泰国东北部一个泰老村庄的农民绘制土壤图:一种人种学研究方法的检验

IF 1.7 Q2 FORESTRY
Sujitra Yodda, S. Laohasiriwong, T. Rambo
{"title":"泰国东北部一个泰老村庄的农民绘制土壤图:一种人种学研究方法的检验","authors":"Sujitra Yodda, S. Laohasiriwong, T. Rambo","doi":"10.24259/fs.v6i2.21887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Having farmers draw soil maps of their communities has been frequently advocated as a faster, cheaper alternative to scientific soil surveying in developing countries. However, research on the extent to which farmers share common mental soil maps and the extent to which these match scientific maps is lacking. In this study, 11 Thai-Lao farmers were individually asked to draw maps showing the location of different types of soil in their village, and two groups of four farmers each were assembled to draw soil maps collectively. The maps were very different from each other and the extent to which they matched scientific categorizations of village soils was low. The maps of the individual farmers depicted two to five types of soil occupying two to seven zones. The map of one group depicted two types of soil in two zones, while the map of the other group depicted four types of soil in seven zones. When the soil zones on the maps drawn by the individual farmers were compared with scientific categorization of the soils at 26 sampling points, agreement was low, with an average of 11.6 full and partial matches. The performance of the group maps was not necessarily better: One group map had no full matches and only five partial matches while the other group map had 19 full and partial matches. In view of this heterogeneity in the soil knowledge of community members, ways must be found to identify the most knowledgeable farmers to draw the maps if farmer soil mapping is to be a useful research tool. This study found that the maps drawn by individuals who have had worked as hired laborers on plots in many parts of their village were generally more reliable than those drawn by farmers who had only worked on their own plots.","PeriodicalId":43213,"journal":{"name":"Forest and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Soil mapping by farmers in a Thai-Lao village in Northeast Thailand: A test of an ethnopedological research method\",\"authors\":\"Sujitra Yodda, S. Laohasiriwong, T. Rambo\",\"doi\":\"10.24259/fs.v6i2.21887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Having farmers draw soil maps of their communities has been frequently advocated as a faster, cheaper alternative to scientific soil surveying in developing countries. However, research on the extent to which farmers share common mental soil maps and the extent to which these match scientific maps is lacking. In this study, 11 Thai-Lao farmers were individually asked to draw maps showing the location of different types of soil in their village, and two groups of four farmers each were assembled to draw soil maps collectively. The maps were very different from each other and the extent to which they matched scientific categorizations of village soils was low. The maps of the individual farmers depicted two to five types of soil occupying two to seven zones. The map of one group depicted two types of soil in two zones, while the map of the other group depicted four types of soil in seven zones. When the soil zones on the maps drawn by the individual farmers were compared with scientific categorization of the soils at 26 sampling points, agreement was low, with an average of 11.6 full and partial matches. The performance of the group maps was not necessarily better: One group map had no full matches and only five partial matches while the other group map had 19 full and partial matches. In view of this heterogeneity in the soil knowledge of community members, ways must be found to identify the most knowledgeable farmers to draw the maps if farmer soil mapping is to be a useful research tool. This study found that the maps drawn by individuals who have had worked as hired laborers on plots in many parts of their village were generally more reliable than those drawn by farmers who had only worked on their own plots.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forest and Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forest and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i2.21887\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i2.21887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在发展中国家,让农民绘制他们社区的土壤地图经常被提倡为一种比科学土壤测量更快、更便宜的替代方法。然而,关于农民在多大程度上共享共同的心理土壤地图以及这些地图与科学地图相匹配的程度的研究是缺乏的。在这项研究中,11名泰国-老挝农民被单独要求绘制显示其村庄中不同类型土壤位置的地图,并将两组每组4名农民集合在一起绘制土壤地图。这些地图彼此之间差异很大,而且它们与村庄土壤的科学分类相匹配的程度很低。个别农民的地图描绘了两到五种类型的土壤,占据了两到七个区域。一组的地图在两个区域描绘了两种土壤,而另一组的地图在七个区域描绘了四种土壤。将农民个人绘制的土壤区划与26个采样点的土壤科学分类进行比较,一致性较低,平均为11.6个完全匹配和部分匹配。组映射的性能不一定更好:一个组映射没有完全匹配,只有5个部分匹配,而另一个组映射有19个完全匹配和部分匹配。鉴于社区成员土壤知识的这种异质性,如果农民土壤制图要成为一种有用的研究工具,就必须找到方法来确定最有知识的农民来绘制地图。这项研究发现,在村里许多地方雇工绘制的地图通常比只在自己的地块上工作的农民绘制的地图更可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Soil mapping by farmers in a Thai-Lao village in Northeast Thailand: A test of an ethnopedological research method
Having farmers draw soil maps of their communities has been frequently advocated as a faster, cheaper alternative to scientific soil surveying in developing countries. However, research on the extent to which farmers share common mental soil maps and the extent to which these match scientific maps is lacking. In this study, 11 Thai-Lao farmers were individually asked to draw maps showing the location of different types of soil in their village, and two groups of four farmers each were assembled to draw soil maps collectively. The maps were very different from each other and the extent to which they matched scientific categorizations of village soils was low. The maps of the individual farmers depicted two to five types of soil occupying two to seven zones. The map of one group depicted two types of soil in two zones, while the map of the other group depicted four types of soil in seven zones. When the soil zones on the maps drawn by the individual farmers were compared with scientific categorization of the soils at 26 sampling points, agreement was low, with an average of 11.6 full and partial matches. The performance of the group maps was not necessarily better: One group map had no full matches and only five partial matches while the other group map had 19 full and partial matches. In view of this heterogeneity in the soil knowledge of community members, ways must be found to identify the most knowledgeable farmers to draw the maps if farmer soil mapping is to be a useful research tool. This study found that the maps drawn by individuals who have had worked as hired laborers on plots in many parts of their village were generally more reliable than those drawn by farmers who had only worked on their own plots.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forest and Society
Forest and Society FORESTRY-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
35.30%
发文量
37
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信