Ethnobiology 5: Interdisciplinarity in an Era of Rapid Environmental Change 21  Perspec ve  ethnobiologists are increasingly addressing environ- mental management, conservation, environmental ethics, and related topics (e.g., Anderson 2010; Gilmore and Young 2012; Lepofsky 2009; Müller and Dan Guimbo 2010), but this does not represent a discipline-wide collective enterprise. More can be done to engage the relevance of ethnobiological research for addressing problems related to global environmental and cultural crises. To do so requires that ethnobiologists address a broader audience of scholars. While most ecologists identify themselves as biologists, scholars in the fields of human ecology, ethnoecology, and environmental anthropology do not necessarily see themselves as ethnobiologists. Why is this the case? It relates to the historical effect of ethnobiology being forged on the boundaries of entrenched disciplines; although ethnobiology draws from a diverse crowd, most of its scholars find their primary academic homes in mainstream anthropology and biology, which have deeper histories. Because it was framed and has existed inbetween traditional disciplines, ethnobiology is well-suited to serve as an interdisciplinary umbrella for environmental scientists, conservation biologists, restoration ecologists, The term ‘ethnobiology’ was coined by biologists, has been adopted by anthropologists, spans into archaeo- botany and zooarchaeology, and correspondingly provides an umbrella for an astonishing array of subject matter (Ford 2011; references in Anderson et al. 2011). No longer an unadulterated convergence of ethnozoology with ethnobotany (Ford 2011), the short definition of ethnobiology used by the Society of Ethnobiology is “the scientific study of dynamic relationships among peoples, biota, and environ- ments.” Under this brief but expansive definition, ethnobiologists do many things along a spectrum from pure to applied research. As is the case for many disciplines during the last two decades, ethnobi- ologists could go so far as to delineate an applied ethnobiology that focuses on the relevance of ethnobiological data in conservation science, environ- mental justice, and related areas of scholarship, but to do so could fragment an already small body of scholars. However, to be “applied,” the ethnobiolo- gist needs to do nothing more than redirect the relevant nature of ‘knowing about human- environment relationships’ already central to the field toward various disciplines concerned with conserva- tion science and environmental studies. Indeed, Ethnobiology 5: Interdisciplinarity in an Era of Rapid Environmental  Change  Steve Wolverton  Author  address:  University  of  North  Texas,  Department  of  Geography,  Ins tute  of  Applied  Science,  Denton,  TX  76203.  wolverton@unt.edu   Received: September 24, 2012  Volume: 4:21‐25  Published: January 21, 2013  © 2013 Society of Ethnobiology  Abstract: Ethnobiology 5 stems from Eugene Hunn’s four phases of the history of ethnobiology and focuses on the relevance  of ethnobiological research in the context of environmental and cultural change.  It refers to a contemporary phase of the  field’s historical development.  In this paper, I argue that ethnobiology is preadapted to be a scholarly umbrella for a number  of disciplines that concern human‐environment interac ons, sugges ng that one goal of Ethnobiology 5 is to bridge tradi‐ onal academic boundaries  in order to broaden the community of ethnobiologists. Another goal of Ethnobiology 5  is to  capitalize on and communicate the relevance of ethnobiological scholarship for solving problems related to contemporary  environmental and cultural crises.  Indeed, ethnobiology is not a subfield of any tradi onal discipline and by the nature of its  name bridges humani es, social science, and science.  Ethnobiology has always been interdisciplinary in terms of its subject  ma er, yet its community of scholars is rela vely small compared to mission‐driven disciplines, such as conserva on biology.   Venues for publica on and presenta on of ethnobiological research, as well as how ethnobiologists portray their research,  are cri cal to growing ethnobiology.   Key Words: Ethnobiology 5, conserva on biology, interdisciplinarity, biocultural conserva on   mailto:wolverton@unt.edu� 22  Perspec ve  environmental philosophers, and others who engage in applied research related to human-environment interactions. However, the ability of ethnobiology to include others under this umbrella by broadening its audience has developed slowly. An example illus- trates why this is so. Conservation biology provides an interesting point of contrast to ethnobiology; its subject matter is so deeply and pragmatically relevant that it stands nearly separate from conventional biology and ecology. The mission of conservation biology is powerful because it relates scholarship to preservation and protection of biodiversity (Lindenmeyer and Hunter 2010; Meine et al. 2006). From its relatively narrow moniker, the field has reached outward, branching into ecosystem ecology, population genetics, and biocultural conservation (Figure 1). The mission of conservation biology ‘to provide the opportunity of continued evolution of biota’ (sensu Frankel and Soulé 1981:4) is so persuasive that the field transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries and scales of research. In comparison, ethnobiology represents intriguing subject matter without the unity provided by a narrow and compelling mission. Indeed, there are ethnobiol- ogists who are advocates for social and environmental justice and there are those who are activists support- ing preservation and protection of cultural and biological diversity. In contrast to conservation biology, however, there are multiple objectives in ethnobiology that tend to be topical, and there is no focal and uniform mission shared by most ethnobiol- ogists. Nonetheless, biocultural conservation, environ- mental co-management, environmental ethics, and other topics relevant to addressing and solving modern environmental and cultural problems at local, regional, and global scales, might find a comfortable, explicitly acknowledged, and well-populated home in ethnobiology (Nabhan et al. 2011a, 2011b). Currently, the field is dominated by anthropologists, as well as ethnobotanists, but also attracts a smaller number of geographers, archaeologists, and paleobiologists interested in addressing human environmental relationships. In simplistic terms, conservation biology and ethnobiology are inverted versions of one another, focusing (these days) on similar subject matter but with different objectives and audiences (Figure 1). Indeed, the audience of ethnobiology beyond its own frontiers is quite small relative to that of conservation biology. An expansive future for ethnobiology lies beyond its traditional disciplinary homes in anthropology and biology, moving toward human geography, environ- mental philosophy, political ecology, conservation biology, and related fields with more explicit ideologi- cal missions. Ethnobiology is, perhaps, pre-adapted to become a scholarly home for interdisciplinary research on human environment relationships because the field is currently populated (in large part, but by no means in total) by anthropologists who are trained to understand and transcend cultural boundaries (sensu Nabhan 2009:6; Nabhan and Martinez 2012:4). Scholarly disciplines are cultural institutions (Ball and Lacey 1980), and an ethnobiology willing to traverse disciplinary and cultural boundaries has the potential to maximize its own relevance (Nabhan et al. 2011a). Momentum toward a focus on application and practical relevance in ethnobiological scholarship represents what Wyndham et al. (2011:124) describe as “Ethnobiology 5,” piggy-backing from Hunn’s (2007; Ford 2011) four phases of ethnobiology’s historical development. Phase 5 requires that ethnobi- ologists address “the needs of a world coping with Figure 1.   A simple, ordinal scale model of the missions  of  Ethnobiology  and  Conserva on  Biology  represented  as  con nua  connected  to  respec ve  audiences.    The  implica on  is  that  the  audience  of  ethnobiologists  is  small, yet the mission of the field is to study the Earth’s  various  human‐environmental  interac ons  in  me  and  space, which is broad.  In contrast, conserva on biology  is mission driven and is explicitly concerned with support  of con nued evolu on of biological systems, from popu‐ la ons  and  species  to  communi es  and  ecosystems.   Yet,  its  audience  is  enormous  because  its  relevance  is  immediately transparent.  23  Perspec ve  rapid ecological change and shifting political econo- mies” (Wyndam et al. 2011:124; see also Nabhan et al. 2011b). That said, how can Ethnobiology 5 continue to gain momentum? Modest solutions might include hosting conferences, organizing sessions, and publish- ing papers that reach across the politically entrenched divides in academia in order to invite new perspectives. These offer particular solutions, but there are two additional goals that should be adopted as core objectives. First, to engage the broader audience of environ- mental studies, media, philosophy, and science, ethnobiologists should continue to publish in flagship ethnobiology journals and increase the frequency of papers that explicitly address Phase 5 (e.g., Beserra de Farias et al. 2010; Gilmore and Young 2012). For example, it is one matter to publish a plant taxonomy and to debate the cognitive reality of language and classification, it is quite another to link diversity in plant taxonomy to diversity in language (Maffi 2001; Stepp et al. 2005). And it is still yet another to explicitly recognize that extinction rates in biology and culture (including language) can share a biocultural geographic pattern (sensu Albuquerque and Muniz de Medieros 2012; e.g., Maffi 2001; Stepp et al. 2004, 2005). Ethnobiologists are “on the ground” in such biocultural geographic contexts and command the intimate details concerning human-environmental relationships situated within subtle ecologies of time and place (Wyndham 2009), and it is just these subtle ecologies that are of growing interest in community based conservation and environmental co- management. An equally pervasive argument can be made that ethnobiologists should publish their research in ecology, environmental science, and conservation journals, but then the work may lose its ethnobiological identity. Common use of the terms ethnobiology, ethnobiological research, and ethnobiologist in conservation, ecology, and related journals will broaden the exposure of our research and may direct scholars to the Society of Ethnobiology and its flagship journals as homes for interdisciplinary research on human-environment interactions. Though it has been argued that ethnobiologists have much to offer in terms of cultural theory (Nabhan et al. 2011a:3), a clear strength of the discipline related to Phase 5 is the vast empirical record of humans in places and time―that is, we have data. The cultural, geographic, and evolutionary scope of ethnobiological subject matter, when conveyed broadly, represents what environmental philosopher Albert Borgmann (2000:103) terms “disclosure.” A disclosive perspec- tive is one that shifts the human experiential scale; for example, a human lifespan is miniscule in terms of geological time. Moreover, environmental impacts when recognized in terms of the contingency of Earth are more disclosive of the magnitude of particular effects, such as extinction (Wolverton and Lyman 2012). The same can be said for cultural diversity in environmental knowledge (Wolverton et al. 2011); cross-cultural awareness of diverse and local environ- mental values transcends any particular policy or aim of environmental management and discloses new information relevant to local communities and economies (Anderson 2010; Müller and Dan Guimbo 2010). It is the empirical nature of subtle ecologies in varied contexts that provides this disclosure. A focus on the disclosive aspects of ethnobiological scholar- ship should be developed, as most if not all ethnobi- ological research is simply relevant to biocultural conservation, environmental ethics and justice, and environmental management (Lepofsky 2009). Second, the Ethnobiology Conference is an important venue for generating and encouraging the conversation about the relevance of ethnobiology in a changing world. In recent years, the conference has been organized around important themes, such as “The Meeting Place: Integrating Ethnobiological Knowledge” (2010), “Conservation and Communi- ties” (2012), and “Climate Change and Ethnobiolo- gy” (2013). Such themes enable ethnobiologists to accomplish two important goals: first, it encourages established ethnobiologists to bring the relevance of their research to the forefront of ongoing scholarship within ethnobiology. Second, and equally important is it allows the audience to grow because themes conveying messages relevant to the modern global environmental and cultural crises are concerns addressed in multiple areas of scholarship. It is important that conservation biologists, environmental philosophers, eco-critical writers, and environmental scientists be invited to the forums provided by the Ethnobiology Conference. Encouraging their attend- ance at the Society of Ethnobiology’s conferences will require new conceptual spaces within which they can situate their own scholarship. The conference should continue to provide an umbrella for such conversa- tions, and doing so will change the community of scholars from one situated primarily in anthropology and botany to one that is even more interdisciplinary than it is currently. 24  Perspec ve  Ethnobiology has a history of being inherently fascinating to ethnobiologists. Scholars of ethnobiology, however, are also deeply concerned about modern environmental and cultural crises ranging from overharvest of marine fish populations to loss of native heirloom plant varieties, to the richness of human cognition and language, to the deep temporal evolutionary implications of biological and cultural extinction. This is our own subtle ecology, something that sometimes is hidden in our plant taxonomies, our tables of data on faunal remains from archaeological sites, our language maps, and our ethnographies. Our data are relevant and essential to solving large scale environmental and cultural problems because, as stated by Rozzi (1999), problems of human- environmental impact cannot be solved unless the values of people in contemporary societies change, and values do not change unless experiences change. The clearest path to initiating such progress is through direct encounter with plants, animals, environments, the outdoors, Earth―if ethnobiology is nothing else, it comprises a record of such encounters from many times and places. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Dana Lepofsky for thoughtful review comments and James R. Welch and Cynthia Fowler for comments and support to publish this paper in EBL. Declarations Permissions: Not applicable. Sources of funding: None declared. Conflicts of interest: None declared. References Cited Albuquerque, U. P. and P. M. Medeiros. 2012. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Applied to Ethnobiological Research. Ethnobiology and Conserva- tion 1:6. Anderson, E. N. 2010. The Pursuit of Ecotopia: Lessons from Indigenous and Traditional Societies for the Human Ecology of Our Modern World. Praeger Press, Santa Barbara, CA. Anderson, E. N. 2011. Ethnobiology: Overview of a Growing Field. In Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, D. M. Pearsall, E. S. Hunn, and N. J. Turner, pp. 1-14. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. Anderson, E. N., D. M. Pearsall, E. S. Hunn, and N. J. Turner, eds. 2011. Ethnobiology. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. Ball, S. J. and C. Lacey. 1980. Subject Disciplines as the Opportunity for Group Action: A Measured Critique of Subject Sub-cultures. In Teacher Strategies: Explorations in the Sociology of the School, edited by P. Wood, pp. 149-177. Routledge, New York. Baserra de Farias, G., A. G. C. Alves, and J. Geraldo. 2010. Mythological Relations between the “Lavandeira” Birds Fluvicola nengeta and Motacilla alba in Northeast Brazil and Northwest Spain: Possible Cultural Implications for Conservation. Journal of Ethnobiology 30:240-251. Borgmann, A. 2000. The Transparency and Contin- gency of the Earth. In Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy, and the Claims of Community, edited by R. Frodeman, pp. 99-106. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Ford, R. I. 2011. History of Ethnobiology. In Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, D. M. Pearsall, E. S. Hunn, and N. J. Turner, pp. 15-26. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. Frankel, O. H., and M. E. Soulé. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Gilmore, M. P. and J. C. Young. 2012. The Use of Participatory Mapping in Ethnobiological Research, Biocultural Conservation, and Community Empow- erment: A Case Study from the Peruvian Amazon. Journal of Ethnobiology 32:6-29. Hunn, E. 2007. Ethnobiology in Four Phases. Journal of Ethnobiology 27:1-10. Lepofsky, D. 2009. The Past, Present, and Future of Traditional Resource and Environmental Manage- ment. Journal of Ethnobiology 29:161-166. Lindenmayer, D., and M. Hunter. 2010. Some Guiding Concepts for Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 24:1459-1468. Maffi, L. 2001. Introduction: On the Interdependence of Biological and Cultural Diversity. In On Biocultur- al Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment, edited by L. Maffi, pp. 1-50. Smithson- ian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Meine, C., M. Soulé, and R. F. Noss. 2006. A Mission- 25  Perspec ve  Driven Discipline”: the Growth of Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 20:631-651. Müller, J., and I. Dan Guimbo. 2010. Letting Wood Rot: A Case Study on Local Perceptions of Global Conservation Initiatives (Boumba, Niger). Ethnobiol- ogy Letters 1:40-50. Nabhan, G. P. 2009. Perspectives in Ethnobiology: Bridging Disciplines, Cultures and Species. Journal of Ethnobiology 29:3-7. Nabhan, G. P., K. Chambers, D. Tecklin, E. Perra- mond, and T. E. Sheridan. 2011a. Ethnobiology for a Diverse World – Defining New Disciplinary Trajectories: Mixing Political Ecology with Ethno- biology. Journal of Ethnobiology 31:1-3. Nabhan, G. P., F. Wyndham, and D. Lepofsky. 2011b. Ethnobiology for a Diverse World: Ethnobi- ology Emerging from a Time of Crisis. Journal of Ethnobiology 31:172-175. Nabhan, G. P. and D. Martinez. 2012. Ethnobiology for a Diverse World – Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Endangered Species Recovery: Is Ethnobiology for the Birds? Journal of Ethnobiology 32:1-5. Rozzi, R. 1999. The Reciprocal Links between Evolutionary-Ecological Sciences and Environmen- tal Ethics. Bioscience 49:911-921. Stepp, J. R., S. Cervone, H. Castaneda, A. Lasseter, G. Stocks, and Y. Gichon. 2004. Development of a GIS for Global Biocultural Diversity. Policy Matters 13:267-271. Stepp, J. R., H. Castaneda, and S. Cervone. 2005. Mountains and Biocultural Diversity. Mountain Research and Development 25:223-227. Wolverton, S., C. R. Randklev, and A. Barker. 2011. Ethnobiology as a Bridge between Science and Ethics: An Applied Paleozoological Perspective. In Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, D. M. Pearsall, E. S. Hunn, and N. J. Turner, pp. 115-132. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. Wolverton, S. and R. L. Lyman. 2012. Introduction to Applied Zooarchaeology. In Conservation Biology and Applied Zooarchaeology, edited by S. Wolverton and R. L. Lyman, pp. 1-22. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Wyndham, F. S. 2009. Spheres of Relations, Lines of Interaction: Subtle Ecologies of the Rarámuri Landscape in Northern Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiolo- gy 29:271-295. Wyndham, F. S., D. Lepofsky, and S. Tiffany. 2011. Taking Stock in Ethnobiology: Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? Journal of Ethnobiology 31:110-127. Biosketch Steve Wolverton is an archaeologist and ecologist in the  Department  of  Geography  at  the  University  of  North  Texas.  He is one of the founding editors of Ethnobiology  Le ers,  and  his  research  focuses  on  the  intersec ons  between  zooarchaeology,  ethnobiology,  and  conserva‐ on biology.   Ethnobiology 5: Interdisciplinarity in an Era of Rapid Environmental Change << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice