Peer-reviewed research based on the relationship between South African cultures and biodiversity

Koedoe - African Protected Area Conservation and Science

 
 
Field Value
 
Title Peer-reviewed research based on the relationship between South African cultures and biodiversity
 
Creator Phaka, Fortunate M. du Preez, Louis H. Huge, Jean Vanhove, Maarten P.M.
 
Subject Environmental management, conservation, ethnobiology biodiversity; biocultural diversity; cultural diversity; cultural anthropology; ethnobiology; indigenous knowledge systems; integrative conservation; sustainability.
Description Understanding past and present relationships of traditional cultures with biodiversity through biocultural research can help inform inclusive conservation policy and planning in a country seeking to undo past injustices such as South Africa. This review of 326 articles published between 1990 and 2019 maps the methodology employed in biocultural research, the focus of this research niche, ethical conduct and research recommendations to understand the state of biocultural research and make recommendations for biocultural research that is representative of South Africa’s diverse cultural landscape. This systematic review of original research articles indexed on the Scopus database found South African biocultural research to exclude Swati and Ndebele cultures while having an unevenly strong focus on plants, human health sciences, rural areas, and three of the country’s nine provinces. Some of this unevenness is likely because of utility of plants in human health and association of traditional practices with rural areas. Using a systematic review approach for this study not only ensured replicability but it also introduced a limitation of the results only being applicable to peer-reviewed articles indexed on the Scopus database.Conservation implications: Biocultural research’s strong focus on utilitarian use could encourage conservation policy that favours utilitarian use of wildlife. An even focus in biocultural research is recommended to avoid the knowledge pool for conservation policy being mostly focussed on utilitarian value.
 
Publisher AOSIS Publishing
 
Contributor
Date 2024-02-12
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion — —
Format text/html application/epub+zip text/xml application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf
Identifier 10.4102/koedoe.v66i1.1777
 
Source Koedoe; Vol 66, No 1 (2024); 10 pages 2071-0771 0075-6458
 
Language eng
 
Relation
The following web links (URLs) may trigger a file download or direct you to an alternative webpage to gain access to a publication file format of the published article:

https://koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/view/1777/3168 https://koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/view/1777/3169 https://koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/view/1777/3170 https://koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/view/1777/3174 https://koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/view/1777/3175 https://koedoe.co.za/index.php/koedoe/article/view/1777/3171
 
Coverage South Africa Anthropocene —
Rights Copyright (c) 2024 Fortunate M. Phaka, Louis H. du Preez, Jean Huge, Maarten P.M. Vanhove https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
ADVERTISEMENT