Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 309–324 | Cite as

Action Research on Land Management in the Western Amazon, Peru – A Research Process, Its Outcomes and the Researcher’s Role

  • Kristina Marquardt Arévalo
  • Magnus Ljung
Original Paper

Abstract

The article explores the action research process throughout a land management research project, with the ambition to reflect upon action research as a working approach. It is shown how this process is experienced from a researcher’s point of view and it critically analyses its methodology and process, outcome and the role of the action researcher.

The learning environment known to farmers and framed by local institutions and practical experimentation, embedded in the local worldview, constituted a necessary starting point for achieving motivation and practical outcomes. Tight feedback loops between practice and reflection enabled joint learning and innovation and rapid implementation of measures suggested by the farmers. The approach could be particularly useful for local NGOs and local universities.

Keywords

Action research Farmer experimentation Land management Amazon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank PRADERA for sharing their knowledge and work with us, especially PRADERA’s coordinator Marío Arévalo Rivera but also the rest of the knowledgeable and hardworking team. We would like to thank Nadarajah Sriskandarajah, David Gibbon and Elin Fjeldtvedt Gibbon for valuable comments. The research has been possible due to Kristina Marquardt Arévalo’s JPO-position at the Land Use Group at CIAT (International Center of Tropical Agriculture), Colombia, during the fieldwork. The study was supported by grants from The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida/Sarec).

References

  1. Alcorn J (1990) Indigenous agroforestry strategies meeting farmers’ needs. In: Anderson A (ed) Alternatives to deforestation: Steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 141–151Google Scholar
  2. Arévalo M, Panduro R, Quinteros A, Rengifo G (1999) Hacer brillar la chacra. Agricultura Campesina Alto Amazónica, San Martín. PRATEC – Proyecto Andino de Tecnologías Campesinas, Lima, PeruGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby J, Gracia T, Guerrero M, Patiño C, Quirós C, Roa J (1997) Supporting local farmers research committees. In: van Veldhuizen L, Waters-Bayer A, Ramírez R, Johnson D, Thompson J (eds) Farmers’ research in practice. Lessons from the field. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK, pp 245–261Google Scholar
  4. Biot Y, Blaikie P, Jackson C, Palmer-Jones R (1995) Rethinking research on land degradation in developing countries. The World Bank, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castellanet C, Jordan C (2002) Participatory action research in natural resource management. A critique of the method based on five years’ experience in the Transamazônica region of Brazil. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers R (1983) Rural development: Putting the last first. Longman, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Defoer T (2002) Learning about methodology development for integrated soil fertility management. Agric Syst 73:57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flood R (1999) Rethinking the fifth discipline: learning within the unknowable. Tylor & Francis Ltd, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Fujisaka S, Jayson E, Dapusala A (1994) Trees, grass and weeds – species choices in farmed-developed contour hedgerows. Agroforestry Syst 25:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GFAR-conference (2003) Rural Knowledge Systems and Innovation Processes (RKS & IP). GFAR Newsletter. 7Google Scholar
  11. Gómez-Pompa A, Kaus A (1990) Traditional management of tropical forests in Mexico. In: Anderson A (ed) Alternatives to deforestation: Steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. Columbia University Press, New York, USA, pp 45–64Google Scholar
  12. Gómez-Pompa A, Kaus A (1992) Taming the Wilderness Myth. BioScience 42:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grillo Fernández E, Quiso Choque V, Rengifo Vásquez G, Valladolido Rivera J (1994) Crianza Andina de la Chacra. PRATEC – Proyecto Andino de Tecnologías Campesinas, Lima, PeruGoogle Scholar
  14. INEI (2005) Perú: la población en las comunidades indígenas de la Amazonía. INEI and UNICEF, www.inei.gob.pe/biblioineipub/bancopub/Est/Lib0001/indice.htmGoogle Scholar
  15. Ishizawa J (2003) Alternative epistemologies for in situ conservation of native cultivated plants and their wild relatives: notes of GEF’s In Situ project in Peru. Symposium on Urban Landscape Dynamics and Resource Use: Planning a framework for South-South-South co-operation. Session 6: Multiple Global Identities: Discovering Epistemological Common Ground, Uppsala, Sweden. www.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/symposium/abstracts/jorge.pdfGoogle Scholar
  16. Ison R, Blackmore C (1997) Exploring the context of environmental issues and formulating problems and opportunities. Course module 2 in “Environmental Decision-Making: A Systems Approach” at Open University, UK., Milton Keynes: The Open University, pp 35–67Google Scholar
  17. McNiff J (2002) Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge Falmer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Muchagata M, Brown K (2000) Colonist farmers’ perceptions of fertility and the environment in eastern Amazonia. Agric Human Values 17:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Myers N, Mittermeier RCM, da Fonseca G, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Padoch C (2002) Spotting expertise in a diverse and dynamic landscape. In: Brookfield H, Padoch C, Parsons H, Stocking M (eds) Cultivating biodiversity. Understanding, analysing & using agricultural diversity. ITDG, London, UK, pp 96–104Google Scholar
  21. Probst K, Hagmann J, Fernandez M, Ashby J (2003) Understanding participatory research in the context of natural resource management paradigms, approaches and typologies. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper. No. 130Google Scholar
  22. Rengifo G, Panduro R, Grillo E (1993) Chacras y Chacareros. Ecología, Demografía y Sistemas de Cultivo de San Martín. CEDISA – Fondo de Contravalor Perú-Candadá, LimaGoogle Scholar
  23. Sherwood S, Larrea S (2001) Looking back to see ahead: Farmer lessons and recommendations after 15 years of innovation and leadership in Güinope, Honduras. Agric Human Values 18:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simões A, Santos Silvia L, da S Martins P, Castellanet C (eds) (2001) Agricultura Familar. Métodos e Experiências de Pesquisa-Desenvolvimento, NEAF/CAP/UFPA: GRET, Belém, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  25. Staver C (1989) Why farmers rotate fields in Maize-Cassava-Plantain Bush Fallow Agriculture in the Wet Peruvian Amazon. Human Ecol 17:401–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stringer E (1999) Action research. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  27. Svensson L, Brulin G, Ellström P-E, Widegren Ö (2002) Interaktiv Forskning för Utveckling av Teori och Praktik., Rep. No. Rapport 2002:7, Arbetslivsinstitutet, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. Whyte W (ed) (1991) Partipatory action research. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. WinklerPrins A, Barrera-Bassols N (2004) Latin American ethnopedology: A vision of its past, present, and future. Agric Human Value 21:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban and Rural Development, the Unit of AgroecologyThe Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.SLU External Relations – SkaraSkaraSweden

Personalised recommendations