Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/42452
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPHAKA, Fortunate-
dc.contributor.authorDu Preez, Louis H.-
dc.contributor.authorHUGE, Jean-
dc.contributor.authorVANHOVE, Maarten-
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-21T10:14:07Z-
dc.date.available2024-02-21T10:14:07Z-
dc.date.issued2024-
dc.date.submitted2024-02-17T23:39:16Z-
dc.identifier.citationKOEDOE, 66 (1) (Art N° a1777)-
dc.identifier.issn0075-6458-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/42452-
dc.description.abstractUnderstanding 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-
dc.description.sponsorshipF.M.P. is supported by the National Research Foundation (UID: 114663), North-West University, Youth 4 African Wildlife NPC, and the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR-UOS) Global Minds program (contract number: R-9363); M.P.M.V. is supported by the Special Research Fund of Hasselt University (BOF20TT06) Acknowledgements North-West University and Hasselt University are thanked for approving the bilateral scientific cooperation that enabled this research. This article is partially based on the author’s thesis of the joint PhD degree for Environmental Sciences and Biology at the North-West University, South Africa and Hasselt University, Belgium, with supervisors Professors Louis H. du Preez, Jean Hugé, and Maarten P.M. Vanhove received July 2022, available here: http://hdl.handle.net/10394/40120 and http://hdl.handle.net/1942/38046.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherAOSIS-
dc.rights2024. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution License.-
dc.subject.otherbiodiversity-
dc.subject.otherbiocultural diversity-
dc.subject.othercultural diversity-
dc.subject.othercultural anthropology-
dc.subject.otherethnobiology-
dc.subject.otherindigenous knowledge systems-
dc.subject.otherintegrative conservation-
dc.subject.othersustainability-
dc.titlePeer-reviewed research based on the relationship between South African cultures and biodiversity-
dc.typeJournal Contribution-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.volume66-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatA1-
dc.description.notesPhaka, FM (corresponding author), North West Univ, Fac Nat & Agr Sci, Unit Environm Sci & Management, Potchefstroom, South Africa.; Phaka, FM (corresponding author), Hasselt Univ, Ctr Environm Sci, Res Grp Zool Biodivers & Toxicol, Diepenbeek, Belgium.; Phaka, FM (corresponding author), South African Inst Aquat Biodivers, Makhanda, South Africa.-
dc.description.notesmafetap@gmail.com-
local.publisher.placePostnet Suite 110, Private Bag x 19, Durbanville, SOUTH AFRICA-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedArticle-
local.bibliographicCitation.artnra1777-
dc.identifier.doi10.4102/koedoe.v66i1.1777-
dc.identifier.isi001179500900001-
dc.identifier.eissn2071-0771-
local.provider.typeCrossRef-
local.description.affiliation[Phaka, Fortunate M.; du Preez, Louis H.] North West Univ, Fac Nat & Agr Sci, Unit Environm Sci & Management, Potchefstroom, South Africa.-
local.description.affiliation[Phaka, Fortunate M.; Huge, Jean; Vanhove, Maarten P. M.] Hasselt Univ, Ctr Environm Sci, Res Grp Zool Biodivers & Toxicol, Diepenbeek, Belgium.-
local.description.affiliation[Phaka, Fortunate M.; du Preez, Louis H.] South African Inst Aquat Biodivers, Makhanda, South Africa.-
local.description.affiliation[Huge, Jean] Open Univ Netherlands, Fac Sci, Dept Environm Sci, Heerlen, Netherlands.-
local.description.affiliation[Huge, Jean] Vrije Univ Brussel, Dept Biol, Brussels, Belgium.-
local.uhasselt.internationalyes-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.accessRightsOpen Access-
item.fullcitationPHAKA, Fortunate; Du Preez, Louis H.; HUGE, Jean & VANHOVE, Maarten (2024) Peer-reviewed research based on the relationship between South African cultures and biodiversity. In: KOEDOE, 66 (1) (Art N° a1777).-
item.contributorPHAKA, Fortunate-
item.contributorDu Preez, Louis H.-
item.contributorHUGE, Jean-
item.contributorVANHOVE, Maarten-
crisitem.journal.issn0075-6458-
crisitem.journal.eissn2071-0771-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Phaka et al 2024 Koedoe.pdfPublished version1.28 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.