ecological value of environmental
knowledge embedded in folk taxonomies (Hunn, 1982). Building on the work
of ethnobotanists and ethnobiologists, cognitive anthropologists have examined
the structure and systematic nature of folk knowledge, documenting the
complexity and sophistication of traditional knowledge (Berlin, 1992).

Particularists and cultural ecologists are both environmentally deterministic; that

is, they believe that cultures are determined by the environment in which they
were set. In contrast, human ecologists and cognitive anthropologists have
contributed to the widespread acceptance of indigenous knowledge as systematic
and valuable (Brush, 1993), and to the effort to preserve it. The recognition of
the value of traditional knowledge has been the key step towards its incorporation
into science (Brookfield and Padoch, 1994), the market (King and Carlson, 1995),
agroecological systems (Altieri, 1989), and biodiversity conservation (Orlove
and Brush, 1996). Following these different theoretical tendencies, applied
anthropologists have largely contributed to the effort to recognize the value of
folk knowledge by orienting their research towards ways of using and improving
traditional knowledge to manage natural resources (Posey and Balée, 1989).

Thomas R. McGuire (2005) describes a variety of settings for applied

58 anthropological work concerning human and the environment. For example,
practitioners specializing in this domain might conduct research on the Applied Environmental
Anthropology
management of renewable resources and the people depended up on them or
how local knowledge can be used to build ecological sustainable communities
or even on environmentalism as a social movement. He stresses the importance
of theoretical foundation in all such work and discusses those key conceptual
“building blocks” of environmental anthropology research: cultural ecology,
political ecology and political economy. He maps these concepts according to a
chronology of theoretical shifts in the field from the post World War II era to the
present.

McGuire characterises the 1950s as a time when researchers in environmental

anthropology were primarily interested in human ecosystems. Key questions
addressed how individuals rather than market forces could be empowered to
access and control resources in their region. He notes that during the 1980s and
1990s environmental anthropologists increasingly employed political ecology
to bring these two levels together, “how political and ecological forces interact
to cause social and environmental change.” Other environmental anthropologists
have found such research too politicised in assuming that external forces should
take priority, and they in turn substituted event ecology, focusing on the history
of a significant environmental change in order to offer policymakers more
workable solutions. Still others, having found the field insufficiently political
are committed to liberation ecology and strive to promote alternative development
strategies using community knowledge.

Activity
What are the different domains of applied anthropology?

4.3.3 Indigenous Knowledge: A New Applied Anthropology

The study of indigenous knowledge is a new revolution set in the domain of
Anthropology. Indigenous knowledge research sets out explicitly to make
connections between local peoples understanding and practices and those of
outside researchers and development workers, notably in the natural resources
and health sectors, seeking to achieve a sympathetic and in-depth appreciation
of their experience and objectives and to link them to scientific technology
(Sillitoe, 1998). In this context, participatory research techniques have been
generated indifferent social sciences and the main thrust in such an approach is
to make the people or the subjects into active collaborators in bringing about
desired change. Technology transfer is now considered not as a top – down
imposition but as a search for jointly negotiated advances, which results in cost-
effective, time-effective programmes generating appropriate insights readily
intelligible even to non-experts. Thus participatory approaches seek a more
systematic accommodation of indigenous knowledge in research and
technological interventions (Schaffer, 1989). The demands of indigenous
knowledge and participatory research require the establishment of partnerships
founded on dialogue. Anthropologists are better positioned to take up the tasks
of incorporating indigenous knowledge into the development process as they are
the pioneers in documenting indigenous knowledge systems through participant
observation method that involves living with the subjects for a very long period.
This being the hallmark of Anthropological research, the role-play of
‘Anthropologists as consultants’ in implementing development programmes
becomes much more relevant compared to other social scientists. 59
Cultural Dimensions of Haile (1996) proposes that the idea of harnessing Anthropology to technical
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
knowledge to facilitate development puts the discipline where it should be, at
the center of the development process. This focus on indigenous knowledge has
already resulted in reappraising theoretical as well as methodological aspects of
Anthropology. The liability of indigenous knowledge is reflected in the theoretical
shift from a structural to a processual and to a post-modernist perspective. Certain
methodological advances to tailor interventions to local conditions have already
been put forward by the Anthropologists in ‘doing Anthropology’ by a very
different process.

The process involves the brokering of knowledge in which Anthropologists

become researchers for and consultants to indigenous people and traditional
communities (community-controlled research). They can also oversee that the
indigenous knowledge is not patented for but used in the production of universal
medical technologies, not for private commercial benefits. This will establish
the ‘dialogue’ as the corner-stone of a new Applied Anthropology. In this
endeavour, the greatest challenge to Anthropology vis-à-vis development debate
is to develop criteria and indicators for sustainable development – health
environments, sustainable livelihoods that are based on local, indigenous
perceptions, classifications, values, measures of environmental quality and change
that reflects local observations and knowledge systems, even if they seem
‘magical’, whimsical or destructive to the outsider.

Many applied anthropologists have conducted research on different aspects of

indigenous knowledge. Some authors have focused on individual aspects of
traditional knowledge (Brookfield and Padoch, 1994) while others have focused
on the knowledge elaborated by different groups (Balée, 1994). In general, applied
anthropologists have made the links between indigenous knowledge and the
conservation of biological diversity, assuming that traditional societies have
persisted because of their knowledge about managing natural resources. That is,
applied anthropologists hypothesized that people who rely on natural resources
for their livelihood must have developed methods to ensure the conservation of
their environment (Vivian 1992), one of them being the knowledge of how to
use and preserve the resources they use (Posey, 1990).

Applied anthropologists have also participated in the debate over the property
rights of indigenous knowledge (Brush 1993), ways to compensate indigenous
people for use of their folk knowledge (Posey 1990), and methods used to protect
the property rights of indigenous people to their folk knowledge (Vogel 1994).
Indigenous organisations (Singh Nijar, 1996) and their advocates (Shiva 1997)
claim that indigenous people need a new system of legal protection that recognizes
that most indigenous knowledge is owned by the community, not by individuals,
and that the uneven distribution of knowledge within a culture does not spoil the
principle of common heritage (Brush 1993). Researchers and indigenous activists
are now proposing new laws designed to defend indigenous cultures. Applied
anthropologists have played a significant role in proposing new ideas and laws
to protect the intellectual property rights of communities (Brush 1993).

60
 Applied Environmental
4.4 APPLICATION OF INDIGENOUS Anthropology

ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE IN
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Research interest in Indigenous Environmental Knowledge has been growing in
recent years, partly due to are cognition that such knowledge can contribute to
the conservation of biodiversity (Gadgil et al., 1993), i.e. endangered species,
protected areas, ecological processes, and to sustainable resource use in general.
Ecological anthropologists, Conservation biologists, ethnobiologists, other
scholars, and the pharmaceutical industry all share an interest in traditional
knowledge for scientific, social, or economic reasons.

In the course of the development of the field, the study of Traditional Ecological
Knowledge began with the study of species identifications and classification
(ethnobiology), and proceeded to considerations of peoples’ understandings of
ecological processes and their relationships with the environment (Williams and
Baines, 1993). The analysis of many Traditional Ecological Knowledge systems
shows that there is a component of local observational knowledge of species and
other environmental phenomena, a component of practice in the way people
carry out their resource use activities, and further, a component of belief regarding
how people fit into or relate to ecosystems. In course of time working definition
of Traditional Ecological Knowledge developed as a cumulative body of
knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down
through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living
beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment.

The focus on practical application of ethnoecology is inspired largely by Darrell

Posey and his co-workers, who offer a broad definition of ethnoecology as,
‘indigenous perceptions of “natural” divisions in the biological world and plant-
animal-human relationships within each division’. This, in various aspects, is
argued to have applications in development (Posey et al., 1984). Many authors
prefer to use the term ‘ethnoecological knowledge’ rather than ‘ethnoecology’,
restrict the meaning of the latter to the academic study of ethnoecological
knowledge. Under the definition given, ethnoecological knowledge can be
considered a subset of ‘indigenous knowledge’, defined by Purcell as, ‘the body
of historically constituted (emic) knowledge instrumental in the long-term
adaptation of human groups to the biophysical environment’ (Purcell, 1998).
This definition deviates from that of ‘indigenous people’ in that the criterion of
long-term historical association with a particular point in space is absent. The
emphasis is rather on the retention of some measure of political, economic and
cultural autonomy relative to the state and, consequently, a perspective on planned
change different from that of extra-local actors (Purcell, 1998). Of the various
terms used more or less interchangeably to refer to what Purcell has defined as
‘indigenous knowledge’ (Ellen and Harris, 1997), some of them prefer to use
‘local knowledge’. This is adequately to emphasise the autochthonous character
of such knowledge without the historical implications of the term ‘indigenous’.
In this unit, I use the terms more or less interchangeably, such that ‘indigenous
knowledge’ is employed to refer to the local knowledge of, specifically, groups
conventionally considered to be indigenous.

61
Cultural Dimensions of Indigenous knowledge is an important natural resource that can facilitate the
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
development process in cost-effective, participatory and sustainable way. The
basic component of any country’s knowledge system is its indigenous knowledge.
It encompasses the skills, experiences and insights of people, applied to improve
their livelihood. To ignore people’s knowledge is almost to ensure failure in
development (Brokensha, 1980). Since indigenous knowledge is essential to
development, it is often suggested that it must be gathered and documented in a
coherent and systematic fashion (Brokenshaw, 1980; Warren, 1995).

In the following parts of the section we will discuss some of the works of applied
and cognitive anthropologists dealing with Indigenous Environmental
Knowledge, Conservation and Management of Natural Resources. The works of
applied anthropologists have the greatest impact by making research on the topic
relevant in the public arena.

4.4.1 Conservation of Forest Resources

Indigenous knowledge is the basis for local level decision-making in agriculture,
healthcare, food preparation, education, natural resource management, and a host
of other activities in rural communities. Forest resource conservation is a global
issue. Forest is their main source of economy and livelihood. Tribes have evolved
Indigenous knowledge system (IKS) that is vital in conservation of forest
resources. Intimately tied to indigenous knowledge land management practices
was the conservation of forests. Using indigenous knowledge know-how as well
as rules, prohibitions and taboos, all the communities practiced forest
conservation. For example in India the Akas a small tribal group inhabiting the
sub-Himalayan have their own indigenous knowledge system useful in the
conservation of forest resources. Numerous species of plants are not extracted
from the forests. Similarly, some animals are neither killed nor eaten by these
people. They spare the immature and pregnant animal in the forests. Small saplings
of certain plants are not destroyed. Only required plant parts are collected from
the nearby forests. As such, these people have developed an eco-friendly relation
with the surrounding forest ecosystem. Conservation and management of plant
and animal resources is not a new concept for the tribal people. Conservation of
forest resources refers to the sustainable utilisation of the plant and animal
resources. Various faith and beliefs that are pertinent in protection of sacred
groves, from which extraction of plant material is restricted or tabooed. The
festivals are linked to the forests. Traditionally, they practice an annual hunting
ritual after worshipping the forest god. During such hunting, they spare pregnant
as well as immature animals. The herbal practitioners belonging to the community
do not promote over extraction of medicinal plants, fire and grazing (Gadgil M,
1998).

The communities in Kenya most of the farming was done on the edges of forests,
leaving the thick forests untouched. This helped protect indigenous plants in the
thick forests, which take a long time to mature. It also prevented land degradation.
There were also tree and plant species that were considered sacred, or as totems,
or were associated with some bad omens. For those reasons they were protected.
For instance, Ficus thonningii, known locally in western Kenya as pocho, is
considered sacred by many Kenyan communities including the Embu, Kikuyu,
Kipsigis, Luhyia, Luo, Maasai and Meru. The tree is not supposed to be cut
down or its wood used for fuel. In Swaziland trees such as bhubhubhu (Crotalaria
62
capensis) and gcolokhulu (Rapanea melanonphloeos) are protected from being Applied Environmental
Anthropology
used as sources of building materials. In almost all the communities, there were
also plants and trees that were associated with shrines and water sources that
were therefore protected (Peter Mwaura, 2008).

The communities valued trees for their beauty and products which included fruits
and berries, medicine, fuel wood and construction materials. The various
communities conserved them by harvesting them in a manner that allowed them
to regenerate. There were restraints on the customary right of access to forests,
thus checking the indiscriminate use of forest resources. There were also taboos
and restrictions on gathering of plants, which limited to some degree the harvesting
of plant resources. Some taboos prevented women and young people from cutting
down certain trees. Menstruating women, for example, were prohibited from
collecting medicinal plants; it was believed that if they did so that would reduce
the healing power of the plants. These taboos ensured the conservation of many
species. In many communities, big trees were not cut for domestic purposes;
only small shrubs, reeds, and grass, which regenerate quickly were used, for
example, for building houses. Among the communities in the Lake Victoria basin
aquatic plants such as papyrus reeds and water reeds commonly used in making
basketry, sleeping mats, fish cages and for thatching roofs were harvested
sustainably. In the African Sahel the local populations in their region, through
their indigenous knowledge systems, have developed and implemented extensive
mitigation and adaptation strategies that have enabled them reduce their
vulnerability to past climate variability and change, which exceed those predicted
by models of future climate change.

Indigenous knowledge systems conserved the biodiversity of the local

environment in many ways because of the cross-cutting nature of conservation
measures. Such practices as the traditional protection of forests, shrines,
watercourses, certain species of flora and fauna, as well as farming technologies
that focused on indigenous food crops, contributed immensely to biodiversity.
But the most notable biodiversity conservation practice was the protection of
forests and shrines. Traditional leaders also designated certain areas as exclusion
zones in order to conserve forests. Indiscriminate felling of trees and other
vegetation in these areas was forbidden.

4.4.2 Conservation of Fisheries

Management of water bodies was also an important aspect of indigenous
knowledge in land use and management. The communities that live around water
bodies have used water resources as the basis for their livelihood. In many parts
of the world, coastal fisheries are or were managed traditionally by community
based systems of property rights and associated regimes of rights and rules that
closely reflect social organisation and power structure. Ruddle (1994) reports
that several conservation rules were traditionally employed by many communities
in the Asia-Pacific region to ensure sustained yields. Some practices designed to
conserve resources included live storage or freeing surplus fish during spawning
migrations, setting up of closed seasons especially during spawning; placing
taboos on fishing areas, reservation of particular areas for fishing during bad
weather, size restrictions and in recent times gear restrictions. Some practices
are based on ecological rationale such as the imposition of closed season that
follow local knowledge about the spawning periods of key fish species and
prohibit their capture during such periods. 63
Cultural Dimensions of In Africa there were strict rules on sizes of nets, types of traps and methods of
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
fishing for specific periods of the year. Any young fish caught by mistake was
thrown back into the water. The rules gave the fish opportunities for breeding
while at the same time allowing the communities to fish for specific types of fish
each season. The strict rules on the conservation of mangroves along the coastline
provided a safe sanctuary for the breeding of these marine species and contributed
towards nature conservation by controlling coastal erosion, accretion and water
pollution. Also, the fishing communities were conscious of protecting their main
source of livelihood. Therefore, totems and taboos checked illegal fish catches
and promoted compliance.

4.4.3 Applied Medical Anthropology

Medical anthropology is the study of human health and disease, health care
systems, and biocultural adaptation. The discipline draws upon the four fields of
anthropology to analyse and compare the health of regional populations and of
ethnic and cultural enclaves, both prehistoric and contemporary. Since the mid-
1960s, medical anthropology has developed three major orientations. Medical
ecology views populations as biological as well as cultural units and studies
interactions among ecological systems, health, and human evolution.
Ethnomedical analysis focuses on cultural systems of healing and the cognitive
parameters of illness.

Applied anthropologists have also made marks in medicine. A growing number

of occupational therapists, for example, use applied methods in practice. At the
root, occupational therapy proposes that work and play are central to people’s
health and wellbeing.

With the advent of indigenous knowledge perspective, there is a radical shift in

the mind set from viewing native systems of thought as naïve and rudimentary,
even savage to a recognition that local cultures know their plant, animal and
physical resources intimately (Nazarea, 1999). Tambiah (1990) attests that, in
reality, rather than an empirical ‘folk’ science conforming to universal principles
of ‘real’ science, what we have is multiple contrasting orderings of reality. People
construct their worlds by their knowledge and live by it, and therefore an
anthropology of knowledge should ask how these varieties are variously produced,
represented, transmitted and s applied.

In many tribal societies in the India and different parts of world knowledge related
to these aspects is treated as esoteric and is associated with certain specialized
roles, inherited by certain people, most notably, the shaman or the medicine
man. The shaman treats disease essentially by religious means, through sacrifice
and prayer. Herbs have healing power because of the prayers recited and rituals
performed by the shaman. The etiology of sickness varies. The shaman seeks to
restore the patient’s relationship to the physical, metaphysical and social worlds
–to correct the imbalance that is the root cause of illness. The recovery of good
health and good relationship with fellow community members is achieved by
one or more curing ceremonies.

Applied medical anthropology deals with intervention, prevention, and policy

issues and analyses the socioeconomic forces and power differentials that
influence access to care. In this triad, cultural anthropology is most closely allied
with ethnomedicine. In the formative years, some anthropologists favoured
64
identifying the field as “ethnomedicine,” while others preferred “anthropology Applied Environmental
Anthropology
of health.” The term “medical anthropology prevailed, however, coming to
represent a diversified range of orientations.

Indigenous people can provide valuable input about the local environment and
how to effectively manage its natural resources. Outside interest in indigenous
knowledge systems has been fueled by the recent worldwide ecological crisis
and the realisation that its causes lie partly in the overexploitation of natural
resources based on inappropriate attitudes and technologies. Scientists now
recognize that indigenous people have managed the environments in which they
have lived for generations, often without significantly damaging local ecologies
(Emery, 1996). Many feel that indigenous knowledge can thus provide a powerful
basis from which alternative ways of managing resources can be developed.
Indigenous knowledge technologies and know-how have an advantage over
Science in that they rely on locally available skills and materials and are thus
often more cost-effective than introducing exotic technologies from outside
sources (IIRR, 1996). Incorporating indigenous knowledge into research projects
can contribute to local empowerment and development, increasing self-sufficiency
and strengthening self-determination (Thrupp, 1998).

Activity
Define indigenous environmental knowledge?

4.5 SUMMARY
Applied Anthropology uses anthropological perspectives, methods and theories
to solve human and environmental problems. While in the past, the application
of anthropology was generally to various public sociopolitical issues and problems
such as racial and gender discrimination, environmental justice, refugees, human
rights, and peace and nonviolent conflict resolution, the arena has broadened
significantly in recent times. The application, actual use of anthropological
perspectives, now extends to various areas of government, including policy, law,
law enforcement, and politics; business, industry, economic development,
modernisation, urbanisation, and globalisation; communication and cyberspace;
education and schools; health and disease; indigenous environmental knowledge,
conservation, natural resources, hazards, and disasters; media, sports and
entertainment; cultural resource management, sacred places, and religion; cultural
survival and rights; and war, military, and security. The application of
anthropological perspectives seems fairly limitless.

This unit covers a comprehensive understanding of applied environmental

anthropology, including the history of applied anthropology, environmental issues
like biodiversity conservation, sustainable agriculture, ethno-medicine and
indigenous knowledge etc.

4.6 REFERENCES
Altieri, M.1989 Agroecology and rural development in Latin America. In
Agroecology and Small Farm Development. M. Altieri and S. Hecht, eds. Pp.
113-120. Boca Raton, Florida: CRS.
65
Cultural Dimensions of American Anthropological Association (AAA). 1942. Resolution. American
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
Anthropologist 44:289.

American Anthropological Association. 1990 Revised Principles of

ProfessionalResponsibility, 1990. Washington, D.C.: AAA.

Balee, W. 1994 Footprints of the Forest: Ka’apor Ethnobotany. The Historical

Ecology of Plant Utilisation by an Amazonian People. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Bennett, John 1996 Applied and Action Anthropology. Current Anthropology

36 (Supplement):S23-S53.

Berkes, F., C. Folke, and M. Gadgil 1995. Traditional ecological knowledge,

diversity, resilience and sustainability. In Biodiversity Conservation. Perrings
C.A., ed. Pp. 281-299. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Berlin, B. 1992 Ethnobotanical Classification: Principles of Categorisation of

Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Blaikie, Piers and Harold Brookfield. 1987. Land Degradation and Society.
London: Methuen.

Boas, F. 1998. Franz Boas among the Inuit of Baffin Island, 1883-1884: Journals
and Letters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Brokensha, Warren and Werner. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and

Development, University Press of America, Lanham Maryland.

Brookfield, H. and C. Padoch 1994 Appreciating agrodiversity: A look at the

dynamism and diversity of indigenous farming practices. Environment 36(5):6-
43.

Brush, S. B. 1993 Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual

property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist 93(3):653-
686.

Chambers, Erve 1987 Applied Anthropology in the Post-Vietnam Era:

Anticipations and Ironies. Annual Review of Anthropology 66:309-37.

Chambers, Erve. 1989 Applied Anthropology: A Practical Guide. Prospect

Heights: IL: WavelandPress.

CIRAN 1993 Introduction. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 1

(1):1.

Collier, John. 1936. Instruction to Field Workers, Applied Anthropology Unit.

Washington, D.C.:Office of Indian Affairs, Applied Anthropology Unit.

Eddy, Elizabeth M. and William L. Partridge, Eds. 1987. Applied Anthropology

in America.

New York: Columbia University Press.

66
Ellen, R.F. and H.J. Harris 1997. ‘Concepts of Indigenous Environmental Applied Environmental
Anthropology
Knowledge in Scientific and Development Studies Literature: A Critical
Assessment’. University of Kent

Emery, A.R. (1996). The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Their

Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and Development Planning (draft).
Centre for Traditional Knowledge: Ottawa, Canada.

Gadgil, M., F Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity
conservation. Ambio 22:151-156.

Gadgil M, 1998. Conservation: where are the people? Survey of Environment,

The Hindu, 1-9.

Haile, J.1996. “Umbilical” Anthropology in Action: Journal for Applied

Anthropology in Theory and Practice, 3: 52-55.

Hunn, E. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American

Anthropologist 84:830-847.

IDS .1979. Whose Knowledge Counts?, IDS Bulletin Vol 10 No 2

IIRR (International Institute of Rural Reconstruction). 1996. Recording and Using

Indigenous Knowledge A Manual. IIRR: Silang, Philippines. IUCN/UNEP/WWF
1991 Summary - Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN/UNEP/WWF.

King, S. and T. Carlson 1995 Biocultural diversity, biomedicine, and ethnobotany:

The experience of Shaman Pharmaceuticals. Interciencia 20(3):134-139.

Kroeber, A. 1948 .1963. Anthropology: Culture Patterns and Processes. New

York: Harcourt, Brace & World

Kushner, Gilbert. 1978. Applied Anthropology Training Programs. Practicing

Anthropology 1(2):23.

Kushner, Gilbert. 1994. Training Programs for the Practice of Anthropology.

Human Organisation53(2):187-191.

Little, Peter D. 2005. Anthropology and development. In Satish Kedia and John
van Willigen (Eds.), Applied Anthropology: Domains of Application, Westport,
CT.: Praeger, 31-59.

Nazarea, Virginia. 1999. “A view from a point:Echnoecology as situated

knowedge,” in V.D. Nazarea(ed.), Ethno-ecology: Situated Knowledge/
LocatedLives. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

National Association of Practicing Anthropologists (NAPA)1988National

Association of Practicing Anthropologists’ Ethical Guidelines forPractitioners.
Washington, D.C.: NAPA.

Niehoff, Arthur H. (ed.) 1966. A Casebook of Social Change: Critical Evaluations

of Attempts to Introduce Change in the Five Major Developing Areas of the
World. Chicago: Aldine.
67
Cultural Dimensions of Orlove, B. and S. B. Brush 1996 Anthropology and the conservation of
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
biodiversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:329-352.

Orlove, B. and G. Custred 1980 Land and Power in Latin America: Agrarian
Economies and Social Processes in the Andes. New York: Holmes & Meier
Publishers.

Peter Mwaura, 2008. Indigenous Knowledge in Disaster Management in Africa.

United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Posey, D.A., J. Frechione, J. Eddins and L. Francelino da Silva 1984.

‘Ethnoecology asapplied anthropology in Amazonian development’. Human
Organisation 43(2): 95-107.

Posey, D. and W. Balee 1989 Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous

and Folk Societies. New York: New York Botanical Garden.

Posey, D. 1990 Intellectual property rights and just compensation for indigenous
knowledge. Anthropology Today 6(4):13-16.

Purcell, T.W. 1998. ‘Indigenous knowledge and applied anthropology: questions

of definition and direction.’ Human Organisation 57(3): 258-272.

Rappaport, R.1967. Ritual regulation of environmental relations among a New

Guinea people. In Anthropological History. An Introductory History. R. J. Mc
Gee and R. L. Warms, eds. Pp. 296-309. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing
Company.

Reed, Ann M.1998 Applied Anthropology. http://www.indiana. edu/~wanthro/

theory_pages/Applied.htm.

Rhoades. Robert. 1984. Breaking new ground: Agricultural anthropology. Lima,

Peru: CIP.

Ruddle, K. (1994). Changing the Focus of Coastal Fisheries Management, pp

63- 86. In: Pomeroy, R.S. (ed) Community Management and Common Property
of Coastal Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, Methods and Experiences.
ICLARM, Metro Manila.

Schafer, J. 1989. “Utilizing indigenous agricultural know-ledge in the planning

of agricultural research projectsdesigned to aid small scale farmers,” in D. M.
Warren,L.J.Slikkerveer, and S. O. Tittlol (eds.), IndigenousKnowledge Systems:
Implications for Agricultureand International Development. Ames: Iowa
StateUniversity.

Shiva, V. 1997 Biopiracy. The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Boston: South
End Press.

Sillitoe, Paul. 1998. The development of indigenous knowledge: A New Applied

Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 39(2) 223-53.

Singh Nijar, G. 1996 In defense of local community knowledge and biodiversity.

A conceptual framework and the essential elements of a rights regime. Penang,
Malaysia: Third World Network.
68
Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA). 1948. Statement on Professional and Applied Environmental
Anthropology
Ethical Responsibilities. Oklahoma City, OK:SfAA.

Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) 1975 Statement on Professional and

Ethical Responsibilities (Revised). HumanOrganisation 34(2).

Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)1983Statement on Professional and

Ethical Responsibilities (Revised). OklahomaCity, OK: SfAA.

Spicer, Edward H.1946. The Use of Social Scientists by the War Relocation
Authority. AppliedAnthropology 5(2):16-36.

Spicer, Edward H. (ed.) 1952. Human Problems in Technological Change.

(Second edition, 1965.) New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Steward, J. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Tambiah, Stanley. 1990. Magic, Science, and the Scopeof Rationality. Cambridge:
Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tax, Sol. 1945. Anthropology and Administration. American Indigena 5(1):21-

33.

Tax, Sol. 1960. Action Anthropology. In Documentary History of the Fox Project.
F. Gearinget al., (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of
Anthropology.

Thomas R. McGuire. 2005. “The Domain of the Environment,” in Applied

Anthropology: Domains of Application. Edited by Satish Kedia and John van
Willigen. Westport, CT: Praeger, Pp. 87-117.

Thrupp, L.A. (1998). “Legitimizing Local Knowledge: From Displacement to

Empowerment For Third World People”. Agriculture and HumanValues. Summer
Issue. Pp.13-24.

Trotter, Robert T. (ed.)1988 Anthropology for Tomorrow: Creating Practitioner-

Oriented AppliedAnthropology Programs. Special publication of the American
AnthropologicalAssociation in collaboration with the National Association for
the Practice ofAnthropology, Number 24. Washington, D.C.: American
Anthropological Association.

van Willigen, John.1991. Anthropology In Use: A Source Book on

Anthropological Practice. Boulder,CO: Westview.

van Willigen, John 1993 Applied Anthropology: An Introduction. Westport, CT:

Bergin & Garvey.

Vivian, J.1992 Foundations for sustainable development: Participation,

empowerment and local resource management. In Grassroots Environmental
Action. People’s Participation in Sustainable Development. D. Ghai and J. Vivian,
eds. London: Routledge.

Vogel, J. 1994 Genes for Sale: Privatisation as a Conservation Policy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
69
Cultural Dimensions of Warren, D.M.: The Cultural Dimensions of Development, Indigenous Knowledge
Development and
Biodiversity Conservation
Systems. Intermediate Technology Publication, London (1995).

Weidman, Hazel H.1973. Implications of the Culture-broker Concept for the

Delivery of Health Care. Paper presented at meetings of the Southern
Anthropological Society, WrightsvilleBeach, North Carolina.

Williams, N. M., and G. Baines, editors. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge:

wisdom for sustainable develop- ment. Centre for Resource and Environmental
Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Suggested Reading
Baba, Marietta 1994 The Fifth Subdiscipline: Anthropological Practice and the
Future of Anthropology. Human Qrganisation 53(2):174-186.

Satish Kedia and John van Willigen (eds). Applied Anthropology: Domains of
Application. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2005.

Sample Questions
1) Discuss briefly history of applied anthropology.
2) Describe the different domains in which applied anthropologists work.
3) Indigenous knowledge and applied anthropology discuss?
4) Role of indigenous knowledge in conservation of biodiversity explain?

70