Redrawing Soil Salinity Innovation-Focused Stakeholder Interaction for Sustainable Land

17 Pages·2017·0.68 MB·English

water
Article
Redrawing Soil Salinity Innovation-Focused
Stakeholder Interaction for Sustainable Land
Management in Khorezm Province, Uzbekistan
AkmalAkramkhanov1,* ID,MuhammadMehmoodUlHassan2and
Anna-KatharinaHornidge3,4 ID
1 InternationalCentreforAgriculturalResearchinDryAreas,POBox4375,Tashkent100000,Uzbekistan
2 WorldAgroforestryCentre,UnitedNationsAvenue,Nairobi3067700100,Kenya;[email protected]
3 LeibnizCentreforTropicalMarineResearch,Fahrenheitstr.6,Bremen28359,Germany;
[email protected]
4 InstituteofSociology,UniversityofBremen,Mary-Somerville-Str.9,Bremen28359,Germany;
[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected]
Received:15September2017;Accepted:29December2017;Published:15February2018
Abstract: Addressing soil salinity in irrigated drylands is tightly linked with water and land
management decisions thus requiring interdisciplinary engagement. The salinity mapping
approachesinCentralAsiaareundertakenthroughfieldsamplingandlaboratoryanalysis,which
isatimeconsumingprocess. Asaconsequence,salinitymapsarenotavailableontimetoestimate
water requirements to cope with varying levels of soil salinity. Reducing the time lag between
assessmentanddeliveryofsuchmapswouldenableauthoritiestodetermineinadvanceappropriate
watervolumesforleachingthesaltsbeforeandduringthegrowingseason. Researchinitiatedin
Uzbekistancontextexploredtransdisciplinaryandparticipatoryapproachtoinnovationdevelopment
with local stakeholders. As one of the innovations, an electromagnetic induction meter (EM),
a tool for rapid salinity assessment, was chosen and jointly with local salinity mapping related
institutions tested, validated, and local capacities for its use developed. This paper redraws this
processofinnovation-focusedstakeholderinteractionandtransdisciplinaryresearchanddiscusses
itwithreferencetoongoingdebatesonparticipatoryand/ortransdisciplinaryinnovationresearch.
Theexistenceofstrongpathdependencieswithinimplementationorientedorganizationscouldbe
observed,meaningthattheinnovationdemandsmanychangestotheexistingsystem. Furthermore,
theencounteredchallengesofparticipatory,transdisciplinaryresearchinthehierarchicallyshaped
settingofpost-sovietUzbekistanareillustratedinselectedqualitativefieldnotesandassessed. For
improvedjointlearningandresearchinatransdisciplinaryteam,feedbackcyclesofmutuallearning
and critical reflection of how to theoretically and practically work in a transdisciplinary manner
turnedouttobecrucialandnottobeunderestimated.
Keywords:transdisciplinaryresearch;Follow-the-Innovation;innovationdevelopment;electromagnetic
inductionmeter(EM)
1. Introduction
LanddegradationduetoincreasedsoilsalinityintheAralSeaBasinhasbecomewidespread[1,2].
Globally,salt-inducedlanddegradationiscommoninaridandsemi-aridregionswhereagricultureis
notviablewithoutirrigation. Over-irrigation,aswellasinsufficientandillfunctioningdrainagein
irrigationschemesareamongoftenmentionedfactorscausingsaltaccumulationintheuppersoillayer
thatnegativelyaffectssoilpropertiesaswellascropproductivity[1]. Resultingsecondarysalinization
Water2018,10,208;doi:10.3390/w10020208 www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Water2018,10,208 2of17
alsotriggeredbyotherformsofpooragriculturalmanagementaffectslargeareasworldwide,estimated
figuresreachmillionsofhectareswithvaryinglevelsofsoilsalinity. Insomecountriessalt-affected
areaconsistsofoverhalfofthetotalirrigatedland[2].
AmongthosecountrieswithalargeshareofsalinizedlandisUzbekistan. Althoughtheshareof
salinizedlanddifferswithinthecountry,provinceslocatedinthelowerreachesoftheAmudaryariver
arethemostsalinized,salinityaffectedareasexceed90%ofthetotalirrigatedland[1]. Suchdifference
isattributedtohydrogeologicalfeaturesofdownstreamareasoftheAmudaryariver,particularlyof
KhorezmandKarakalpakstanthatarelocatedinlowaccumulativeplainscharacterizedbypoorly
drainedalluviallowlandsmakingtheseareaspronetosalinization(Figure1).

Figure1.MapofUzbekistanandtheirrigatedareasinthesouthernpartsalongtheAmudaryariver[2]
(note:Khorezmprovinceisdelineatedwithawhiteboundary).
Toreclaimsoilsthataccumulatedexcessiveamountsofsaltsintherootzone,waterisappliedto
leachthesaltsoutoftheintendedsoillayer. LeachingofthesaltsinthelowerreachesoftheAmudarya
river is a common practice, consuming around 25%–30% of the water diverted for irrigation, to
keepthe soilssuitableforcropgrowth[2]and iscarriedoutunder theblanketnormsspecified at
theprovinciallevelwithoutmuchreferencetoactualsalinitylevelsduetoinadequatesoilsalinity
mappingandmonitoring. Fieldstudies[3]demonstratethatwaterforleachingapplicationsrather
excessiveandwasteful.
The salinity mapping approaches in Uzbekistan are undertaken through field sampling and
laboratoryanalysis,andresultsarethentransferredtosalinitymapsatdistrict,regional,andnational
scales,whichisatimeconsumingprocess. Asaconsequence,thesalinitymapsarenotavailableon
timetoestimatewaterrequirementstocopewithvaryinglevelsofsoilsalinity[2,3]. Reducingthetime
lagbetweenassessmentanddeliveryofsuchmapswouldenableauthoritiestodetermineinadvance
appropriatewatervolumesforleachingthesaltsbeforeandduringthegrowingseason.
1
Water2018,10,208 3of17
WiththeaimtoimprovethecurrentmethodsofsalinityassessmentinUzbekistan,theCenter
for Development Research (ZEF) of the University of Bonn under its project “Restructuring Land
and Water Use in Khorezm Province, Uzbekistan” in 2008 started a transdisciplinary process of
innovationtestingandadaptation. AsapartoftheFollow-the-Innovation(FTI)component,together
withstakeholders[4,5]anelectromagneticdeviceforrapidsalinitymappingwastested. Thetechnique
hadnotbeenusedinUzbekistansofar. Thekeyobjectivesofthisprocesswere: (i)tocreateawareness
amongselectedstakeholdersaboutthemethods;(ii)tovalidatetheuseofthedeviceasanexpress
methodforsalinityassessmentandmappingwithstakeholders;and(iii)toassistincapacitybuilding
oftherelevantstakeholdersforwideroutscaling.
Thispaperaimstoredrawthisprocessofinnovation-focusedstakeholderinteractionandjoint
transdisciplinaryresearchandtoassessitwithreferencetoongoingdebatesonparticipatoryand/or
transdisciplinary innovation research. Taking into account that effective researcher-stakeholder
collaborationsarechallengingtoestablish,developonlyoveraperiodofatleastfewyears,andrequire
substantialinvestmentsofenergyandtimetomaintain[6],thepresentedprocessofresearchjointly
with local stakeholders was one of four transdisciplinary innovation development processes [5,7].
Whileallfourapproachesweredesignedas‘transdisciplinary’researchapproaches,thelinebetween
transdisciplinaryandparticipatoryinnovationresearchwithlocalstakeholdersinthefosteringofthe
actual,practicalprocesseswasnotalwaysclear. However,insteaditwasregularly,mostlyimplicitly,
debatedandthetheoryredefinedthroughpractice. Assuch,thispaperaimstoempiricallycontribute
torespectiveongoingdebatesontransdisciplinarity.
Methodologicallythispaperisbasedontheempiricalexperienceoffosteringatransdisciplinary
innovationresearchprocessforsalinitymeasuringfromearly2008toearly2011. Itthusdrawsonthe
personalexperiencesoftheauthors,researchers,drivingoraccompanyingtheprocessaswellasa
stockofover20documentssuchasworkplans,minutesofthemeetings,andcapturingthestepstaken
duringthistime.
2. ‘Transdisciplinary’versus‘Participatory’ResearchwithStakeholders
Thestudy,indesigningtheoveralltransdisciplinaryresearchcomponentFTIexplicitlyrejected
linearapproachestoinnovationdiffusionsuchasthe‘TransferofTechnology’(ToT)approach[8]or
‘DiffusionofInnovations’[9]. Linearapproachheremeansdevelopedbyoneactorgroupandscaled
outtoothers,ofteninatopdownmanner. Instead,the‘Follow-the-Technology’(FTT)framework[10]
waschosenasstartingpoint. FTTasaparticipatoryapproachtoinnovationdevelopment,iscomposed
ofasetofstepsassumingthatoncethereisaninnovationwitha‘plausiblepromise’thatmaywork
andraiseinterestofusers,innovatorsengageinaprocessinwhichtheinnovationisexperimented
with, in real-life situations by users [11]. The process itself is one of trial and selection, leading
finallytoapointwheretheinnovationissufficientlyrobusttobereleasedmorewidelyorabandoned
becauseithasproventobeunsuitablefortheregion. ThemethodologyFTT,usesthisintervention
astheentrypointintoacomplexsituation,andthenallowswhatisdiscoveredtodeterminewhat
isimportant[10,12]. Douthwaite’sideato‘followthetechnology’wasthenadaptedtoincludeboth
technicalandinstitutionalinnovationpackages.
Withtheaimwithstakeholderstojointlytesttheinnovationpackagesandadaptthemtothe
actualreal-lifesituationsofpotentialusers, thesofarinterdisciplinaryteamopenedandincluded
stakeholdersintotheinnovationdevelopmentprocesses. Theactualinteractionbetweenresearchers
andstakeholdersconsequentlywashopedtobeoneofequalpartnershipandrespectandtherefore
be fostered through participatory approaches. Reference to participatory approaches as methods
andtoolsforfacilitatingtransdisciplinaryinteractionandresearchcanbefoundinmanydefinitions
of transdisciplinarity [13–15]. Wiesman [13] states: “Collaboration between science and society in
transdisciplinaryresearchimpliesparticipatoryprocesses”. Häberli[16]underlinestheinvolvementof
localstakeholdersandstate: “Thecoreideaoftransdisciplinarityis,differentacademicdisciplines
workingjointlywithpractitionerstosolveareal-worldproblem. Itcanbeappliedinagreatvarietyof
Water2018,10,208 4of17
fields.”Hoffmann-Riem[17]pointstothisaimoftransdisciplinaritytoproducesolutionstoreal-life
problemsanddistinguishfouraspirations: “Transdisciplinaryresearch,thereforeaimsatidentifying,
structuring, analyzing and handling issues in problem fields with the aspiration (a) to grasp the
relevantcomplexityofaproblem,(b)totakeintoaccountthediversityofthelifeworldandscientific
perceptionsofproblems,(c)tolinkabstractandcase-specificknowledge,and(d)todevelopknowledge
andpracticesthatpromotewhatisperceivedtobethecommongood”. Overall,transdisciplinaryand
participatoryapproachesingeneralarebottomupincharacterandthusaremorelikelytobeaccepted
andtakenupbylargergroupsofpeople.
Gibbons[18]andothersdistinguishMode1(ordisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryscience)and
Mode2(ortransdisciplinaryscience)knowledgeproduction[18–20]. Accordingtotheauthors,Mode
1knowledgeproductionischaracterizedbythesearchforuniversalexplanations, ahierarchically
highervaluedrationality,asorganizedwithinthesciencesystemandalargelyWesterndefinitionof
themoralvaluesofintellectualideals. Incontrasttothis,Mode2knowledgeproductionissocially
contextualisedresearchwiththeresearchquestionsbeinggeneratedfromtheresearchproblemitself,
leadingtotheproductionofheterogeneousknowledge,heterarchicallyorganizedandbasedonnew
formsofrelationbetweenscientificandnon-scientificorganizations.
For fostering these new forms of relation between scientific and non-scientific stakeholders,
leading to heterarchically organizations, heterogeneous knowledge participatory approaches are
commonly applied. Elzinga [21] points to the diversity of reasons, leading to the adoption of
participatory approaches. The range of reasons is quite broad, those that are relevant in the
here assessed Follow-the-Innovation approach are to access and include tacit knowledge of local
stakeholders in the process of testing and adapting innovations. This of course entails the critical
questionoftheparticipatoryapproachbeinginstrumentalizedbytheresearcherformerelysending
amessage,oractuallyforinspiredcommunicationandenhancedcreativity[22]. Abasiccondition
for participatory (and at the same time also transdisciplinary) research to work, based on the
experiencespresentedinCleaver[23],isthattrusthastoexist,ortobebuilt,betweentheparticipants
involved. This trust forms the fundamental basis for the mutual exchange of knowledge [5]. In
order to avoid the development of mistrust, which is highly counterproductive to any form of
participatoryprocess,Elzinga[21]pointstotheimportanceofthreecriteria: theparticipantshouldbe
independent,involvedintheresearchprocessasearlyaspossible,andbegivenresourcestoeffectively
influencedecision-making.
CriticalliteratureonparticipatoryapproachessuchasbyCleaver[23],Shutt[24]orMosse[25],
amongstmanyothers,repeatedlypointtotheimportantaspectofparticipatory(andthesameholds
truefortransdisciplinary)processesbeingsignificantlydrivenbythestakeholderhim/herself,rather
thandominantlybytheresearchersordonor-fundedprograms.Thereisstrongdependenceofoutlined
transdisciplinaryandparticipatoryprocessestoinnovationtestingandfurtherdevelopmentonthe
stakeholders’ interest. Innovation-focused interaction taken in this study reflect the stakeholder’s
interest,however,theprocesshasbeenchallengedinmanyotheraspects. Inthefollowing,weassess
thesechallengesanddiscussthepositiveandnegativeoutcomesandlessonslearnt.
3. MaterialsandMethods
3.1. StudyAreaandContext
Stakeholders engaged in the study are located in the Khorezm province which is part of
Uzbekistan,situatedintheupperdeltaplainoftheAmudaryariver. Agricultureasthemajorsector
inKhorezmprovides40%ofemployment. Themodernlandscapeoftheprovincehasbeenheavily
alteredbymenharnessingtheriverwatertocultivate270,000haofirrigatedland. Waterloggingand
salinityaffectalmostalloftheareathatisunderirrigationduetoseepagelossesfromearthencanals
andinadequatedrainageinfrastructure. Majorcropsgrownintheareaarecotton,winterwheat,and
ricethataltogetheroccupyaround70%–80%ofirrigatedland.
Water2018,10,208 5of17
Theprovinceislocatedonalluviallowlandswithelevationsrangingfrom77to132m. Khorezm
experiencesacontinentalclimate,averageannualtemperatureisaround12–15◦C,however,hotand
drysummertemperaturesreach45◦C,andcoldwinterminimumtemperaturesreach−20◦C.Annual
precipitationisaround100mm. Mostofthesoilsareloamysoils,about80%ofsoilsconsistofsilt
loams(USDAsoiltextureclassification),sandyloams,andloams[26].
The conventional method of soil salinity assessment in Uzbekistan based on soil sampling at
different depths and subsequent analysis to determine total dissolved solids (TDS) was described
by[27]. AsanalternativetoTDS,theelectricalconductivity(EC)meterandamethoddevelopedby
localstakeholderwasalsoincludedintheevaluationmatrix. ThemethodreferstoECof1:1ratio
of soil:water solution measured directly in the soil solution by EC meter. Both, TDS and EC, are
consideredasdestructivesoilsalinitytesting.
Theareaforevaluationofsalinityassessmentmethodsconductedbylocalstakeholderwaslocated
inKhankadistrict,experimentalfarmcomprisedof60haofirrigatedland. Soilswerepredominantly
ofsiltloamtextureand20locationswererandomlysampledoverthestudysite. SamplesforTDSand
ECanalyseswerecollectedat30cmincrementsdowntoadepthof150cm. Evaluationandreflections
providedbythestakeholderwerebasedoncomparingTDSandECwiththeproposedinnovation.
3.2. ElectromagneticInductionMeter—TheInnovation
Severaltechniques,suchassoilelectricalresistivity[28],timedomainreflectometry(TDR)[29],
andelectromagneticinduction(EM)[30]havebeendeployedelsewheretorapidlyassessandmap
salinity. Theelectromagneticinductionmeter(EM)isconsideredasanon-destructivesoilsalinity
monitoring method that measures bulk apparent electric conductivity (EC ) [28], and has been
a
introduced from geophysical applications. These provide an effective measuring depth of up to
1.5m, suitableforboth, deep-andshallow-rootedcrops[28]. Furthermore, thecalibrationsofEM
devicestotransferreadingsintocommonlyusedindicatorsofelectricalconductivityofthesaturation
extract(EC )orTDShavealreadybeenconducted[27,28].
e
EMcouldpotentiallyoffergreateradvantageintermsofspeedilymappingthesalinitywithout
inducingnon-samplingerrors[31]. Thedevicescanbeeasilymountedonvehiclesequippedwith
storage,connectedtoacomputer,andusedwithgeographicinformationsystems(GIS)torapidlyand
frequentlymapsalinityforvariousspatialscales. Besides,EMsurveysallowfortheidentificationof
fine-scalespatialvariationbecausetheyoffercontinuousmeasurements.
Studies conducted with an EM device to estimate soil salinity at farm scale in the Khorezm
region[26,32]demonstratedthatthisdevicecanaccuratelymapthespatialdistributionofsoilsalinity
and consequently monitor soil salinity dynamics as a basis for the evaluation of alternative land
reclamationandlandmanagementstrategiesintheAralSeaBasin. ThecostofusingEMoveralarge
areaof6400ha, whichcomprisesabout1/3ofadistrictinthehighlysalineprovinceofKhorezm,
Uzbekistan,equals3.75$/ha,comparedto146.42$/hausingaconventionalsurveyinvolvinganalyses
of43,200samples[28].
3.3. TheProcess—TeamFormation
Theformationoftheinterdisciplinaryteamprovedtobeaninterestingprocessinitself. Ittook
almostoneyearbeforetheteamcouldconfirmitsfinalactivemembership,andgarnercollectiveinterest
inpursuingtheinnovation. Initially, themembersofthegroupwerespecialistsengagedinwater
andsalinitytopicsandotherswhonominatedthemselvesduringtheFTItrainingconductedinMay
2008. Thesememberscomprisedthreecoremembersorexpertsofsalinityassessment,groundwater
and hydrology, and five support members from allied disciplines. During team formation, the
membersoptedforthekeyscientificexpertfromthedisciplineoftheinnovationtoleadtheteamand
process[4,5].Thegroupleaderfollowedaninformalapproachofseekingideas,advice,andinputsfrom
othermembersverballyandtakingresponsibilityforincorporatingtheseintotheplanningprocesses,
Water2018,10,208 6of17
andthensharingthedraftplanningdocumentswiththegroupmembers. Thisinconsequenceledto
opaquenessthatthenhadtobediscussed.
Intheteam’sownassessment,foraninitialperiodofalmostayear,theFTIprocesswasdrivenby
aone-manteamcomprisingtheteamleader,asothermemberswouldtendtosimplyagreetowhat
hewouldpropose. TheteamleaderquestionedtherationaleofcontinuingFTIastherewasalackof
interestfromotherteammembers. TheideasforwithdrawingthisinnovationfromtheFTIprocess
wereexchangedwiththeFTIteammembers,FTIcoordinator,andtheprojectmanagementaswell.
TheteamleaderrealizedatthatstagethathehadmisunderstoodFTIasastraightforwardextension
typeofexerciseratherthanaprocessofinteraction,dialogue,andjointresearchwithstakeholders.
Ontheotherhand,itwashardtospeeduptheprocessasrapportbuildingwithstakeholderswas
veryimportantbuttimeconsuming. Thechallengesthattheteamwerestrugglingwithwereclarified
withtheFTIandprojectcoordinators,asoutlinedinBox1. DuringaninternalFTIreviewworkshop,
heldinMay2009,itwasdecidedthattheFTIfacilitatorwouldjointheteamtosupporttheprocess
Water 2018, 10, 208 6 of 17
withhisexpertiseaswellasanexpertongroundwater,whoknewthelocalstakeholderswell,would
getactivelyinvolvedinthegroBuopx m1. oGrreoudpir Decytnlaym(Bicos—xE1)x.cerpt of Minutes.
Date: 13 May 2009 Box1.GroupDynamics—ExcerptofMinutes.
Location: Project office
PDaartteic:i1p3aMntasy: F2T0I0 9team leader, FTI facilitator, FTI assistant, water specialist, project coordinator
Location:Projectoffice

Participants:FTIteamleader,FTIfacilitator,FTIassistant,waterspecialist,projectcoordinator
Background:
TBhaec kmgreoeutinndg: was a follow up of discussions at an internal FTI review (April 2009). The team leader felt
lTikhee “moeneet-imnganw”a steaamfol laosw huisp teoafmdi smcuesmsiboenrssa tteanndi ntote arngareleF TtoI reevveierywth(Ainpgr iplr2o0p09o)s.eTdh. eInt ehaims vleieawde, rthfeel ttleiakme
h“aodne n-mota mn”atdeea mmuaschh ipsrtoegamresms esminbceer Nstoevnedmtobearg 2re0e08to, aenvder tyhthuisn tgripgrgoeproesde do.piInniohnissv dieuwri,ntgh ethteea FmTIh aredvnieowt
made much progress since November 2008, and thus triggered opinions during the FTI review that this
that this innovation should be shelved on account of lack of interest by members. At the same time, a
innovationshouldbeshelvedonaccountoflackofinterestbymembers.Atthesametime,anumberofpotential
number of potential stakeholders were identified, and several showed keen interest in the innovation.
stakeholderswereidentified,andseveralshowedkeeninterestintheinnovation.

OOuuttccoommee::
Thefollowingroadmapwasagreedon:
The following roadmap was agreed on:
a()a )TeaTema mlealedaedre wrwilli lwlwrirtiete aa bbrrieieff ddeessccrriippttiioonn ooff tthhee iinnnnoovvaatitoionnfo frotrh tehset astkaekheohldoeldrse;rs;
(b) FTIfacilitatorwilljointheteamasamemberandvisitpotentialstakeholderstogetherwiththeteamleader
b) FTI facilitator will join the team as a member and visit potential stakeholders together with the team
tobringthepotentialoftheinnovationtotheattentionoftheseorganizations;
leader to bring the potential of the innovation to the attention of these organizations;
(c) Ifstakeholderinterestwasnothighenough,afinaldocumentationwouldbeprepareddescribingthe
c) If srteaskuelthsoolfdtehri sinFtTeIreesffto wrtaasn ndoetx hpilgahin einngowughhy, sat afkineahlo dldoecrusmweernetantoiotnin wteroeustledd b;e prepared describing the
(d)resIuflatns yofp tohteisn tFiaTlI setaffkoerht oalndder eixspinlateinreinstge dw,thhye rsetawkiellhboeldaefrosl lwower-eu pn,odt eipnetenrdeisntgedo;n theinterest.
d) If any potential stakeholder is interested, there will be a follow-up, depending on the interest.
Basedonthesediscussions,aroadmapwasdraftedindicatingactivities,responsibilities,and
Based on these discussions, a road map was drafted indicating activities, responsibilities, and
timelinesasillustratedinFigure2.
timelines as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Roadmap of the Salinity Assessment Team.
Figure2.RoadmapoftheSalinityAssessmentTeam.
3.4. Stakeholder Selection
A list of potential stakeholders was initially assembled by the collective knowledge of the team
members, and shared across many others for the inclusion of additional potential stakeholders. Once
listed, the team then prepared a matrix with stakeholders’ mandates, jurisdiction, location, and
perceived interest in the innovation, based on the advantages the innovation offered. A split was made
based on the differences between the stakeholders directly using tools to measure in practice
(implementing institutions) and those who educated and trained others on how to use tools to measure
soil salinity (educational institutions).
In the following these stakeholders are coded as follows: Stakeholder 1 is a research organization,
Stakeholder 2 is a salinity mapping organization, Stakeholder 3 is an educational institution, Stakeholder
4 represents an administrative unit with salinity mitigation mandate, and Stakeholder 5 is an applied
research institute.
The suitability of the presented innovation needed to be assessed by the stakeholders and their
interest confirmed in terms of their needs and financial constraints. After the stakeholders’ interest was
verified, the team expected to work with a delegated specialist/person from the stakeholder’s institution.
Water2018,10,208 7of17
3.4. StakeholderSelection
Alistofpotentialstakeholderswasinitiallyassembledbythecollectiveknowledgeoftheteam
members,andsharedacrossmanyothersfortheinclusionofadditionalpotentialstakeholders. Once
listed, the team then prepared a matrix with stakeholders’ mandates, jurisdiction, location, and
perceived interest in the innovation, based on the advantages the innovation offered. A split was
madebasedonthedifferencesbetweenthestakeholdersdirectlyusingtoolstomeasureinpractice
(implementinginstitutions)andthosewhoeducatedandtrainedothersonhowtousetoolstomeasure
soilsalinity(educationalinstitutions).
Inthefollowingthesestakeholdersarecodedasfollows: Stakeholder1isaresearchorganization,
Stakeholder 2 is a salinity mapping organization, Stakeholder 3 is an educational institution,
Stakeholder4representsanadministrativeunitwithsalinitymitigationmandate,andStakeholder5is
anappliedresearchinstitute.
The suitability of the presented innovation needed to be assessed by the stakeholders and
their interest confirmed in terms of their needs and financial constraints. After the stakeholders’
interest was verified, the team expected to work with a delegated specialist/person from the
stakeholder’sinstitution.
Outof11potentialstakeholderstheteamdiscernedfivekeystakeholdersusingthefollowing
criteria: (a)directmandatetoassessandmapsoilsalinity,(b)dependenceofongoingactivitiesonsoil
salinityassessment,and(c)promotionofinnovativemethodsinnaturalresourcemanagement. While
theprojectstaffitselfalsocarriedoutsoilsalinityassessmentsusingEM,directinvolvementofthe
selectedstakeholdersintheproject’son-goingmeasurementswasfoundtobecomplicatedbecause
moststakeholderswerelocatedfarfromKhorezm. Thepossibilitytobringthestakeholderstothe
project site in Urgench would not be as useful as to let them use EM in practice during their field
work. Therefore,basedonananalysisofstakeholdermandates,thefollowingstakeholder-specific
engagementstrategieswereoutlined:
• Visiton-goingStakeholder1’ssoilsurveyexpeditionsintheKhorezmregionattheirsitetoshow
andusetheequipment;
• CollaboratewithStakeholder2becauseoftheirdirectmandatetoassessandmapsalinityand
locationwithinthesamecityasthatoftheproject’slocation;
• ConducttrainingontheuseandcalibrationofEMtoselectededucationalinstitutions;
• DiscusswithStakeholder5thepossiblecalibrationofEM;
• Whilesomeinstitutionshadthecapacityandexperienceofinitiatingandfundingprojects,other
institutionslackedthatcapacity. Demandfrominterestedstakeholderscouldbepooledtogether
toorganizeandinitiateacollaborativefundingproposalforthepurchaseofEM.
4. ResultsandDiscussion
4.1. ProcessImplementation
Theinitialsteps,i.e.,roadmapwritingandstakeholdermapping,wereemployedasplanning
tools,whileremainingflexibleforrefiningtheroadmapbasedonthestakeholderengagementsand
theirinterests.
Fortheinteractionswiththepotentialstakeholders,abriefdescriptionofthedeviceanditsuse
was prepared in Uzbek and Russian languages that included key results of the correlation of the
devicereadingswithsoilsalinitydatameasuredinthelaboratory. Additionally,thedevicewastaken
alongfordemonstration. Anumberofactivitieswereundertakenbyteammembersin2009and2010
towardsinitiatingthetransdisciplinaryprocesseswithpotentialstakeholdersin2009(Table1).
Water2018,10,208 8of17
Table1.Stepstakenduring2009–2010.
# Activity Time
1 Roadmappreparation 15January2009
2 Landmanagementprogramsecretariatvisited 10March2009
3 Seminarorganizedbyaninternationalagriculturalresearchcenter 23March2009
4 Teaminternaldiscussion(e-mail) 4May2009
5 Internaldiscussionaboutfutureplans 18May2009
6 DiscussionwithStakeholder1regardingsurveyintheregion 19–20May2009
7 Stakeholder1letterforjointexperimentation 22May2009
8 CollaborationwithStakeholder1tojoinEMsurveywiththeirsoilsurveyintheregion 28–30May2009
9 InitialmeetingwithStakeholder2 13June2009
10 InitialmeetingwithStakeholder3 29June2009
11 InitialmeetingwithStakeholder4 30June2009
12 MeetingwithStakeholder1 7July2009
13 MeetingwithStakeholder5 3August2009
4.2. Stakeholder1
Stakeholder1’sprimarymandateisresearchinsoilscienceandalsoprovidingsupportinsoil
surveystostateorganizations. Initialcontactwithamanagerial-levelstaffwaspositive,whoshowed
keen interest in the innovation as it would ease their job related to salinity mapping, though the
need for sampling based analyses would still remain, as the organization could not change the
standardprocedures. TheFTIteamundertookEMmeasurementswhenthestakeholder’sfieldteam
implementedtheirsoilsurveyinKhorezmregionduringspring2009. Thepurposewasto(a)interact
with field staff, (b) demonstrate EM at work on their site, and (c) prepare maps to present at the
Stakeholder 1 meeting. Follow up was to be decided based on reactions from Stakeholder 1 staff
afterthepresentation. AletterfromStakeholder1expressinginterestincollaborationandinviting
theprojectstafftoundertakeanEMsurveyinparallelwiththeirroutinesoilsurveywasreceivedin
May2009confirmingtheirinterest. TheFTIfieldassistantjoinedtheStakeholder1teamfor3daysto
jointlyconductasalinitysurvey. TheFTIteamleadervisitedthesiteforbackstoppingandmeeting
withtheStakeholder1teamandtoexplainthepurposeoftheEMmeasurements. Severalquestions
rangingfromtheworkingprinciplesoftheinstrumentandinfluencingfactorstothedevicereadings
tothepracticaluseofEMforthepurposeofsoilsurveyswereexplored. Thesoilsurveyteamleader
hadreservationsduetodifferentworkingprinciplesthatledtosuspicionsabouttheaccuracyofits
measurements. The fact that the device was of foreign origin, and not yet certified by agencies in
Uzbekistanmighthavecausedfurtherobjections. Duringthediscussions,Stakeholder1wasmainly
concernedaboutthehighprice,thenecessitytocarryandwalktomaplargeareasinadditiontotheir
mainworkloadofsoilprofiledescriptions,andthedetailedlaboratoryanalysestheyroutinelydoto
obtainsalinitytypesandioncompositionsregardlessoftheexpressmethodsthatStakeholder1owns
tomeasuresoilsalinity. TheStakeholder1teamleadermentionedthattheexistingexpressmethods
basedonelectricconductivitytomeasuresoilsalinity,whichwerealreadycertifiedandwereinuseby
someothersalinityassessingorganizationswithinUzbekistan,wererarelyusedbyhisorganization.
Thisinpartimpliedthattheorganizationwasrelativelyconservativeintheirapproachandthuswas
reluctantinmakinguseofinnovativeapproaches.
Results from EM surveys conducted by the FTI team were shared with Stakeholder 1 for
comparison. However,lengthysoilsurveyexpeditionsinotherregions,andthetimerequiredfor
laboratoryanalysesofthesoilsamplescollectedwerepresentedbyStakeholder1asthemainreasons
foralackoftheirprogressincomparingthetwomethods. SeveralattemptsfromtheFTIteamto
inquire about the progress later on did not yield much. Consequently, the FTI team decided not
topursuewithStakeholder1unlessthestakeholderaddressedtheprojectoutofthestakeholder’s
interest. Afterthis,therewasnofurtherfollow-uponcollaborationfromeitherside.
Water2018,10,208 9of17
4.3. Stakeholder2
The primary responsibility of Stakeholder 2 is to monitor salinity within the stakeholder’s
respective province. These maps are then sent to their national superior office. The FTI team saw
thatsinceStakeholder2’smandatewasclosertowhattheinnovationcoulddeliverandbecausethe
organizationwaslocatedwithinKhorezmprovince,thediscussionsproceededfasterandahighlevel
ofenthusiasmforpartnershipabouttestingtheinnovationwasobserved.Thechieftechnical-levelstaff
wasapproachedforthefirstcontact,whohadareputationofanexpertinterestedinmodernmethods.
The interaction gave an initial impression that the stakeholder would be interested in partnering
withFTI.Despiteaninitialwarmresponseandenthusiasm,astheprocessdynamicsinBox2show,
staffchange,busyscheduleandtheneedofconfirmationfromthemanagerial-levelofStakeholder2,
resultedintheengagementwiththestakeholderbeingonholdduringtheentire2009–2010.
Box2.InitialMeetingwithStakeholder2—ExcerptofMinutes.
Date:11June2009
Location:OfficeofStakeholder2,Urgench
Participants:2technical-levelstaffofStakeholder2,FTIteamleader,FTIcoordinator,FTIgroundwaterspecialist
Asaroutine,Stakeholder2selectsthreefarmsperseasonperdistricttoestimatesalinity,andtheseselected
farmsarerotatedeveryyear.Thesoilsalinitysurveysarecarriedoutduringtheautumnperiod.Soilsamples
aretakenandanalyzedinStakeholder2’slaboratoryintheprovincialcapital,Urgench.Stakeholder2seemsto
beopentotheinnovation,astheyhavealreadytestedalternativemethodswhichtheyfoundsuitableformoist
conditionswhilenotaccuratefordrysoils.
Also,theyhaveoftenbeencalledbygovernmentagenciestoprovidequickestimatesofsoilsalinityinfields
whichputsadditionalpressureonStakeholder2’sleanstaffcapacity.Furthermore,farmersoftenaskforadvice
onthesalinitylevels(distinguishingbetweennotsaline,moderateorhighlysaline)oftheirfields.
ThedemandforspeedyresultsfrominterestedagenciesandfarmersseemedtobethemainadvantageofEM
forthestakeholder. Stakeholder2staffaskedforthemanualinUzbekorRussianlanguagestofamiliarize
themselves.Additionally,theFTIteamsuggestedconductingmeasurementswithEMduringStakeholder2’s
salinitysurveyonfarms,aswellaspresentationstointerestedstaffandfarmersontheuseofEM,working
principle,andmapsgeneratedusingEMreadingsinJuly.TheFTIteamalsopromisedtomakeasmallwrite-up
inUzbeklanguageontheuseofEM,whichcouldthenbeexpandedintoaguidebook. TheStakeholder2’s
representativeagreedtoappraisetheteamonasuitabledateforpresentationandfurtherdiscussions.
However,theStakeholder2didnotkeepitspromiseofappraisingtheFTIteamontheirinterest
further. The team leader called a few times and learnt that the chief technical specialist had been
transferredtoanotherorganization.
4.4. Stakeholder3
ThediscussionswithStakeholder3,whichhasprimarilyateachingmandate,ledtheteamto
believethatwhilesuchinstitutionsmightbemoreinterestedintestingandvalidation,theuseofthe
innovationbysuchinstitutionswouldnotnecessarilyresultinwidescaleadoptionifsuccessfully
verified,becausetheinnovationwouldremainintherealmofaneducationalfacility.Besides,academic
testingoftheinnovationhadalreadybeenundertakenbytheZEFprojectandanyreplicationwould
notaddvaluetotheinnovation,unlessitwasundertakeninthestakeholder’sreal-lifesituation. The
collaborationwasthereforenotpursuedfurther.
4.5. Stakeholder4
Additionally,Stakeholder4,responsibleforlandrehabilitation,andinspiredbyaTVinterview
withthestakeholder’smanageriallevelonmethodsforsalinityassessment,wascontacted(Box3).
Water2018,10,208 10of17
Box3.MeetingwithStakeholder4—ExcerptofMinutes.
Date:30June2009
Location:OfficeofStakeholder4,Tashkent
Participants:Managerial-levelofStakeholder4,FTIteamleader,FTIfacilitator
Thehostexpressedinterestintheinnovationanditscapacitiesaswellasattachedcostsandsuggestedtomeet
withthemanagerial-levelstaffresponsiblefortherespectivedepartmentintheMinistryofAgricultureand
WaterResources,todiscusspossibleimplementation.Additionally,thehostpromisedthathewouldpresentthe
innovationtoitsboardandifapproved,wouldletusknowtodiscussandproceedfurther.
Inafollow-upphonecallthestakeholderneverthelessconfirmedhisinterestintheserviceitself,
butnottheuseofthetoolbyhisinstitution. Withthisthepotentialforjointexperimentationceased.
Furthermore,theprojectteamcontactedseveralinternationallyfundedprojectsanddonoragencies
dealingwithsalinitymitigation.Thedialogueswiththesestakeholdersneverthelessindicatedthatthey
wereinterestedinpurchasingtheservicesofwell-equippedandscientificallyvalidserviceproviders
forcoveringlarge-scaleaswellasintrainingsfortheuseofEM,butnotinterestedinworkingwiththe
innovationitselforinatransdisciplinary,jointexperimentationandvalidationofthetooltogether
withtheproject.
4.6. Stakeholder5
TheFTIteamthoughtthatStakeholder5wouldbepotentiallyinterestedintheinnovationdueto
itsmandateonboth,researchandimplementationaspectsofsalinityassessment. Besides,Stakeholder
5inthepasthadbeenengagedinthelocalassemblyandtheuseofdifferentexpressmethodsofsoil
salinityassessmentusingelectricalconductivity. Furthermore,otherstakeholdershadvoicedtheir
interestinworkingwithinstitutionssimplyprovidingtheserviceofEM-basedsalinityassessment.
Fromaprojectperspective,Stakeholder5seemedpotentiallytobethisserviceprovider. Asoutlined
inBox4,thetechnical-levelstakeholderrepresentativeduringthefirstmeetingshowedinterestin
validatingandpotentiallyoutscalingthetool. Thiswasthenfollowedupwithameetingwiththe
managerial-levelforfullapprovalandsupportforthefurthertransdisciplinaryprocess.
Box4.InitialMeetingwithStakeholder5.
Date:30June2009
Location:OfficeofStakeholder5,Tashkent
Participants:Technical-levelofStakeholder5,FTIteamleader,FTIcoordinator
Asconventionalsoilsalinityanalysesandtheclassifyingcategoriesusedarenotaccurate,Stakeholder5analyses
largeamountsofdatatoimproveaccuracyofsalinityECprobeswithingivensoilmoistureranges.Mostofthe
workisdoneforresearchpurposesandtheupscalingoftheresultsremainsapracticalchallenge.
TheFTIteamindicatedtheaccuracyoftheEMcalibrationrangedfrommainly60%to80%whichseemedlow
tothehost.Duringthemeetingtheparticipantsagreedthatthestakeholder’slaboratorywouldcalibrateEM
ontheirstudyarea. Theprojectwouldsupporttheworkduringthiscalibrationperiodwithtransport,field
assistants,andothernecessaryinputs.Thelaboratorywouldprepareaformal‘statementofrecord’withthe
resultsofcalibration.Thiscalibrationwouldbeafirstmilestoneforfurtherplanning.
Theinterestofthestakeholderwasfurtherconfirmedinameetingwiththemanagerial-level
(Box5),whereatentativeroadmapofcollaborativeinnovationtestingwasdiscussed,prepared,and
formallyagreedthroughapartnershipagreement.