Perceptions of Local People toward Wild Edible Plant Gathering and Consumption: Insights from the Q-method in Hani Terraces

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.04.004

Abstract

Abstract:

Wild edible plants (WEPs) can provide a variety of provisioning services and cultural services but they are currently under-utilized. Understanding farmers’ perceptions of the collection and consumption of wild edible plant resources is essential for promoting local socio-ecological system resilience and local wild plant resource use. This paper uses the Q-method to investigate the main perspectives of farmers toward collecting and consuming wild edible plants in the Honghe Hani Terraces region of Yunnan Province. This analysis identified four main perspective types among the farmers, including market-driven, household user-driven, cultural service seekers, and tradition followers. It revealed the main factors that limit and facilitate farmers’ WEP collection and consumption, including limitations due to loss of traditional knowledge, and changes in socioeconomic conditions that negatively affect WEP collection and consumption; while, on the other hand, the demand for WEP-related cultural services and the presence of a strong culture slowed down changes in dietary structure, which in turn have maintained WEP collection and consumption. The Q-method can help in identifying the relationship between community residents and local wild plant resource use in rapidly transitioning areas and in identifying the barriers that affect the resilience of local socio-ecological systems.

Key words: wild edible plants, Q-method, Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS), perception, Hani Terraces

DING Lubin, HE Siyuan, MIN Qingwen, LI Heyao, MA Nan, LI Wenhua. Perceptions of Local People toward Wild Edible Plant Gathering and Consumption: Insights from the Q-method in Hani Terraces[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 462-470.

Figures/Tables 3

References 32

[1]	Abbet C, Mayor R, Roguet D, et al. 2014. Ethnobotanical survey on wild alpine food plants in Lower and Central Valais (Switzerland). Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 151(1):624-634. DOI URL
[2]	Abdul A M, Abbasi A M, Ullah Z, et al. 2020. Shared but threatened: The heritage of wild food plant gathering among different linguistic and religious groups in the Ishkoman and Yasin valleys, North Pakistan. Foods, 9(5):601. DOI: 10.3390/foods9050601. DOI URL
[3]	Acosta-Naranjo R, Guzmán-Troncoso A J, Gómez-Melara J. 2020. The persistence of wild edible plants in agroforestry systems: The case of wild asparagus in southern Extremadura (Spain). Agroforestry Systems, 94(6):2391-2400. DOI URL
[4]	Brown S R. 1980. Political subjectivity:Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press.
[5]	Brown S R. 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4):561-567. DOI URL
[6]	Buckwell A, Fleming C, Muurmans M, et al. 2020. Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method. Ecological Economics, 177:106781. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106781. DOI URL
[7]	Cross R M. 2005. Exploring attitudes: The case for Q methodology. Health Education Research, 20(2):206-213. PMID
[8]	Dziopa F, Ahern K. 2011. A systematic literature review of the applications of Q-technique and its methodology. Methodology, 7(2):39-55. DOI URL
[9]	Duguma H T. 2020. Wild edible plant nutritional contribution and consumer perception in Ethiopia. International Journal of Food Science, 2020: 2958623. DOI: 10.1155/2020/2958623. DOI
[10]	Fairweather J R, Klonsky K. 2009. Response to Vanclay et al. on farming styles: Q methodology for identifying styles and its relevance to extension. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(2):189-198. DOI URL
[11]	Geng Y F, Yang Y, Zhang Y, et al. 2015. Research development of food plant ethnobotany—Bibliometric and mapping knowledge domains analysis based on Web of Science. Journal of Plant Taxonomy and Resources, 37(4):479-490.
[12]	Hiedanpää J, Saijets J, Jounela P, et al. 2020. Beliefs in conflict: The management of Teno Atlantic salmon in the Sámi homeland in Finland. Environmental Management, 66(6):1039-1058. DOI URL
[13]	Hunter D, Borelli T, Beltrame D M O, et al. 2019. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta, 250(3):709-729. DOI PMID
[14]	Liu M C, Xiong Y, Yuan Z, et al. 2014. Standards of ecological compensation for traditional eco-agriculture: Taking Rice-fish System in Hani Terrace as an example. Journal of Mountain Science, 11(4):1049-1059. DOI URL
[15]	Luo B S, Liu B, Zhang H Z, et al. 2019. Wild edible plants collected by Hani from terraced rice paddy agroecosystem in Honghe Prefecture, Yunnan, China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1):56. DOI: 10.1186/s13002-019-0336-x. DOI URL
[16]	Lynch A H, Adler C E, Howard N C. 2014. Policy diffusion in arid basin water management: A Q-method approach in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4):1601-1613. DOI URL
[17]	Mavengahama S, McLachlan M, Clercq W. 2013. The role of wild vegetable species in household food security in maize based subsistence cropping systems. Food Security, 5(2):227-233. DOI URL
[18]	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being:A framework for assessment. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
[19]	Muller J, Almedom A M. 2008. What is “famine food”? Distinguishing between traditional vegetables and special foods for times of hunger/scarcity (Boumba, Niger). Human Ecology, 36(4):599-607. DOI URL
[20]	Ngome P I T, Shackleton C, Degrande A, et al. 2017. Addressing constraints in promoting wild edible plants’ utilization in household nutrition: Case of the Congo Basin forest area. Agriculture & Food Security, 6(1):1-10.
[21]	Nolan J M, Pieroni A. 2014. Introduction to special issue on food security in a changing world. Journal of Ethnobiology, 34(1):4-6. DOI URL
[22]	Nordhagen S, Pascual U, Drucker A G. 2017. Feeding the household, growing the business, or just showing off? Farmers’ motivations for crop diversity choices in Papua New Guinea. Ecological Economics, 137:99-109. DOI URL
[23]	Pawera L, Khomsan A, Zuhud E A M, et al. 2020. Wild food plants and trends in their use: From knowledge and perceptions to drivers of change in west Sumatra, Indonesia. Foods, 9(9):1240. DOI: 10.3390/foods9091240. DOI URL
[24]	Pirard R, Petit H, Baral H, et al. 2016. Perceptions of local people toward pulpwood plantations: Insights from the Q-method in Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 18(2):218-230. DOI URL
[25]	Pouta E, Sievänen T, Neuvonen M. 2006. Recreational wild berry picking in Finland—Reflection of a rural lifestyle. Society & Natural Resources, 19(4):285-304.
[26]	Wijaya S. 2019. Indonesian food culture mapping: A starter contribution to promote Indonesian culinary tourism. Journal of Ethnic Foods, 6(1):1-10. DOI URL
[27]	Yuan Z, Min Q W, Cheng S K. 2013. The smallholder economy for the Hani Rice Terraces sustaining millennium. Journal of China Agricultural University ( Social Sciences Edition) , 30(4):133-140. (in Chinese)
[28]	Zabala A, Pascual U. 2016. Bootstrapping Q methodology to improve the understanding of human perspectives. Plos One, 11(2):e0148087. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148087. DOI URL
[29]	Zabala A, Pascual U, García-Barrios L. 2017. Payments for pioneers? Revisiting the role of external rewards for sustainable innovation under heterogeneous motivations. Ecological Economics, 135:234-245. DOI URL
[30]	Zhang Y X, Xia D L, Min Q W. 2018. How to balance the relationship between conservation of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS) and socio-economic development? A theoretical framework of sustainable industrial integration development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204:553-563. DOI URL
[31]	Zhang Y X, Li X D, Min Q W. 2019. Transportation accessibility of central towns in important Agricultural Heritage Systems sites in mountainous areas and its impact on local economic development: A case study of Honghe Hani Rice Terraced System, Yunnan. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 10(1):29-38. DOI URL
[32]	Zhang Y X, Min Q W, Zhang C Q, et al. 2017. Traditional culture as an important power for maintaining agricultural landscapes in cultural heritage sites: A case study of the Hani Terraces. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 25:170-179. DOI URL

ID	Statement	Topic	Factors
ID	Statement	Topic	1	2	3	4
S1	WEPs are usually delicious, so I will gather them	E	3	1	0	3
S2	Gathering WEPs saves time and effort and is more convenient than growing my own vegetables	B	-2^**	-1^**	-3^**	1^**
S3	WEPs are nutritious and eating them is good for my health	E	2	0	0	2
S4	Gathering WEPs can increase family income	B	-1	0^*	-2	3^**
S5	When I have nothing to do, I gather WEPs to pass the time	E	0	0	-3^**	-1^*
S6	Picking WEPs puts me in a good mood and makes me happier	E	3^**	-2^**	0	0
S7	Watching other people eat WEPs, I will eat them too	D	1^*	-1	-1	-1
S8	Eating WEPs is a Hani tradition	D	1	1^**	3	2
S9	I have a way of cooking WEPs that will be delicious	A	1	-2^**	1	1
S10	The government should promote the benefits of eating WEPs and increase the purchase and price of WEPs	D	1	0	-2	0
S11	WEPs can be sold or made into specialties and sold to tourists	B	2	3	0	0
S12	Knowledge about gathering and cooking WEPs is important	A	2	1	3^*	1
S13	I think WEPs can be very helpful in dealing with food scarcity	E	0	1	-1	1
S14	Nostalgia for picking WEPs as a child will influence my gathering of WEP	E	0	2^*	2	-1^**
S15	Eating WEPs will save my family some money	B	0	-1	1	-2^*
S16	Talking to friends about WEPs can affect the collection of WEPs	D	-1	-2	1	0
S17	There are some wildcrafted vegetables that you need to learn from others to master	A	0	2^**	0^*	-1
S18	Wild vegetables are for the poor	D	-3^*	-3	-1^**	-3
S19	Gathering WEPs is something women (or children) do	D	-2	-3	-2	-3
S20	Changing habits can affect the collection of WEPs	D	-2	2	1	-2
S21	Fewer places to gather WEPs than before	C	-1^**	3	2	2
S22	It’s easier to buy groceries, which affects my picking of WEPs	D	-1	0	-1	0
S23	For me, gathering WEPs is not cost effective	B	-3^**	-1	2^**	-2

ID	Statement	Topic	Factors
ID	Statement	Topic	1	2	3	4
S1	WEPs are usually delicious, so I will gather them	E	3	1	0	3
S2	Gathering WEPs saves time and effort and is more convenient than growing my own vegetables	B	-2^**	-1^**	-3^**	1^**
S3	WEPs are nutritious and eating them is good for my health	E	2	0	0	2
S4	Gathering WEPs can increase family income	B	-1	0^*	-2	3^**
S5	When I have nothing to do, I gather WEPs to pass the time	E	0	0	-3^**	-1^*
S6	Picking WEPs puts me in a good mood and makes me happier	E	3^**	-2^**	0	0
S7	Watching other people eat WEPs, I will eat them too	D	1^*	-1	-1	-1
S8	Eating WEPs is a Hani tradition	D	1	1^**	3	2
S9	I have a way of cooking WEPs that will be delicious	A	1	-2^**	1	1
S10	The government should promote the benefits of eating WEPs and increase the purchase and price of WEPs	D	1	0	-2	0
S11	WEPs can be sold or made into specialties and sold to tourists	B	2	3	0	0
S12	Knowledge about gathering and cooking WEPs is important	A	2	1	3^*	1
S13	I think WEPs can be very helpful in dealing with food scarcity	E	0	1	-1	1
S14	Nostalgia for picking WEPs as a child will influence my gathering of WEP	E	0	2^*	2	-1^**
S15	Eating WEPs will save my family some money	B	0	-1	1	-2^*
S16	Talking to friends about WEPs can affect the collection of WEPs	D	-1	-2	1	0
S17	There are some wildcrafted vegetables that you need to learn from others to master	A	0	2^**	0^*	-1
S18	Wild vegetables are for the poor	D	-3^*	-3	-1^**	-3
S19	Gathering WEPs is something women (or children) do	D	-2	-3	-2	-3
S20	Changing habits can affect the collection of WEPs	D	-2	2	1	-2
S21	Fewer places to gather WEPs than before	C	-1^**	3	2	2
S22	It’s easier to buy groceries, which affects my picking of WEPs	D	-1	0	-1	0
S23	For me, gathering WEPs is not cost effective	B	-3^**	-1	2^**	-2

Respondent	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
1	0.4057	0.6336^*	0.0849	0.1884
2	-0.1317	0.8078^*	0.0733	0.0526
3	-0.0864	-0.1478	0.4273	0.5793^*
4	-0.1360	0.2197	-0.5378^*	-0.0011
5	0.2289	0.0087	-0.2639	0.7453^*
6	0.7694^*	-0.0050	0.2337	-0.0723
7	0.7732^*	0.1064	0.3123	0.1966
8	0.3243	-0.0130	0.5943^*	0.3496
9	-0.0371	0.4983	0.7675^*	0.0430
10	0.7308^*	0.1296	0.0353	0.2960
11	0.4868	0.4153	0.1496	0.2135
12	0.3294	0.1486	0.0745	0.8165^*
13	0.0004	0.2083	0.7218^*	-0.1399
14	0.2813	0.4105	0.1552	0.4773
15	-0.0656	0.3367	-0.1335	0.5243^*
16	0.3443	0.3521	0.0622	-0.1041
17	0.6488^*	-0.0022	-0.2491	0.5375
18	0.1693	-0.0667	0.2656	0.5483^*
19	0.3838	0.6356^*	0.3008	0.3777
20	0.3936	0.4355	0.1382	0.5075
21	0.3972	0.2953	0.4229	0.2868
22	0.8119^*	0.0603	-0.0596	0.2909
23	0.5862^*	0.2706	0.0928	0.4858
24	0.5272^*	0.0678	0.4118	0.1339
25	0.2158	0.2536	0.0679	0.7189^*
26	0.3904	0.6137^*	0.2413	0.2542
27	0.5788	0.5724	-0.0070	0.2558
28	0.8752^*	0.0547	-0.0128	0.2208
29	-0.0765	-0.6637^*	0.3834	0.0246
30	0.5128	-0.6134^*	-0.0168	-0.0584
Explained variance in %	21	15	10	15
Number of defining variable	8	6	4	6
Correlations between factor scores
Factor 1		0.2540	0.2172	0.5261
Factor 2			0.3530	0.3301
Factor 3				0.1735

Respondent	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
1	0.4057	0.6336^*	0.0849	0.1884
2	-0.1317	0.8078^*	0.0733	0.0526
3	-0.0864	-0.1478	0.4273	0.5793^*
4	-0.1360	0.2197	-0.5378^*	-0.0011
5	0.2289	0.0087	-0.2639	0.7453^*
6	0.7694^*	-0.0050	0.2337	-0.0723
7	0.7732^*	0.1064	0.3123	0.1966
8	0.3243	-0.0130	0.5943^*	0.3496
9	-0.0371	0.4983	0.7675^*	0.0430
10	0.7308^*	0.1296	0.0353	0.2960
11	0.4868	0.4153	0.1496	0.2135
12	0.3294	0.1486	0.0745	0.8165^*
13	0.0004	0.2083	0.7218^*	-0.1399
14	0.2813	0.4105	0.1552	0.4773
15	-0.0656	0.3367	-0.1335	0.5243^*
16	0.3443	0.3521	0.0622	-0.1041
17	0.6488^*	-0.0022	-0.2491	0.5375
18	0.1693	-0.0667	0.2656	0.5483^*
19	0.3838	0.6356^*	0.3008	0.3777
20	0.3936	0.4355	0.1382	0.5075
21	0.3972	0.2953	0.4229	0.2868
22	0.8119^*	0.0603	-0.0596	0.2909
23	0.5862^*	0.2706	0.0928	0.4858
24	0.5272^*	0.0678	0.4118	0.1339
25	0.2158	0.2536	0.0679	0.7189^*
26	0.3904	0.6137^*	0.2413	0.2542
27	0.5788	0.5724	-0.0070	0.2558
28	0.8752^*	0.0547	-0.0128	0.2208
29	-0.0765	-0.6637^*	0.3834	0.0246
30	0.5128	-0.6134^*	-0.0168	-0.0584
Explained variance in %	21	15	10	15
Number of defining variable	8	6	4	6
Correlations between factor scores
Factor 1		0.2540	0.2172	0.5261
Factor 2			0.3530	0.3301
Factor 3				0.1735