The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Entwining indigenous knowledge and science

knowledge for sustainable agricultural extension:
exploring the strengths and challenges

C. Radcliffe, A. Raman & C. Parissi

To cite this article: C. Radcliffe, A. Raman & C. Parissi (2021) Entwining indigenous knowledge
and science knowledge for sustainable agricultural extension: exploring the strengths
and challenges, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27:2, 133-151, DOI:
10.1080/1389224X.2020.1828112

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1828112

Published online: 04 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 737

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
2021, VOL. 27, NO. 2, 133–151
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1828112

Entwining indigenous knowledge and science knowledge for

sustainable agricultural extension: exploring the strengths
and challenges
C. Radcliffea, A. Ramana and C. Parissib
a
School of Agricultural & Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia; bSchool of
Biomedical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: To explore the challenges and strengths of employing an Received 30 April 2019
extension approach, which entwines indigenous knowledge and Accepted 26 August 2020
science, for the purpose of enhancing sustainable agricultural
KEYWORDS
practices. Indigenous knowledge;
Design/methodology/approach: We assessed an agricultural extension; sustainable
extension approach which entwined indigenous knowledge and agriculture; climate change;
science. Data for this paper were qualitative and quantitative in Papua New Guinea; Vanuatu
nature as gathered from semi-structured interviews, farmer
observations, surveys and the researcher’s field notes.
Findings: Indigenous knowledge has enormous potential to
contribute to sustainable agriculture, yet it is rarely included in
agricultural extension. There are many inhibiting factors which
may contribute to the lack of inclusion of indigenous knowledge
in extension programmes, including: perceived value of
indigenous knowledge; knowledge protocols; cultural constraints;
access to indigenous knowledge; and, misrepresentation of
indigenous knowledge, but also strengths such as enhanced
sustainable agricultural practices.
Practical Implications: Understanding the strengths and
challenges of entwining indigenous knowledge and science may
support extension policies which further value indigenous
knowledge and recognise accessibility and property rights, thus
maximising the strengths and limiting the challenges.
Theoretical implications: Whilst the present study further
supports theories which recognise the challenges (accessibility;
perceived value; intellectual property rights; cultural
embeddedness) and strengths (contribution to sustainable
agriculture) of including indigenous knowledge in agricultural
extension, this study also offers an alternative approach to
agricultural extension.
Originality: Much has been written regarding the value of
indigenous knowledge and its potential in sustainable agriculture.
This paper explicitly reports on the strengths and challenges of
entwining indigenous knowledge and science in an alternative
agricultural extension approach.

CONTACT C. Radcliffe radcliffechris@hotmail.com

© 2020 Wageningen University
134 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

1. Introduction
Agricultural activities are major contributors to climate change through greenhouse gas
emissions, biodiversity loss, water and soil pollution, deforestation and soil erosion and
addressing these issues through agricultural adaptation and mitigation is urgent. Sustain-
able agricultural practices not only addresses these needs, but can also meet future food
needs (DeLonge, Miles, and Carlisle 2016). Sustainable agriculture has many meanings,
however, in this study it refers to ‘practices which maintain the natural resources needed,
preserve communities and social and cultural systems that allow for the appropriate dis-
tribution of food, and provides the possibility of decent livelihoods in rural areas’ (Inter-
national Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture 2006, 15).
For thousands of years, smallholder indigenous farmers1 have coped with change by
applying indigenous agricultural knowledge, that is, the creative thought and action
accumulated over generations within an ecosystem of farmers needing to cope with
social and environmental change. The application of indigenous knowledge has resulted
in productive, ecologically sound and sustainable farming for these communities (Lwoga,
Ngulube, and Stilwell 2010). However, formal education and technology are leading
smallholder indigenous farmers to move away from traditional agricultural practices,
resulting in much of this knowledge being lost. At the same time, the international com-
munity is calling for indigenous knowledge to be included in the establishment of climate
change data (Ford et al. 2016) and as a pathway for sustainable agriculture for small-
holder farmers (Altieri and Nicholls 2017). Converting this theoretical recognition
into practical application in agricultural extension, particularly during a period of indi-
genous knowledge loss, is a significant challenge. Whilst extension officers work closely
with indigenous farmers, mechanisms for extension officers to explore, value, understand
and implement indigenous agricultural knowledge for sustainable agriculture have rarely
been presented or assessed.
The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges and strengths of integrating indi-
genous knowledge and science through an alternative approach to agricultural extension,
the Extension for Sustainable Agricultural Development (ESAD). This review is presented
in the context of Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. The ESAD is further detailed later in
this paper.

2. Literature review
Dissemination of knowledge for agricultural development is achieved through agricul-
tural extension. Classically, this approach to development has been through transfer of
technology, whereby extension agencies obtained information and technology from agri-
cultural research and disseminated this information to farmers. Transfer of technology is
a top-down approach whereby extension information is often driven from economic or
policy decisions (Cavaye 2000). Transfer of technology fails to recognise the human com-
ponent of sustainable agriculture, such as indigenous knowledge, rather it focuses on dis-
seminating scientifically derived technical solutions which target greater yields and a
higher profit (Warburton and Martin 1999; Van de Fliert 2003). Whilst participatory
extension approaches are recognised by many as offering improved agricultural out-
comes, many developing countries continue to rely on the transfer of technology
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 135

approach for agricultural extension (Greer 2008; Thapa 2010; Rasheed 2012; Sitapai 2012;
Curtis 2013; Abdullah et al. 2014; Buyinza et al. 2015; McDonough, Nuberg, and Pitch-
ford 2015; Mossie and Meseret 2015), thus limiting these countries from progressing
toward more sustainable agriculture (Van de Fliert 2003).

2.1. Extension for sustainable agriculture

Extension for sustainable agriculture for smallholder indigenous farmers is complex and
requires local knowledge and tailor-made projects. The notion of delivering pre-defined
packages or pre-determined solutions through extension is no longer valid. For agricul-
tural extension to become more effective for smallholder indigenous farmers, it should be
contextual, participatory and include local, scientific and indigenous knowledge.
Additionally, more effective extension for smallholder indigenous farmers requires a fun-
damental shift, from extension officers being teachers of knowledge to facilitators of
knowledge. Facilitation ensures contextual solutions, values knowledge and culture,
creates trust, is holistic and understands the impacts of globalisation and post colonialism
(Kral and Falk 2004; McIntyre et al. 2009; Mur et al. 2016).
Facilitation of knowledge offers an opportunity for extension agencies to work with
indigenous farmers to create solutions to local agricultural problems through entwining
indigenous knowledge with science (thus exploring how the two ways of gaining knowl-
edge and new practice can be synthesised) which, in effect, can bring together both forms
of knowledge to create a new knowledge system. This new knowledge system would be
relevant, contextual, based on sound research, linked to the cultural context and there-
fore has the potential to be more sustainable.
Facilitating the creation of new knowledge stems from the philosophy of knowledge
management (Wiig 1993; Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno 2000; Rollet 2003). The objective
of knowledge management is to make an organisation act as intelligently as possible
(Wiig 1997) and realise the best value from its knowledge assets. Agricultural extension
which facilitates knowledge creation provides an opportunity to maximise smallholder
indigenous farmer knowledge assets and stimulate agricultural innovation.
Constructivism proposes that learners learn actively, constructing new knowledge
on their prior knowledge (Jaleel and Verghis 2015). Although knowledge management
models do not consciously align with constructivist theory, there are parallels with it.
Indeed, knowledge management is more effective when it is viewed through a con-
structivist perspective (Guizzardi 2006). The concept of constructivism has two
general and broad definitions ‘(1) that learning is an active process of constructing
rather than acquiring knowledge’ and ‘(2) instruction is a process of supporting
that construction rather than communicating knowledge’ (Duffy and Cunningham
1996, 2).
An effective alternative to agricultural extension, from the traditional transfer of
technology approach, for smallholder indigenous farmers would provide a framework
from which to create new knowledge by entwining indigenous knowledge (prior
knowledge) with scientific knowledge through the lens of constructivism. This
paper presents the strengths and challenges of employing such an approach to small-
holder indigenous farmers in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Vanuatu. The alternative
136 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

extension model developed for this study and presented in this paper is the ESAD
model.

2.2. Strengths and challenges of including indigenous knowledge in agricultural

extension
The following section explores the strengths and challenges of incorporating indigenous
knowledge into agricultural extension programmes. These challenges and strengths
further inform agricultural extension policy which seeks to incorporate indigenous
knowledge into its extension programme.

2.2.1. Perceived value of indigenous knowledge

The value of indigenous knowledge in agriculture is broadly supported by current litera-
ture (see, for example, Warren 1999; Ajani, Mgbenka, and Okeke 2013; Nkomwa et al.
2014; Jiri et al. 2016; Makate 2019). Durning (1992, 7) made an assessment of the
value of indigenous knowledge, summarising that indigenous people
… possess, in their ecological knowledge, an asset of incalculable value: a map to the bio-
logical diversity of the earth on which all life depends. Encoded in indigenous languages,
customs, and practices may be as much understanding of nature as is stored in the libraries
of modern science.

The value of indigenous knowledge does not lie simply in the knowledge of local soils,
flora and fauna, but it also offers an inherent value in mitigation and adaptation to
climate change (Nyong, Adesina, and Elasha 2007; Smith and Sharp 2012; Makondo
and Thomas 2018). Examples include the use of environmental indicators for climate
monitoring (Speranza et al. 2010), using compost mounds for improving soil fertility
(Radcliffe, Parissi, and Raman 2016), the application of agro-forestry techniques for
nitrogen fixation, the use of indigenous plants for food security during droughts, and
incorporating organic inputs for soil and pest management (Radcliffe et al. 2018). Indi-
genous knowledge approaches have the potential to be culturally appropriate, low cost,
use local resources (Gorjestani 2000), enhance agricultural sustainability (Lwoga,
Ngulube, and Stilwell 2010), and improve climate change adaptation and food security
(Mbow et al. 2019).

2.2.2. I ntellectual property

Historically, indigenous knowledge has, for the most part, been obtained by western
researchers and collectors without recognition nor payment (Drahos 2000). Perceptions,
with regards to the value and worth of indigenous knowledge, are beginning to change
across all levels of global governance (Drahos 2011). There are now treaties which
outline the importance for the recognition of indigenous knowledge, two most noted
treaties are the Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations 1992), in particular
Article 8(j), Articles 29 and 31(1) and the United Nations (2007) Declaration on Human
Rights of Indigenous People, adopted by the General Assembly in 2007. Despite these
treaties, current intellectual property arrangements cannot effectively meet the needs
and aspirations of indigenous people and open the way for creative policy alternatives
(Norchi 2000). It is acknowledged that treaties recognise the value of indigenous
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 137

knowledge, however, a purer form of intellectual property should apply to indigenous

peoples, similar to those which multinational corporations demand (Norchi 2000).
This would enable indigenous communities to benefit from identification and preser-
vation of indigenous knowledge as it would become a marketable commodity.

2.2.3. Culture and context

Much of the research based around the use of western science to build on indigenous
knowledge, and vice-versa, tends to focus on the contents of indigenous knowledge
systems (see Braimoh 2002; Gray and Morant 2003; Saito et al. 2006; Mulyoutami,
Rismawan, and Joshi 2009; Dweba and Mearns 2011; Juanwen, Quanxin, and
Jinlong 2012). Without considering the socio-cultural and economic contexts, projects
become disconnected from the communities (Briggs 2005). A western epistemology
that occludes epistemological systems of others is reductionist and distortive to the
point where it becomes intellectual and cultural imperialism (Said 1978). Decoupling
indigenous knowledge from its sociocultural context also allows it to be an ambiguous
science-like representation ‘which encourages focussing on those aspects thought to
mirror our science and technology and likely to prove amenable to further manipu-
lation’ (Sillitoe 1998, 189).

2.2.4. Misrepresentation of indigenous knowledge

Some dimensions of western culture continue to misrepresent indigenous knowledge and
culture through adaptations of traditional music/songs, commercialised copies of art and
textiles for tourism and the mimicry of cultural beliefs (Flor 2013). This is to the signifi-
cant detriment, both economically and culturally, to those who are misrepresented.
Indigenous knowledge and western science are epistemologically different, however,
both can significantly contribute to the enhancement of sustainable agriculture. The
potential of indigenous knowledge is through farmers’ intimate knowledge of their
environment and scientific knowledge contributes through its greater explanatory
powers. Unfortunately, most collaborations do not unfold in such an ideal manner, as
western scientists often ‘find it easy to discriminate against indigenous knowledge as
being of lesser value and validity’ (Ross et al. 2010, 53). Whilst epistemological conflict
was a feature of many past efforts, resolution may be achieved by first acknowledging
the two contrasting epistemologies of science and indigenous knowledge and then
designing strategies collaboratively with all stakeholders, including, scientists, extension
officers, indigenous farmers and community leaders.

2.2.5. Access to indigenous knowledge

Indigenous knowledge has a significant role in developing effective sustainable agricul-
tural systems, however, the potential is only realisable through a process which first care-
fully documents indigenous knowledge. A fundamental challenge in developing a
rigorous repository of indigenous knowledge is accessing the breadth and depth of indi-
genous knowledge required for substantial contribution to agricultural extension.
Indigenous communities often operate on a hierarchical system where, although indi-
genous knowledge is widely shared by members of a community, there are differences in
the levels of knowledge among people according to gender, age, experience and social
status (Barrera-Bassols and Zinck 2003). Therefore, identifying and accessing indigenous
138 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

knowledge ‘experts’ is a critical issue in understanding indigenous knowledge, as is acces-

sing knowledge which is socially and culturally ‘rooted’ in the knowledge system (Davis
and Wagner 2003).

2.3. Agricultural extension in Papua New Guinea

Agricultural extension officers in PNG are attached to specific research organisations
which are designed to promote the transfer of technology rather than supporting inno-
vation and who are dependent on public funding (Komolong et al. 2012). A declining
budget and 35 years of research and extension reform have resulted in a fragmented
and under-resourced national extension programme which has had limited impact in
improving productivity and income of smallholder indigenous farmers (Komolong
et al. 2012). As a result, the agriculture sector contribution to GDP has declined from
33% in 1985 to 16% in 2010 ( Komolong et al. 2012).
Extension services in PNG are ‘in disarray, poorly resourced and lack leadership and
direction’ (Sitapai 2012, 14) and the current lack of effectiveness of extension services
have resulted in low adoption of modern farming practices by many smallholder
farmers (Komolong et al. 2012).

2.4. Agricultural extension in Vanuatu

Agricultural extension services operate across Vanuatu, however, their use by small-
holder indigenous farmers is limited due to multiple factors including a lack of
qualified staff, funding for transportation and production of extension materials, and
the continued use of top-down approaches (Greer Consulting 2008). In 2012, the Min-
istry of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Biosecurity (MALFFB) identified
similar findings and responded by developing a macro-level Productive Sector Policy
which targets improved agricultural extension through a broad suite of actions. Key
targets identified in the policy include documenting indigenous agricultural knowledge,
promoting sustainable indigenous farming practices, promote indigenous food preser-
vation techniques and encourage climate-resilient indigenous crops. The approach
used in understanding and then utilising indigenous knowledge for the key extension
targets has yet to be detailed, however, it will require an alternative to the current top-
down extension approach.

3. Methodology
3.1. Study design
This paper proposes an alternative approach to agricultural extension, coined the ESAD.
The ESAD was constructed on the principles that learning should be local, based on prior
knowledge and be culturally appropriate. The function of the ESAD was to create new sus-
tainable agricultural knowledge by entwining science knowledge and indigenous knowledge
and facilitating this new knowledge to smallholder indigenous farmers. The process of the
ESAD, as shown in Figure 1, implemented four stages: construction of a knowledge
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 139

Figure 1. The four stages of the Extension for Sustainable Agricultural Development approach.

repository, thematic analysis of the knowledge, collaborative creation of new knowledge,

and practical workshops. Each stage of the ESAD model is further detailed below.

3.1.1. Stage 1: Construction of a repository of indigenous and science knowledge

Qualitative data were drawn from purposive sampling of smallholder indigenous farmers
from two study sites: Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. Purposive sampling is a non-
random technique and is the deliberate choice of participants based on the criteria a
key informant possesses (Tongco 2007). Participants in this study were selected on
being smallholder farmers who were indigenous to the region. Construction of a reposi-
tory of indigenous knowledge was undertaken through semi-structured interviews and
farmer observations. For the identification of indigenous knowledge in Vanuatu, quali-
tative data were collected from 33 semi-structured farmer interviews, 30 farmer obser-
vations and 6 semi-structured interviews with extension officers across 13 villages on
the island of Espiritu Santo. For the identification of indigenous knowledge in Papua
New Guinea, qualitative data were collected from 28 semi-structured farmer interviews,
26 farmer observations and 2 semi-structured interviews with national extension officers.
Farmer observations provided an opportunity to work alongside indigenous farmers,
which offered a greater understanding of local agricultural processes and contributed
to building farmer-to-researcher trust. Wadel (2015, 86) calls this type of observation
a work-along. In order to maintain farmer observation notes, photos, and recordings
in the correct order a digital diary was used to store data and label the recorded data
by date and location.

3.1.2. Stage 2: Thematic analysis

Data from the semi-structured interviews and farmer observations were thematically
analysed to create a repository of indigenous knowledge. Thematic analysis is an induc-
tive approach that identifies and analyses patterns and meaning from data by illustrating
themes important within the context of the study (Joffe 2012). A repository of relevant
140 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

scientific knowledge was developed from current scientific literature and extension
material from extension officers of Vanuatu and PNG.

3.1.3. Stage 3: Knowledge creation

The creation of new knowledge was achieved through the theorised Sustainable Agricul-
tural Learning Framework (Radcliffe 2017). The Sustainable Agricultural Learning Fra-
mework relies on social negotiation and shared responsibility, and more specifically,
consultation between lead farmers and extension officers. The applicability of indigenous
knowledge and science knowledge to be included in the ESAD was assessed by nine ques-
tions, as outlined below.

(1) Is it considered as valuable knowledge?

(2) Will this knowledge build community capacity?
(3) Does it support community aspirations?
(4) Will it promote sustainable practices?
(5) Will it promote experimentation and innovation?
(6) Does it build or maintain trust?
(7) Does it support gender neutrality?
(8) Does it fit within the realm of cultural and/or customary acceptance?
(9) Is there a conflict between the two forms of knowledge?

3.1.4. Stage 4: Practical workshops

The new knowledge was then facilitated via extension projects to smallholder indigenous
farmers in PNGand Vanuatu. A key imperative of these projects was that the extension
officers viewed their role as being a facilitator.
The ESAD workshop in Vanuatu included 29 participants, 14 female and 15 male. For
the determination of the shifts farmers made as a direct result of participation in the
ESAD, a follow-up semi-structured interview took place six-months after the ESAD
and collected data from 33 of the participants.
The ESAD workshop in PNGincluded 48 participants, 10 female and 38 male. For the
determination of the shifts farmer’s made as a direct result of participation in the ESAD a
follow-up survey collected data from 20 participants. Additional qualitative data gathered
from the researcher’s field notes are also included in this paper.

3.2. Study site

Two sites were selected for this study: the mountainous highlands of Papua New Guinea,
and the coastal lowlands of Vanuatu.2
The first study site was situated in the PNGhighlands, 40 km southeast of Mt Hagen,
in the village of Kukan. The PNG highlands were first settled by the Melanesians more
than 26,000 years ago (Griffin, et al. 2017). Archaeological research suggests that the
people of the highlands were among the first people to practice agriculture, growing
bananas, pitpit and green vegetables (Griffin, et al. 2017).
The second study site was the east coast of the island Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu.
Vanuatu is an archipelago of 83 islands, 63 of which are inhabited, which lies in the
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 141

South Pacific Ocean approximately 1750km from Australia. Of the 235,000 people who
inhabit these islands around 76% are involved in smallholder farming (Vanuatu National
Statistics Office 2010). The island of Espiritu Santo is the largest of the islands and has
recently received a NZ Aid funded sealed road from the main town of Luganville to
the top of the east coast, enabling increased opportunities for smallholder indigenous
farmers to access agricultural extension as well as improved market access. Vanuatu’s
limited adaptive capacity makes it one of the most vulnerable countries at risk to
climate change (Welle, Birkmann, and Rhyner 2014; SPC 2015).

3.3. Participant background

The medium age bracket of participants from PNGwas 31–40 years of age and
included 23 males and 5 females. Of the participants, 93% had a farm size <5
acres and the remaining 7% had a farm size >50 acres. Very few participants
(54%) had completed any formal education and 35% of participants started
farming when they were under 10 years of age.
The medium age bracket of participants from Vanuatu 41–50 years of age and
included 19 males and 16 females. Of the participants, 93% owned a farm <10 acres.
Most participants (54%) had completed primary school level education and 60% of par-
ticipants started farming when they we were between 10 and 20 years of age.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. ESAD topic selection
The key topics identified for the ESAD approach were soil and management, pest man-
agement, and food and nutrition.

4.1.1. Soil management

Sustainable soil and land management was the key focus of all ESAD workshops. Partici-
pants generally referred to the soil as mother which stems from the concept that like a
mother feeds and nourishes an infant, the soil feeds and nourishes farmers, their families
and the surrounding villages. Of the participants, 71.5% and 92% of participants in PNG
and Vanuatu respectively, stated they had noticed a decline in soil fertility of the past 10
years, as such, participants were seeking solutions for improved soil management prac-
tices. Of participants, 82% in PNG and 75% in Vanuatu were able to identify two or more
soil horizons and 18% in PNG were able to identify four or more. The soil horizons ident-
ified by participants aligned with scientific soil horizons, such as the Australian Soil
Classification (see Isbell 2002). Participants were also proficient in describing soil in
terms of colour texture and structure. These factors allowed for an enhanced entwine-
ment of soil science and indigenous knowledge.

4.1.2. Pest management

Pests are a constant threat to crop yields and thus was a topic which participants
requested for the ESAD workshops. Participants implemented a range of natural tech-
niques for pest management including border crops, soil mounds, and clearing.
142 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

Farmers also applied chemical pesticides, often wearing nothing more than a pair of
shorts when doing this. Pesticide application times and concentrations were rarely
understood. The ESAD approach facilitated the development of a natural farming
manual which entwined chemical options and natural techniques.

4.1.3. Food and nutrition

Prior to the ESAD, participants were uncertain how to reduce non-communicable dis-
eases (NCDs) within their family and community. The ESAD workshops used scientific
knowledge to explore NCD prevention and to comparatively demonstrate the nutritional
benefits of traditional/indigenous foods against more western foods. When surveyed
after the ESAD, 82% and 96.6% of participants in PNG and Vanuatu respectively,
responded they could make a significant improvement in family health through
enhanced use of traditional and indigenous food crops, an improvement from 58%
and 48.2% in PNG and Vanuatu, respectively, prior to the ESAD programme.

4.2 Survey results

The results from the survey of smallholder indigenous farmers in Vanuatu, shown in
Table 1, found that 70% of farmers were now incorporating composting into their agri-
cultural systems. The results from the PNGsurvey, Table 2, show that 67% of smallholder
indigenous farmers were now incorporating composting into their agricultural systems.
Other significant shifts sustainable agricultural practices of mulching, water manage-
ment, natural farming and tree planting programmes.

4.3. Discussion
This section of the paper describes the challenges and strengths of entwining indigenous
knowledge and science knowledge for agricultural extension and include references to
the research field notes and the survey data presented above in Tables 1 and 2.

4.3.1. Perceived value of indigenous knowledge

There seems to be an inversely proportional effect associated with indigenous knowledge.
As the value of indigenous knowledge is being more and more recognised by western
researchers, the value and use of indigenous knowledge are declining by those who

Table 1. Medium-term changed agricultural practices in Vanuatu.

% of participants implementing sustainable practices resulting from
Changed practice participation in the ESAD
Incorporated mulching into agricultural 70
system
Incorporating composting in agricultural 40
system
Using natural farming techniques 25
Established a soil nutrient programme 20
Following plant spacing chart 15
Establishing raised beds in low lying 13
areas
Altered crop rotations 10
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 143

Table 2. Medium-term changed agricultural practices in Papua New Guinea.

% of participants implementing sustainable practices resulting from
Changed practice participation in the ESAD
Incorporating composting in agricultural 67
system
Implementing Integrated Pest 18
Management systems
Initiated a tree planting programme 33
Improved sustainable water use 36
Incorporated mulching into agricultural 30
system
Reduced burning regime 3
Altered crop rotations 6
Undertakes regular soil monitoring 33

possess it. Indigenous farmers of PNGincluded in this study placed little value on indi-
genous knowledge and indigenous agricultural practices. In fact, it was found that
farmers who rely on indigenous knowledge were referred to as kanakas, a derogatory
term used to describe those who follow the traditional, rather than modern, practices.
Those who grew only traditional food crops were associated with being poor and even
considered by many as ‘lazy’.
In contrast, indigenous farmers of Vanuatu who participated in the research study con-
tinued to value indigenous knowledge, however, there were clear signs of an emerging tran-
sition away from applying indigenous agricultural knowledge, particularly as farmers shifted
toward European crops such as cabbage, lettuce and kava. The shift away from indigenous
practices is resulting in farmers seeking western scientific information over indigenous
knowledge, and it was observed by the researcher, that school systems explicitly taught
only scientific agricultural knowledge systems. According to the present study, the shift to
European cash crops was a conscious decision by farmers, whereby, through the sale of
produce at local markets as well as directly to tourists and resorts, they ensured their families
had access to money for school fees and western medicine.
The ESAD programme sought to promote the value of indigenous knowledge. For
example, the alignment of scientific soil horizons with indigenous soil horizons was valu-
able in facilitating learning around soil management, however the challenge for extension
agencies will be that each village classifies soil using local language/dialect and not the
national languages sustainable soil management resource development would require
village specific terminology. A further example was the ESAD programme worked
with participants to understand and construct a repository of knowledge around tra-
ditional compost mounds. Science was used to explain the composting processes and
the ESAD facilitator liaised with farmers to integrate composting techniques into
farming practices utilising local materials and scientific methods of compost preparation
were applied. As shown in Table 2, there was significant uptake of this technique by those
who participated in the ESAD.
The ESAD project also promoted the value of indigenous food crops and the indigen-
ous practices for planting and harvesting and storing. Whilst this was a highlight for
many participants, there were many requests from participants for further information
around food preparation and cooking of indigenous foods. It is recommended that
144 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

future application of the ESAD approach facilitate indigenous food preparation and
cooking.
Through the facilitation of new knowledge participants began to recognise the valu-
able role that indigenous knowledge had in creating more sustainable agricultural
practices.

4.3.2. Intellectual property

As was derived in the literature review, intellectual property laws similar to multinational
corporations may benefit indigenous knowledge as it could become a tradeable commod-
ity, although it may be argued that indigenous knowledge is already a commodity. Our
research study found that indigenous knowledge in Vanuatu could be bought and sold
through a cultural exchange, that is, people were exchanging woven mats for agricultural
knowledge. However, being a tradable commodity may result in its diffusion being
limited to those willing to pay the highest price and this may limit financially deficient
extension agencies from obtaining indigenous knowledge. Thus, if indigenous knowl-
edge is to play an important role in agricultural extension, applying of intellectual prop-
erty rights such as done by multinational corporations may inhibit its availability. A
further complication of indigenous knowledge being a tradable commodity is the ques-
tion of ownership as it may have been exchanged numerous times since the original
author. This may inhibit extension agencies from accessing indigenous knowledge as
the individual to benefit from its use may be in question. Further, in creating indigenous
knowledge as a community commodity in a hierarchical system, where indigenous
knowledge access is based on age, gender and social status, potential social issues may
occur. For example, how the compensation for indigenous knowledge belonging to a
community would be distributed among that community.

4.3.3. Culture and context

The research study from which this paper is formed, involved the creation of new knowl-
edge for agricultural extension. The entwining of indigenous knowledge and science
knowledge required putting aside western notions about agriculture and constructing
a new worldview with interconnected parts. The construction of the interconnected
parts may be difficult to achieve by extension officers since it incorporates knowledge
which is both a collective and the individual inter-generational continuum encompassing
spiritual, environmental, intellectual and physical dimensions. The extension officer can,
however, act as a facilitator and advisor and support the application of science. As an
example, from the Vanuatu study, the facilitation process enabled a repository of indi-
genous knowledge of taro (Colocasia esculenta) planting to be constructed. The reposi-
tory identified that farmers planted a ‘king taro’ at the top of each row as it was
believed that this would ensure the yielding of large corms. In addition, a combination
of ash and spit were placed on the leaves to prevent diseases and a particular type of
stick (rather than modern hand tools) was used to harvest the yam as it was believed
that these practices would also ensure an improved harvest. Scientific knowledge was
provided to farmers regarding the taro spacing and options for managing disease (includ-
ing other natural techniques) and support was provided to develop a new knowledge
system which integrated both forms of knowledge. In this case, farmers maintained
the use of the ‘king taro’ and harvest techniques, however, they also applied science-
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 145

based spacing during planting. This collaborative approach built capacity among those
involved in the project, creating lead farmers who could then disseminate the infor-
mation in context and in adherence with cultural requirements and laws, ensuring
that the knowledge was community-owned. It is recognised that this process is con-
strained by time and money and with many extension agencies in developing countries
barely able to cover the production cost of extension material, the time and costs associ-
ated with creating new knowledge are inhibiting factors, however, by better understand-
ing the cultural and social contexts of the indigenous farmers, extension agencies and
researchers may construct knowledge which more closely aligns with the local
perspective.

4.3.4. Extension agency access to indigenous knowledge

Indigenous knowledge sharing in PNG and Vanuatu is guided by complex cultural laws
which are implicit and embedded in all facets of daily life. As was observed in the research
study, much of the knowledge sharing in Vanuatu and PNG occurs through rituals,
stories and songs, and hierarchical knowledge is only shared in certain ceremonies,
such as pig killing ceremonies. Knowledge gained during such ceremonies can only be
shared with those who are at or above the hierarchical status of those participating in
the ceremony. As mentioned previously, cultural exchanges can be made for knowledge,
however, the extent to which an extension agency may make such exchanges requires
further research.
Whilst access to indigenous knowledge was, at times, difficult to access, this study
found that access was improved through:

. immersion into the community and the construction of trustworthy relationships (this
was achieved in this study by living in the community and being involved in daily
routines);
. the reciprocal sharing of scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge (it was often
the case that indigenous knowledge was not shared until science knowledge was first
shared);
. a clear set of research philosophies which reduced the power of colonialism, for
example, the Kaupapa Maori philosophies (see Smith 1999);
. placing value on all facets of knowledge, including that which was outside the scientific
realm of understanding, such as a spiritual connection with plants and food;
. allocating time for participants of an extension project to go hunting and undertake
farm duties, ceremonies and food preparation (research undertaken in both PNG
and Vanuatu required waiting for weeks at a time for cultural ceremonies to take
place before research could continue).
. Incorporating some, or all, of the above, may require significant allocations of
additional time and funding and it is acknowledged that extension projects are
often designed to fit timeframes, objectives and budgets. Extension policy should
recognise that indigenous agricultural practices often revolve around ceremonies,
annual seasons, hunting, and food collection/preparation. Successful extension
policy for smallholder indigenous farmers should acknowledge that timeframes and
budgets be designed around the participatory development of objectives (extension
officer to farmer and farmer to extension officer) and not the other way around.
146 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

4.3.5. Changed practices

Whilst challenges of integrating indigenous knowledge and science knowledge for exten-
sion include perceived low value, issues of intellectual property, potential for disconnect
from culture and context, access and misrepresentation, this study did result in the
uptake of improved sustainable agricultural practices. Six-months after participation in
the ESAD project, survey results found participants applying practices which they had
not practiced previously. Of the participants who participated in the ESAD project in
PNG, 67% were incorporating compost systems, 33% had initiated tree planting pro-
grammes and 33% were undertaking regular soil monitoring. Of the participants from
the ESAD project in Vanuatu, 70% were now applying mulching practices during the
dry season, 40% had developed composting projects and 25% were applying locally
sourced natural fertilisers.
It should be highlighted that these results represent medium term change, that is, six-
months after participation in the ESAD project. The area of farmland nor range of crops
to which farmers were applying changed practices was not measured, thus it cannot be
deemed that participation in the extension project resulted in broad application or
long-term shifts in practice. To explore these factors further research is required.
However, these results suggest that participation in the ESAD approach can shift agricul-
tural practices to become more sustainable.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

Extension agencies working with indigenous farmers are well placed to entwine indigen-
ous knowledge with science knowledge for enhanced sustainable agricultural outcomes.
This paper explored an extension approach which entwined indigenous knowledge and
science knowledge, the ESAD approach, and identified the strengths of the approach as
well as the challenges. As has been highlighted in this paper, the challenges of entwining
indigenous knowledge and science include farmer value of indigenous knowledge, intel-
lectual property issues, culture and context, access and misrepresentation. This paper
also shows that strengths of entwining indigenous knowledge and science are
medium-term changed agricultural practices of smallholder indigenous farmers.
Whilst the ESAD approach was applied to the contexts of Vanuatu and Papua New
Guinea, its philosophies of entwining indigenous knowledge and science knowledge
offer extension agencies of smallholder indigenous farmers an approach which is
bottom-up, participatory, values farmer knowledge and promotes sustainable agricul-
tural practices. However, following are recommendations to extension agencies and
for extension policy which could be applied to minimise the challenges and maximise
the strengths of the ESAD approach, they are:

. Promote the equal value of indigenous knowledge by developing a repository of indi-

genous knowledge and science knowledge for the creation of new knowledge;
. Diverge the extension officer role from being a ‘teacher of knowledge’ to being a ‘facil-
itator of knowledge creation’;
. Develop national policies which recognise the value of indigenous knowledge and its
contribution to sustainable agricultural development;
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 147

. Recognise established treaties associated with intellectual property and establish a

framework which guides knowledge access and compensation for indigenous
communities.
. Extension policies ensure timeframes and budgets are designed around the participa-
tory development of objectives and not the other way around.

Whilst indigenous knowledge and western science are epistemologically different,

recognising the value and potential contribution to sustainable agriculture of each knowl-
edge system, by both indigenous farmers and western scientists, will enhance the co-pro-
duction of more robust solutions and build trust between farmers, extension officers and
western scientists.

Notes
1. Smallholder indigenous farmers, as defined for this study, are indigenous to the region,
practice subsistence farming and have a farm size <10 acres.
2. Site coordinates: Papua New Guinea (5.8582° S, 144.2429° E) and Vanuatu (15.3004° S,
166.9182° E).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Chris Radcliffe has a research interest in Sustainable Agriculture. Chris has developed and
implemented a range of adult learning programs in the field of agriculture within Australia and
the Pacific.
Anantanarayanan Raman is a Senior Lecturer in Ecological Agriculture and Sustainable Land
Management at Charles Sturt University, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia.
Dr Cesidio Parissi is a lecturer in Problem Based Learning at Charles Sturt University, and
Program Leader for the Bachelor of Clinical Science in the School of Biomedical Sciences. His
past research areas have been in examining public participation and engagement, and community
governance development, in a local government setting. Dr Parissi’s current research interests
include studies in the realm of educational matters. In particular, these issues deal with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander educational programs, and relate to finding the connections and
relationships between Indigenous Science and Western Science. Other educational research is
about the practice of Problem Based Learning and its application in a distance education mode.

References
Abdullah, M., L C Xia, J. Li, S. Ghazanfar, Y. Mehmood, M. N. Ishaq, and S. Saud. 2014.
“Effectiveness Comparison Between the Farmers Field School and the Training & Visit
Approaches of Agricultural Extension in Two Districts of Pakistan.” American-Eurasian
Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences 14: 33–39.
Ajani, E. N., R. N. Mgbenka, and M. N. Okeke. 2013. “Use of Indigenous Knowledge as a Strategy
for Climate Change Adaptation among Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for Policy.”
Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 2 (1): 23–40.
148 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

Altieri, M. A., and C. I. Nicholls. 2017. “The Adaptation and Mitigation Potential of Traditional
Agriculture in a Changing Climate.” Climatic Change 140 (1): 33–45.
Barrera-Bassols, N., and J. Zinck. 2003. “Ethnopedology: A Worldwide View On the Soil
Knowledge of Local People.” Geoderma 111: 171–195.
Braimoh, A. 2002. “Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Soil Science to Develop a National Soil
Classification System for Nigeria.” Agriculture and Human Values 19: 75–80.
Briggs, J. 2005. “The Use of Indigenous Knowledge in Development: Problems and Challenges.”
Progress in Development Studies 5 (2): 99–114.
Buyinza, J., J. Sekatuba, H. Aaba, R. Kinuthia, and E. Kiptot. 2015. Analysis of Extension Systems in
Uganda for Identification of Suitable Extension Approaches for Scaling-up ‘Trees for Food
Security’ Project in Eastern Uganda. Kampala: NaFORRI.
Cavaye, J. 2000. The Role of Government in Community Capacity Building. Brisbane: Department
of Primary Industries.
Curtis, M. 2013. “Improving Burundi’s Agricultural Spending.” In Improving African Agriculture
Spending: Budget Analysis of Burundi, Ghana, Zambia, Kenya and Sierra Leone, edited by M.
Curtis. Burrundi: Curtis Research.
Davis, A., and J. Wagner. 2003. “Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying ‘Experts’ When
Researching Local Ecological Knowledge.” Human Ecology 31 (3): 463–489.
DeLonge, M. S., A. Miles, and L. Carlisle. 2016. “Investing in the Transition to Sustainable
Agriculture.” Environmental Science & Policy 55: 266–273.
Drahos, P. 2000. “Indigenous Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Biopiracy: Is a Global Bio-
Collecting Society the Answer.” European Intellectual Property Review 22 (6): 245–250.
Drahos, P. 2011. “When Cosmology Meets Property: Indigenous People’s Innovation and
Intellectual Property.” Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation 29 (3): 233–252.
Duffy, T. M., and D. J. Cunningham. 1996. “Constructivism: Implications for the Design and
Delivery of Instruction.” In Handbook of Research for Educational Communication and
TechnologyD. J. Jonassen, 23–48. New York: McMillan.
Durning, A. 1992. Guardians of the Land: Indigenous Peoples and the Health of the Earth.
Wahington: Worldwatch Institute.
Dweba, T., and M. Mearns. 2011. “Conserving Indigenous Knowledge as the Key to Current and
Future Use of Traditional Vegetables.” International Journal of Information Management 31:
564–571.
Flor, A. 2013. “Exploring the Downside of Open Knowledge Resources: The Case of Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and Practices in the Phillipines.” Open Praxis 5 (1): 75–80.
Ford, J. D., L. Cameron, J. Rubis, M. Maillet, D. Nakashima, A. C. Willox, and T. Pearce. 2016.
“Including Indigenous Knowledge and Experience in IPCC Assessment Reports.” Nature
Climate Change 6 (4): 349–353.
Gorjestani, N. 2000. Indigenous Knowledge for Development: Opportunities and Challenges.
Washington: World Bank.
Gray, L., and P. Morant. 2003. “Reconciling Indigenous Knowledge with Scientific Assessment of
Soil Fertility Changes in Southwestern Burkino Faso.” Geoderma 111: 425–437.
Griffin, J., H. Nelson, and S. Firth. 2017. Papua New Guinea, a Political History. Australia:
Heinemann Educational.
Guizzardi, R. 2006. Agent Oriented Constructivist Knowledge Management. The Netherlands:
University of Twente.
International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture. 2006. “Manifesto on the Future
of Seeds.” http://www.navdanyainternational.it/images/manifesti/semi/futurosemi_eng.pdf.
Isbell, R. 2002. The Australian Soil Classification (Rev. Ed.). Collingwood: CSIRO.
Jaleel, S., and A. M. Verghis. 2015. “Knowledge Creation in Constructivist Learning.” Universal
Journal of Educational Research 3 (1): 8–12.
Jiri, O., P. L. Mafongoya, C. Mubaya, and O. Mafongoya. 2016. “Seasonal Climate Prediction and
Adaptation Using Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Agriculture Systems in Southern Africa: A
Review.” Journal of Agricultural Science 8 (5): 156.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 149

Joffe, H. 2012. “Thematic Analysis.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and
Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners, edited by D. Harper and A. R.
Thompson, 210–223. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Juanwen, Y., W. Quanxin, and L. Jinlong. 2012. “Understanding Indigenous Knowledge in
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in China: Taking Two Villages from Guizhou
Province as a Case.” Forest Policy an Economics 22: 47–52.
Komolong, M. K., E. E. Omuru, and A. N. Mbabu. 2012. “The Evolution of the Agricultural Sector
in PNG.” In Capacity Building for Agricultural Research for Development: Lessons from Practice
in Papua New Guinea, edited by A. Mbabu and A. Hall. Netherlands: United Nations
University.
Kral, I., and I. Falk. 2004. What Is All That Learning for? Indigenous Adult English Literacy
Practices, Training, Community Capacity and Health. Adelaide: National Centre for
Vocational Education Research.
Lwoga, E., P. Ngulube, and C. Stilwell. 2010. “Managing Indigenous Knowledge for Sustainable
Agricultural Development in Developing Countries: Knowledge Management Approaches in
the Social Context.” The International Information & Library Review 42: 174–185.
Makate, C. 2019. “Local Institutions and Indigenous Knowledge in Adoption and Scaling of
Climate-Smart Agricultural Innovations among Sub-Saharan Smallholder Farmers.”
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 12 (2): 270–287.
Makondo, C., and D. S. Thomas. 2018. “Climate Change Adaptation: Linking Indigenous
Knowledge with Western Science for Effective Adaptation.” Environmental Science & Policy
88: 83–91.
Mbow, C., C. Rosenzweig, L. G. Barioni, T. G. Benton, M. Herrero, M. Krishnapillai, E. Liwenga
et al. 2019. “Food Security.” In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate
Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and
Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/
2019/11/08_Chapter-5.pdf.
McDonough, C., I. K. Nuberg, and W. S. Pitchford. 2015. “Barriers to Participatory Extension in
Egypt: Agricultural Workers’ Perspectives.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension 21 (2): 159–176.
McIntyre, B., H. Herren, J. Wakhungu, and R. Watson. 2009. International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Washington: Island Press.
Mossie, M., and B. Meseret. 2015. “A Review On the Role of Extension Service for Agricultural
Transformation with Particular Emphasis on Ethiopia.” Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Extension and Rural Development 21 (1): 224–228.
Mulyoutami, E., R. Rismawan, and L. Joshi. 2009. “Local Knowledge and Management of
Simpukng among the Dayak People in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.” Forest Ecology and
Management 257: 2054–2061.
Mur, L., M. Atzeni, B. Martínez-López, F. Feliziani, S. Rolesu, and J. M. Sanchez-Vizcaino. 2016.
“Thirty-Five-Year Presence of African Swine Fever in Sardinia: History, Evolution and Risk
Factors for Disease Maintenance.” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 63 (2): 165–177.
Nkomwa, E. C., M. K. Joshua, C. Ngongondo, M. Monjerezi, and F. Chipungu. 2014. “Assessing
Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Agriculture: A
Case Study of Chagaka Village, Chikhwawa, Southern Malawi.” Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, Parts A/B/C 67–69: 164–172.
Nonaka, I., R. Toyama, and N. Konno. 2000. “SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of
Dynamic Knowledge Creation.” Long Range Planning 33: 5–34.
Norchi, C. 2000. “Indigenous Knowledge as Intellectual Property.” Policy Sciences 33: 387–398.
Nyong, A., F. Adesina, and B. O. Elasha. 2007. “The Value of Indigenous Knowledge in Climate
Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in the African Sahel.” Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 12 (5): 787–797.
Radcliffe, C. 2017. “The Sustainable Agriculture Learning Framework: An Extension Approach for
Indigenous Farmers.” Rural Extension and Innovation Systems Journal 13 (2): 41.
150 C. RADCLIFFE ET AL.

Radcliffe, C., C. Parissi, and A. Raman. 2016. “Valuing Indigenous Knowledge in the Highlands of
Papua New Guinea: A Model for Agricultural and Environmental Education.” Australian
Journal of Environmental Education 32 (3): 243–259.
Radcliffe, C., N. Rihai, C. Parissi, and A. Raman. 2018. “More Than a Political Slogan: The Value of
Kastom in Extension for Sustainable Agriculture.” Rural Extension & Innovation Systems
Journal 14 (1): 91–100.
Rasheed, S. 2012. “Agricultural Extension in India: Current Status and Way Forward."Background
paper prepared for the Roundtable Consultation on Agricultural Extension, 15-17, Beijing,
March 15-17.
Rollet, H. 2003. Knowledge Management Processes and Technologies. Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Ross, A., K. Pickering Sherman, J. Snodgrass, H. Delcore, and R. Sherman. 2010. Indigenous
Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and Institutional
Conflicts. California: Left Coast Press.
Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Saito, K., B. Linquist, B. Keobualapha, T. Shiraiwa, and T. Horie. 2006. “Farmers Knowledge of Soil
in Relation to Cropping Practices: A Case Study of Farmers in Upland Rice Based Slash-and-
Burn Systems of Northern Laos.” Geoderma 136: 64–74.
Sillitoe, P. 1998. “Knowing the Land: Soil and Land Resource Evaluation and Indigenous
Knowledge.” Soil Use and Management 14: 188–193.
Sitapai, E. 2012. “A Critical Analysis of Agriculture Extension Services in Papua New Guinea: Past,
Present and Future”. CIMC National Agriculture Conference, Lae. http://www.inapng.com/
pdf_files/A%20Critical%20Analysis%20of%20Agriculture%20Extension%20Services%20in%
20Papua%20New%20Guinea.18%20July%202012.pdf.
Smith, L. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York: Zed
Books.
Smith, H., and K. Sharp. 2012. “Indigenous Climate Knowledge’s.” WIRE’s Climate Change 3: 467–
476.
SPC. 2015. Vanuatu. Suva: Pacific Community. http://ccprojects.gsd.spc.int/vanuatu/.
Speranza, C. I., B. Kiteme, P. Ambenje, U. Wiesmann, and S. Mikal. 2010. “Indigenous Knowledge
Related to Climate Variability and Change: Insights from Droughts in Semi-Arid Areas of
Former Makueni District, Kenya.” Climate Change 100: 295–315.
Thapa, T. 2010. Agricultural Extension Services Delivery Systems in Nepal. Nepal: Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Tongco, M. D. C. 2007. “Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant Selection.” Ethnobotany
Research and Applications 5: 147–158.
United Nations. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.
pdf.
United Nations. 2007. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. https://www.un.org/
development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.
pdf.
Van de Fliert, E. 2003. “Recognising a Climate for Sustainability: Extension Beyond Transfer of
Technology.” Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43 (1): 29–36.
Vanuatu National Statistics Office. 2010. 2009 Population and Housing Census: Basic Tables
Report, vol 1. Port Vila: Vanuatu National Statistics Office.
Wadel, C. 2015. “Participatory Work-Along as an Apprentice – A Qualitative Research Tool in
Studying Organisations and Work Practices.” Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 5 (3a):
85–103.
Warburton, H., and A. Martin. 1999. Local People’s Knowledge in Natural Resources Research.
Socio∼Economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research. Chatham: Natural Resources
Institute.
Warren, M. 1999. “Indigenous Knowledge for Agricultural Development.” In Traditional and
Modern Natural Resource Management in Latin America, edited by F. J. Pichon, J. E.
Uquillas, and J. Frechione, 197–212. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 151

Welle, T., J. Birkmann, and J. Rhyne. 2014. “The World Risk Index 2014.” In The World Risk
Report 2014, edited by M. Garschagen, P. Mucke, A. Schauber, T. Selbert, T. Welle, J.
Birkmann, and J. Rhyner, 1–74. Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance Development
Works) and United Nations University-Institute for Environment and Human Security.
Wiig, K. M. 1993. Knowledge Management Foundations, Thinking About Thinking. Arlington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Wiig, K. 1997. “Knowledge Management: Where Did It Come from and Where Will It Go?” Expert
Systems with Applications 13 (1): 1–14.
XXGreer Consulting. 2008 "Review of Vanuatu’s Agriculture Extension Services". https://
www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/_securedfiles/Aid-Prog-docs/Evaluations/2357736-v1-
Review_of_Vanuatu_Agricultural_Extension_PDF_Version.pdf.