Indigenous Knowledge of Water Management, Biodiversity Conservation and Local Development in Rural India: A Case Study of the Thanagazi Region (Rajasthan, India)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional irrigation, as part of the ancient agricultural practices in India has persisted for long time since the past. The main objective of this paper is thus to investigate the peculiarities pertinent to traditional irrigation management in Rajasthan, India. The experience gained from such areas can definitely help make irrigation management system of new irrigation schemes sustainable. Based on the study case of Thanagazi region, Rajasthan, the article seeks to demostrate that this form of traditional knowledge has been determinant in enhancing the conservation of the local ecosystem and also the development of rural communities dwelling in that area. The article develops this understandig through the examination of the johads and their impact on local communities. It shows how this traditional water harvesting tradition fits into the local ecological, socio-economic and cultural system present in the Thanagazi region. The main peculiarities that contributed to the persistence of traditional irrigation system are also identified, and they are: the presence of a system which is easily mastered by the local members of communities, the presence of communally constructed local rules, locally designed hydraulic control structures, ownership feeling of the irrigators and equity in water distributions, the culture for mobilizing communal resources and the culture of self-initiating local water management strategies. Lessons on the role of traditional water harvesting system and their role in promoting conservation and sustainable development are finally drawn.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".