Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Characteristics of traditional and scientific assessment techniques
There are observed differences in the assessment techniques. Traditional
assessment techniques do not require extensive data gathering. Since obser-
vation is the key methodology, assessment is quick and monetary costs
are very low. Decisions are made in situ , and the only guide is experiential
knowledge. The other method of assessment is by comparison with previous
crop performance. On the other hand, scientific assessment requires data
gathering and measurements over a period of time and has a lot of cost
implications.
However, both the traditional and scientific methods use physical characteris-
tics, even though the parameters differ with respect to colour.
Soil management
The traditional approach to soil fertility management is seen in a number of
ways, such as the application of the proka system of mulching (which is dis-
cussed in Chapters 6, 11, 14, and 19), the growing of cover crops, and fallow
practices. Although burning is generally not an adopted method for soil
conservation, the farmers are aware that most burning sites are fertile because
the residual ash contains potassium, which is very good for maintaining soil
fertility.
The scientific approach to soil management is the application of inorganic
fertilizers, organic manure such as compost, mulching, growing of cover crops,
and fallow.
Conclusion
The basic differences between traditional and scientific assessment are that
whereas the traditional methodology is essentially qualitative and subjective, the
scientific approach is quantitative and objective. Also the results of the scientific
method tend to be more reliable and verifiable.
Whilst scientific data are often recorded and can be retrieved anywhere by the
use of information technology, the traditional method suffers from time lapses
and transmission losses. Consequently, over a long period, the traditional know-
ledge may be lost entirely.
In terms of monetary implications, the community approach is less costly.
Both methods are susceptible to errors. As to the reliability of traditional
assessment of natural resources, the margin of error is dependent on the
experience of the farmer. In the case of the scientific approach, the errors are
dependent on the quality of the information collected and the experiments
conducted.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search