Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, December 1998

Contents IK Monitor 6(3) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | (c) copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.

Differences between farmers and scientists in the perception of soil erosion: a South African case study
by Serge Cartier van Dissel and Jan de Graaff

Over the years agricultural scientists and extension agents have asked themselves why farmers do not take steps to control soil erosion, especially where such measures would appear to be cost-effective. Several explanations have been put forward, but thus far insufficient attention has been given to differences between scientists and farmers in their perception of the causes and effects of soil erosion. This is illustrated by a case study carried out in Zululand in South Africa.

Soil erosion is seen as a problem by both agricultural scientists and extension agents, and they find it hard to understand why farmers do not take measures to control it. The reason usually given is lack of knowledge. The theory was that once farmers realized that erosion was a problem, but that it could be prevented, they would take the necessary action, passing through the stages of 'awareness', 'evaluation', 'trial', and 'adoption'. The readiness of the individual farmers to adopt the necessary measures was indicated by the terms innovator, early adopter, late adopter, and laggard (Rogers 1962). In practice, however, this theory did not work. Farmers only implemented the measures when they were forced or paid to do so, and when the external motivation disappeared, all conservation activities ceased (Reij 1996). It is now becoming clear that the problem is not so much a lack of knowledge as a difference in perception. Several authors (e.g., Jongmans 1981; Jungerius 1986) found that what farmers themselves define as erosion is often not considered an urgent problem.

A South African case study
Between January and June 1996, Cartier (1997) studied the perception of erosion in the Port Durnford community, within the framework of the outreach programme of the University of Zululand's Department of Agriculture. Port Durnford is a primarily Zulu community on the northeastern coast of South Africa (see map); farming focuses on rain-fed sugarcane, eucalyptus trees, vegetable gardens and cattle grazing; income is supplemented by work in nearby industrial plants. Most of the farmers finished primary school but have had only one or two years of secondary schooling. A total of 33 farmers were interviewed by Cartier and an interpreter, making use of a semi-structured interview focusing on the recognition of erosion symptoms, the causes of these symptoms, and whether they were considered a problem. At the end of each interview, the definition of the local word for 'erosion' was discussed; the results were used to construct a model of the farmer's perception, which was then compared to the scientific perception. This scientific perception was obtained by means of a 'physical' erosion survey, alongside interviews with three agricultural scientists who had special expertise in the field of soil and water conservation and were familiar with the research area. The study revealed a number of differences in perception between farmers and scientists, as well as quite marked differences between the individual farmers. The designation 'farmers' perception' refers only to those views voiced by the majority of farmers interviewed. There was little or no difference between the perceptions of the three scientists (Cartier 1997).

Differences in perception
Erodibility of the different soil types

• According to the scientists, clay and organic matter flowed continuously down the slopes into the depressions, leaving behind sand. This sand was also washed away, but only during heavy showers. According to the majority of farmers interviewed, the sand was loose and thus more erodible than the clay and organic matter, which were 'clustered' in the depressions. The erosion of clay and organic matter from the slopes apparently went unnoticed.

Splash erosion

• According to the South African Department of Agriculture, splash erosion breaks down soil aggregates, increases soil erodibility, and causes soil particles to be carried down the slope. However, the three scientists acknowledged only the first aspect of the splash erosion process, while the farmers did not even recognize the phenomenon of splash erosion.

Decline in soil fertility

• The scientists saw erosion as one cause of the decline in soil fertility on the slopes, while most farmers felt it was caused by a lack of moisture in the soil: organic matter could not mineralize, causing the nutrient flow to the soil to cease. According to the researchers, however, there was no build-up of organic matter in the fields which warranted such an observation.

Decline in water availability

• The scientists and the farmers agreed that the decline in water availability was due to a decrease in the annual rainfall, but the farmers complained that the increasing number of eucalyptus trees were using large amounts of water. According to the scientists, however, these trees could only cause water scarcity in the direct vicinity of the plantations. They argued that it was the erosion of clay and organic matter which lowered the water-holding capacity of the soils.

When asked whether erosion was considered a problem in the area, the scientists confirmed this: clay and organic matter—and thus nutrients—were being washed out of the soils on the slopes, which also reduced the water-holding capacity of the soil. What was left was soil on which only drought-tolerant crops or crops with deep roots could be grown. The farmers, however, only considered erosion a problem when gullies were formed (see photo). Since there were not many gullies in the research area, erosion was not perceived as a serious problem. When asked to interpret the word 'erosion', scientists said it included all forms of soil loss by wind and/or water. For farmers the word denoted only the formation of gullies and rills.

Findings and policy implications
The case study revealed various differences between farmers and scientists in their perception of erosion. One basic difference centred on the perception of the environment as a whole. According to the scientists, there are sandy soils on the slopes and clayey soils with organic matter in the depressions, due to land formation and erosion processes. The farmers, however, believed that God had created the different soil types. Similarly, Lindskog and Tengberg (1994) found that the Fulani in northern Burkina Faso did not believe that they themselves could influence the process, and accepted land degradation as an act of God (Allah). The perception of erosion is important for various reasons. Making the differences in perception explicit will facilitate the development of solutions satisfactory to all parties. Measures must be fully accepted by farmers if they are to be implemented, and this will involve a participatory process in which both scientists and farmers are involved from the start. Participatory studies on the perception of erosion can usefully be incorporated into the preparatory stage of soil and water conservation projects.

Serge Cartier van Dissel c/o Erosion and Soil & Water Conservation Group Wageningen Agricultural University (see below)

Dr Jan de Graaff Erosion and Soil & Water Conservation Group Department of Environmental Sciences Wageningen Agricultural University Nieuwe Kanaal 11 6709 PA Wageningen The Netherlands Tel.: +31-317-482 881. Fax: +31-317-484 759. E-mail: jan.degraaff@users.tct.wau.nl

References
- Cartier van Dissel, S. (1997) Differences in perception; erosion in Port Durnford, South Africa. MSc thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.
- Graaff, J. de (1996) The price of soil erosion; an economic evaluation of soil conservation and watershed development. Mansholt Studies No 3. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers.
- Jongmans, D.G. (1981) 'De Khroumeriaanse boer in verhouding tot zijn natuurlijke omgeving' (The farmers of Khroumirie in relation to their natural surroundings), pp. 170-188 in Tj. Deelstra (ed.). Natuur als toeverlaat. (Nature as refuge), Verkenningen in culturele ecologie (Explorations in cultural ecology) 8. Delft: Delftse Universitaire Pers.
- Jungerius, P.D. (1986) Perception and use of the physical environment in peasant societies. Geographical papers. Department of Geography, University of Reading. Lindskog,
- P. and A. Tengberg (1994) 'Land degradation, natural resources and local knowledge in the Sahel zone of Burkina Faso', Geojournal 33(4): 365-375.
- Luyten, J. and B. Hoefnagel (eds) (1995) Het oog van de wetenschapsfilosoof: visies op wetenschap en technologie. (The eye of the philosopher of science: views on science and technology) Amsterdam: Boom.
- Reij, C. (1996) 'From rhetoric to practice: how to increase land user participation in soil and water conservation', in: Proceedings of 9th ISCO Conference, Bonn.
- Rogers, E.M. (1962) Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
- Shaxson, T.F. (1985) 'Erosion, economics, subsistence and psychology', pp. 667-673 in S.A. El-Swaify, W.C. Moldenhauer and A. Lo., Soil erosion and conservation. Iowa: Ankeny.

The location of the research area (Port Durnford) within the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Back to: top of the page | Contents IK Monitor 6(3) | IKDM Homepage
Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl
(c) copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.