Session 2 : Assessing water harvesting suitability
180
Surveys, indigenous knowledge and remote sensing for WH assessment
Linking indigenous knowledge and remote sensing in participatory survey
Indigenous soil classification [ISC] is based on visual characteristics [including crop results].
Remote sensing is generally restricted to the landscape surface; because both RS and ISC are
‘visual’, they are potentially compatible. And not just compatible, but fundamentally
complementary, as the former deals with a visual, spatial phenomenon as a snapshot in time,
while the latter deals with the same type of phenomenon but continuously through time.
Indeed, RS could and should be used to test and extend the spatial validity of ISC beyond the
current, generally ethnically defined, territorial limits. Assuming that physical conditions are
sufficiently similar--as indicated by RS--[and the social conditions, as indicated by fieldwork]
then the value of the knowledge of one particular group about environmental management,
acquired at the cost of many decades of observation and trial and error, can be multiplied by
utilizing it elsewhere. There is also great potential in working together with local people to
interpret satellite imagery (Mutandi,1996; Patrick, 1996b). Mapping with RS, using indigenous
knowledge [IK] as ancillary data, including rules of thumb about probable land use, Bronsveld et
al. (1994) found land cover classification to be as accurate as by other methods. Furthermore,
indigenous temporal data in the form of crop calendars were used to reconstruct vegetation cover
for the dates of the RS imagery, enhancing interpretation.
Operationalizing the interaction with indigenous knowledge
All of which leads to the question of how to elicit IK: the first step in an expert system, a
potential complement to RS, and essential in order not to waste the vast--and generally
unrecorded--experience of local people for development in drylands. Neimejer (1995) rightly
argues that it is not the fact of but manner in which IK is elicited that determines whether one
acquires a true ‘insider’ perspective or just a reclassification in terms of the interviewer’s
[subconsciously or consciously] imposed categories and interpretations. In anthropological
jargon, emic and etic knowledge, respectivley.
Practical tools; participatory rural appraisal
Though no guarantee of emic or ‘insider’ knowledge, Participatory Rural Appraisal [PRA] can
help to avoid gross errors. PRA is basically a ‘toolbox’ of techniques designed to help outsiders
understand local circumstances, but in less time than by the traditional anthropological method of
participant observation. PRA originally consisted essentially of interviews but has more recently
evolved into a myriad of ‘games’ and exercises such as walking transects together with farmers.
The advantage of the latter is that an etic grill is less likely to be imposed, and serves as a useful
mechanism to gain insight into the reasoning process itself, which is clearly central in
constructing an ES (Freudenberger, 1995; Guillet et al., 1995). For a good collation of the
available tools, see Schonhuth and Kievelitz (1994). A methodology for assessing WH potential
should utilize PRA type tools as a proven way to operationalize the need to interact with and
make use of the knowledge acquired by local communities and to understand the social
circumstances into which a new technology is being introduced. A population is usually stratified
into relatively homogeneous groups when using PRA. In this case these have been denoted ‘Social
Response Units’ [SRUs] and are analagous conceptually to the Framework concept of Land
Units, in that they are defined on the basis of a presumed typical social effect of/response to WH.
180
Surveys, indigenous knowledge and remote sensing for WH assessment
Linking indigenous knowledge and remote sensing in participatory survey
Indigenous soil classification [ISC] is based on visual characteristics [including crop results].
Remote sensing is generally restricted to the landscape surface; because both RS and ISC are
‘visual’, they are potentially compatible. And not just compatible, but fundamentally
complementary, as the former deals with a visual, spatial phenomenon as a snapshot in time,
while the latter deals with the same type of phenomenon but continuously through time.
Indeed, RS could and should be used to test and extend the spatial validity of ISC beyond the
current, generally ethnically defined, territorial limits. Assuming that physical conditions are
sufficiently similar--as indicated by RS--[and the social conditions, as indicated by fieldwork]
then the value of the knowledge of one particular group about environmental management,
acquired at the cost of many decades of observation and trial and error, can be multiplied by
utilizing it elsewhere. There is also great potential in working together with local people to
interpret satellite imagery (Mutandi,1996; Patrick, 1996b). Mapping with RS, using indigenous
knowledge [IK] as ancillary data, including rules of thumb about probable land use, Bronsveld et
al. (1994) found land cover classification to be as accurate as by other methods. Furthermore,
indigenous temporal data in the form of crop calendars were used to reconstruct vegetation cover
for the dates of the RS imagery, enhancing interpretation.
Operationalizing the interaction with indigenous knowledge
All of which leads to the question of how to elicit IK: the first step in an expert system, a
potential complement to RS, and essential in order not to waste the vast--and generally
unrecorded--experience of local people for development in drylands. Neimejer (1995) rightly
argues that it is not the fact of but manner in which IK is elicited that determines whether one
acquires a true ‘insider’ perspective or just a reclassification in terms of the interviewer’s
[subconsciously or consciously] imposed categories and interpretations. In anthropological
jargon, emic and etic knowledge, respectivley.
Practical tools; participatory rural appraisal
Though no guarantee of emic or ‘insider’ knowledge, Participatory Rural Appraisal [PRA] can
help to avoid gross errors. PRA is basically a ‘toolbox’ of techniques designed to help outsiders
understand local circumstances, but in less time than by the traditional anthropological method of
participant observation. PRA originally consisted essentially of interviews but has more recently
evolved into a myriad of ‘games’ and exercises such as walking transects together with farmers.
The advantage of the latter is that an etic grill is less likely to be imposed, and serves as a useful
mechanism to gain insight into the reasoning process itself, which is clearly central in
constructing an ES (Freudenberger, 1995; Guillet et al., 1995). For a good collation of the
available tools, see Schonhuth and Kievelitz (1994). A methodology for assessing WH potential
should utilize PRA type tools as a proven way to operationalize the need to interact with and
make use of the knowledge acquired by local communities and to understand the social
circumstances into which a new technology is being introduced. A population is usually stratified
into relatively homogeneous groups when using PRA. In this case these have been denoted ‘Social
Response Units’ [SRUs] and are analagous conceptually to the Framework concept of Land
Units, in that they are defined on the basis of a presumed typical social effect of/response to WH.