Self-organization of water management and its problems in the Vista Hermosa hamlet in the San Marcos department, Guatemala
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35197/rx.05.03.2009.12.kbKeywords:
collective actions, local knowledge, mayan, common resourcesAbstract
As a natural resource and key to human survival, water was and is of great political and economic importance. The global shift from the capitalist system to neoliberalism in recent years has caused intense discussion about how natural resources should be managed: by the state, by private companies or by user groups. This discussion includes a debate about applied knowledge, distinguishing between scientific knowledge from external experts and local knowledge from users. The Maya developed an elaborate water management system and a great deal of local knowledge regarding the environment. The aim of this study is to investigate the current knowledge of the Maya about water management, collective actions in its management and the structure, rules, property rights and problems of water projects. Between May 2006 and January 2007, this was investigated in the Vista Hermosa village (Guatemala) with the help of 59 research partners through observations, interviews and participatory methods. Key informants provided a first picture of local water management, and starting with them, the snowball principle was applied to get to know the other informants. The data (maps, interviews, etc.) were coded and analyzed, for example, according to frequencies, differences or similarities in the codes. The water supply system in Vista Hermosa is organized by several small water projects that are managed by groups of users through a rotation of representative positions, a collective elaboration of the rules, collective maintenance and a collective solution of conflicts in the project. Through the communal organization of water management in Vista Hermosa, the local knowledge of its inhabitants is expanded by knowledge about the management of a common infrastructure. The state's neglect of water supply in rural areas favors self-organization of supply and prevents local knowledge and scientific knowledge from being in conflict with each other. This also leaves the property rights to the supply system and to the water itself in the hands of the local population.
Downloads
References
Agrawal, A. 1995. Indigenous and scientific knowledge: some critical comments. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3(3): 3-6.
Agrawal, A. y C. C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World development 27(4): 629-649.
Atteslander, P. 2003. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Baland, J. M. y J. P. Platteau. 2000. Halting degradation of natural resources. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Becker, J., K. Fischer y J. Jäger. 2003. Drei Jahrzehnte Neoliberalismus in Lateinamerika. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik 19(3): 7-18.
Berghuber, K. 2008. Conocimientos, problemas y estrategias de la gestión del agua en el caserío Vista Hermosa del departamento San Marcos, Guatemala. Tesis docotral,
Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien.
Berkes, F. 2003. Cross scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. En Ostrom E. (ed.), The drama of the commons. pp 293-322. National Academy Press,
Washington DC.
Berkes, F. 1999. Role and significance of ‘tradition’ in indigenous knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 7(1): 19.
Berkes, F. y C. Folke. 2002. Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In: L., H. Gunderson y C.S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy. Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Island Press, Washington DC.
Berkes, F. y C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berkes, F., J. Colding y C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social – ecological systems. Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berkes, F., J. Colding y C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological
Applications 10(5): 1251-1262.
Bernard, R.H. 2002. Research methods in anthropology - qualitative and quantitative approaches. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.
Bromley, D.W. 1992. Making the commons work; Theory, practice and policy. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco.
Burnicki, R. 2002. Anarchismus und Konsens.
Edition AV, Francfurt.
Burnicki, R. 1998. Anarchie als Direktdemokratie. Selbstverwaltung, Antistaatlichkeit. Eine Einführung in den Gegenstand der Anarchie. Syndikat A Medienvertrieb, Moers.
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom y P.C. Stern. 2003a. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302: 1907-1912.
Dietz, T., N. Dolssak, E. Ostrom y P.C. Stern. 2003b.
The drama of the commons. In: Ostrom
E. (ed.), The drama of the commons. pp 3-
National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Feeny, D., F. Berkes, B.J. McCay y J.M. Achenson. 1990. The tragedy of the commons: twenty- two years later. Human Ecology 18(1): 1-19.
Flavelle, A. 2002. Mapping our land. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton.
Graeber, D. 2004. Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago.
Holloway, J. 2006. Die zwei Zeiten der Revolution. Würde, Macht und die Politik der Zapatistas. Turia + Kant, Wien.
Kaltmeier, O., J. Kastner y E. Tuider. 2004. Cultural Politics im Neoliberalismus. Widerstand und Autonomie sozialer Bewegungen in Lateinamerika. En Kaltmeier, O., J. Kastner y
E. Tuider (eds.) Neoliberalismus, Autonomie, Widerstand. Soziale Bewegungen in Lateinamerika, pp 7-30. Westfälisches
Dampfboot, Münster.
Lalonde, A. y G. Morin-Labatut. 1994. Indigenous knowledge, innovation and sustainable development: an information sciences perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Development Alternatives 14(1)/2: 206-221.
Lee, T.R. 1999. Water management in the 21st century: The allocation imperative. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Malorny, C. y M.A. Langner. 2002. Moderationstechniken. Werkzeuge für die Teamarbeit. Hanser, München.
Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative researching. SAGE Publications, Londres.
Mikkelsen, B. 2000. Methods for development and research. Sage Publications India, Nueva
Dehli.
Müller-Herbers, S. 2007. Methoden zur Beurteilung von Varianten. Arbeitspapier, Fakultät Architektur und Stadtplanung, Institut für Grundlagen der Planung, Universidad Stuttgart.
Oficina Municipal de Planificación. 2002a.
Diagnostico territorial del municipio de San
Antonio Sacatepéquez. Oficina Municipal de Planificación, San Antonio Sacatepéquez.
Oficina Municipal de Planificación. 2002b. Diagnóstico Participativo Comunitario, Caserío Vista Hermosa. Oficina Municipal de Planificación, San Antonio Sacatepéquez.
Ostrom E. 2003. The drama of the commons.
National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Ostrom, E. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3): 137-158.
Ostrom, E. 1999. Die Verfassung der Allmende: jenseits von Staat und Markt. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.
Ostrom, E. 1992. Diseño de instituciones para sistemas de riego auto-gestionarios. Institute
for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco.
Quinlan, M. 2005. Considerations for collecting freelists in the field: Examples from Ethnobotany. Field Methods 17(3): 219-234.
Rudolph, K. 2003. Eine quantitative Evaluationsmethode: Das Spinnennetzdiagramm. www.dasan.de/refo21/archiv/ergeb/arc_erg_05 03/evalu_meth_skr.doc (2.10.07).
Runge, C.F. 1992. Common property and collective action in economic development. In: Bromley , D.W. (ed.), Making the commons work; Theory, practice and policy. Pp. 17-39. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco.
Schnegg, M. y H. Lang. 2002. Netzwerkanalyse, eine praxisorientierte Einführung. Methoden der Ethnografie 1:3-55.
Schönhuth, M. y U. Kievelitz 1994. Participatory learning approaches. TZ-
Verlagsgesellschaft, Roßdorf.
Schui, H. 2003. Was ist eigentlich Neoliberalismus?
Journal für Entwicklungspolitik 19(3): 19-34. Scott, J. 2000. Social network analysis. Sage
Publications, Londres.
Selener, D., N. Endara y J. Carvajal. 1997. Sondeo rural participativo. Instituto Internacional de Reconstrucción Rural, Quito.
Sheil, D., R. K. Puri, I. Basuki, M. Van Heist, M. Wan, N. Liswanti, Rukmiyati, M.A. Sardjono,
I. Samsoedin, K. Sidiyasa, Chrisandini, E.
Permana, E.M. Angi, F. Gatzweiler, B. Johnson y A. Wijaya. 2002. Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes – Methods for a multidisciplinary assessment. Jakarta: Centre for International Forestry Research.
Shiva, V. 2003. Der Kampf um das blaue Gold. Ursachen und Folgen der Wasserverknappung. Rotpunktverlag, Zürich. Sillitoe, P., P. Dixon y J. Barr. 2005. Indigenous knowledge inquiries. ITDG Publishing,
Bourton Hall.
Vitale, L. 1990. Umwelt in Lateinamerika – die Geschicht einer Zerstörrung. ISP, Frankfort.
Weller, S.C. y A. K. Romney. 1988. Systematic Data Collection. Sage Publications, Londres.
Wittfogel, K.A. 1977. Die orientalische Despotie: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung totaler Macht. Ullstein, Frankfurt.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2009 Konrad Berghuber, Christian R. Vogl , Silvel Elias
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Usted es libre de:
- Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato
- Adaptar — remezclar, transformar y construir a partir del material
- La licenciante no puede revocar estas libertades en tanto usted siga los términos de la licencia
Bajo los siguientes términos:
- Atribución — Usted debe dar crédito de manera adecuada , brindar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios . Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que usted o su uso tienen el apoyo de la licenciante.
- NoComercial — Usted no puede hacer uso del material con propósitos comerciales .
- No hay restricciones adicionales — No puede aplicar términos legales ni medidas tecnológicas que restrinjan legalmente a otras a hacer cualquier uso permitido por la licencia.
