Paper Producitve Diversification

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/263178892
Productive Diversiﬁcation and Sustainable Use of Complex

Social-Ecological Systems: A Comparative Study of Indigenous
and Settler Communities in the Bolivian Amazon
Article in Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems · February 2014

DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.841606
CITATIONS READS
12 146
8 authors, including:
Patrick Bottazzi Victoria Reyes-García

Universität Bern Autonomous University of Barcelona
34 PUBLICATIONS 304 CITATIONS 364 PUBLICATIONS 10,080 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
David Crespo Rocha Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel

Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Sede Ecuador Universität Bern
8 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 241 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Towards Food System Sustainability. Reshaping the Co-existence of Different Food Systems in Kenya and Bolivia View project
Mountain Research and Development (MRD): international, peer-rev. journal View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Stephan Rist on 22 February 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [92.107.5.44]
On: 10 January 2014, At: 07:11
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Agroecology and Sustainable Food

Systems
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21
Productive Diversification and

Sustainable Use of Complex Social-
Ecological Systems: A Comparative Study
of Indigenous and Settler Communities in
the Bolivian Amazon
a b c d
Patrick Bottazzi , Victoria Reyes-García , David Crespo , Sarah-
a d e
Lan Marthez-Stiefel , Harry Soria Galvarro , Johanna Jacobi ,
f a
Marcelo Clavijo & Stephan Rist
a
Centre for Development and Environment , University of Bern ,
Bern , Switzerland
b
Institute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne ,
Lausanne , Switzerland
c
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, ICTA, Campus UAB,
Cerdanyola del allès , Barcelona , Spain
d
FLASCO , Quito , Ecuador
e
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick , Basel ,
Switzerland
f
Agroecologia Cochabamba , Cochabamba , Bolivia
Accepted author version posted online: 18 Sep 2013.Published
online: 02 Dec 2013.
To cite this article: Patrick Bottazzi , Victoria Reyes-García , David Crespo , Sarah-Lan Marthez-
Stiefel , Harry Soria Galvarro , Johanna Jacobi , Marcelo Clavijo & Stephan Rist (2014) Productive
Diversification and Sustainable Use of Complex Social-Ecological Systems: A Comparative Study
of Indigenous and Settler Communities in the Bolivian Amazon, Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, 38:2, 137-164, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.841606
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.841606
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [92.107.5.44] at 07:11 10 January 2014
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38:137–164, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 2168-3565 print/2168-3573 online
DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.841606
Productive Diversification and Sustainable Use

of Complex Social-Ecological Systems: A
Comparative Study of Indigenous and Settler
Communities in the Bolivian Amazon
PATRICK BOTTAZZI,1,2 VICTORIA REYES-GARCÍA,3

DAVID CRESPO,4 SARAH-LAN MARTHEZ-STIEFEL,1
HARRY SORIA GALVARRO,4 JOHANNA JACOBI,5
MARCELO CLAVIJO,6 and STEPHAN RIST1

1
Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
2
Institute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
3
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, ICTA, Campus UAB, Cerdanyola del allès,
Barcelona, Spain
4
FLASCO, Quito, Ecuador
5
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick, Basel, Switzerland
6
Agroecologia Cochabamba, Cochabamba, Bolivia
Agricultural and forest productive diversification depends on mul-

tiple socioeconomic drivers—like knowledge, migration, productive
capacity, and market—that shape productive strategies and influ-
ence their ecological impacts. Our comparison of indigenous and
settlers allows a better understanding of how societies develop dif-
ferent diversification strategies in similar ecological contexts and
how the related socioeconomic aspects of diversification are asso-
ciated with land cover change. Our results suggest that although
indigenous people cause less deforestation and diversify more,
diversification is not a direct driver of deforestation reduction.
A multidimensional approach linking sociocognitive, economic,
and ecological patterns of diversification helps explain this con-
tradiction.
KEYWORDS productive diversification, biocultural diversity,

indigenous knowledge, deforestation, Bolivian Amazon
Address correspondence to Patrick Bottazzi, Centre for Development and

Environment, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland. E-mail:
patrick.bottazzi@cde.unibe.ch
137
138 P. Bottazzi et al.
1. INTRODUCTION
Productive diversification is defined as the total number of different crops

cultivated, livestock raised, game hunted, and forest products extracted or
produced by an economic unit (Fabusoro et al. 2010). Over the last decade,
interest in this concept has grown, as productive diversification can poten-
tially help poor farmers to become more resilient to environmental and
economic changes (such as price fluctuations due to liberalization of mar-
kets or the growing costs of external inputs like seeds, fertilizers, pesticides,
or labor). While some research minimizes the potential effects of produc-
tive diversification on biodiversity and forest cover (Jagoret et al. 2009),
other studies present it as a real solution to rural poverty and ecosystem
degradation, because it presumably helps meet local livelihood needs while
being ecologically sustainable (Halstead and O’Shea 1989; Paustian et al.
1998; Kamanga et al. 2009). For example, increasing agricultural biodiversity
and diversifying the extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFP) are

often presented as alternatives to market-oriented efforts to address rural
poverty and natural resource degradation in the tropics (Vadez et al. 2004;
Roy Chowdhury 2010).
Despite the importance of the assumed link between productive
diversification and sustainable livelihoods, the topic remains insufficiently
documented. Many studies on agriculture and forest products diversification
are limited to agronomical or technical aspects (Jagger and Pender 2003;
Kindt et al. 2006; Leakey and Tchoundjeu 2001; Mbile et al. 2006; Murphy
and Bray 2007). But understanding the conditions for successful productive
diversification also requires attention to its sociocognitive, economic, and
ecological dimensions (Zimmerer 2004).
The sociocognitive dimension of productive diversification refers to the
interdependence between the sociocultural characteristics of the households,
the knowledge of specific groups or individuals forming part of them, and
their capacity or willingness to diversify their production. Diversifying a
productive system requires practical knowledge about the different species,
their behavior or tropism, their properties and modalities of cultivation and
harvesting, and their effects or value. Researchers have demonstrated a
positive relation between household heads’ plant knowledge and crop diver-
sity in domestic gardens and farms (Reyes-García et al. 2008; Cepek 2011;
DeWalt et al. 1999; Godoy et al. 2009). The sociocultural composition of
the households was also important for explaining household decisions and
the capacity to diversify production (Godoy et al. 2009). In certain cases,
diversified farming systems are accompanied by intergenerational strate-
gies of production based on cultural values. Sex and age composition can
significantly affect families’ choices of farming and non-farming livelihood
strategies (Bosma et al. 2005). In the Bolivian lowlands, the perceived use-
fulness of plants has been shown to differ for two indigenous groups living
Production of Agricultural and Forest Diversification 139
in the same ecosystem depending on the plant category (wild or cultivated,

medicinal or food) and on the group’s migration history (Thomas 2012).
The economic dimension of productive diversification refers to the farm-
ers’ capacity to respond to both the financial and subsistence needs of their
households. Productive diversification is often presented as a strategy for
reducing the risk of production loss that can threaten households’ liveli-
hoods (Halstead and O’Shea 1989). Diversifying is a way to avoid “putting
all the eggs in one basket” and to increase autonomy in the face of uncontrol-
lable and risky market exposure. In rural areas, economic diversification can
also include off-farm activities or wage labor, although this article focuses on
forestry and agricultural products. Crossovers between forestry and agricul-
tural diversification are quite common in tropical countries. When available,
forest products are an important part of farmer household incomes, espe-
cially for subsistence farmers relying on their own food production (Kamanga
et al. 2009). Agriculture and forestry are sometimes highly integrated, like in
agroforestry systems, making it difficult to distinguish clearly between them.

As an example, the domestication of wild species has a strong potential to
reduce poverty and provide environmental services (Leakey and Tchoundjeu
2001). It is, thus, useful to look at productive diversification from the point
of view of both agriculture and forestry as a systemic productive strategy.
The ecological dimension of productive diversification refers to the
interdependence between productive structure and ecosystem characteristics
and evolution. Productive diversification depends on the enabling (phys-
ical) conditions of the ecosystems. Diversification can also have a strong
impact on the ecosystem by modifying the response, structure, and content
of ecological exchanges (Leakey and Tchoundjeu 2001). The degree of spe-
cialization or diversification of land use strategies can have variable effects
on deforestation (Vadez et al. 2008). Following this hypothesis, our article
addresses the likeliness of a direct or indirect link between diversification
and deforestation. However, it is also likely that if this relation exists, it has
a complex causality chain including a mix of socioeconomic and natural
drivers. As an example, diversification is also strongly related to ethnically
defined behavior that influences the impact different groups have on the
ecosystem (Rudel et al. 2002). A comparative study of indigenous people
and settlers in the Brazilian Amazon shows that diversification of agricultural
cash crops is negatively correlated with forest clearing for only one of the
two studied groups; for the other group, the correlation is not significant
(Caviglia-Harris and Sills 2005). In some other situations, household prac-
tices with higher levels of productive diversification—through, for instance,
agroforestry production and the collection of NTFP—have been shown to
be more likely to be ecologically sustainable than more specialized prac-
tices (Shone and Caviglia-Harris 2006; Tschakert et al. 2007). Diversification
has also been associated with soil quality preservation and carbon emissions
reduction because it is more likely to occur in the context of intensive land
use for subsistence than in the context of extensive monocultures of com-

mercial crops (Paustian et al. 1998). Farmers who combine agriculture with
rubber tapping in forest extractive reserves reduce the negative effects of
slash-and-burn agriculture (Brown et al. 1992). Reyes-García et al. (2007)
have shown that, in the Bolivian Amazon, a more diversified ethnobotanical
knowledge is associated with a 25% reduction in tropical rain forest clear-
ance among indigenous people. It is, therefore, interesting to know if there
is a link between diversification and deforestation, but it is also useful to try
to understand the reasons for any such link using multidimensional criteria.
Using a multidimensional approach, this article aims to identify the
enabling factors of productive diversification and the potential effects of
diversification on deforestation. More specifically, we seek to understand
how sociocultural factors influence diversification of agricultural production
and forest extraction practices, as well as how this diversification is related to
the amount of land cleared by each household. The study is based on data
from three Tsimane’ (indigenous) and nine Andean settler communities in

the Bolivian lowlands. Our main hypothesis is that diversification does not
have a direct relation to deforestation. Rather, this relation is mediated by
socioeconomic and cultural enabling conditions, such as cultural knowledge,
household migration patterns, and market-based drivers that shape agricul-
ture and forest productive strategies. We base our analysis on the comparison
of productive diversity practiced by both the Tsimane’ and Andean settlers,
as such a comparison allows understanding of how different indigenous and
settlers’ rural societies develop different diversification strategies in similar
ecological contexts, and of how the related institutional and sociocultural
factors influence land cover and ecosystem changes.
1.1. Research Area

The Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and Indigenous Territory (hereafter Pilón
Lajas) is located 350 km north of La Paz between the western cordillera
of the Andes and the plains of the Beni Department in Bolivia (Figure 1).
The climatic patterns of the villages studied are characteristic of the Madeira
Humid Forest, with hot and wet winds from the north and a very strong wet
condensation facilitated by the barrier constituted by the Andes cordillera.
Average temperature is 24.9◦ C with precipitation that averages 2,400 mm
annually. The internal climatic variation in the protected area is a major
factor of biological diversity, with around 2,500 species of vascular plants
and 756 animal species, among which are 73 mammals, 486 birds, 103 fish,
58 reptiles, and 36 amphibians (Killeen 1993).
Pilón Lajas is also a space of high sociocultural diversity, regularly vis-
ited by groups such as the Tacana, Esse Ejas, Tsimane’, and Mosetene. For
centuries, Tsimane’ and Mosetene have lived in the area as nomads. At the
time of this research (2011–2012), about 2,000 Tsimane’ and Mosetene lived
FIGURE 1 Study site.
in Pilón Lajas in 30 villages along the Quiquibey River and the road from
Yucumo and Rurrenabaque (Figure 1). These Amerindians combine agricul-
ture with hunting and gathering. They have a highly developed knowledge
of the ecology of the area, embedded in spiritual and social institutions
originating among people living along the Maniqui River (Reyes-García et al.
2011; Reyes-García et al. 2003; Reyes-García et al. 2006; Reyes García 2007).
Nowadays, most Tsimane’ and Mosetene settlements in the area have been
secured with collective property rights granted by the Bolivian government in
the 1990s. Villagers are politically represented by a corregidor (local author-
ity), a Spanish institution established by missionaries in the 18th century.
Corregidores are always men; they can be elected by the villagers or chosen
according to kinship rules. The Tsimane’ and Mosetene practice small-scale
slash-and-burn agriculture with staple crops such as cassava, plantain, and
rice and collect multiple NTFP from the forest (Hinojosa 1991; Reyes-García
et al. 2008). Each year, the corregidor chooses the area where agricultural
plots will be established. Once the lands are cultivated, they belong to the
households that cultivate them. Families retain usufruct rights to fallow lands
for a certain time; these rights can be informally transmitted to other users.
From the 1980s onward, the sociocultural diversity in the area has been
enriched with the arrival of Quechua and Aymara peoples indigenous to the
Andes (hereafter called Andean settlers), who migrated to the area through
a settlement program set up by the Bolivian dictatorship of General Hugo

Banzer. The program had the dual goal of enhancing agricultural production
by increasing the area under cultivation and releasing some of the tension
generated in the highlands by the collapse of the large mining companies.
Thousands of families, principally from the area of Potosí, migrated to the
lowlands of Bolivia, bringing with them some aspects of their own political
and agricultural systems. A second wave of migrants followed at the end of
the 1980s, this time originating from the Alto Beni area, bringing with them
different ethnobotanical knowledge (Alanes Orellana 1998).
Most settlements were formed by groups of 40 families organized in the
form of a sindicato (local union), a structure that continues today (Bottazzi
and Dao 2013). Families were granted individual property rights, but apart
from land distribution and cadastral planning, the National Institute of
Colonization did not provide any technical assistance to the Andean settlers.
According to a Tsimane’ key informant, indigenous Tsimane’ initially trans-
mitted agricultural practices and technologies to the settlers (CIDDEBENI
1994). Later, in the 1990s, different nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
started to work in the area to support settler’s agriculture with supplies and
technical advice. Thus, the Andean settlers’ current agricultural techniques
are a combination of knowledge they brought with them and knowledge
offered by the Tsimane’ and external agents such as NGOs, government
representatives, private enterprises, and semi-urban cooperatives.
Although the agricultural productivity systems of the Tsimane’ and
Andean settlers had many differences, people from both groups now pro-
duce the same main crops: rice, maize, plantain, and cassava produced
through slash-and-burn agriculture. Fallow cycles are rather long—five to
ten years, depending on the crop. Rice can require up to ten years of fallow,
according to local people, which explains why farmers prefer to cultivate it
in areas cleared of old-growth forest. Although farmers sell only a part of
their crops, this still represents the larger part of household income. Rice,
introduced in the Bolivian Amazon by Jesuits in the 17th and 18th centuries
(Thomas 2012), became one of the most important crops for the Tsimane’
and was rapidly adopted by Andean settlers upon their arrival. A perceived
advantage of rice is that it can be easily stored for a year or longer. Another
perceived advantage is that it provides financial security because it can be
sold on the local market; depending on local market prices, households can
freely decide to conserve or sell it. Rice production in monoculture, and
without external inputs is only possible for one to two years in the fragile
ecosystem and results in severe soil degradation (Vadez et al. 2008). Then
it becomes necessary to clear a new patch of old-growth forest or provide
a long fallow (7–10 years), which is why rice cultivation can be seen as an
engine of deforestation.
Maize is produced in smaller quantities for fodder and is generally
planted after the rice is harvested or in combination with rice. Plantain can
be considered a semi-perennial crop; it can be harvested one year after

planting and continues producing for almost three years. However, poor
storage capabilities and lack of transportation result in regular deterioration
of surplus production. Cassava has a longer history in the area than the
other products mentioned above; Tsimane’ have cultivated multiple varieties
(Ramírez 2010). Fermented cassava is used to produce an alcoholic beverage
called chicha, which plays a major role in Tsimane’ culture and has multiple
religious and social meanings (Daillant 2003).
2. METHODS
This study is part of the Governance of Forest Multiple Outcomes in the

Bolivian Lowlands (GOFORBO), a research project in the settlement area
of the Pilón Lajas (Figure 1). Fieldwork was carried out from February to
July 2011 by a team composed of three socioanthropologists, two forestry
engineers, and one agronomist.
2.1. Data Collection

We conducted research in 12 villages in the Pilón Lajas—three inhabited
by indigenous Tsimane’ (with a very small minority of Mosetene) and
nine by Andean settlers. Selection criteria and sample representativeness
were defined following four principles: 1) the ethnic difference between
indigenous people and settlers in the area (based on the 2001 census
as well as more recent demographic data, this population was estimated
at 934 Tsimane’ and 8,237 Andean settlers in 2007 (Bottazzi 2008); 2) a
similar distance from the main road (less than 30 minutes walking); 3) a
statistically significant number of households in each ethnic group (to make
internal analysis possible); and 4) community willingness to participate in the

study.
For ethical, practical, and methodological reasons, we could not spread
a sample throughout multiple communities, and we had to choose a
restricted number of settlements in each group and work with all or almost
all members. This restriction was due to the difficulty in persuading a
community to work with an external organization, whether academic or
non-academic. Community acceptance was conditional on our commitment
to deliver a report on the social, ecological, and economic characteristics of
the communities. In participating communities, some household heads were
absent or refused to respond for various reasons, including suspicion of the
research and conflicts between community members. Therefore, household
participation in the study was 96% of the settlements’ total population, which
is sufficient to provide a structural idea of communities’ core characteristics.
Of course, in light of the constraints associated with each of these points,
statistical representativeness of the overall study area is a goal that we do

not claim to have reached in this study.
Communities granted research authorization in exchange for data being
returned to them. Twelve community reports were produced and given to
village representatives during a meeting in November 2011. Intermediary
results were also discussed in meetings with community representatives, who
enriched the analysis and interpretation. We surveyed all households willing
to participate (n = 196); they made up 94% of the total population of the
12 villages.
Methods of collecting the data analyzed in this work included
participatory observation, focus group discussions, household parcel map-
ping, a household survey, and forest measurements.
Participatory observation took place primarily during the organization
and systematic data collection phases of the study. During the six months of
fieldwork, researchers lived with villagers, often sharing food and productive
and leisure activities with them, and took notes during informal discussions.
At the end of the study, each researcher systematized the most important
qualitative historical, anthropological, spatial, forestry, and agricultural data.
Qualitative data collected with participatory observation helped us interpret
our quantitative findings.
Focus groups were held in each village. About 10 villagers participated
in each, mostly elders and people designated by villagers as having the
greatest ethnobotanical knowledge. We asked participants to describe forest
resources and agricultural practices and to list all the agricultural and forest
species that people in the village cultivated or gathered. To facilitate this
activity, we provided a list of 10 categories: annual crops, perennial crops,
trees that provide wild fruits, trees that provide medicinal bark, palm trees
and shrubs that provide wild fruits, medicinal plants, game, and plants for
firewood and construction. For each species, we noted the Spanish (mainly
used by Andean settlers) and Tsimane’ vernacular names.
Household parcel mapping was carried out with each household in the
12 villages; household members were asked to draw their parcel and identify
the location of each crop in it, the area planted with each crop, and the total
yield per crop. We also asked farmers whether their cultivation areas were
opened in old-growth or fallow forests. Questions focused on the agricultural
area opened during 2010 (one annual cycle). For 10% of the households, we
went to the cultivation areas to observe their crops and asked more specific
questions on agricultural techniques and uses. This allowed us to assess
the accuracy of the reported information and collect important qualitative
data.
We conducted a household survey based on the data collected through
participatory observation and focus groups. To ensure collection of the most
information possible about household agriculture and forestry practices, we
asked that both men and women be present during the household survey.
Participants answered questions on the social and economic characteristics
of household members, such as ethnicity, gender, age, years of school, and
length of residence in the area. Then we presented the list of 177 products
identified in the focus groups and asked each respondent which products
the household had regularly produced or gathered during the previous three
years. (Products were scored 0 for a negative answer and 1 for a positive
answer.)
In the same survey, we also used a pebble method to assess perceptions
of the importance of farm and off-farm cash income sources in each house-
hold’s economy. Household representatives were given pictures showing the
main sources of household income and were asked to distribute 25 tokens
among these pictures according to the relative importance of these cash
income sources to their household’s economy—the greater the importance,
the more tokens. Based on these household-level weightings, each category’s
percentage of total community income was calculated, for the purpose of
comparison between the two ethnic categories, by taking the means in each
group (Angelsen et al. 2011).
Forest measurements were conducted to ensure that differences in diver-
sity were not due to strictly physical factors. Forest diversity and biomass
were assessed based on sampling of 30 to 90 plots in each village forest,
chosen by using the random function of GIS Arcmap software. In each
plot, we defined a 10 m radius in which we identified all species and
measured height and diameter at breast height. Sampling was carried out
in collaboration with villagers hired for this purpose. During this process,
other useful species were identified and forest scientists collected additional
information about use and significance of forest animal and plant species.
Seven specimens which could not be assigned a scientific identification were
deposited at the Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, Universidad Mayor de San
Andrés, La Paz in order to be identified. Forest size and land use categories
were calculated using SPOT remote sensing images and were processed with
eCognition software. Total deforested areas were also calculated by compar-
ing the 2011 image with one taken at the beginning of the settlement process,
at which time all the settlements were almost fully covered by primary forest.
2.2. Data Processing and Analysis

Based on data from the household survey, a Household Richness Index
was generated to measure productive diversification at the household level.
Concerning trees, we limited the sampling to the species from which house-
holds can derive non-timber products. For all species (including non-timber
species), we jointly considered commercial and direct consumption uses.
The Household Richness Index was constructed by adding each positive
answer regarding products collected or grown by the household, regard-

less of whether it was for consumption or cash income. Productive diversity
was approximated as the sum of species used by the household as crops,
livestock, game animals, or forest products, represented by the following
formula:
n
Rtot = Pi,
i=1
where Rtot is the total richness; P refers to the presence (0 or 1) of a spe-

cific product i, and n is the total amount of species identified (n = 177).
We also subdivided the richness in two broad categories: agricultural diver-
sity (Ragric; n = 46), based on products that depend on forest clearing,
and forestry diversity (Rforest; n = 131), based on products that can be
directly extracted or gathered from the standing forest or its close periph-
ery. Agricultural diversity includes species in the categories of annual crops,
perennial crops, and livestock. Forest diversity includes wild fruits, medicinal
plants, game, and wood.
For each household, we estimated the total surface cleared in 2010 using
data from the household parcel mappings. The total area cleared for new
crops was estimated by adding the area reportedly cleared to plant the most
important crops: rice, maize, cassava, plantain, and other perennial crops
(citrus, papaya, mango, and cocoa).
We used data from the household survey to construct socioeconomic
variables to be used in the multivariate analysis: average number of years
spent in school by a household head, number of people living in a house-
hold, number of people older than 13 years in a household, number of
parcels owned by a household, and number of separate agricultural plots
cultivated by household members. The latter two variables were made to
distinguish Andean settler and Tsimane’ tenure regimes; for the Tsimane’,
land access is not defined individually with a formal title, but is distributed
yearly by chaco (cultivated area). Each chaco can be planted with a sin-
gle crop or mixed crops. (A summary of these variables is presented in
Table 1.)
Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, maximum, and mini-
mum) were generated based on household parcel mapping data. We then
compared data between Tsimane’ and Andean settlers. To identify the socioe-
conomic drivers of productive diversification, bilinear Spearman’s correlation
was calculated between each variable and agricultural and forest richness.
To identify the association between diversification and deforestation, we ran
a multivariable linear regression with cleared area by household as depen-
dent variable and total richness, forest richness, agricultural richness, and a
set of seven sociological independent variables.
3. RESULTS
3.1. A Diversified Population
After a long history of indigenous Tsimane’ occupation in the region, settling
by Andean colonists started recently. For a long time, Pilón Lajas was a
site of temporary visits, where Tsimane’ from the Maniqui River used to go
mostly for hunting and fishing. Permanent settlements in Pilón Lajas started
only around the 1960s (Table 1). For the studied Tsimane’ villages, year
of settlement reflects the formal decision to become permanently settled.
In each of the Tsimane’ settlements, new households continue to arrive from
the Maniqui River and others move to the Quiquibey River or Ixiama region
in an area with a radius of about 30 km. Despite a sedentarizing process
due to interest in accessing education and other public services, mobility is
an important part of the Tsimane’ cultural and economic system (Ellis 1996).
Settlement for Andean settlers is more recent.
There is a large variation in the size of the communities, ranging from
508 to 6,032 hectares. Both the largest and smallest communities are of
Tsimane’ origin. The number of households varies less across the stud-
ied villages, with an average of 18.6 families per community (s.d. = 5.9).
Differences in population density between villages are almost nonexistent,
with two exceptions: Bajo Colorado (Tsimane’) and Villa Imperial (Andean
settlers), which have a 10 times higher population density than the other
communities.
Data on land cover change between 1983 and 2011 (Table 1) suggest
that significant deforestation has occurred throughout the area, but especially
around Andean settlements, where 50–70% of old-growth forest has disap-
peared since 1983. Exceptions are the communities of El Bala and Nueva
Belén, which are both more recently settled.
TABLE 1 General characteristics of the studied communities1
Tsimane’ Andean settlers
Santa Alto Bajo El Villa Nueva Sumaj San Villa Piedras Villa
Rosita Colorado Colorado Bala Imperial Belén Israel Orko Juan Borjana Blancas Pocoata
Sociological
characteristics
Year of settlement 1964 1950 1970 1987 1983 1990 1993 1985 1981 1979 1982 1984
Walking distance from 30 25 2 20 5 10 5 20 5 5 5 5
main road (minutes)
Number of households 17 27 22 17 29 16 9 12 23 17 20 14
Household size 4 6 6 5 5 3 4 5 5 6 6 6
Permanency (years) 34 37 34 23 26 15 20 21 28 25 22 22
Number of family 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 4 4
members older than 13
Years of education 5 3 3 9 6 6 8 6 7 6 7 6
Physical characteristics
148
Density (individuals/ha) 0.025 0.028 0.262 0.036 0.103 0.033 0.044 0.051 0.057 0.065 0.075 0.051
Settlement area (ha) 2, 723 6, 032 508 2, 389 1, 465 1, 443 800 924 1, 509 1, 496 1, 552 1, 536
Old-growth forest (ha) 2, 109 5, 350 186 2, 076 704 1, 313 409 567 574 558 319 573
Forest biomass (tons/ha) 259.3 260.1 258.9 339.9 388.9 567.9 220.7 255.2 281.5 209.6 247.7 214.5
Forest diversity (H’) 3.50 3.48 3.50 3.60 3.51 3.61 3.63 2.41 3.38 3.42 3.53 3.46
Forestry and
agricultural aspects
Surface cleared in 2010 4.2 3.0 3.9 3.5 11.9 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.6 15.4 8.3 40.6
(ha)
Number of chacos 5 4 5 5 6 6 5 6 7 5 7 5
(cultivated areas within
a parcel)
Number of parcels 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.2 1.7 2.1 1.3 3.5
Ragric 21.1 24.2 24.4 23.3 23.6 19.4 19.8 22.9 25.0 22.6 26.6 25.5
Rforest 71.9 92.0 94.1 40.2 39.2 38.9 31.8 39.4 56.1 43.1 47.9 55.0
Rtot 93.0 116.2 118.6 63.5 62.8 58.3 51.5 62.3 81.1 65.8 74.5 80.5
1
Except for the number of households, density, settlement area, old-growth forest, forest biomass, forest diversity, Ragric, Rforest, all the values are averages.
Data collected during forest measurement (and fully analyzed in

2012) suggest that forest biomass and tree species diversity tend to be higher
in Andean than in Tsimane’ settlements. Logging is much more common in
Tsimane’ forests and has consequences for forest species diversity; this is
mainly due to the large forest areas and the financial dependence on timber
of Tsimane’ communities during the last years. During the 1980s, a large area
of Tsimane’ common forest was exploited by foreign companies that only
extracted high-value species. Since the departure of the forest companies at
the end of the 1990s, the Tsimane’ have been extracting lower-value species
on their own. Andean settlers have a smaller forest area, which remains
almost untouched until they decide to completely clear it for agriculture.
On this small surface, logging is not profitable.
3.2. A Diversified Farm and Off-Farm Income System

Survey results show that about 60% of agricultural production is for sale to
generate cash income (59% by Tsimane’ and 61% by Andean settlers). This
part of production covers household expenses for education, healthcare, and
social events. Agriculture and forestry provide an important part of the total
cash incomes of both indigenous and Andean settler households. Figure 2
presents the relative importance of agriculture, forestry, and off-farm cash
incomes in local livelihoods as evaluated by informants through the pebble
method.
Both the indigenous Tsimane’ and Andean settlers perceive agriculture
as the most important source of household cash income. Together, annual
crops, perennial crops, and small livestock generate a perceived 52% and
58% of income for Tsimane’ and Andean settlers, respectively. The largest dif-
ference between the two groups is observed for cattle ranching, perceived as
representing only 3% of household income for Tsimane’ but 15% for Andean
settlers. For both groups, forest-related activities—including hunting, fishing,
collection of wild fruits and medicinal plants, and handicrafts using NTFPs—
play a lesser role than agriculture. However, forest-related activities are much
FIGURE 2 Perceived importance of agriculture, forestry, and other activities to household

income (expressed as a percentage of total household income).
more important for Tsimane’ (22%) than for Andean settlers (4%). Probably
due to their larger area under forest cover, timber extraction seems to have
a higher impact on Tsimane’ (11%) than on Andean settlers (6%) household
incomes. Finally, most villagers depend on off-farm income (earned mainly
through small trade and wage labor), which represents around 15% of each
group’s income. This consists mainly of paid work in agriculture and forestry
for other households. These data confirm that agriculture represents the most
important link between community production and the local market. Other
activities play a minor role.
3.3. Comparison of Cultivated Crop Areas

Data from household parcel mapping suggest that every year, a household
clears one to four patches of forest totaling 0.5 to 1 ha (Table 2). On average,
for each of the represented crop categories, the area cultivated by Andean
settlers was larger than that cultivated by Tsimane’. Differences were also
larger for settlers, as suggested by the standard deviations. The largest land
area is used for rice cultivation in each group. Maize areas are larger for
settlers, who use maize mainly as fodder for livestock. Surprisingly, although
cassava and plantain are known to be staple crops for Amazonian soci-
eties like Tsimane’, the area cultivated with these crops remains significantly
smaller than that cultivated by Andean settlers. Average area cultivated by
Tsimane’ is only 70% of that cultivated by Andean settlers.
3.4. Diversification of Agriculture and Forestry Products

During focus group discussions, 46 agricultural products and 131 forest prod-
ucts were mentioned. These 177 products were classified in 10 categories
(Table 3).
Productive diversification by Tsimane’ and Andean settler villages dif-
fers mainly in terms of forest products. Both groups present comparable
levels of agricultural richness (annual crops richness (R = 10), perennial
crops (R = 12); livestock (R = 2) for both groups), although the spe-
cific products differ for each group. In addition to the dominant crops
described before, most households have small home gardens where they
grow products for their own consumption. Some species are clearly asso-
ciated with one of the two groups. For example, Tsimane’ cultivate more
frequently than settlers, although on smaller surfaces, yam bean or ajipa
(Pachyrhizus ahipa), sweet potato or camote (Ipomoea batatas), and cassava
(Manihot esculenta). Andean settlers cultivate much more lettuce (Lactuca
sativa), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum)
than Tsimane’. Settlers also practice natural soil management after harvest-
ing, for example by cultivating kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides) and kanaulali
TABLE 2 Average size (ha) of cultivated land per crop per household
Standard Standard
Crop Mean deviation Maximum Minimum Mean deviation Maximum Minimum
Rice 1.24a 0.87 3.86 0.13 1.62a 2.13 15.00 0.04

Maize 0.50a 0.52 2.10 0.01 1.31b 1.62 10.00 0.13
151
Cassava 0.17a 0.12 0.50 0.01 0.48b 0.49 2.00 0.03
Plantain 0.71a 0.54 2.41 0.00 0.91a 0.87 4.96 0.02
Other perennial crops 0.33a 0.45 2.00 0.00 0.59a 0.85 5.00 0.01
Total cultivated area 0.68a 0.68 3.86 0.00 0.93b 1.30 15.00 0.01
Note. Values in the same row and subtable not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p < 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means.
Cells with no subscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances and are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost
subtable using the Bonferroni correction.
TABLE 3 Average number of agricultural and forest species used by household heads of indigenous (n = 61) and Andean
(n = 135) settlements
Standard Standard
Mean deviation Maximum Minimum Mean deviation Maximum Minimum
Annual crops 10a 4 20 2 10a 5 19 0

Perennial crops 12a 4 20 2 12a 4 20 0
Livestock 2b 1 3 0 2a 1 5 0
Agricultural diversity (Ragric) 24a 5 42 9 24a 8 38 0
Wild fruits on trees 13b 5 21 3 5a 4 18 0
152
Wild fruits on palm trees 6b 2 10 3 4a 2 10 0
Wild fruits on shrubs 4b 2 7 0 1a 1 7 0
Medicinal plants 13b 4 21 4 10a 5 26 0
Medicinal bark 9b 3 13 2 6a 3 13 0
Game 18b 5 23 0 4a 5 21 0
Wood for fire and construction 24b 7 34 7 14a 7 38 0
Forest diversity (Rforest) 87b 21 130 29 44a 20 114 2
Total diversity (Rtot) 111b 25 168 51 68a 24 143 12
Note. Values in the same row and subtable not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at p < 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means.
Cells with no subscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances.
(Canavalia ensiformis) as soil cover crops, with the aims of fertilizing the
soil and protecting it from drying out and erosion.
Although richness of forest products is higher than richness of agri-
cultural products for both groups, forest productive diversification is much
higher for Tsimane’ (mean = 87.46) than for Andean settlers (mean = 44.40).
There are significant differences between the two groups regarding the use
of wilds fruits and game. Many of these forest products are known by
Andean settlers but not considered useful. Some game meat, for exam-
ple monkey meat, is considered impure by settlers, while it is highly
appreciated by Tsimane’, who associate it with positive moral and social
values.
Surprisingly, differences in the diversity of medicinal plants used by the
two groups are small. This is due to the fact that Tsimane’ and Andean
settlers consider different plants useful and plants considered important by
one group are unknown by the other. For example, most of the Tsimane’
use chepi’ (Gallesia integrifolia), eré (Heisteria spruceana), and tam tac’
(Galipea longiflora) for skin infections and other diseases, while only a few
settlers use them. Some species are completely unknown to settlers, like
cucush (Mimosa sp.), known by Tsimane’ for its relaxing properties. Andean
settlers’ preferred species include ochoo (Hura crepitans), upuyu’ (Piper
glabratum), sipo sipo (Pothomorphe peltata), and curuj (Melissa officinalis).
A few species are widely recognized and appreciated by both groups, such
as oveto’ (Uncaria guianensis), which became popular in the Amazon for
multiple uses.
The number of species used for firewood and construction present
another statistically significant difference between Tsimane’ and Andean set-
tlers. Tsimane’ use many wood species as raw material, including at least
eight species used in house construction.
3.5. Potential Drivers of Productive Diversification

Table 4 presents a Spearman’s correlation between agricultural and forest
diversification and household socioeconomic variables. The analysis reveals
a statistically significant difference between productive diversification indices
and Tsimane’ and Andean settler characteristics.
Both agriculture and forest diversification bear a positive correlation
with the number of years a household has spent in the village. This finding
holds true for both ethnic groups and for the pooled sample. Among the
Tsimane’, forest productive diversification bears a negative and statistically
significant correlation with the level of education of the household head:
The higher the education level, the lower the forest diversification. Among
Andean settlers, on the other hand, education had no significant correlation
with forest diversification. Education was not significantly correlated with
agricultural diversification for either group.
TABLE 4 Spearman’s correlation between productive diversity and sociodemographic variables
Agricultural Forest Total Agricultural Forest Total

diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity
Permanency .286∗ .218 .278∗ .067 .298∗∗ .280∗∗

Years of education −.151 −.319∗ −.323∗∗ −.088 −.129 −.137
Number of family members .202 .384∗∗ .374∗∗ .294∗∗ .369∗∗ .406∗∗
154
Family member older than 13 .210 .186 .216 .255∗∗ .163 .232∗∗
Number of chacos .306∗ .313∗ .355∗∗ .190∗ .155 .189∗
Number of parcels .011 −.170 −.137 .110 .247∗∗ .241∗∗
Surface cleared in 2010 .136 .094 .122 .252∗∗ .181∗ .247∗∗
Agricultural diversity 1.000 .443∗∗ .651∗∗ 1.000 .319∗∗ .577∗∗
Forest diversity .443∗∗ 1.000 .962∗∗ .319∗∗ 1.000 .945∗∗
∗
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
∗∗
Finally, we did not find a statistically significant correlation between

amount of forest cleared for agriculture in 2010 and forest or agricultural
diversification among the Tsimane’, and only a slightly positive correlation
among the settlers. Settler households who cleared larger areas in 2010 were
more diversified than those who cleared smaller areas (rho = 0.252). The
highest correlation is found between family size and total agriculture and
forestry richness in both indigenous and settler groups (excepting indige-
nous agriculture). The higher the household size, the higher its productive
diversity. The coefficient is especially high among Andean settlers (rho =
0.406). The second variable that shows a significant correlation with diversi-
fication is the area of land available for cultivation. For Tsimane’ households,
the number of chaco or cultivated areas is positively correlated with total pro-
ductive diversity (0.355). For settlers, the number of parcels each household
owns is the factor displaying the highest correlation with forestry diversity
(0.247). Finally, Table 4 shows a significant correlation between agriculture
and forestry diversity for Tsimane’ (0.443) and Andean settlers (0.319), mean-
ing that a Tsimane’ or Andean settler household that diversifies agriculture
tends to also have a more diversified use of the forest.
3.6. Possible Effects of Diversification on Deforestation

Table 5 presents two multivariate models that aim to show the association
between total amount of forest cleared in 2010 and the other socioeconomic
variables, mainly ethnicity and household productive (agricultural and forest)
diversification, while controlling for household size and number of cultivated
parcels.
We differentiate forest, agriculture, and total productive diversity using
two different models. Model 1 considers the total productive diversification
by adding forest and agriculture productive diversity. Model 2 differentiates
TABLE 5 Ordinary least square multivariate regression showing the impact of selected
variables on total cleared surface in 2010
Model 1 Model 2
Coefficient Standard error Coefficient Standard error
Constant 8.491 3.154 8.062 3.571

Ethnicity −5.12∗∗ 0.624 −4.95∗∗ 0.756
Total diversity 0.0123 0.03 − −
Agricultural diversity (Ragric) − − 0.036 0.058
Forest diversity (Rforest) − − 0.007 0.027
Household size 0.0867 0.108 0.089 0.106
Number of chacos (plots) 0.167 0.076 0.157 0.085
Number of parcels 0.736 0.388 0.723 0.389
∗∗
between agriculture and forest productive diversification as two separate

variables. It appears (Table 5) that total diversity (Rtot), agricultural diver-
sification (Ragric) and forest diversification (Rforest) and socioeconomic
variables like household size and number of cultivated parcels have no
significant correlation with deforestation. As shown in Models 1 and 2,
the variable with the most influence on deforestation is ethnicity. Tsimane’
households clear less land for agriculture compared to Andean settler house-
holds (coeff = -5.12). This means that an indigenous household has a high
probability of having a deforested surface one-fifth the size of that of a settler
household.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Enabling Sociocognitive Drivers of Diversification
Our results suggest that indigenous Tsimane’ and Andean settler groups differ
significantly in productive diversification. It is possible that these differences
derive from the cultural, economic, and practical values that each group
assigns to forest and agriculture species (Reyes-García et al. 2006). Decisions
to produce and harvest certain species depend on each group’s cultural
needs and knowledge about the available species. In that sense, productive
diversification is a learning process embracing faunal and botanical knowl-
edge, consumption habits, and technologies, among other things. Our study
underlines the dynamic characteristics of diversification, as we have shown
that differences between indigenous and nonindigenous people become less
intense as permanency in the area increases. The longer Andean settlers
have been living in the area, the more diversified their production systems.
However, these results do not mean that Andean settlers will necessarily
achieve the same level of diversification as the Tsimane’. Atran (2002) found
in Guatemala with indigenous Maya and Q’eqchi’ migrants that the latter
never achieved the same level of diversification as the former.
Our data also suggest that some variables associated with accultura-
tion, such as level of schooling, could drive a reduction of plant and forest
species knowledge among the indigenous Tsimane’. The negative correla-
tion between the household head’s level of schooling and the household’s
productive diversification substantiates this tendency, which has also been
observed in other areas (Giovannini et al. 2011). Bolivian curricula have been
based on Western knowledge, discouraging social diversity. In ethnically
mixed schools, indigenous people are often criticized for their differences,
especially for the small areas they cultivate, interpreted as revealing a lack
of ambition, and their perceived dependence on forest products. The pro-
cess of acculturation is also pointed out by the Tsimane’ themselves. During
our interviews, Tsimane’ villagers expressed the loss of species knowledge
by younger generations and the demand for support for knowledge transfer
and elaboration of educational material based on local environmental issues.

As shown by Reyes-García et al. (2010), in the core Tsimane’ territory,
Westernized schooling can have a damaging effect on indigenous ecolog-
ical knowledge unless it is contextualized. The settlement area of Pilón Lajas
was not provided with such a curriculum, which could explain the effect of
schooling on productive diversification reduction.
We also observed that differences between the Tsimane’ and Andean
settlers are more acute for forest products, while agricultural diversification is
at a similar level in both groups. Current agricultural systems are quite recent
in the area for both groups. Large-scale rice cultivation is a recent devel-
opment in the Bolivian lowlands that was mainly transmitted by external
actors and market influences (Vadez et al. 2008). Exchanges between groups
started early, and use of different species has been transmitted from indige-
nous people to settlers and vice versa in a learning process. The importance
of horizontal plant knowledge transmission among neighbors and peers has
also been shown in the Andean highlands (Mathez-Stiefel and Vanderbroek

2012). A detailed analysis of our data suggests that Andean settlers intro-
duced several species from the lowlands that are not known or valued by
Tsimane’. These processes work as a dynamic mechanism of change that, on
the one hand, increases the use of new dominant species, more generally
influenced by Westernized cultures, but also on the other hand, reduces the
diversity of local species that may have been better adapted to local eco-
logical constraints. This is the case mainly for the rich variety of cassava,
plantain, and other species. In that sense, our study lacks precision, as
we wanted to achieve a general overview of productive diversity instead
of studying specific varieties. We also observed a high level of creativity
among indigenous people and settlers. In both groups, there is a grow-
ing concern about land availability and deforestation; some families have
already adopted sustainable soil management technologies to intensify their
production. Several species of local biological soil nutrients are now used—
mainly by Andean settlers, who are more affected by land scarcity—which
demonstrates a capacity for adaptation to ecological constraints.
As we have found, diversification and deforestation are associated with
ethnicity, in the sense that settlers clear more land than indigenous people,
who use a greater diversity of forest products. Following this reasoning, the
relation between diversification and deforestation has to be understood as a
dynamic process involving both change and conservation of habits amongst
Andean settlers and Tsimane’ societies. While Andean settlers learn about
and use new species, a great part of their agricultural systems remains spe-
cific to their habits. In a similar way, the Tsimane’ are becoming dependent
on forest clearing to produce a limited number of crops (especially rice and
maize) to generate cash income, but they also continue to rely on non-timber
and timber forest products to reproduce traditional cultural and economic
practices.
4.2. The Economic Dimension of Diversification

Our results also explicitly demonstrated that agriculture and forest pro-
ductive diversification are not directly associated with deforestation. This
statistical finding can be explained by several economic factors and needs
to be thought of in a systemic way. First, in our sample, diversifica-
tion mainly concerns forest products that have limited commercial outlet
and the use of which is limited, for indigenous people as well as for
settlers, to direct consumption or domestic use. In contrast, agriculture
diversification is oriented toward commercial purposes based on a small
range of products—mainly, rice, maize, and plantain—but also an increas-
ing number of gardening products that are becoming prominent in local
markets. In consequence, deforestation can be explained by households’
wish to increase their financial income, in particular through rice pro-
duction. This double differentiation—between forest and agriculture and
between consumption and commercialization—explains why diversification

is only positively associated with an increase in deforestation for Andean
settlers.
As shown by Vadez et al. (2004) in other Tsimane’ villages in nearby
areas, clearing of larger forest surfaces depends mainly on household deci-
sions to increase commercialization of monoculture crops, determined by
market conditions. However, that study suggests that market integration does
not necessarily mean a reduction of agricultural diversity. Although market
proximity tends to incentivize families to intensify and expand cultivation
of a few commercial crops (especially rice and maize), it does not com-
pletely abolish productive diversification. This is due to the fact that market
agriculture does not fill the need for self-insurance, a reliable labor supply,
credit, and food security. Market factors (prices, distribution, and demand)
incentivize certain families to produce a greater extent of cash crops, but at
the same time, these families might develop stronger resilience, enhancing
productivity and diversification in order to cope with market failures (Vadez
et al. 2004).
Our study corroborates this hypothesis, showing that the highest level
of agricultural diversification is either associated with an increase in cleared
area (as for Andean settlers) or not correlated at all (as for Tsimane’). This
is associated to the fact that the greatest part of cash incomes comes from
agriculture production (around 50%) and, therefore, requires larger cultiva-
tion areas (60% are allocated to cash crops). This could explain why in
settlers’ case, greater agriculture diversification is associated with greater
deforestation. On the other hand, farmer’s decision to increase the number
of cultivated species is not necessarily related to a reduction in the area used
for cultivating basic crops such as rice and maize, especially because they
depend on these crops for commercial purposes. Therefore, diversification
level can also change without having any effects on land clearing
strategies.
Understanding the economic dimension of the relationship between
diversification and deforestation requires looking at the relation between
the cultural, practical, and financial values of a diverse range of species
and their effect on ecosystem deterioration. Our study underlines the dif-
ference in perceived degree of importance for household cash incomes
between agriculture staple crops and the multiple NTFPs. We have mainly
shown that if the diversity of those forest products plays a role in enhancing
local livelihoods, this role remains limited and would not by itself influence
land manager’s decision to clear a larger patch of forest. As also identi-
fied by some scholars, extraction of NTFPs’ may have an influence on
local land managers’ declining interest in forests (Mahapatra and Mitchell
1997; Anderson and Putz 2002; Belcher et al. 2005); however, as shown
by other scholars, a consequent change in forest clearing practices would
need to be accompanied by a set of economic and institutional incentives

(Arnold and Pérez 2001).
The market valuation of NTPFs could play a role. In the area that was
the focus of this study, only a few NTFPs are integrated into the market, like
jatata (Geonoma deversa), used for roof construction, and motacú (Attalea
phalerata), used for hair treatments. However, the significant demand for
these NTFPs and the absence of alternative species could lead to their degra-
dation, as in the case of the Brazil nut trees (Bertholletia excelsa) in the
northern part of the Bolivian lowlands (Guariguata et al. 2009).
4.3. An Adequate Policy to Valorize Productive Diversification for

Sustainable Development
A diversified productive system is not a given but a dynamic process rely-
ing on an institutional system that constantly regulates the tradeoffs and
synergies between human livelihoods and the sustainability of ecosystem
management (Berkes 2012). Diversification of forest products requires both
enough information about the different values of the species and a strong
institutional framework at the community and national levels to promote
their sustainable use and commercialization. In Bolivia, very few national or
international initiatives are encouraging the development of alternatives to
potentially harmful expansion of monoculture (United Nations Development
Programme 2008). Those policies should take into consideration several lim-
itations and potentialities. This would require, first, support for access to
appropriate technologies that facilitate sustainable production and harvesting
of fragile species (Nasi et al. 2011).
As an example, harvesting of majo (Oenocarpus bataua), an edible
species, would need to be carried out with appropriate technology to be
sustainable. The relative abundance of this highly appreciated product and

the difficulty in harvesting it has led to non-sustainable extraction that
could cause its rapid extinction. Similar problems occur with other valuable
NTFPs like asaí (Euterpe precatoria) and chima (Bactris gasipaes), which
have been considerably reduced in abundance through unsustainable use.
Agrobiodiversity projects that have already started in the Andes and Alto
Beni areas should also be encouraged in areas of the Amazon where forests
and local livelihoods are endangered.
5. CONCLUSION
Through the example of Tsimane’ and Andean settler societies, this study
has illustrated how productive diversification can be influenced by multiple
sociological and economic drivers. A better understanding of the com-
plex interaction between productive diversification and ecological change

requires a systemic approach that includes sociocognitive, economic, and
ecological data (Liu et al. 2007; Zimmerer 2004). However, as shown in our
study, productive diversification alone does not directly reduce deforesta-
tion. Contrarily, for Andean settlers, agricultural diversification is positively
correlated to deforestation in the sense that an increase in the agriculture
Household Richness Index corresponds to an increase in cleared land sur-
face. In the Tsimane’ case, their high level of forest diversity presents no
significant correlation with cleared surface for agriculture. In our understand-
ing, this can be explained by the fact that a household’s decision to clear
forest is mainly motivated by the desire for cash income, which depends on
the production of high-deforestation-impact staple crops like rice and maize.
This hypothesis would require further studies to assess how concomitant
change in market valuation of agrobiodiversity and sustainable forest man-
agement could have positive impacts on both local livelihoods and forest
conservation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge financial support from the Swiss Network of

International Studies and the Swiss National Centre of Competence in
Research North-South: Research Partnerships for Mitigating Syndromes of
Global Change, co-funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and participating institu-
tions. The authors are also thankful for the support provided by Amanda A.
Morgan for copyediting the manuscript. Finally, the anonymous referees are
gratefully acknowledged for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of
this article.
REFERENCES
Alanes Orellana, V. R. 1998. Entre "Collas" y "Animales de Monte" : Migrantes Andinos

en El Bosque Mosetén. Factores estructurales y cosmovisionales en el manejo
no sostenible de la tierra : Los colonos de Puerto Carmen (Between "Collas" and
"Forest animals": Andean migrant in the Mosetén forest. Structural and cosmovi-
sional factors in the sustainable management of the land: The Settlers of Puerto
Carmen). Paper read at XII Reunión anual de ethnologia, 26 al 29 de Agosto de
1998, at La Paz, Bolivia.
Anderson, P. J., and F. E. Putz. 2002. Harvesting and conservation: are both
possible for the palm, Iriartea deltoidea? Forest Ecology and Management
170(1–3):271–283.
Angelsen, A., H. O. Larsen, J. F. Lund, C. Smith-Hall, and S. Wunder, eds. 2011.
Measuring livelihoods and environmental dependence. Methods for research
and fieldwork. London, UK: Earthscan.
Arnold, J. E. Michael, and M. Ruiz Pérez. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match
tropical forest conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics

39(3):437–447.
Atran, S., D. Medin, N. Ross, E. Lynch, V. Vapnarsky, E. Ek, J. Coley, C. Timura,
and M. Baran. 2002. Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the
commons: A garden experiment in the Maya lowlands, 1991–2001. Current
Anthropology 43(3):421–450.
Belcher, B., M. Ruíz-Pérez, and . Achdiawan. 2005. Global patterns and trends in the
use and management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and
conservation. World Development 33(9):1435–1452.
Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Bosma, R. H., M. J. Udo Henk, J. A. J. Verreth, L. E. Visser, and C. Q. Nam.
2005. Agriculture diversification in the Mekong Delta: Farmers’ motives and
contributions to livelihoods. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development
2(1–2):49–66.
Bottazzi, P. 2008. Linking "socio" and "bio" diversity: The stakes of indigenous and
non-indigenous co-management in the Bolivian lowlands. In People, protected
areas and global change: Participatory conservation in Latin America, Africa,
Asia and Europe, eds. M. Galvin and T. Haller. Bern, 81–110. Switzerland: NCCR
Perspective, University of Bern, Geographica Bernensia.
Bottazzi, P., and H. Dao. 2013. On the road through the Bolivian Amazon: A multi-
level land governance analysis of deforestation. Land Use Policy 30(1):137–146.
Brown, I. F., D. C. Nepstad, I. D. Pires, L. M. Luz, and A. S. Alechandre. 1992.
Carbon storage and land-use in extractive reserve, acre, Brazil. Environmental
Conservation 19(4):307–315.
Caviglia-Harris, J. L., and E. O. Sills. 2005. Land use and income diversifica-
tion: comparing traditional and colonist populations in the Brazilian Amazon.
Agricultural Economics 32(3):221–237.
Cepek, M. L. 2011. Foucault in the forest: Questioning environmentality in Amazonia.
American Ethnologist 38(3):501–515.
CIDDEBENI. 1994. Estudio socio economíco del territorio indígena-reserva de la
biosfera Pilón Lajas. Trinidad: CIDDEBENI.
Daillant, I. 2003. Sens dessus dessous. Organisation sociale et spatiale des Chimane
d’Amazonie bolivienne (Meaning above and below. Social and spatial organi-
sation among Chimane of Bolivian Amazon). Nanterre: Société d’ethnologie.
DeWalt, S. J., G. Bourdy, L. R. C. de Michel, and C. Quenevo. 1999. Ethnobotany
of the Tacana: Quantitative inventories of two permanent plots of northwestern
Bolivia. Economic Botany 53(3):237–260.
Ellis, R. 1996. A Taste for mouvement: An exploration of the social ethics of the
Tsimanes of Lowland Bolivia. Ph.D. dissertation, Departement of Philosophy,
St. Andrews University.
Fabusoro, E., A. M. Omotayo, S. O. Apantaku, and P. A. Okuneye. 2010. Forms and
determinants of rural livelihoods diversification in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal
of Sustainable Agriculture 34(4):417–438.
Giovannini, P., V. Reyes-García, A. Waldstein, and M. Heinrich. 2011. Do pharmaceu-
ticals displace local knowledge and use of medicinal plants ? Estimates from a
cross-sectional study in a rural indigenous community, Mexico. Social Sciences
& Medicine 72:928–936.
Godoy, R., V. Reyes-Garcia, V. Vadez, W. R. Leonard, S. Tanner, T. Huanca, D.

Wilkie, and TAPS Bolivia STUDY Team. 2009. The relation between forest
clearance and household income among native Amazonians: Results from
the Tsimane’ Amazonian panel study, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 68(6):
1864–1871.
Guariguata, M. R., J. C. Licona, B. Mostacedo, and P. Cronkleton. 2009. Damage
to Brazil nut trees (Bertholletia excelsa) during selective timber harvesting in
Northern Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Management 258(5):788–793.
Halstead, P., and J. O’Shea, eds. 1989. Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk
and uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hinojosa, I. 1991. Plantas utilizadas por los Mosetenes de Santa Ana (Alto Beni-
Depto. La Paz), Licenciatura, Carrera de Biología, UMSA, La Paz.
Jagger, P., and J. Pender. 2003. The role of trees for sustainable management of less-
favored lands: the case of eucalyptus in Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics
5(1):83–95.
Jagoret, P., H. T. Ngogue, E. Bouambi, J.-L. Battini, and S. Nyasse. 2009.
Diversification of cocoa farms in the Central Cameroon: myth or reality?
Biotechnologie Agronomie Societe Et Environnement 13(2):271–280.
Kamanga, P., P. Vedeld, and E. Sjaastad. 2009. Forest incomes and rural livelihoods
in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecological Economics 68(3):613–624.
Killeen, T. 1993. Perfil ambiental del Territorio Indígena y Reserva de biósfera Pilón
Lajas. Technical report. Santa Cruz: SERINCO.
Kindt, R., P. Van Damme, A. J. Simons, and H. Beeckman. 2006. Planning tree species
diversification in Kenya based on differences in tree species composition
between farms. II. Analysis of tree niches. Agroforestry Systems 67(3):229–241.
Leakey, R. R. B., and Z. Tchoundjeu. 2001. Diversification of tree crops:
Domestication of companion crops for poverty reduction and environmental
services. Experimental Agriculture 37(3):279–296.
Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. Pell, P. Deadman,
et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science
317(5844):1513–1516.
Mahapatra, A., and C. P. Mitchell. 1997. Sustainable development of non-timber

forest products: implication for forest management in India. Forest Ecology and
Management 94(1–3):15–29.
Mathez-Stiefel, S.-L., and I. Vandebroek. 2012. Distribution and transmission of
medicinal plant knowledge in the Andean highlands: A case study from Peru
and Bolivia. Evidence-Based Complementary and Atlernative Medicine.
Mbile, P., Z. Tchoundjeu, E. Asaah, A. Degrande, R. Anegbeh, C. Facheux C, M.
L. Mpeck, D. Foundjem-Tita, and C. Mbosso. 2006. Rural livelihoods: conser-
vation, management and use of plant biodiversity in west and central Africa.
Biodiversity (Ottawa) 7(3–4):17–26.
Murphy, S., and D. Bray. 2007. The conversion of rustic coffee farms to the pro-
duction of a native non-timber forest product: Ecological place holder and
livelihood-diversification strategy in southeastern Mexico. Ecological Society of
America Annual Meeting Abstracts.
Nasi, R., F. E. Putz, P. Pacheco, S. Wunder, and S. Anta. 2011. Sustainable forest
management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case of REDD+. Forest
2:200–217.
Paustian, K., C. V. Cole, D. Sauerbeck, and N. Sampson. 1998. CO2 mitigation by
agriculture: An overview. Climatic Change 40(1):135–162.
Ramírez, F. P., ed. 2010. Saberes y aprendizajes del pueblo Tsimane’. Cochabamba:
UNESCO/UMSS/PROEIB.
Reyes García, V. 2001. Indigenous people, ethnobotanical knowledge, and mar-
ket economy. A case study of the Tsimane’ Amerindians in lowland Bolivia.
University of Florida, Ph.D. dissertation.
Reyes-García, V., R. Godoy, L. Williams, L. Apaza, E. Byron, T. Huanca, W. R.
Leonard, and P. Eddy. 2003. Validity of self-reports to measure deforestation:
Evidence from the Bolivian lowlands. Field Methods 15(3)(août):289–304.
Reyes-García V., E. Kightley, I. Ruiz-Mallén, N. Fuentes-Pelaez, K. Demps, T. Huanca,
and M. R. Martínez-Rodríguez. 2010. Schooling and local ecological knowl-
edge: Do they complement or substitute each other? International Journal of
Educational Development 30(3):305–313.
Reyes-García, V., T. Huanca, V. Vadez, W. R. Leonard, and D. Wilkie. 2006. Cultural,
practical, and economic value of wild plants: A quantitative study in the Bolivian
Amazon. Economic Botany 60(1):62–74.
Reyes-García, V., V. Vadez, N. Martí, T. Huanca, R. W. Leonard, and S. Tanner. 2008.
Ethnobotanical knowledge and crop diversity in swidden fields: A study in a
native Amazonian society. Human Ecology 36:569–580.
Reyes-García, V., V. Vadez, S. Tanner, T. Huanca, W. R. Leonard, and T. McDade.
2007. Ethnobotanical skills and clearance of tropical rain forest for agriculture:
A case study in the lowlands of Bolivia. AMBIO 36(5):406–409.
Roy Chowdhury, R. 2010. Differentiation and concordance in smallholder land use
strategies in southern Mexico’s conservation frontier. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(13):5780–5.
Rudel, T. K., D. Bates, and R. Machinguiashi. 2002. Ecologically noble Amerindians?
Cattle ranching and cash cropping among Shuar and colonists in Ecuador. Latin
American Research Review 37(1):144–159.
Shone, B. M., and J. L. Caviglia-Harris. 2006. Quantifying and comparing the value of
non-timber forest products in the Amazon. Ecological Economics 58(2):249–267.
Thomas, E. 2012. The impact of traditional lifestyle, provenance and contact history
on plant use knowledge and management: A cross-cultural comparison of two
small-scale societies from the Bolivian Amazon. Human Ecology:1–14.
Tschakert, P., O.T. Coomes, and C. Potvin. 2007. Indigenous livelihoods, slash-and-
burn agriculture, and carbon stocks in Eastern Panama. Ecological Economics
60(4):807–820.
United Nations Development Programme. 2008. The other frontier: Alternative uses
of natural resources in Bolivia. La Paz: UNDP.
Vadez, V., V. Reyes-García, R. Godoy, V. L. Apaza, E. Byron, T. Huanca, R. W.
Leonard, E. Pérez, et al. 2004. Does integration to the market threaten agri-
cultural diversity? Panel and cross-sectional data from a horticultural-foraging
society in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Ecology 32(5):635–646.
Vadez, V., V. Reyes-García, T. Huanca, and R. W. Leonard. 2008. Cash cropping,
farm technologies, and deforestation: What are the connections? A model with
empirical data from the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization 67(4):384–396.

Zimmerer, K. S. 2004. Cultural ecology: Placing households in human-environment
studies - the cases of tropical forest transitions and agrobiodiversity change.
Progress in Human Geography 28(6):795–806.
View publication stats

Paper Producitve Diversification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper Producitve Diversification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Productive Diversiﬁcation and Sustainable Use of Complex

Article in Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems · February 2014

Patrick Bottazzi Victoria Reyes-García

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Crespo Rocha Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agroecology and Sustainable Food

Productive Diversification and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.841606

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Productive Diversification and Sustainable Use

PATRICK BOTTAZZI,1,2 VICTORIA REYES-GARCÍA,3

MARCELO CLAVIJO,6 and STEPHAN RIST1

Agricultural and forest productive diversification depends on mul-

KEYWORDS productive diversification, biocultural diversity,

Address correspondence to Patrick Bottazzi, Centre for Development and

Productive diversification is defined as the total number of different crops

and diversifying the extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFP) are

in the same ecosystem depending on the plant category (wild or cultivated,

agroforestry systems, making it difficult to distinguish clearly between them.

use for subsistence than in the context of extensive monocultures of com-

from three Tsimane’ (indigenous) and nine Andean settler communities in

1.1. Research Area

FIGURE 1 Study site.

a settlement program set up by the Bolivian dictatorship of General Hugo

be considered a semi-perennial crop; it can be harvested one year after

This study is part of the Governance of Forest Multiple Outcomes in the

2.1. Data Collection

internal analysis possible); and 4) community willingness to participate in the

statistical representativeness of the overall study area is a goal that we do

2.2. Data Processing and Analysis

answer regarding products collected or grown by the household, regard-

where Rtot is the total richness; P refers to the presence (0 or 1) of a spe-

TABLE 1 General characteristics of the studied communities1

Tsimane’ Andean settlers

Data collected during forest measurement (and fully analyzed in

3.2. A Diversified Farm and Off-Farm Income System

FIGURE 2 Perceived importance of agriculture, forestry, and other activities to household

3.3. Comparison of Cultivated Crop Areas

3.4. Diversification of Agriculture and Forestry Products

Tsimane’ Andean settlers

Rice 1.24a 0.87 3.86 0.13 1.62a 2.13 15.00 0.04

Tsimane’ Andean settlers

Annual crops 10a 4 20 2 10a 5 19 0

3.5. Potential Drivers of Productive Diversification

TABLE 4 Spearman’s correlation between productive diversity and sociodemographic variables

Tsimane’ Andean settlers

Agricultural Forest Total Agricultural Forest Total

Permanency .286∗ .218 .278∗ .067 .298∗∗ .280∗∗

Finally, we did not find a statistically significant correlation between

3.6. Possible Effects of Diversification on Deforestation

Coefficient Standard error Coefficient Standard error

Constant 8.491 3.154 8.062 3.571

between agriculture and forest productive diversification as two separate

and elaboration of educational material based on local environmental issues.

also been shown in the Andean highlands (Mathez-Stiefel and Vanderbroek

4.2. The Economic Dimension of Diversification

between consumption and commercialization—explains why diversification

need to be accompanied by a set of economic and institutional incentives

4.3. An Adequate Policy to Valorize Productive Diversification for

sustainable. The relative abundance of this highly appreciated product and