Next Article in Journal
Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Weigela subsessilis Callus Extract via Suppression of MAPK and NF-κB Signaling
Previous Article in Journal
A Comparative Study on Photo-Protective and Anti-Melanogenic Properties of Different Kadsura coccinea Extracts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hibiscus sabdariffa, a Treatment for Uncontrolled Hypertension. Pilot Comparative Intervention
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/plants10081634
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Medicinal Plants for Rich People vs. Medicinal Plants for Poor People: A Case Study from the Peruvian Andes

by
Fernando Corroto
1,2,
Jesús Rascón
1,
Elgar Barboza
1,3 and
Manuel J. Macía
2,4,*
1
Instituto de Investigación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Ceja de Selva, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amazonas, Calle Universitaria N° 304, Chachapoyas, Amazonas 01001, Peru
2
Departamento de Biología, Área de Botánica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin 2, ES-28049 Madrid, Spain
3
Dirección de Desarrollo Tecnológico Agrario, Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria, Avenida La Molina N° 1981, Lima 15024, Peru
4
Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Cambio Global (CIBC-UAM), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin 2, ES-28049 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(8), 1634; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10081634
Submission received: 25 March 2021 / Revised: 21 July 2021 / Accepted: 2 August 2021 / Published: 9 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ethnobotany and Community Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditional knowledge (TK) of medicinal plants in cities has been poorly studied across different inhabitants’ socioeconomic sectors. We studied the small city of Chachapoyas (~34,000 inhabitants) in the northern Peruvian Andes. We divided the city into three areas according to the socio-economic characteristics of its inhabitants: city center (high), intermediate area (medium), and city periphery (low). We gathered information with 450 participants through semi-structured interviews. Participants of the city periphery showed a higher TK of medicinal plants than participants of the intermediate area, and the latter showed a higher TK than participants of the city center. The acquisition of medicinal plants was mainly through their purchase in markets across the three areas, although it was particularly relevant in the city center (94%). Participants of all socioeconomic levels widely used the same medicinal plants for similar purposes in Chachapoyas, which is likely based on a common Andean culture that unites their TK. However, participants with the lowest socioeconomic level knew and used more plants for different medicinal uses, indicating the necessity of these plants for their livelihoods. City markets with specialized stores that commercialize medicinal plants are key to preserve the good health of poor and rich people living in Andean cities and societies.

1. Introduction

Rural migrations usually consist of movements of persons or populations from rural to urban areas [1]. This exodus has existed since cities began to be built thousands of years ago. During the Industrial Revolution period, which occurred at different times worldwide, this process was accelerated by the construction of urban centers surrounded by industrial and productive areas, which resulted in the progressive abandonment of nearby rural areas [2,3].
Today, Latin American populations continue migrating to the cities and rural areas are slowly depopulating [4,5]. Migrants arrive in the cities in a situation of extreme social vulnerability and without economic resources or support networks. Usually, they are installed in peripheral areas that are economically more feasible [6]. In contrast, city centers are occupied by families with greater economic capacities. The price of these downtown properties has increased as business services, financial centers, and official institutions have been set up [7,8]. Thus, the rapid growth of cities in recent decades has changed past peripheral areas to intermediate areas, that have restructured the space progressively with the creation of new peripheric areas [9,10].
Nowadays, Peruvian cities have become areas with very different social strata, related in most cases to the sector of the city where people live, from the city center to the peripheral areas [11]. The different socioeconomic realities that shape the cities show the distinct ways of life of their inhabitants and differences in access to the necessary health services between poor and rich people still persist [12]. In this sense, the economic difficulties faced by the most vulnerable social groups lead them to resort to traditional knowledge (TK) of medicinal plants to protect their health and to fight illnesses [13]. Thus, the use of medicinal plants is essential in cities for economic and social reasons [14,15,16], making migrants and inhabitants from rural origin feel closer to their traditional culture [17,18,19].
Generally, in Peru (and worldwide), people of lower socioeconomic means have higher TK of medicinal plants, because these medicinal resources are crucial for their livelihoods [20,21]. This pattern has been reported widely in the literature [22,23,24]. The socioeconomic level of local people has a direct relationship with the way of gathering these resources from rural areas to cities, where the transformation of the environment and the smaller size of home gardens make access to plants difficult. In this sense, the installation of markets and specialized stores for the sale of medicinal plants is common in Peruvian cities as an indicator of product demand [25,26]).
Some studies in Latin America have reported information on medicinal plant species sold in urban markets [27,28,29,30,31,32]. Other works have focused on medicinal plants used by migrants in different cities worldwide [33,34,35] or compared different population groups based on their socioeconomic characteristics [23,36,37]. But to our knowledge, this is the first study that specifically compares the use of medicinal plants, based on socioeconomic resources of local people, across different areas of the same city.
In this study, we have three objectives. The first objective was to analyze the use of medicinal plants for people with a similar culture and different socioeconomic characteristics, that are living in three areas of the city of Chachapoyas, in the northern Peruvian Andes: (i) city center, (ii) intermediate area, and (iii) city periphery. We hypothesized that people with low economic resources would have greater TK of medicinal plants, which would mainly correspond to the inhabitants of the city periphery [38,39,40]. The second objective was to compare the most important medicinal plant species used and their medical indications across the three areas of the city. We hypothesized that most species and medical indications would be similar across all areas because people come from a common Andean culture [41,42]. The third objective was to compare the mode of acquisition of medicinal plant species across the three areas of the city: (i) collected from the wild, (ii) cultivated in home gardens, family farms, and homes, or (iii) purchased in city markets. We hypothesized that people with higher economic resources would mainly purchase medicinal plants, whereas people with lower economic resources would mainly collect plants from the wild or cultivate them in different ways [43,44,45].

2. Results

2.1. Distribution of TK of Medicinal Plants across City Areas

The participants of the city of Chachapoyas cited a total of 299 medicinal plant species, belonging to 246 genera and 92 families. They also mentioned 2184 medicinal uses and 5787 use reports. Medicinal plants and uses are shown in Table S1. Specifically, people in the city center cited 175 species, 328 medicinal uses, and 1108 use-reports; in the intermediate area 216 species, 744 medicinal uses, and 1924 use-reports; and in the city periphery 233 species, 1076 medicinal uses, and 2755 use-reports.
Participants living in the city center and city periphery were separated according to their personal socioeconomic factors, whereas participants living in the intermediate area occupied an intermediate position in a spatial ordination (Figure 1).
Overall, participants in the city periphery showed a higher TK of medicinal plants than participants in the two other city areas, based on the three ethnobotanical indicators analyzed for all the medicinal categories (Figure 2). Concerning the ethnobotanical indicator, the number of useful species (NSP), participants in the city periphery cited a higher number of species than participants in the intermediate area, and these participants knew more medicinal species than participants in the city center for all the medicinal categories, with just two exceptions: (i) in the Infections and infestations category, participants in the city periphery ranked first, followed by participants in the city center, and finally, participants in the intermediate area; and (ii) in the Respiratory system category, participants in the intermediate area ranked first, followed by participants in the city periphery and finally participants in the city center (Figure 2a).
For the two other ethnobotanical indicators, the number of medicinal uses (NMU) and the number of use-reports (NUR), the pattern was the same across the inhabitants of the three city areas: participants in the city periphery clearly knew more medicinal uses and reported more use-reports than participants in the intermediate area, and these participants showed a higher TK of medicinal plants than participants in the city center, with just two exceptions: (i) in the Reproductive system category, participants in the city center ranked first, followed by participants in the city periphery, and finally, participants in the intermediate area; and (ii) in the Nervous system category, participants in the intermediate area ranked first, followed by participants in the city periphery and finally participants in the city center (Figure 2b,c).

2.2. Comparison of the Most Used Medicinal Species and Medical Indications across the City Areas

The 30 most important medicinal plant species used in the three city areas represented 67.4% of the total number of use reports, totaling 42 species (Table 1). 42.8% of these species were reported in all three areas: Minthostachys mollis (Benth.) Griseb., Matricaria recutita L., Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, Origanum vulgare L., Plantago major L., Equisetum bogotense Kunth, Malus domestica Borkh., Bixa orellana L., Ruta chalepensis L., Zea mays L., Mentha spicata L., Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f., Chenopodium ambrosioides L., Piper acutifolium Ruiz & Pav., Erythroxylum coca Lam., Solanum lycopersicum L., Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav. and Tagetes filifolia Lag. 30.9% of the species were only found in a single area: six species in the city center (Medicago sativa L., Passiflora edulis Sims., Phyllanthus niruri L., Valeriana adscendens Turcz., Verbena litoralis Kunth and Croton perspeciosus Croizat), four species in the intermediate area (Carica papaya L., Musa acuminata Colla, Citrus aurantium L. var. sinensis L. and Stachys arvensis (L.) L.), and three species in the city periphery (Spartium junceum L., Solanum tuberosum L. and Cucurbita maxima Duchesne). Among the five species with the highest Cultural index in each of the city areas, two of them (Minthostachys mollis and Matricaria recutita) had the highest Cultural index in all three areas, whereas three species (Citrus limon, Origanum vulgare, and Plantago major) ranked higher in two areas, and four species (Equisetum bogotense, Malus domestica, Bixa orellana, and Zea mays) ranked higher in just one city area.
Regarding the status of the most important medicinal plant species, a total of 57.1% were cultivated, whereas 33.3% were native, and 9.5% were naturalized species (Table 1).
The ten most important medical indications in the three city areas represented 58.2% of the total number of use reports, totaling 15 medical indications (Table 2). 46.7% of these medical indications were reported in the three areas, whereas 40.0% were only reported in a single area: three medical indications in the city center (Prostate disorders, Menstruation disorders, and Breastfeeding), two in the intermediate area (Wounds healing, and Fever), and one in the city periphery (Burns). Of the ten most cited medical indications, seven ranked higher in all city areas: Kidney disorders and diuretic, Diarrhea, Flu, Intestinal parasites, Tacsho (when a person who is going to die manifests itself in another person making him ill), Insomnia, and Birth.

2.3. Acquisition of Medicinal Plant Species across the Three City Areas

The most common way of acquiring medicinal plants was purchasing them in markets and specialized stores in all three areas of Chachapoyas (Figure 3). This was particularly relevant for the city center where purchases represented 94% of all acquisitions, whereas in both the intermediate area and the city periphery purchases represented 56%. The other ways of acquiring medicinal plants were similar in the intermediate area and the city periphery: 23–24% were harvested from the wild, and 20–21% were cultivated in home gardens, family farms, or homes.

3. Discussion

3.1. Distribution of the TK of Medicinal Plants in Chachapoyas

Participants of the city periphery clearly showed higher TK of medicinal plants than those of both the intermediate area and the city center, therefore our first hypothesis was accepted. These findings can be explained by economic and cultural factors. First, the high economic cost of health services and medicines limits health access for poor people living mainly in the city periphery [27,46]. Second, residents in the peripheral areas have better access to a natural environment they know and where they can harvest and use medicinal plants [47,48]. The fact that people with lower economic resources use more medicinal plants than people with higher economic resources has been widely reported in the literature [22,23,24], and this study adds to this conclusion.
The most important medical indications for which people use plants in the three city areas are similar to those found in other studies in Latin American cities, with high values in medicinal categories such as Digestive system or Urinary system [29,49].
The two medicinal categories, Reproductive system, and Nervous system, for which participants of the intermediate area and the city center had higher TK than participants in the city periphery can be explained from an economic point of view. Some of the most cited medicinal species for the Reproductive system (Jatropha macrantha Müll. Arg.) and the Nervous system (Valeriana adscendens) are only sold in specialized stores and city markets at disproportionate prices, and therefore hardly available to the population of the city periphery.
The category Cultural diseases and disorders was highly cited in all three city areas, highlighting the great importance that these ailments and diseases have in the culture of these Andean urban societies [27,46]. Cultural diseases and disorders are shown in Table S2. Thus, there is a strong association between certain medicinal species and their medical indications, such as Minthostachys mollis to cure Tacsho, and Ruta chalepensis to alleviate Malaire, as reported in past Andean studies [50,51,52].

3.2. Cultural Significance of Medicinal Plants in Chachapoyas

Nearly 43% of the species with the highest cultural importance were shared across the three areas of Chachapoyas, and they accounted for more than 67% of the use reports, which also verified our second hypothesis at the species level. A significant part of these species were not native to Peru but are widely used because they are easily cultivated in home gardens or pots at home, and their market price is low [25]. This was the case for Matricaria recutita, Citrus limon, Origanum vulgare, Malus domestica, and Ruta chalepensis, to name just a few examples. Similarly, many wild species that showed higher cultural importance, such as Minthostachys mollis, Equisetum bogotense, Bixa orellana, and Piper acutifolium were easily available. Our study then confirms that many medicinal plants are widely used and have high cultural importance largely due to their availability and accessibility [53,54,55].
Some species were commonly used for different uses, not exclusively medicinal. Many of them are edible species of frequent consumption such as Zea mays, Solanum lycopersicum, Capsicum pubescens, or Brassica oleracea var. acephala, which increases their cultural importance through the integration of medicinal and nutritional use [56,57,58]. Some other species, such as Erythroxylum coca and Aloe vera, are among the most important species across the three city areas due to their versatility to treat ailments and disorders of many medicinal categories. These plants are also among the most cited species in many Andean works, highlighting their medicinal versatility, largely because they are used for indications of cultural diseases and ritual and/or magical indications [27,59].
On the other hand, we found 13 medicinal species of great cultural importance that stood out in only one of the three city areas. For example, in the city center, some species (Phyllanthus niruri, Valeriana adscendens, and Croton perspeciosus) are exclusively bought in herbalist stores in forms that resemble conventional medicine. This explains why the highest number of exclusive species was reported in the city center. These types of stores offer (natural) medicinal remedies at higher prices compared to the same species sold in markets [60,61,62]. The opposite also occurs in the city periphery with some species (Spartium junceum) that are only collected from the wild and mainly used by participants in the city periphery. Finally, some other species (e.g., Carica papaya, Musa acuminata, and Citrus aurantium var. sinensis) cannot be cultivated close to the city of Chachapoyas due to the harsh environmental conditions; they must be imported from other provinces of the Amazonas Department, which increases their cost in markets and makes them less available to participants with fewer economic resources.
Concerning medical indications, we found that participants used medicinal plants for similar purposes regardless of the city area in which they live, so our hypothesis was also accepted at the medical indication level. These results confirm that culture unites the TK of medicinal plants in the city of Chachapoyas. Similar results have been found in other parts of the world, indicating that a small number of medicinal plant species are widely used by the common population [63]. The most frequently cited medical indications in all three city areas include diseases and ailments of the Digestive system and the Urinary system, which are also widely reported in earlier Andean studies [64,65,66]. Participants in all three areas widely used medicinal plants to deal with Tacsho, an idiosyncratic medical indication of Andean cosmology and indicative of a shared cultural past in this society [67,68].

3.3. Different Modes of Acquisition of Medicinal Plants in Chachapoyas

Participants of the city center bought 94% of medicinal plants in city markets, but participants in the city periphery and the intermediate area also bought a significant 56% of the plants they used. This indicates that purchase is the first option for all participants and the most advantageous solution to use medicinal plants, as it has also been reported in past studies [25,69]. However, participants in the intermediate area and the city periphery obtained medicinal plants in similar percentages from the wild and/or cultivated, whereas this was not the case of participants in the city center. Therefore, it seems that participants with greater economic resources have less contact with nature, since they hardly harvest wild medicinal plants nor do they cultivate them. In addition, the remoteness of the rural environment from the city center, as well as the ecological characteristics of the environment, prevent city center participants from easily accessing these resources in situ [70].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area and City Areas

The city of Chachapoyas (6°13′45.84″ S; 77°52′20.47″ W) is the capital of the Amazonas Department. It is located in the northeastern Peruvian Andes, at 2483 m above sea level, and more than 1200 km apart from Lima (Figure 4). The average annual temperature is 16 °C, the average annual precipitation is around 800 mm, with an average relative humidity of 74%. It has a marked climatic seasonality with the alternance of a rainy season from November to April and a dry season from May to October [71,72].
In the past, it was the most important city of the Chachapoyas human group that was established in the Peruvian Andes between the eighth and fifteenth centuries [73]. Chachapoyas healers were famous in the region because of their use of local plants. Currently, the city of Chachapoyas obtains most of its economic resources from agriculture and livestock in the nearby [74,75].
Chachapoyas city has grown rapidly in the last four decades, increasing from 11,853 inhabitants in the year 1981 to 33,293 inhabitants in 2017 [76]. This growth has occurred through non-uniform population settlements, mainly established in the northern and southeastern parts of the city (Figure 4). The last urban plan of the city classified Chachapoyas in three large areas: city center (~6000 inhabitants), intermediate area (~14,000), and city periphery (~14,000) [77]. In this study, we follow this classification. The most important political and economic official institutions, together with the most significant social and cultural attractions, are established in the city center. The city periphery encompasses all the latest population settlements that started in 2004 during a large migratory period. Finally, the delimitation of the intermediate area, which corresponds to the area between the two other city areas, is based on the decrease in Peru’s internal migration rate in the Amazonas Department between 2002 and 2007 [78].

4.2. Data Collection

We identified people’s socioeconomic level based on their place of residence in each city area, respectively: we hypothesized that residents of the city center would have the highest socioeconomic level, residents of the city periphery would have the lowest socioeconomic level, and residents of the intermediate area would have a medium socioeconomic level.
To gather information on the uses of medicinal plants in Chachapoyas city, we conducted 150 semi-structured interviews in each of the three areas, totaling 450 participants. We went through all the streets of each of the city areas looking for participants. The participants were selected according to their place of residence across the three city areas. We interviewed one person per house and family unit agreeing to collaborate. Participants were homogeneously distributed among the streets that make up each area. We sought a balance in terms of gender and age, dividing the interviews equally between men and women, and distributing them into five age groups: 18–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, and over 60 years. The interviews consisted of two parts: (i) a semi-structured interview to gather information of medicinal plants associated with medical indications, and (ii) a structured interview to obtain personal objective information for 21 socioeconomic factors for all participants (Table 3). Interviews were conducted between September 2017 and May 2018 through visits to their homes.
Specimens of the medicinal species were collected in the field, in the home gardens of nine participants, and purchased in the city markets. All vouchers were deposited at the Truxillense Herbarium (HUT) (FC682-FC926) and at the Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza (Peru). The scientific names followed The Plant List [79] and the family taxonomic classification followed the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group [80].

4.3. Data Analysis

The medicinal uses reported during the interviews were classified into 18 categories following international standards [81]. Additionally, we included cultural, ritual, or magical diseases based on Macía et al. [82] and Gruca et al. [83]. Three ethnobotanical indicators were used for each participant: (1) the number of medicinal plant species (NSP) reported; (2) the number of medicinal plants uses (NMU), corresponding to the use of a plant part of a given species that is associated with a medicinal category and a specific medical indication; and (3) the number of medicinal plants use-reports (NUR), corresponding to the sum of all different medicinal uses reported for the total number of known species. To evaluate possible differences between the three areas, we used the 15 medicinal categories with the highest number of use reports (100 or more).
To visualize the relative affinity of the participants to the three city areas, we carried out a non-metric multidimensional scaling analysis (NMDS) with all the participants and including the 21 socioeconomic factors. This analysis was performed in R 3.6.3 [84].
To analyze the significance of the medicinal plant species in each of the three areas of Chachapoyas city, we calculated the Cultural Importance Index (CI), following Tardío and Pardo-de-Santayana [85]. CI results from the sum of the use-reports in every medicinal category (URui) mentioned for a species in an area divided by the number of participants (N) in that area, according to the following formula, where u is the number of medicinal categories for which a species has been cited, and i is the number of participants who have cited it:
C I S = ∑ u = u 1 u N C ∑ i = i 1 i N U R u i N
We obtained a value for each of the species in the whole city, and a value for each of the medicinal species in each of the three city areas.
To compare the most important medicinal uses across the three city areas, we counted all medicinal use-reports per medical indication, respectively. Finally, we compared the mode of acquisition of medicinal plants (cultivated, wild, and purchased) across the three areas based on the number of use reports cited for each case.

4.4. Ethics Statement

The study was carried out following the Convention on Biological Diversity ethical rules, considering the Bonn guidelines and the Nagoya Protocol [86,87]. A written permit for the approval of the study was obtained from the local authorities of Chachapoyas, as well as from the Regional Government of the Amazonas Department. We asked each of the participants for free, prior, and informed (verbal) consent, indicating (1) that they could stop the interview at any time, and (2) that the data processing would be anonymous. The ethics committee of the Autonomous University of Madrid approved this study (CEI 73-1327 to M.J. Macía).

5. Conclusions

Overall, people from different socioeconomic levels living in Chachapoyas city still trust medicinal plants to alleviate and cure different diseases, ailments and disorders. However, people with the lowest socioeconomic resources living in the city periphery showed higher TK of medicinal plants than people with higher socioeconomic resources living in the city center. Participants shared the use of the most important medicinal plant species and associated medical indications across the three city areas, which is based on the existence of a common Andean culture. Today, all people mostly obtain medicinal plants through purchase in markets and specialized stores, particularly in the city center. However, people living in the city periphery and the intermediate area still harvest plants in the wild and/or cultivate them in different ways; their relationship to nature and traditional culture is surely more vivid.
To our knowledge, this is the first study that compares the use of medicinal plants across different areas of the same city and based on the socioeconomic resources of the population. Therefore, the study could be replicated in other cities in Latin America and other countries worldwide where medicinal plants still play a key role in local culture, in order to confirm/reject our results. Our study could also benefit from comparisons with cities of different population sizes, origins, and cultures (including different religions), and even analyzing the impact of foreign migrations that we did not find in Chachapoyas.
Policymakers should consider the importance of the use of medicinal plants in urban societies and the role of specialized stores to improve livelihoods.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/plants10081634/s1, Table S1: Medicinal plants used in the city of Chachapoyas, in the tropical montane forests of northern (Peru). Table S2: Medicinal plants used in the city of Chachapoyas, in the tropical montane forests of northern (Peru).

Author Contributions

F.C. and M.J.M. conceived the ideas and developed the methodology; F.C., J.R., and E.B. collected the data; F.C., J.R., E.B., and M.J.M. analyzed the data; F.C. and M.J.M. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. M.J. Macía received support from Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [grant number CGL2016-75414-P].

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article and its Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

We are deeply thankful to the 450 participants of the city of Chachapoyas who shared their time and knowledge with us. Special thanks to Damaris Leiva Tafur and Jeshibel Chávez Ortiz for their invaluable assistance in data collection. We thank Maximilien Gueze for his helpful comments and revision of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wekesa, B.W.; Steyn, G.S.; Otieno, F.F. A review of physical and socio-economic characteristics and intervention approaches of informal settlements. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Williamson, J.G. Migration and city growth during industrial revolutions. In Urban Agglomeration and Economic Growth; Giersch, H., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1995; pp. 79–104. [Google Scholar]
  3. Konteh, F.H. Urban sanitation and health in the developing world: Reminiscing the nineteenth century industrial nations. Health Place 2009, 15, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Perz, S.G. Migrant characteristics and land-use/land-cover change in the Pan-Amazon Basin: A comparative analysis of Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Perú. In The Social Ecology of Tropical Forests: Migration, Population and Frontiers; De Jong, W., Tuck-Po, L., Ken-ichi, A., Eds.; Kyoto University Press: Kyoto, Japan, 2006; pp. 25–53. [Google Scholar]
  5. Parry, L.; Day, B.; Amaral, S.; Peres, C.A. Drivers of rural exodus from Amazonian headwaters. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 137–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sakay, C.; Sanoni, P.; Deng, T.H. Rural to urban squatter settlements: The micro model of generational self-help housing in Lima-Peru. Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Grau, H.R.; Aide, T.M. Are rural-urban migration and sustainable development compatible in mountain systems? Mt. Res. Dev. 2007, 27, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Li, X.; Zhou, W.; Ouyang, Z. Forty years of urban expansion in Beijing: What is the relative importance of physical, socioeconomic, and neighborhood factors? Appl. Geogr. 2013, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Muñoz-Carrera, Ó.M. Gentrificación, segregación y reestructuración social en Madrid. Rev. Direito Cid. 2014, 6, 180–207. [Google Scholar]
  10. Grabkowska, M.; Frankowski, J. Close to the city centre, close to the university. Are there symptoms of studentification in Gdańsk, Poland? In Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series; Szymańska, D., Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J., Eds.; Nicolaus Copernicus University: Torún, Perú, 2016; pp. 73–83. [Google Scholar]
  11. Aguilar, A.G.; Ward, P.M. Globalization, regional development, and mega-city expansion in Latin America: Analyzing Mexico City’s peri-urban hinterland. Cities 2003, 20, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática). Encuesta Nacional de Hogares del Perú 2015 (ENAHO); INEI: Lima, Perú, 2015; pp. 1–107. Available online: https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1369/libro.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2020).
  13. Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Macía, M.J. Biodiversity: The benefits of traditional knowledge. Nature 2015, 518, 487–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hamilton, A.C. Medicinal plants, conservation and livelihoods. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1477–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Neulinger, K.; Vogl, C.R.; Alayón-Gamboa, J.A. Plant species and their uses in homegardens of migrant Maya and Mestizo smallholder farmers in Calakmul, Campeche, Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. 2013, 33, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gaoue, O.G.; Coe, M.A.; Bond, M.; Hart, G.; Seyler, B.C.; McMillen, H. Theories and major hypotheses in ethnobotany. Econ. Bot. 2017, 71, 269–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ceuterick, M.; Vandebroek, I.; Torry, B.; Pieroni, A. Cross-cultural adaptation in urban ethnobotany: The Colombian folk pharmacopoeia in London. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 120, 342–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Vandebroek, I.; Balick, M.J. Globalization and loss of plant knowledge: Challenging the paradigm. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e37643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ladio, A.H.; Acosta, M. Urban medicinal plant use: Do migrant and non-migrant populations have similar hybridisation processes? J. Ethnopharmacol. 2019, 234, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Vandebroek, I. The dual intracultural and intercultural relationship between medicinal plant knowledge and consensus. Econ. Bot. 2010, 64, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Corroto, F.; Torres, O.A.G.; Macía, M.J. Different patterns in medicinal plant use along an elevational gradient in northern Peruvian Andes. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2019, 239, 111924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Godoy, R.; Reyes-García, V.; Byron, E.; Leonard, W.R.; Vadez, V. The effect of market economies on the well-being of indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural resources. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005, 34, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Andriamparany, J.N.; Brinkmann, K.; Jeannoda, V.; Buerkert, A. Effects of socio-economic household characteristics on traditional knowledge and usage of wild yams and medicinal plants in the Mahafaly region of south-western Madagascar. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2014, 10, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Pérez-Nicolás, M.; Vibrans, H.; Romero-Manzanares, A.; Saynes-Vásquez, A.; Luna-Cavazos, M.; Flores-Cruz, M.; Lira-Saade, R. Patterns of knowledge and use of medicinal plants in Santiago Camotlán, Oaxaca, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 2017, 71, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bussmann, R.W.; Sharon, D.; Vandebroek, I.; Jones, A.; Revene, Z. Health for sale: The medicinal plant markets in Trujillo and Chiclayo, Northern Peru. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2007, 3, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Bussmann, R.W.; Paniagua-Zambrana, N.; Chamorro, M.R.; Moreira, N.M.; Negri, M.L.R.C.; Olivera, J. Peril in the market-classification and dosage of species used as anti-diabetics in Lima, Peru. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Macía, M.J.; García, E.; Vidaurre, P.J. An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants commercialized in the markets of La Paz and El Alto, Bolivia. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005, 97, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Quintero, S.E.G.; Bernal Lizarazú, M.C.; Morales Robayo, A.; Lobo, P.; Zuled, A.; Gamba Molano, L. Traditional use of medicinal plants in markets Bogotá, DC. Nova 2015, 13, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tinitana, F.; Rios, M.; Romero-Benavides, J.C.; de la Cruz Rot, M.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M. Medicinal plants sold at traditional markets in southern Ecuador. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Giraldo, D.; Baquero, E.; Bermúdez, A.; Oliveira-Miranda, M.A. Caracterización del comercio de plantas medicinales en los mercados populares de Caracas, Venezuela. Acta Botánica Venezuélica 2009, 32, 267–301. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gómez-Estrada, H.; Díaz-Castillo, F.; Franco-Ospina, L.; Mercado-Camargo, J.; Guzmán-Ledezma, J.; Medina, J.D.; Gaitán-Ibarra, R. Folk medicine in the northern coast of Colombia: An overview. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2011, 7, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Hurrell, J.A.; Puentes, J.P.; Arenas, P.M. Medicinal plants with cholesterol-lowering effect marketed in the Buenos Aires-La Plata conurbation, Argentina: An urban Ethnobotany study. Ethnobiol. Conserv. 2015, 4, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Balick, M.J.; Kronenberg, F.; Ososki, A.L.; Reiff, M.; Fugh-Berman, A.; Roble, M.; Lohr, P.; Atha, D. Medicinal plants used by Latino healers for women’s health conditions in New York City. Econ. Bot. 2000, 54, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van Andel, T.; Westers, P. Why Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands continue to use medicinal herbs from their home country. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2010, 127, 694–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ellena, R.; Quave, C.L.; Pieroni, A. Comparative medical ethnobotany of the Senegalese community living in Turin (Northwestern Italy) and in Adeane (Southern Senegal). Evid. Based Complementary Altern. Med. 2012, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Shackleton, C.M.; Shackleton, S.E. Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River valley, South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 306–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cocks, M.L.; Bangay, L.; Shackleton, C.M.; Wiersum, F.K. Rich man poor man-inter-household and community factors influencing the use of wild plant resources amongst rural households in South Africa. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2008, 15, 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Case, R.J.; Pauli, G.F.; Soejarto, D.D. Factors in maintaining indigenous knowledge among ethnic communities of Manus Island. Econ. Bot. 2005, 59, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Almeida, C.D.F.C.B.; Ramos, M.A.; Amorim, E.L.C.; Albuquerque, U.P. A comparison of knowledge about medicinal plants for three rural communities in the semi-arid region of northeast of Brazil. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 127, 674–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arruda, H.L.S.; dos Santos, J.F.O.; Albuquerque, U.P.; Ramos, M.A. Influence of socioeconomic factors on the knowledge and consumption of firewood in the Atlantic Forest of northeast Brazil. Econ. Bot. 2019, 73, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Inta, A.; Shengji, P.; Balslev, H.; Wangpakapattanawong, P.; Trisonthi, C. A comparative study on medicinal plants used in Akha’s traditional medicine in China and Thailand, cultural coherence or ecological divergence? J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 116, 508–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Martínez, G.J.; Luján, M.C. Medicinal plants used for traditional veterinary in the Sierras de Córdoba (Argentina): An ethnobotanical comparison with human medicinal uses. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2011, 7, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Hossan, S.; Agarwala, B.; Sarwar, S.; Karim, M.; Jahan, R.; Rahmatullah, M. Traditional use of medicinal plants in Bangladesh to treat urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2010, 8, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Lyon, L.M.; Hardesty, L.H. Quantifying medicinal plant knowledge among non–specialist Antanosy villagers in southern Madagascar. Econ. Bot. 2012, 66, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ramet, A.; Benyei, P.; Parada, M.; Aceituno-Mata, L.; García-del-Amo, D.; Reyes-García, V. Grandparents’ proximity and children’s traditional medicinal plant knowledge: Insights from two schools in intermediate-rural Spain. J. Ethnobiol. 2018, 38, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vandebroek, I. Intercultural health and ethnobotany: How to improve healthcare for underserved and minority communities? J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 148, 746–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rai, P.K.; Lalramnghinglova, H. Ethnomedicinal plant resources of Mizoram, India: Implication of traditional knowledge in health care system. Ethnobot. Leafl. 2010, 14, 274–305. [Google Scholar]
  48. Campos, J.L.A.; de Lima Araújo, E.; Gaoue, O.G.; Albuquerque, U.P. Socioeconomic factors and cultural changes explain the knowledge and use of Ouricuri Palm (Syagrus coronata) by the Fulni ô indigenous people of Northeast Brazil. Econ. Bot. 2019, 73, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brown, K. The use of medicinal plants in Rio de Janeiro’s urban periphery: An analysis of communities’ engagements with policies. J. Ethnobiol. 2016, 36, 861–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hammond, G.B.; Fernández, I.D.; Villegas, L.F.; Vaisberg, A.J. A survey of traditional medicinal plants from the Callejón de Huaylas, Department of Ancash, Perú. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1998, 61, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. De la Cruz, H.; Vilcapoma, G.; Zevallos, P.A. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by the Andean people of Canta, Lima, Peru. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2007, 111, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Tello-Cerón, G.; Flores Pimentel, M.; Gómez Galarza, V. Uso de las plantas medicinales del distrito de Quero, Jauja, región Junín, Perú. Ecol. Apl. 2019, 18, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Signorini, M.A.; Piredda, M.; Bruschi, P. Plants and traditional knowledge: An ethnobotanical investigation on Monte Ortobene (Nuoro, Sardinia). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2009, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Carrió, E.; Vallès, J. Ethnobotany of medicinal plants used in eastern Mallorca (Balearic Islands, Mediterranean Sea). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2012, 141, 1021–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brandt, R.; Mathez-Stiefel, S.L.; Lachmuth, S.; Hensen, I.; Rist, S. Knowledge and valuation of Andean agroforestry species: The role of sex, age, and migration among members of a rural community in Bolivia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. González, J.A.; García-Barriuso, M.; Amich, F. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants traditionally used in the Arribes del Duero, western Spain. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2010, 131, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Urso, V.; Signorini, M.A.; Tonini, M.; Bruschi, P. Wild medicinal and food plants used by communities living in Mopane woodlands of southern Angola: Results of an ethnobotanical field investigation. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2016, 177, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bulut, G.; Haznedaroğlu, M.Z.; Doğan, A.; Koyu, H.; Tuzlac, E. An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Acipayam (Denizli-Turkey). J. Herb. Med. 2017, 10, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gonzales, M.; Malpartida, S.B.; Santiago, H.B.; Jullian, V.; Bourdy, G. Hot and cold: Medicinal plant uses in Quechua speaking communities in the high Andes (Callejón de Huaylas, Ancash, Perú). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2014, 155, 1093–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hersch-Martínez, P. Commercialization of wild medicinal plants from southwest Puebla, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 1995, 49, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Van Andel, T.; Myren, B.; Van Onselen, S. Ghana’s herbal market. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2012, 140, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Castillo-Vera, H.; Cochachin, E.; Albán, J. Plantas comercializadas por herbolarios en el mercado del distrito de Cajabamba (Cajamarca, Perú). Boletín Latinoam. Caribe Plantas Med. Aromáticas 2017, 16, 303–318. [Google Scholar]
  63. Sõukand, R.; Hrynevich, Y.; Vasilyeva, I.; Prakofjewa, J.; Vnukovich, Y.; Paciupa, J.; Hlushko, A.; Knureva, Y.; Litvinava, Y.; Vyskvarka, S.; et al. Multi-functionality of the few: Current and past uses of wild plants for food and healing in Liubań region, Belarus. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2017, 13, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Bussmann, R.W.; Sharon, D. Traditional medicinal plant use in Northern Peru: Tracking two thousand years of healing culture. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2006, 2, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Thomas, E.; Vandebroek, I.; Goetghebeur, P.; Sanca, S.; Arrázola, S.; Van Damme, P. The relationship between plant use and plant diversity in the Bolivian Andes, with special reference to medicinal plant use. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 36, 861–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Oblitas, G.; Hernández-Córdova, G.; Chiclla, A.; Antich-Barrientos, M.; Corihuamán-Cusitito, L.; Romaní, F. Empleo de plantas medicinales en usuarios de dos hospitales referenciales del Cusco, Perú. Rev. Peru. Med. Exp. Salud Pública 2013, 30, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Cavender, A.P.; Albán, M. The use of magical plants by curanderos in the Ecuador highlands. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2009, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Luziatelli, G.; Sørensen, M.; Theilade, I.; Mølgaard, P. Asháninka medicinal plants: A case study from the native community of Bajo Quimiriki, Junín, Peru. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2010, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Brandão, M.D.G.L.; Cosenza, G.P.; Pereira, F.L.; Vasconcelos, A.S.; Fagg, C.W. Changes in the trade in native medicinal plants in Brazilian public markets. Environmental monitoring and assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 7013–7023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Furlan, V.; Kujawska, M.; Hilgert, N.I.; Pochettino, M.L. To what extent are medicinal plants shared between country home gardens and urban ones? A case study from Misiones, Argentina. Pharm. Biol. 2016, 54, 1628–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. SENAMHI (Servicio Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología del Perú). Reporte Mensual de Meteorología y Climatología; Lima, Perú. 2017. Available online: http://www.senamhi.gob.pe/?p=descarga-datos-hidrometeorologicos/ (accessed on 12 June 2020).
  72. Rascón, J.; Angeles, W.G.; Oliva, M.; Huatangari, L.Q.; Gurbillón, M.A.B. Determinación de las épocas lluviosas y secas en la ciudad de Chachapoyas para el periodo de 2014–2018. Rev. De Climatol. 2020, 20, 15–28. [Google Scholar]
  73. Valqui, J.; Ziemendorff, M. Vestigios de una lengua originaria en el territorio de la cultura chachapoya. Letras 2016, 87, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Corroto, F.; Gamarra, O.; Barboza, E. Multivariate assessment of water quality in the Utcubamba Basin (Peru). Tecnol. Cienc. Agua 2018, 9, 33–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Briceño, N.B.R.; Castillo, E.B.; Torres, O.A.G.; Oliva, M.; Tafur, D.L.; Gurbillón, M.Á.B.; Corroto, F.; Salas, R.; Rascón, J. Morphometric prioritization, fluvial classification, and hydrogeomorphological quality in high Andean livestock micro-watersheds in northern Peru. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2020, 9, 305–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática). Resultados Definitivos de los Censos Nacionales 2017; INEI: Lima, Perú, 2017; pp. 1–837. Available online: https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1544/00TOMO_01.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2020).
  77. MPCh (Municipalidad Provincial de Chachapoyas). Plan de Desarrollo Urbano de la Ciudad de Chachapoyas. Volumen 1, Resumen Ejecutivo; Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento: Lima, Perú, 2013; pp. 1–30. Available online: https://docplayer.es/81432723-Resumen-ejecutivo-pdu-chachapoyas-plan-de-plan-de-desarrollo-urbano-de-la-ciudad-de-chachapoyas-resumen-ejecutivo.html (accessed on 12 January 2020).
  78. Sánchez-Aguilar, A. Migraciones Internas en el Perú. Misión en el Perú; Organización Internacional para las Migraciones: Lima, Perú, 2015; pp. 1–180. Available online: https://peru.iom.int/sites/default/files/Documentos/Migraciones_Internas.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2020).
  79. The Plant List—A Working List of all Known Plant Species. 2013. Available online: http://www.theplantlist.org. (accessed on 9 January 2020).
  80. Chase, M.W.; Christenhusz, M.J.M.; Fay, M.F.; Byng, J.W.; Judd, W.S.; Soltis, D.E.; Mabberley, D.J.; Sennikov, A.N.; Soltis, P.S.; Stevens, P.F. An update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2016, 181, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. WONCA (World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians). ICPC-2-R: International Classification of Primary Care; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 1–208. ISBN 10:0198568576. [Google Scholar]
  82. Macía, M.J.; Armesilla, P.J.; Cámara-Leret, R.; Paniagua-Zambrana, N.; Villalba, S.; Balslev, H.L.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M. Palm uses in northwestern South America: A quantitative review. Bot. Rev. 2011, 77, 462–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gruca, M.; Cámara-Leret, R.; Macía, M.J.; Balslev, H. New categories for traditional medicine in the economic botany data collection standard. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2014, 155, 1388–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version 3.6.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  85. Tardío, J.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M. Cultural importance indices: A comparative analysis based on the useful wild plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Econ. Bot. 2008, 62, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2011; pp. 1–15. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2020).
  87. SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of Their Utilization; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2002; pp. 1–26. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-bonn-gdls-en.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2020).
Plants 10 01634 g001 550
Figure 1. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination showing the relative affinity of the 450 participants based on their 21 socioeconomic personal factors across the three areas (city center, intermediate area, and city periphery) in Chachapoyas, Peruvian Andes.
Figure 1. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination showing the relative affinity of the 450 participants based on their 21 socioeconomic personal factors across the three areas (city center, intermediate area, and city periphery) in Chachapoyas, Peruvian Andes.
Plants 10 01634 g001
Plants 10 01634 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Number of useful species (NSP), (B) number of medicinal uses (NMU), and (C) number of use-reports (NUR) by medicinal categories gathered in 450 interviews with participants from three areas (city center, intermediate area, and city periphery) in the city of Chachapoyas in northern Peruvian Andes.
Figure 2. (A) Number of useful species (NSP), (B) number of medicinal uses (NMU), and (C) number of use-reports (NUR) by medicinal categories gathered in 450 interviews with participants from three areas (city center, intermediate area, and city periphery) in the city of Chachapoyas in northern Peruvian Andes.
Plants 10 01634 g002
Plants 10 01634 g003 550
Figure 3. Percentages of medicinal plants acquisition across the three areas of Chachapoyas city from 450 interviews to the local population.
Figure 3. Percentages of medicinal plants acquisition across the three areas of Chachapoyas city from 450 interviews to the local population.
Plants 10 01634 g003
Plants 10 01634 g004 550
Figure 4. Map of the city of Chachapoyas in the northern Peruvian Andes showing the three areas (city center, intermediate area, and city periphery), where medicinal plants data were gathered from 450 participants.
Figure 4. Map of the city of Chachapoyas in the northern Peruvian Andes showing the three areas (city center, intermediate area, and city periphery), where medicinal plants data were gathered from 450 participants.
Plants 10 01634 g004
Table
Table 1. Comparison of the 30 most important medicinal plant species (with voucher numbers) based on the Cultural Importance Index (in bold; see formula in the Methods section) and broken down across three areas of the city of Chachapoyas (Peruvian Andes).
Table 1. Comparison of the 30 most important medicinal plant species (with voucher numbers) based on the Cultural Importance Index (in bold; see formula in the Methods section) and broken down across three areas of the city of Chachapoyas (Peruvian Andes).
SpeciesFamilyStatusCity CenterIntermediate AreaCity PeripheryWhole City
Minthostachys mollis (Benth.) Griseb. (FC791)LamiaceaeNative0.400.750.920.69
Matricaria recutita L. (FC752)CompositaeCultivated0.330.800.890.67
Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck (FC888)RutaceaeCultivated0.350.270.470.36
Origanum vulgare L. (FC790)LamiaceaeCultivated0.270.300.500.36
Plantago major L. (FC861)PlantaginaceaeNaturalized0.190.390.460.35
Equisetum bogotense Kunth (FC775)EquisetaceaeNative0.100.320.460.29
Malus domestica Borkh. (FC878)RosaceaeCultivated0.110.440.270.27
Bixa orellana L. (FC717)BixaceaeNative0.240.230.300.26
Ruta chalepensis L. (FC892)RutaceaeCultivated0.220.170.350.25
Zea mays L. (FC870)PoaceaeCultivated0.070.350.310.24
Mentha spicata L. (FC788)LamiaceaeCultivated0.170.220.320.24
Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. (FC923)XanthorrhoeaceaeCultivated0.140.140.390.22
Chenopodium ambrosioides L. (FC685)AmaranthaceaeNaturalized0.130.240.290.22
Piper acutifolium Ruiz & Pav. (FC860)PiperaceaeNative0.090.240.330.22
Erythroxylum coca Lam. (FC776)ErythroxylaceaeCultivated0.180.140.280.20
Solanum lycopersicum L. (FC912)SolanaceaeCultivated0.110.140.270.17
Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav. (FC903)SolanaceaeCultivated0.070.210.230.17
Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala DC. (FC720)BrassicaceaeCultivated0.150.180.160.16
Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (FC842)MyrtaceaeCultivated0.060.160.270.16
Tagetes filifolia Lag. (FC736)CompositaeNative0.130.160.200.16
Petroselinum crispus (Mill.) Fuss (FC701)ApiaceaeCultivated0.130.110.240.16
Desmodium molliculum (Kunth) DC. (FC815)LeguminosaeNative0.030.190.250.16
Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry (FC841)MyrtaceaeCultivated0.050.200.210.15
Carica papaya L. (FC729)CaricaceaeCultivated0.060.260.120.15
Musa acuminata Colla (FC839)MusaceaeCultivated0.040.270.130.15
Cyclanthera pedata (L.) Schard. (FC768)CucurbitaceaeNative0.010.160.250.14
Citrus aurantiifolia Risso (FC887)RutaceaeCultivated0.040.140.220.13
Apium graveolens L. (FC698)ApiaceaeCultivated0.070.120.200.13
Daucus carota L. (FC704)ApiaceaeCultivated0.090.110.190.13
Ullucus tuberosus Caldas (FC713)BasellaceaeNative0.080.150.150.13
Alternanthera mexicana Moq. (FC684)AmaranthaceaeNative0.110.130.130.12
Citrus aurantium L. var. sinensis L. (FC890)RutaceaeCultivated0.060.190.110.12
Spartium junceum L. (FC816)LeguminosaeNaturalized0.030.090.230.12
Medicago sativa L. (FC802)LeguminosaeCultivated0.110.060.170.11
Passiflora edulis Sims. (FC853)PassifloraceaeCultivated0.090.120.130.11
Phyllanthus niruri L. (FC856)PhyllanthaceaeNative0.080.090.150.11
Stachys arvensis (L.) L. (FC796)LamiaceaeNative0.030.130.160.11
Solanum tuberosum L. (FC910)SolanaceaeNaturalized0.050.060.200.10
Valeriana adscendens Turcz. (FC727)CaprifoliaceaeNative0.070.070.160.10
Cucurbita maxima Duchesne (FC773)CucurbitaceaeCultivated0.030.060.190.09
Verbena litoralis Kunth (FC920)VerbenaceaeNative0.070.100.110.09
Croton perspeciosus Croizat (No voucher)EuphorbiaceaeNative0.090.030.130.08
Table
Table 2. Comparison of the 10 most important medicinal uses (in bold) represented by their use-reports (percentages in parentheses) and broken down across the three areas in the city of Chachapoyas (Peruvian Andes).
Table 2. Comparison of the 10 most important medicinal uses (in bold) represented by their use-reports (percentages in parentheses) and broken down across the three areas in the city of Chachapoyas (Peruvian Andes).
Medicinal UsesCity CenterIntermediateCity PeripheryWhole City
Stomach cramps31 (2.8)161 (8.4)205 (7.4)397 (6.9)
Kidney disorder and diuretic49 (4.4)132 (6.9)211 (7.7)392 (6.8)
Diarrhea46 (4.1)81 (4.2)158 (5.7)285 (4.9)
Flu47 (4.2)95 (4.9)107 (3.9)249 (4.3)
Intestinal parasites55 (5.0)77 (4.0)111 (4.0)243 (4.2)
Tacsho43 (3.9)89 (4.6)106 (3.8)238 (4.1)
Visual disorders26 (2.3)85 (4.4)121 (4.4)232 (4.0)
Insomnia37 (3.3)77 (4.0)81 (2.9)195 (3.4)
Birth47 (4.2)59 (3.1)84 (3.0)190 (3.3)
Prostate disorders60 (5.4)50 (2.6)73 (2.6)183 (3.2)
Menstruation disorders82 (7.4)23 (1.2)56 (2.0)161 (2.8)
Wounds healing33 (3.0)61 (3.2)62 (2.2)156 (2.7)
Fever23 (2.1)59 (3.1)72 (2.6)154 (2.7)
Burns27 (2.4)49 (2.5)76 (2.8)152 (2.6)
Breastfeeding37 (3.3)48 (2.5)55 (2.0)140 (2.4)
Table
Table 3. Values assignment for the personal socio-economic factors asked during interviews with 450 participants in the city of Chachapoyas, Peruvian Andes.
Table 3. Values assignment for the personal socio-economic factors asked during interviews with 450 participants in the city of Chachapoyas, Peruvian Andes.
Socio-Economic FactorsVariable Classification
Home ownership(1) Own; (2) Rented
Property quality characteristics(1) Well maintained; (2) With some defects
Construction materials of the property(1) Only modern materials; (2) Modern and traditional materials
Water chlorination system(1) Yes; (2) No
Sewage system(1) Yes; (2) No
Mobile phone(1) Yes; (2) No
Radio(1) Yes; (2) No
Television(1) Yes; (2) No
Paid TV channels(1) Yes; (2) No
Internet access(1) Yes; (2) No
Computer(1) Yes; (2) No
Printer(1) Yes; (2) No
Washing machine(1) Yes; (2) No
Refrigerator(1) Yes; (2) No
Microwave or oven(1) Yes; (2) No
Water heater(1) Yes; (2) No
Off-road vehicle(1) Yes; (2) No
Conventional car(1) Yes; (2) No
Motorbike(1) Yes; (2) No
Bicycle(1) Yes; (2) No
Cooking fuel(1) Gas; (2) Wood
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Corroto, F.; Rascón, J.; Barboza, E.; Macía, M.J. Medicinal Plants for Rich People vs. Medicinal Plants for Poor People: A Case Study from the Peruvian Andes. Plants 2021, 10, 1634. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10081634

AMA Style

Corroto F, Rascón J, Barboza E, Macía MJ. Medicinal Plants for Rich People vs. Medicinal Plants for Poor People: A Case Study from the Peruvian Andes. Plants. 2021; 10(8):1634. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10081634

Chicago/Turabian Style

Corroto, Fernando, Jesús Rascón, Elgar Barboza, and Manuel J. Macía. 2021. "Medicinal Plants for Rich People vs. Medicinal Plants for Poor People: A Case Study from the Peruvian Andes" Plants 10, no. 8: 1634. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10081634

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop