Evaluating Two Quantitative Ethnobotanical Techniques

Abstract

A critical evaluation of two quantitative techniques used in ethnobotanical studies was undertaken using data concerning plant use in a rural community in the semi-arid region of Pernambuco State, northeastern Brazil. The relative importance of 36 native woody species reported as being useful by 98 informants was calculated employing the Use-Value (UV) and Relative Importance (RI) techniques. Both techniques place value on a given taxon based on the number of uses attributed to it. Results obtained for both techniques are positively correlated, suggesting that they can be used interchangeably to evaluate local knowledge of a given resource. The implications and interpretation limitations of these two techniques are discussed in detail.