\documentclass[english,german]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,a4paper,tmargin=1.75cm,bmargin=2cm,lmargin=2cm,rmargin=2cm,headheight=0.8cm,headsep=0.5cm,footskip=0.5cm}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{url}
\urlstyle{same}
\newcommand\email{\begingroup \urlstyle{same}\Url}\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{wasysym} % enable use of \permil instead of \textperthousand
\usepackage{marvosym}
\usepackage{arabtex}
\usepackage{hyphenat}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{mdwlist}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\relax}
\usepackage{index}
\newindex{key}{kdx}{knd}{Keywords}
\newindex{author}{idx}{ind}{Authors}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyfoot{}
\usepackage{ifpdf}
\ifpdf
%\usepackage[activate]{pdfcprot}
%\usepackage[owner=Tapioka, print=true, copy=true, edit=false, annotate=false,set]{pdfcrypt}
%encryption: not supported any more (since pdftex 1.10)
\usepackage[pdftex]{thumbpdf}
\usepackage[pdftex]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{pdftitle={Participatory Trials of Biochar in Tamale, Ghana: Methodological Implications},pdfauthor={Imogen Bellwood-Howard, Volker Häring, Christoph Steiner},pdfsubject={Tropentag 2016: Abstract},pdfkeywords={Biochar, Ghana, Participatory methodology},pdfpagemode=None,colorlinks=true}
\else
\usepackage{ae}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\fi
\begin{document}
\ifpdf
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2016.jpg}}}
\else
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2016.eps}}}
\fi
\hfill
\parbox[b]{13.4cm}{\centering \large{\textbf{Tropentag, September 18-21, 2016, Vienna, Austria}}\\[1ex] \Large{``Solidarity in a competing world ---\\fair use of resources''\\[2ex]}}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\Large{\textbf{Participatory Trials of Biochar in Tamale, Ghana: Methodological Implications\footnote{\textbf{Contact Address:} Imogen Bellwood-Howard, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Social and Cultural Anthropology, Göttingen, Germany, \mbox{e-mail}: \email{ibellwoodh@gmail.com}}\\[0.8ex]}}
\normalsize{\textsc{Imogen Bellwood-Howard$^{1}$, Volker Häring$^{2}$, Christoph Steiner$^{3}$}}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize*}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{1}$Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Social and Cultural Anthropology, Germany}}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{2}$Ruhr University Bochum, Geography, }}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{3}$University of Kassel, Organic Plant Production and Agroecosystems Research in the Tropics and Subtropics, Germany}}}
\end{itemize*}
\index[author]{Bellwood-Howard, Imogen}
\index[author]{Häring, Volker}
\index[author]{Steiner, Christoph}
\begin{center}
\vspace{1.1cm}
\textbf{Abstract}
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize{
Interdisciplinary participatory research is a dominant paradigm in contemporary agricultural science, yet is difficult to perform and entails methodological and ideological challenges. 



This paper describes a project where farmer, marketer, and academic researchers experimented with biochar in Tamale, Northern Ghana. We present the technical results and reflect on the methodological implications of the experience. Our objective was to test and evaluate the feasibility and utility of producing biochar on"=farm and using it in cultivation. Farmers learnt to produce biochar using two different combustion technologies. They applied it to a crop of their choice in a researcher"=designed experiment using two treatments --- `farmers' normal practice' and `farmers' normal practice plus biochar'.



Our technical results show that, in this context, biochar has four main advantages. It raises yields, reduces incidences of spotting on plants, prevents mature plants wilting on the field and appears to enhance soil moisture retention. On"=farm production is feasible, although it entails cash, effprt and time costs. The advantages and disadvantages of the two technologies tested make them differentially attractive to individual farmers, who follow diverse farming strategies and have differential access to resources over the seasons.



Our methodological findings are equally important. It was challenging to reconcile methods designed to observe farmers' reaction to the technologies with those that record plant response to treatments. For example, the marketers' harvesting procedure made it hard to measure edible biomass whilst also recording their reaction to and assessment of the biochar. Farmers found certain characteristics to be important that were not observed in physical field tests. For example, many cited soil moisture retention as an advantage of biochar. However, this parameter was not measured as significantly higher for the biochar treatment. Having access to the production equipment, farmers conducted action research experiments alongside the controlled one. This led them to draw conclusions about the practicability of the technology, which played as much of a role in their evaluation as agronomic and economic performance.



We conclude that participatory research yields relevant results; enough so to warrant increased attention to reconciling traditional agronomic and social science methods with action research methodologies.



}

\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent \textbf{Keywords:} Biochar, Ghana, Participatory methodology
\index[key]{Biochar}
\index[key]{Ghana}
\index[key]{Participatory!methodology}
\end{document}
