Content uploaded by Douglas William Hume
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas William Hume on Feb 20, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
REPORT OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD SCHOOL
IN BELIZE (JUNE 2016 SEASON)
CENTER FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
REPORT OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD SCHOOL
IN BELIZE (JUNE 2016 SEASON)
CENTER FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
Prepared, published, and copyrighted by the Center for Applied Anthropology, Northern
Kentucky University, June 1, 2018.
Douglas William Hume1, Kourtney Zigelmier2, Allison Cate3, Anna Cloud3, Tessa Forwalt3, Emily
Fox3, Laura Murrell3, Samir Pich3, Cailey Radcliffe3, Emily Stephen3, Samuel Velasquez3, and
Sage Boyers4
1 Primary investigator, ethnographic field school director, report author, data analysis
2 Ethnographic field school student participant and data analysis
3 Ethnographic field school student participant
4 Data analysis
Primary Investigator Contact Information
Douglas Hume Ph.D., Director
Center for Applied Anthropology
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Landrum 228
Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099, USA
humed1@nku.edu
001-859-572-5702
http://nku.edu/cfaa
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the partnerships with the following agencies and individuals that made this
field school and research possible:
Jerry Barnaby, Executive Director
Cooperative Center for Study Abroad
Western Kentucky University
Tate Page Hall, Room 104
1906 College Heights Blvd
Bowling Green, KY 42101 USA
info@ccsa.cc / 001-270-745-2231
Nigel Encalada, Director
Institute for Social and Cultural Research
National Institute of Culture and History
Corner Constitution Drive
Belmopan City, Belize, Central America
iscr@nichbelize.org 011-0822-3307
François Le Roy Ph.D., Director
Office of Education Abroad
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, University Center 330
Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
studyabroad@nku.edu / 001-859-572-6908
Marcos Osorio, Director
Sugar Industry Research and Development Institute
Mile 66-1/2 Phillip Goldson Highway
Buena Vista Village, Corozal District, Belize, Central America
sirdi.belize@gmail.com 011-501-677-4734 Nicole Roth (On-site Administrator)
Sociology, Anthropology & Philosophy
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Landrum 216
Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
nroth@ksbcf.org / 001-859-572-5259
Antonio Novelo
Jungle River Tours
20 Lover’s Lane
Orange Walk Town Belize, Central America
lamanaimayatour@btl.net / 011-501-670-3035
We also appreciate the assistance of Sarah Hume for editing drafts of this report, although any
errors still contained within are our own.
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements i
Introduction 1
Background 1
Methods 2
Community Development 3
Demographics 3
Education Costs 3
Child Labor 3
Sugar Cane Organization Roles 3
Sugar Cane Price Fluctuation 4
Zika Virus 4
Kidney Disease 4
Sugar Cane Farming 5
Demographics 5
Protective Gear 5
Fertilizer Attributes 5
Herbicide Attributes 6
Pesticide Attributes 6
Humans and Nature 6
Sugar Cane Varieties 8
Conclusion 9
Appendices
Appendix I: Informed Consent Statement – English 11
Appendix II: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish 12
Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part I 13
Appendix IV: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part II 14
Appendix V: Occupations 16
Appendix VI: Education 17
Appendix VII: Educational Expenses 18
Appendix VIII: Child Labor 19
Appendix IX: Sugar Cane Organizations 20
Appendix X: Sugar Cane Price 21
Appendix XI: Zika Virus 22
Appendix XII: Kidney Disease Symptoms 23
Appendix XIII: Kinds/Types of Kidney Disease 24
Appendix XIV: Kidney Disease Treatments 25
Appendix XV: Kidney Disease Risks 26
Appendix XVI: Kidney Disease Causes 27
Appendix XVII: Herbicides 29
Appendix XVIII: Pesticides 31
Appendix XIX: Froghopper Mitigation 33
Appendix XX: Sugar Cane Varieties 34
Appendix XXI: Sugar Cane Attribute Network 35
Appendix XXII: Informant/Sugar Cane Network I 36
Appendix XXIII: Informant/Sugar Cane Network II 37
Appendix XXIV: Informant/Sugar Cane Network III 38
Appendix XXV: Informant/Sugar Cane Network IV 39
Appendix XXVI: Informant/Sugar Cane Network V 40
Appendix XXVII: Informant/Sugar Cane Network VI 41
Sources Cited 43
1
Introduction
This report documents the findings of the Ethnographic Field School in Belize organized by the
Center for Applied Anthropology (CfAA) at Northern Kentucky University (NKU) in Orange
Walk District, Belize, during June 2016. Ethnographic interviews were conducted within the
communities of San Estevan, San Lazaro, and Yo Creek in cooperation with the Sugar Industry
Research and Development Institute (SIRDI), Belize Sugar Can Farmers Association (BSCFA),
Progressive Sugar Cane Producers Association (PSCPA), and the three communities within
which interviews took place. This field season’s research focused on the following topics:
community development (i.e., education costs, child labor, sugar cane organization roles, sugar
cane price fluctuations, Zika virus, and kidney disease) and sugar cane farming (i.e., protective
gear; fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide attributes; humans and nature; and sugar cane
varieties). This report presents the preliminary findings of the 2016 field season and
recommends what research questions should be pursued in the next field season.
Background
While the educational aim of the ethnographic field school is to train students in basic
ethnographic methods, the applied purpose of the field school is to collect and analyze data that
can then be used by SIRDI, BSCFA, PSCPA, and community members in the development of
programs for betterment of the sugarcane farming communities in northern Belize. As posted
on the field school’s web site (CfAA 2018):
This course immerses students in Belizean culture and trains them in
contemporary anthropological field methods. Students will gain valuable
research skills (e.g., ethnographic interviewing and qualitative data analysis) to
apply anthropology in their future careers (e.g., applied anthropology or other
social/behavioral discipline), an appreciation for Belizean cultural diversity, and
further their personal growth. While in Belize, students will be primarily engaged
in guided applied ethnographic fieldwork. Students will learn about the local
culture by doing participant-observation and conducting ethnographic interviews
in a community-based research project. Students will learn research ethics,
unobtrusive observation, participant observation, field note writing and coding,
ethnographic and life history interviewing, ethnolinguistic data collection,
community mapping, rapid assessment procedures, qualitative data analysis, and
other ethnographic methods in addition to basic ethnographic writing. After
successful completion of this course, students will have:
• developed a basic understanding of Belizean culture,
• formulated an understanding of ethical and validity issues in
ethnographic research,
• practiced skills in research design and ethnographic methods of data
collection,
• applied basic ethnographic research methods in a non-western culture,
• engaged in a community-based research project, and
• analyzed ethnographic data resulting in an ethnographic monograph.
Since the literature review was written for last season’s report (Hume et al. 2016), there have
been six notable scholarly publications related to this field school’s research. Two reports have
been published on farming in southern Belize, one on the impact of hunting on farm production
(Rice 2017) and another on the impact of alley cropping maize (Kongsager 2017). There have
2
been three publications specifically on sugar cane farming in northern Belize: 1) the impact of
falling sugar cane prices on urban populations and their development (Morris, Angel, and
Hernández 2017); 2) how the sugar cane industry influences social organization (Cooper 2017);
and 3) the potential use of bagasse in energy production (Gongora and Villafranco 2017). The
final recent publication related to this research is on the community responses to Zika
interventions (Gray and Mishtal 2018).
Methods
As in previous field seasons, upon arrival in the villages of San Estevan, San Lazaro, and Yo
Creek, Antonio Novelo (Jungle River Tours) introduced the field school members to village
council representatives and assisted Douglas Hume in explaining our collaborative research
project to gain local approval for our presence in the community. Each village council gave their
permission and was supportive of our efforts. We presented printed copies of last year’s report
to the councils of San Antonio, San Estevan, San Lazaro, and Yo Creek (Hume et al. 2016).
Participants of the field school (Allison Cate, Anna Cloud, Tessa Forwalt, Emily Fox, Laura
Murrell, Samir Pech, Cailey Radcliffe, Emily Stephen, Samuel Velasquez, and Kourtney
Zigelmier) conducted house-to-house interviews in a census sampling methodology. The
Cooperative Center for Study Abroad hired Antonio Novelo (Jungle River Tours) as the field
school’s land agent. He served as both as cultural liaison and research assistant during field
research. Mr. Novelo explained our general purpose and introduce students to community
members. Students would then present the informed consent statement in both English
(Appendix I) and Spanish (Appendix II) and upon agreement to take part, have the informant
sign a copy (on file) and offer an unsigned copy for the informant’s records.
Interviews were conducted on the informant’s property (e.g., porch, house, etcetera) with a pair
of students, one serving as the primary interviewer and the other as observer. The standard
method used for this research was the ethnographic interview (Spradley 2016), which is
informant centered (Levy and Hollan 1998) rather than interviewer centered. Interviews were
from five minutes to an hour in length, depending upon the informant’s time constraints and
willingness to be interviewed by the students. Ideally the interview would flow naturally from
topic to topic and would end when the interviewer or the informant perceived a natural stopping
point or when the informant no longer seemed comfortable or interested in continuing the
interview (Levy and Hollan 1998).
Each informant was asked about their occupation and highest educational level as well as their
perception on education costs, child labor, sugar cane organizations, sugar cane price
fluctuation, Zika virus, and kidney disease (see Appendix III). Additional questions were asked
if informants reported that they suffered from kidney disease (see Appendix III). If informants
were currently sugar cane farmers, questions about sugar cane farming knowledge were asked
and a spatial task conducted (see Appendix IV). Students digitally recorded interviews and took
field notes during and directly after each interview.
Upon return from the field, Kourtney Zigelmier and Sage Boyers analyzed data from each
interview (field notes and digital audio recordings) and consolidated the data into the
spreadsheets. After data were consolidated, the digital audio recordings were securely erased.
Douglas Hume then revised the spreadsheets, conducted both statistical and network analyses,
and wrote this field report.
3
Community Development
Demographics
In total, 350 informants were interviewed; 108 in San Estevan, 100 in San Lazaro, and 140 in Yo
Creek as well as two informants at D*Victoria Hotel. Of the 350 informants, 65 reported that
they were sugar cane farmers. The average age of the informants was 38.8 years with a
minimum age of 18 and maximum age of 82 years old. Sixty-seven percent of the informants
were male and the remaining 43% were female. The most common primary occupation
reported was domestic (97) followed by unemployed (25), cane famer (24), student (22), and
cane cutter (13) (see Appendix V). The highest education levels reported were standard 6 (59),
primary (33), standard 5 (31), and 6th Form (26) (see Appendix VI). Some informants (28)
indicated that their secondary or retired occupations were directly related to sugar cane farming.
Education Costs
During the prior field season, the highest concern that the community suggested that we should
ask about was the education costs of children (Hume et al. 2016: 16). This field season,
interviews on the educational costs began with an open-ended question, “What are the
education costs of children?”, followed by a conversation between interviewer and informant on
topics related to education costs. Many informants estimated yearly, monthly, and weekly
tuition, fees, and other costs, which is difficult to summarize due to the different terms and
periods used. The terms relating to expense types were categorized and the number of times
they were mentioned tallied. The most common education expense cited was books (69)
followed by uniforms (62), school supplies (48), food (29), and school fees (27) (see Appendix
VII). In the next field season (summer 2019), informants will be asked to connect categories of
costs with estimated yearly costs.
Child Labor
The second highest community concern during the previous field season was the impact of child
labor (Hume et al. 2016: 15). Interviews on child labor this field season began with an open-
ended prompt, “Please tell me about child labor”. The most often mentioned category of
responses involved that children, when they do work, are involved with cane farming (73) (see
Appendix VIII). Informants also mentioned how that when children work, they most often work
with their parents (44). Many informants mentioned that children should focus their time on
studying (44) and that working children had either dropped out of school (30) or were working
to raise money to pay for their education (29). There were also several informants that spoke
about children workers as being from poor families (17) and working to help support their
family (13). There was also mention of rules of child labor from fair trade agreements (14). In
the next field season, informants will be asked additional questions about child labor focused on
the reasons why children work, where they work, and the appropriate ages for different kinds of
work.
Sugar Cane Organization Roles
The third highest community concern during the previous field season was the role of sugar cane
organizations within the community (Hume et al. 2016: 15). Interviews on the roles of sugar
cane organizations was prompted with an open-ended question, “What are the roles of the sugar
4
cane organizations (i.e., SIRDI and BSCFA)?”. Many informants reported that they did not
know what the role of the organizations were, these informants were mostly non-sugar cane
farmers. Of those that had knowledge of the role of the organizations in the community, the
most commonly stated response was that the organizations do not help the community (22).
Others indicated that the organizations provide education (21), inexpensive fertilizer (19), help
to farmers (15), scholarships (14), control pricing (13), and help to the community (13), as well
as negotiate fair trade agreements (14) and fix roads (11) (see Appendix IX). In the next field
season, informants will be asked to list the specific impacts that the different sugar cane
organizations on the community.
Sugar Cane Price Fluctuation
In the previous field season, farmers were asked what they would do if the price of sugar cane
dropped (Hume et al. 2016: 14). The discussion with informants about sugar cane price
fluctuation began with the question “How did the sugar cane price drop effect you?”. Items with
ten or more responses include that the sugar cane prices had no effect on them (84), their wages
were affected (59), they had less money for supplies (38), it effected everyone (31), the price for
goods increased (17), and there were fewer jobs available (12) (see Appendix X). When
informants were asked “How did you respond to the sugar cane price drop?”, they responded
that they took out loans (30), found another job (27), just accepted it (22), did nothing (21),
worked more (13), cut back on spending (11), and planted other agricultural item (10) (see
Appendix X). With the current drop in sugar cane prices, informants in the coming field season
will be asked how they have responded to the current price drop and what plans they have for
the future.
Zika Virus
The Zika virus became a national concern just before the previous field season, so we asked
general questions about the disease. When informants were asked “What do you think about the
Zika virus?”, the informants had a mixed response regarding how concerned they were and their
responses to the threat of contracting Zika. The most common responses included: keep yard
clean (84), does not know anything about it (62), has heard of it (61), prevention with pesticides
(39), concerned (36), not dangerous here (31), avoid mosquitoes (26), be careful with water (25),
it is dangerous (24), effects pregnant women (23), hurts children (20), afraid (15), clean empty
containers (13), and be careful (10) (see Appendix XI). In the subsequent field season, rather
than focusing only on Zika, community members will be asked to speak about their general
health concerns to document which are of the most concern to serve as a guide for future
research.
Kidney Disease
There has been national interest in kidney disease in Belize, resulting in a recent national survey
of chronic kidney disease (Statistical Institute of Belize 2017). When informants were asked
“What are the symptoms of kidney disease?”, they responded most commonly with back pain
(62), kidney stones (20), general pain (20), urination pain (17), edema in the feet (14), and fever
(13) (see Appendix XII). The remaining questions were only asked of those informants that self-
identified as suffering from kidney disease. When informants were asked “What are the
kinds/types of kidney disease?”, they responded overwhelmingly kidney stones (32) followed by
infection (5), sugar caused/coke/sweet blood (5), diabetes (4), dissolving/cirrhosis (3), renal
5
failure (3), cancer (2), parasite/ameba/worms (2), dengue (1), and hepatitis (1) (see Appendix
XIII). When informants were asked “What are the treatments for kidney disease?”, they
responded dialysis (36), herbal/Mayan medication (25), prescription/antibiotic medication
(24), increase water intake (19), increase coconut water intake (16), and visit the doctor (12) (see
Appendix XIV). When informants were asked “What types of people are at risk for kidney
disease?”, they responded diabetes (38), drinking alcohol (38), not drinking enough water (38),
nothing, anyone can get it (30), the elderly (16), and drinking too much sugar/soda (16) (see
Appendix XV). When informants were asked “What are the causes of kidney disease?”, they
responded drinking alcohol (47), not drinking enough water (36), sugary drinks/soda (26), and
bad diet/eating unhealthy food (14) (see appendix XVI). Due to the attention of the Statistical
Institute to chronic kidney disease, the next field season’s questions on kidney disease will focus
on the treatments of kidney disease.
Sugar Cane Farmer Interview
Demographics
Sixty-five of the 350 informants self-identified as sugar cane farmers and were asked additional
questions about their farming knowledge (see Appendix IV). The minimum age of farmers
interviewed was 18 and the maximum age was 78, with an average of 44.1 years. There were 59
(90.7%) male and 6 (9.3%) female farmers within our interview sample.
Protective Gear
Farmers were asked about the three most common reasons for why protective gear is not worn
when applying agrichemicals that were collected in the previous field season (Hume et al. 2016:
15). Of the 65 farmers, most agreed the people do not know how dangerous agrichemicals are,
so they do not wear protective gear (59 agreed, 3 disagreed, and 3 did not answer/know). Most
farmers also agreed that protective gear is uncomfortable (hot, too restrictive), which results in
people not using it (48 agreed, 5 disagreed, and 12 did not answer/know). Finally, farmers
agreed and disagreed nearly equally that the reason for why people do not wear protective gear
is that it is too expensive (29 agreed, 26 disagreed, and 12 did not answer/know). The reason for
the disparity in answers, according to our informants, is that the gear is often given to farmers
by farming associations or SIRDI, but then the upkeep and replacement is the financial
responsibility of the farmers.
Fertilizer Attributes
In the previous field season, data on fertilizer types suggested that fertilizer impacted the growth
of sugar cane in five ways: (1) faster, (2) greener, (3) sweeter, (4) taller, and (5) thicker (Hume et
al. 2016: 12). When farmers were asked what fertilizer helps cane grow faster, they responded:
urea/salt (47), nitrogen (23), phosphorus (15), and potassium (14). When farmers were asked
what fertilizer helps cane grow greener, they responded: urea/salt (34), nitrogen (11), potassium
(9), and phosphorus (4). When farmers were asked what fertilizer helps cane grow sweeter, they
responded: potassium (24), phosphorus (14), urea/salt (9), and nitrogen (8). When farmers
were asked what fertilizer helps cane grow taller, they responded: urea/salt (30), potassium (15),
nitrogen (14), and phosphorus (11). When farmers were asked what fertilizer helps cane grow
thicker, they responded: phosphorus (22), potassium (21), nitrogen (16), urea/salt (14). One
topic that farmers often discussed was that they did not decide themselves what type of fertilizer
6
to use on their fields, but that they used whatever was given to them by the sugar cane
organizations. In the coming field seasons, informants will be asked to discuss the decision
making involved in which fertilizer they use.
Herbicide Attributes
In the previous field season, five key attributes of herbicides were identified. These attibrutes
focused on what plants the herbicide impacted: (1) sugar cane, (2) grass, (3) shrubs, (4) vines,
and (5) wide-leaf plants (Hume et al. 2016: 11). In response to the question “What herbicide kills
sugar cane, farmers responded most commonly: Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup (23)
and Paraquat/Gramasone (10) (see Appendix XVII). When asked “What herbicide kills grass?”,
farmers responded most commonly: Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup (56) and
Diuron/Durex (52) (see Appendix XVII). When asked, “What herbicide kills shubs?”, farmers
responded most commonly: Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup (45) and 24D/Flash (41)
(see Appendix XVII). In response to, “What herbicide kills vines?”, farmers responded most
commonly: 24D/Flash (54), Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup (38), and
Paraquat/Gramasone (20) (see Appendix XVII). When asked, ”What herbicide kills wide-leaf
plants?”, farmers responded most commonly: 24D/Flash (46), Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/
Roundup (29), and Paraquat/Gramasone (24) (see Appendix XVII). As with fertilizer, herbicide
choices were reported to be due to recommendations made by the sugar cane organizations. In
the coming field season informants will be asked to discuss how these recommendations are
made.
Pesticide Attributes
In the previous field season, data on pesticide types suggested three key attributes of pesticides,
it effective against: (1) froghoppers, (2) froghopper eggs, and (3) worms (Hume et al. 2016: 10).
Informants reported the most effective pesticides against froghoppers were: Jade 08GR (34),
Malathion (30), and Tamaron (24) (see Appendix XVIII). Pesticides reported to be most
effective against froghopper eggs was Jade 08GR (29) (see Appendix XVIII). Pesticides reported
to be most effective against worms were: Tamaron (13), Malathion (12), and Karate (10) (see
Appendix XVIII). In addition, informants were asked what was most effective against
froghoppers, to which farmers responded most commonly with: Jade (42), Malathion (34), Bug
bags (30), Hongos (22), Regent (22), and Confidor (19) (see Appendix XIX). Informants also
reported that they used whatever SIRDI or associations provide (19). As with fertilizers and
herbicides, in the next field season farmers will be asked about the decision-making process for
which pesticides they choose to use.
Humans and Nature
As part of research into how farmers think of nature, informants were asked to respond to a
free-list of things grown, open-ended questions about causality, and a spatial task using farm
animals. The most commonly listed items that farmers reported that they grew (three or more
instances, in alphabetical order) were: avocado, banana, bean, cattle, chicken, coconut, corn,
cucumber, habañero, mango, okra, orange, plantain, pumpkin, sugar cane, and tomato. In the
next field season, informants will be asked to pile-sort the items to better understand how
farmers organize these crops into categories.
7
When informants were asked “What forces have an influence on production success?”, they
most commonly reported: nature (8), technology (4), economy (2), and the sugar cane
factory/mill (2). When informants were asked “What is meant by growth, why do plants grow?”,
they most commonly reported: nature (10), people (10), technology (4), and god (2). When
informants were asked “Who effects your environment (fields) the most?”, they most commonly
reported: nature (12), people (5), economy (2), pollution (2), and the sugar cane factory/mill (2).
When informants were asked “When farming, what/who makes things happen?”, they most
commonly reported: people (10), god (5), and nature (5). When informants were asked “What
can humans do about changes in weather?”, they most commonly reported: humans have no
control (9), reduce air pollution (5), reforestation (3), recycling (3), and water (irrigation/not
wasting water) (2). When informants were asked “Can humans/human activity effect
nature/weather/wind/currents?”, they responded: yes (15), no (3), and maybe (1). In the next
field season, farmers will be asked their agreement with propositional statements of their
relationship nature.
Informants were asked to complete a spatial task designed to determine whether they preferred
an absolute (relative to informant) or relative (relative to cardinal direction or landscape) spatial
orientation (after Levinson 2003). Informants were given five small plastic animals and asked
to memorize their position. The informant was then asked a question not related to the task.
Once they answered the unrelated question, the informant was rotated 90 degrees and asked to
place the animals in the order that the previously were given to them. This task was then
repeated five times during the interview. After each placement, it was noted weather the
animals were placed relative to the informant (absolute) or not (relative). Below are the
aggregate results (sum of individual tasks) of the data collected in Belize with those collected
with Kentucky farmers using the same methodology.
While farmers at both locations used both relative and absolute frames of reference, there was
preference for a relative frame of reference (relative to informant) among Kentucky farmers and
an absolute frame of reference (relative to cardinal direction) among the northern Belize
farmers. These findings suggest that Belizean farmers may be more aware of how external
forces impact their environment (sociocentric) than a focus on how the environment affect them
individually (egocentric). In other words, Belizean farmers have a view of the environment
where they are not the focus, but rather the community (both human and biotic) are more
important lens through which the world is viewed.
114
43
21
106
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kentucky Farmers Belize Farmers
Relative Absolute
8
Sugar Cane Varieties
In the previous field season, data on sugar cane types suggested several key attributes of sugar
cane: easy/hard to cut, grows well in highlands/lowlands/rocky soil/sandy soil, heavy/light
high/low sugar content, matures faster/later, pest resistant/vulnerable, soft/hard, tall/short, and
thick/thin (Hume et al. 2016: 7). Informants were asked how each sugar cane variety related to
each of the attributes above and the data aggregated (see Appendix XX). The aggregated data
were then analyzed using network analysis (after Hanneman and Riddle 2005 using NetDraw
[Borgatti 2002]). The sugar cane attribute network analysis (see Appendix XXI) is a 2-mode
network graph (sugar cane type by attribute) where the node size is set to its eigenvector value
(number of ties to other nodes proportional to the scores of its neighbors). The lines represent
positive aggregate data for each sugar cane variety by its attribute. The blue nodes are sugar
cane varieties and the red nodes are attributes. From this analysis, the importance of several
attributes at the center of the diagram (sandy, lowlands, highlands, rocky, maturation, height,
and weight) are more important than other attributes in organizing the sugar cane types than
other attributes. However, there is not a clear result that would indicate informants agree on
the relationships between attributes and sugar cane types.
The informant by sugar cane network analysis (see Appendix XXII) is a 2-mode network graph
of informant responses to attribute questions about sugarcane varieties. The lines represent the
responses of individual informants (red dots) rating the attribute negatively (absence of
relationship) to each cane variety. The node size is set to its eigenvector value. What is
interesting here is the similar responses to the common types of cane grown – the cane on the
right is less commonly grown. Another representation of the same relationship was made using
Gephi (Bastian, Heymann, Jacomy 2009) (see Appendix XXIII), which reinforces that
informants have more knowledge about the most commonly grown sugar cane varieties (sugar
cane types at the center of the diagram).
In exploring the relationship between farmers and their knowledge of sugar cane varieties,
network diagrams of degree centrality (out degree, from informants to cane) show that certain
farmers have knowledge of the attributes for only some types of sugar cane while others have
knowledge of the attributes of a wide-variety of sugar cane types (see Appendices XXIV and
XXV). From the perspective of prestige centrality (in degree, from cane to information), one can
see that informants know more about the current common varieties of sugar cane than the less
common varieties (see Appendices XXVI and XXVII).
The analyses above show that there are farmers that have a wide knowledge and others that have
a focused knowledge of sugar cane types and their attributes. In other words, there is a
difference among farmers in their depth and breadth of knowledge, which may be due to the
amount of time they have been farming (i.e., they have first-hand knowledge of a variety of cane
varieties due to their having farmed the older and new types), the area(s) they have farmed (i.e.,
working in different climates and soil types with different varieties of cane), or their connections
with others (i.e., speaking with other farmers and workshops by SIRDI). In an applied sense,
the goal of sugar cane farmers is the have a high-quality crop yield (e.g., amount of cane grown
and sugar content of cane) where short term resiliency requires knowledge about current crop
varieties and long-term resiliency requires knowledge past, present, and future varieties.
In the next field season, data will be collected to explore how sugar cane variety knowledge is
both shared and transmitted among the sugar cane farming community. First, responses to
9
agreement on propositional statements of the currently most common sugar cane varieties
(BBZ, B79, and B52 [blanca]) will be collected to determine the degree to which the information
is shared among farmers. Second, farmers will be asked to explain their egocentric network
(who and where they receive information) for sugar cane, fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide
information.
Conclusion
This report documents the findings from the summer 2016 season of the Ethnographic Field
School in Belize. This field season successfully met the goals of collecting ethnographic data on
topics suggested by community members and prior research: community development
perspectives; effects of sugar cane price fluctuations; knowledge of Zika, kidney disease.
Educational costs of children are varied and still of concern to parents. Child labor is a complex
topic which balances competing needs of education and economics. Parents recognize the long-
term importance of education and want their children to complete their education, however the
economic needs of the family may require children to work to augment the family income. The
community has a disparity in understanding of the roles of sugar cane organizations in the
community. While it is mostly known by sugar cane farmers, the rest of the community is not
aware of organization’s community development efforts. The impact of sugar cane price
reductions is still not perceived as a threat to the community and people have not prepared for
the economic hardships that may result from sugar cane prices dropping. The Zika virus was not
a central concern of our informants, perhaps due to the general concern already present with
other mosquito borne diseases (i.e., malaria and dengue fever). Kidney disease is also not a
major concern of informants, unless they or a family member suffer from the disease (i.e.,
kidney stones and kidney failure).
Interviews with farmers resulted in collecting additional information on sugar cane farming
knowledge in northern Belize. Farmers attributed the underuse of wearing protective gear while
applying agrichemicals primarily due to people not understanding how dangerous these
chemicals are to their health. The results of the collection of attributes of fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, and sugar cane varieties suggests that there is a large amount of variation in
knowledge due to the length of time farming and the channels through which farmers learn
information. Sugar cane farmers have a sociocentric view of nature and how the different
aspects (e.g., humans, nature, and spirituality) of their environment interact.
The findings of this research will be used to direct data collection in the next field season. All
community members will be asked: 1) about the average yearly spending per child in the
categories of expenses collected this field season; 2) to free list the impacts of each sugar cane
organization on their community; 3) to list the reasons why children work, the types of child
labor, and the appropriate ages what children may work; 4) how they have responded to the
sugar cane price drop and their plans for the future; 5). about their general health concerns and
treatment of kidney disease, and 6) to suggest future research topics. Informants that self-
identify as sugar cane farmers will be asked: 1) to judge the attribute similarity of the most
common varieties of sugar cane (BBZ, B52, and B79); 2) provide their information networks for
fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, and sugar cane knowledge, 3) respond to their agreement with the
role of nature, humans, and divine influences on the environment, and 4) pile-sort the things
that they grow on their farms. The goals of the next field season will continue to include the
training of students in basic ethnographic methods as well as to collect and analyze data that can
then be used by organizations (SIRDI, BSCFA, and PSCPA) and community members in the
10
development of programs for betterment of the sugarcane farming communities in northern
Belize.
11
Appendix I: Informed Consent Statement – English
12
Appendix II: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish
13
Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part I
All Informants
1. Note - Approximate age and sex
2. Ask - Occupation, highest educational level
3. Community development
A. What are the education costs of children?
B. Please tell me about child labor.
C. What are the roles of the sugar cane organizations (i.e., SIRDI and BSCFA)?
4. Sugar cane price fluctuation
A. How did the sugar cane price drop effect you?
B. How did you respond to the sugar cane price drop?
5. Zika Virus
1. What do you think about the Zika virus?
6. Free-listing
. What are the symptoms of kidney disease?
A. What are the kinds/types of kidney disease?
B. What are the treatments for kidney disease?
C. What types of people are at risk for kidney disease?
D. How can you prevent kidney disease?
E. What are the causes of kidney disease?
F. What agrichemicals do you use?
G. How do you use/apply agrichemicals?
Kidney Disease Sufferers Only
1. Free-listing
A. What were your first symptoms?
B. What are your current symptoms of kidney disease?
C. What kinds/types of kidney disease have you been diagnosed with?
D. What treatments have you received for your kidney disease?
E. Are you on dialysis? How long have you been on it?
F. Who else in your family (immediate or extended) has been diagnosed with kidney
disease?
G. Has anyone talked to you about how you can prevent kidney disease?
H. Have you been told what the cause of your kidney disease is?
14
Appendix IV: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part II
Farmers Only
1. Spatial Task - Place three animals on table all facing right. Ask informant to memorize
position. Wait at least one minute before proceeding to next step.
2. Fertilizer Effects - Urea/salt, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium
A. Cane grows faster
B. Cane grows greener
C. Cane grows sweeter
D. Cane grows taller
E. Cane grows thicker
3. Spatial Task - Face the informant 90 degrees from prior position. Give informant
animals, ask them to place them in the previous order, and note relative/absolute
placement. Place three animals on table all facing left. Ask informant to memorize
position. Wait at least one minute before proceeding to next step.
4. Herbicide Effects - 24D/Flash, Diuron/Durex, Ametryne 500G/L, Paraquat/Gramasone,
Bullgrass, Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup, Gessapex, Amigan, and Ramazyn
A. Kills cane
B. Kills grass
C. Kills shrubs
D. Kills vines
E. Kills wide leaf plants
5. Spatial Task - Face the informant 90 degrees from prior position. Give informant
animals, ask them to place them in the previous order, and note relative/absolute
placement. Place three animals on table all facing left. Ask informant to memorize
position. Wait at least one minute before proceeding to next step.
6. Insecticide/Pesticide Effects - Malathion, Jade 08GR, Regent, Primex, Tamaron, Engeo
24, 7 SC, Landex, Lorsban, Karate, Sevin, Hongos, Aktera, Atana
A. Effective against froghoppers
B. Effective against froghopper eggs
C. Effective against worms
7. Spatial Task - Face the informant 90 degrees from prior position. Give informant
animals, ask them to place them in the previous order, and note relative/absolute
placement. Place three animals on table all facing right. Ask informant to memorize
position. Wait at least one minute before proceeding to next step.
8. What methods do you use to get rid of froghoppers?
A. Unspecified insecticides (whatever the association or SIRDI provides)
B. Aktera (insecticide)
C. Bug bags
D. Confidor (insecticide)
E. Glue covered posts driven into the ground
F. Hongos (insecticide)
G. Jade (insecticide)
H. Karate (insecticide)
I. Malathion (insecticide)
J. Regent (insecticide)
K. Tamaron (insecticide)
15
9. Spatial Task - Face the informant 90 degrees from prior position. Give informant
animals, ask them to place them in the previous order, and note relative/absolute
placement. Place three animals on table all facing right. Ask informant to memorize
position. Wait at least one minute before proceeding to next step.
10. Protective gear
A. People do not know how dangerous the chemicals are
B. The protective gear is uncomfortable (hot, too restrictive)
C. The protective gear is too expensive
D. I do not know
11. Spatial Task - Face the informant 90 degrees from prior position. Give informant
animals, ask them to place them in the previous order, and note relative/absolute
placement.
12. Sugar cane varieties - B79-474, BBZ, Blanca, CP-26, CP-2086, Piña, Bamboo, Brazil,
290, Chalecudo, Purple, Ragna, Chaparo, Q80, B59, BBZ-8240, BBZ-8290, and PR
A. Easy/hard to cut
B. Grows well in highlands
C. Grows well in lowlands
D. Grows well in rocky soil
E. Grows well in sandy soil
F. Heavy/light
G. High/low sugar content
H. Matures faster/later
I. Pest resistant/vulnerable
J. Soft/hard
K. Tall/short
L. Thick/thin
13. Open Ended Questions
A. What is your typical work/work-day?
B. Describe your work/job (related to primary food production).
C. What is the rhythm of work in this area? (do not say season)
D. What are some of the essential knowledge, skills, experience you need to be a
successful food producer?
E. What are the key decisions one must make to be successful in you work/job?
F. What information do you need to make decisions?
G. How do you choose what crops to grow, what to hunt, what to go after?
H. What are considered ‘productive activities’?
I. Which fields are productive?
J. What effects productivity?
K. What forces have an influence on production success?
L. What is meant by growth, why do plants grow?
M. What are some of the constraints/problems you face as a food producer?
N. Who effects your environment (fields) the most?
O. When farming, what/who makes things happen (human, animal, plants,
ancestors, spirits, Government/NGO agency)?
P. What is the worst/best thing humans can do in farming/etc.?
Q. What do you like/not like about what you are doing (satisfaction)?
R. Are there things you have to do that are destructive, but you’d prefer not to do?
S. What is the effect of weather, government, wars, people, on your farming?
T. What are your livelihood alternatives?
16
U. What changes have occurred in your work related to the environment? Why are
there these changes/variations? Has the weather changed? If so, how?
V. What can humans do about changes in weather?
W. Can humans/human activity effect nature/weather/wind/currents?
X. Species X changes in presence of Y? (e.g., What animals on your farm affect other
animals?)
14. Free Listing
A. All of the things that they grow on their farm.
17
Appendix V: Occupations
Count
Current Occupation*
97
Domestic
25
Unemployed
24
Cane farmer
22
Student
13
Cane cutter
12
No response
10
Teacher
8
Business owner
6
Construction worker
6
Shop owner
5
Farmer
5
Retired
4
Baker
4
Laborer
4
Shop empolyee
3
BSI employee
3
Cane truck driver
3
Domestic, shop owner
3
Maid
3
Retired teacher
3
Tour guide
2
Cane farmer, vegetable farmer
2
Carpenter
2
Housekeeper
2
Housewife
2
Retired cane farmer
2
Vegetable farmer
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
18
Appendix VI: Education
Count
Highest Level of Education*
59
Standard 6
33
Primary
31
Standard 5
26
6th Form
23
No response
21
High school
20
4th Form
13
2nd Form
12
College
12
Standard 3
10
Some college
9
None
9
Standard 4
8
3rd Form
8
Associate’s degree
6
5th Form
5
1st Form
5
Bachelor's degree
5
Vocational school
4
Secondary
3
Bachelor’s degree
2
Master's degree
2
Primary 6
2
Standard 1
2
Standard 2
2
Trade school
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
19
Appendix VII: Educational Expenses
Count
Educational Expenses*
69
Books
62
Uniforms
48
School Supplies
29
Food
27
School fees
21
Transportation
18
Raffles
16
Fees
15
Tuition
14
Donations
*Only top ten categories listed.
20
Appendix VIII: Child Labor
Count
Child Labor*
73
cane farming
44
with parents
34
should only study
30
dropped out of school
29
money for school
17
poor family
14
fair trade agreement
13
help with family
13
teaches hard work
12
extra money
11
only on weekends
10
not in the community
10
only when not in school
9
subsistence
8
earn money
8
money for family
8
not good
7
against child labor
7
it happens
7
not 'my' children
7
not forced
7
not under 18
7
obligation
7
to stay off the streets
*Only non-monetary costs and terms mentioned by two or more informants are listed.
21
Appendix IX: Sugar Cane Organizations
Count
Sugar Cane Organization Roles*
22
do not help
21
provide education
19
provide inexpensive fertilizer
15
help farmers
14
fair trade organization
14
provide scholarships
13
control pricing
13
help community
11
fix roads
9
provide loans
8
donate to schools
7
cut cane
7
prevent child labor
7
provide cheap supplies
6
control transportation
5
provide quotas
4
inspect farms
4
provide jobs
3
doesn’t care
3
help the elderly
3
planting their own cane sugar
3
provides income
2
checks if cane is clean
2
control portions
2
donate
2
funeral grants
2
help students
2
help with sugar production
2
medical expenses
2
provide regulations
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
22
Appendix X: Sugar Cane Price
Count
Effect of Sugar Cane Price Drop*
84
No effect
59
Wages effected
38
Less money for supplies
31
Effects everyone
17
Increased price for goods
12
Less jobs available
9
Hurt business
6
Effected schooling
6
Less stock
5
Effects whole country
5
Effects economy
4
Increased fuel price
3
Effected investments
2
Effected culture
Count
Response to Sugar Cane Price Drop*
30
Take out loans
27
Find another job
22
Accepted it
21
Cannot do anything about it
13
Work more
11
Cut back on spending
10
Plant something else
9
Budget better
8
Changed careers
7
Adjust prices
4
Work on fields themselves
3
Now buys brown sugar
2
Cut back on sugar consumption
2
Might move to the United States
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
23
Appendix XI: Zika Virus
Count
Zika Responses*
84
Keep yard clean
62
Does not know anything about it
61
Has heard of it
39
Prevention with pesticides
36
Concerned
31
Not dangerous here
26
Avoid mosquitoes
25
Be careful with water
24
It is dangerous
23
Effects pregnant women
20
Hurts children
15
Afraid
13
Clean empty containers
10
Be careful
9
It's bad
9
Not concerned
9
Worried
7
Government should help
6
Educate others
6
It's very serious
5
Not scared
5
Use mosquito nets
4
No thoughts
3
Be aware
3
God will take care of them
3
Government is not ready
3
It's contagious
3
It's horrible
2
Get checkups
2
Hope for the best
2
Need more preventive measures
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
24
Appendix XII: Kidney Disease Symptoms
Count
Kidney Disease Symptoms*
62
pain - back
20
kidney - stones
20
pain - general
17
urination - pain
14
edema - feet
13
fever
9
vomiting
8
edema - general
7
dehydration/thirst
7
diabetes
7
urination - dark
6
kidney - infection
6
urination - difficultly
5
fatigue/weakness
5
headache
5
pain - abdominal
5
skin rash
5
urination - blood
4
pain - side
3
high blood sugar
3
urination - frequency increased
2
breathing problems
2
edema - abdominal
2
edema - legs
2
weight loss
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
25
Appendix XIII: Kinds/Types of Kidney Disease
Count
Kinds/types of Kidney Disease*
32
kidney stones
5
infection
5
sugar caused/coke/sweet blood
4
diabetes
3
dissolving/cirrhosis
3
renal failure
2
cancer
2
parasite/ameba/worms
1
dengue
1
hepatitis
*All responses are listed.
26
Appendix XIV: Kidney Disease Treatments
Count
Kidney Disease Treatments*
36
dialysis
25
medication - herbal/Mayan
24
medication - prescription/antibiotics
19
fluid intake - increase water
16
fluid intake - coconut water (sometimes synonymous with herbal, green coconuts)
12
visit - doctor
9
fluid intake - juices
7
operation - kidney transplant
7
visit - hospital
6
operation - general
3
fluid intake - no soft drinks
2
medication - pain
2
medicine - pineapple/olive oil (Mennonite recipe)
2
operation - removal of kidney stone(s)
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
27
Appendix XV: Kidney Disease Risks
Count
Kidney Disease Risk*
38
Diabetes
38
Drinking alcohol
38
Not drinking enough water
30
None - anyone can get it
16
Age - elderly (50+)
16
Drinking too much sugar (soda)
8
Eating unhealthily (fried/candy/pork/greasy)
7
Smoking
6
Working too much/hard/outdoors
5
Bad water - drinking chlorine (piped water)
5
Family history
4
Age - middle age (25-40)
4
Bad water - well/some brands
4
Using Drugs
4
Women
3
Mestizos
3
Obese
2
Age - children
2
Age - teenagers (around 12)
2
Cancer
2
Chemicals - in water
2
Holding urination
2
Males
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
28
Appendix XVI: Kidney Disease Causes
Count
Causes of Kidney Disease*
47
drinking alcohol
36
not drinking enough water
26
sugary drinks - soda
14
bad diet-eating unhealthy food
9
contaminated/dirty water (source not specified)
6
sugar in general
5
dehydration
5
diabetes
4
piped water (chemicals)
3
drinking chlorine (piped water)
3
heredity
3
smoking
3
use of medication
2
diabetes
2
drinking pipe water
2
eating red meat
2
kidney stones
2
lack of exercise
2
mosquitoes
2
overwork
2
using drugs
*Only items listed by two or more informants are listed.
29
Appendix XVII: Herbicides
Count
Herbicides that Kill Sugar Cane
23
Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup
10
Paraquat/Gramasone
7
24D/Flash
7
Diuron/Durex
3
Ametryne 500G/L
3
Amigan
3
Bullgrass
2
Gessapex
2
Ramazyn
Count
Herbicides that Kill Grass
56
Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup
52
Diuron/Durex
26
Paraquat/Gramasone
25
Gessapex
24
24D/Flash
22
Ametryne 500G/L
19
Amigan
12
Bullgrass
9
Ramazyn
Count
Herbicides that Kill Shrubs
45
Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup
41
24D/Flash
26
Paraquat/Gramasone
24
Bullgrass
22
Diuron/Durex
14
Ametryne 500G/L
10
Amigan
9
Gessapex
7
Ramazyn
30
Count
Herbicides that Kill Vines
54
24D/Flash
38
Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup
20
Paraquat/Gramasone
15
Diuron/Durex
13
Bullgrass
12
Ametryne 500G/L
7
Amigan
6
Ramazyn
5
Gessapex
Count
Herbicides that Kill Wide-leaf Plants
46
24D/Flash
29
Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup
24
Paraquat/Gramasone
19
Bullgrass
14
Diuron/Durex
7
Ametryne 500G/L
7
Amigan
3
Gessapex
3
Ramazyn
31
Appendix XVIII: Pesticides
Count
Pesticides Effective Against Froghoppers
34
Jade 08GR
30
Malathion
24
Tamaron
18
Regent
12
Karate
11
Hongos
11
Sevin
10
Aktera
8
Lorsban
7
Engeo 24, 7 SC
6
Primex
4
Atana
3
Landex
Count
Pesticides Effective Against Froghopper Eggs
29
Jade 08GR
9
Regent
7
Hongos
6
Malathion
4
Tamaron
3
Engeo 24, 7 SC
2
Aktera
2
Primex
1
Atana
1
Karate
0
Landex
0
Lorsban
0
Sevin
32
Count
Pesticides Effective Against Worms
13
Tamaron
12
Malathion
10
Karate
8
Jade 08GR
7
Hongos
7
Lorsban
7
Regent
5
Aktera
5
Engeo 24, 7 SC
5
Sevin
4
Atana
4
Landex
4
Primex
33
Appendix XIX: Froghopper Mitigation
Count
Froghopper Mitigation
42
Jade (insecticide)
34
Malathion (insecticide)
30
Bug bags
22
Hongos (insecticide)
22
Regent (insecticide)
19
Confidor (insecticide)
19
Unspecified insecticides (whatever the association or SIRDI PRovides)
17
Tamaron (insecticide)
14
Karate (insecticide)
13
Aktera (insecticide)
8
Glue covered posts driven into the ground
34
Appendix XX: Sugar Cane Varieties
Sugar
Cane
Cutting
Highlands
Lowlands
Rocky
Sandy
Weight
Maturation
Pests
Hardness
Height
Thickness
Blanca
31
16
15
9
5
-14
-11
8
19
8
-13
CP-2086
-6
8
4
1
2
1
13
-8
-6
-1
-8
CP-26
-4
10
3
2
2
0
11
-8
-2
-1
-8
BBZ
-31
7
16
5
18
23
7
-27
-27
-10
-7
BBZ-8240
-6
3
2
3
2
4
2
-5
-4
1
-1
290
-1
4
3
5
5
3
9
-5
-5
5
0
BBZ-8290
-5
3
2
3
1
3
1
-8
-4
-1
0
Chalecudo
4
7
3
2
1
-2
-2
-4
5
0
0
Piña
-6
8
9
4
2
-2
5
-8
0
2
0
Q80
-2
3
3
2
1
-3
2
-4
0
0
0
B59
-2
4
1
1
0
0
1
-4
1
-1
1
Purple
-4
5
6
1
3
-2
1
-2
0
1
1
Ragna
-1
4
1
1
0
2
1
-5
-4
-3
1
PR
0
7
4
4
3
-1
-3
-4
1
4
2
Brazil
-1
5
1
2
0
1
1
-6
-1
1
4
Chaparo
-2
9
4
3
5
11
1
-4
7
-18
5
Bamboo
-6
8
6
6
1
6
0
-4
-1
3
10
B79-474
6
35
24
26
27
29
11
18
19
26
25
35
Appendix XXI: Sugar Cane Attribute Network
Cutting
Highlands
Lowlands
Rocky
Sandy
Weight
height
Maturation
Pests
Hardness
Height
Thickness
B79-474
BBZ
Blanca
CP-26
CP-2086
PiÒa
Bamboo
Brazil
290
Chalecudo
Purple
Ragna
Chaparo
Q80
B59
BVZ-8240
BVZ-8290
PR
36
Appendix XXII: Informant/Sugar Cane Network I
B79-474 BBZ
Blanca
CP-26
CP-2086
PiÒa
Bamboo
Brazil
290
Chalecudo
Purple
Ragna
Chaparo
Q80
B59
BVZ-8240
BVZ-8290
PR
37
Appendix XXIII: Informant/Sugar Cane Network II
38
Appendix XXIV: Informant/Sugar Cane Network III
39
Appendix XXV: Informant/Sugar Cane Network IV
40
Appendix XXVI: Informant/Sugar Cane Network V
41
Appendix XXVII: Informant/Sugar Cane Network VI
43
Sources Cited
Bastian M., Heymann S., Jacomy M. 2009. Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and
Manipulating Networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
Borgatti, Steve P., 2002. NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies:
Lexington.
CfAA. 2018. Ethnographic Field School in Belize. Center for Applied Anthropology, Northern
Kentucky University. https://inside.nku.edu/artsci/centers/cfaa/ethnographic-field-
school.html
Cooper, Colin. 2017. “Don’t Sweat the Sweet Stuff: How to Manage in the New Sugar Order."
International Sugar Journal 119 (1426):802-805.
Gongora, Aldair E., and Dorien O. Villafranco. 2017. Sugarcane Bagasse in Belize: An Economic
Assessment and Overview of Potential Opportunities. Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Power
and Energy Conference & Power. June 26-30, 2017, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Gray, Deven Gray, and Joanna Mishtal. 2018. Managing an Epidemic: Zika Interventions and
Community Responses in Belize. Global Public Health. DOI:
10.1080/17441692.2018.1471146
Hanneman, Robert A., and Mark Riddle. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods.
Riverside: University of California, Riverside.
Hume, Douglas William, Clara Maxine Bone, Hannah Grace Howard, Charlee Hutchinson,
Stefan Kienzle, Marguerite Kinne, Samantha Louise Krieger, Katie Nicole Ragland, Cassidy
Ann Reeves, Linette Sabido, and Rachel Lee Tidwell. 2016. Report of the Ethnographic Field
School in Belize (June 2015 Season). Center for Applied Anthropology at Northern Kentucky
University.
Kalamaras, Dimitris V. 2018. Social Network Visualizer (SocNetV): Social Network Analysis
and Visualization Software. http://socnetv.org
Kongsager, Rico. 2017. "Barriers to the Adoption of Alley Cropping as a Climate-Smart
Agriculture Practice: Lessons from Maize Cultivation among the Maya in Southern Belize."
Forests 8 (7):1.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Levy, Robert, and Douglas Hollan. 1998. “Person-Centered Interviewing and Observation.” In
Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, edited by H. Russell Bernard, 333–64.
Walnut Creek: Altimira Press.
Morris, Emily, Amy Angel, and Noé Hernández. 2017. The Impact of Falling Sugar Prices on
Growth and Rural Livelihoods. Inter-American Development Bank.
Spradley, James P. 2016. The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press,
Inc.
Statistical Institute of Belize. 2017. Press Release – Survey of Risk Factors for Chronic Kidney
Disease. http://sib.org.bz/press-release-survey-of-risk-factors-for-chronic-kidney-diseas/
Rice, Blakely. 2017. Illegal Wildlife Hunting and Trade in Southern Belize: An Assessment of
Impacts and Drivers. Capstone Collection, School for International Training.
http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/capstones/3057
