Discussion on “An assessment of small island hydrological research activity conducted in the Oceania Region”

¹C. Leong et al. (2023), “An assessment of small island hydrological research activity conducted in the Oceania Region”, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 68:14, 2105–2120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2252406.

ABSTRACT

The Oceania region has often been overlooked in fundamental hydrological research owing to assumptions that cultural complexities hinder such efforts. However, this perspective is somewhat naïve. Substantial evidence demonstrates that Pacific Islanders actively engage in research, contributing both local Indigenous knowledge and expert capabilities in “island hydrology.” Numerous projects and publications by Pacific Island scholars showcase this expertise. To enhance self-reliance in smaller Pacific nations, it is crucial to improve access to advanced hydrology education and secure funding to support it. Overcoming these challenges is essential to unlocking the full potential of future hydrological research in the Pacific Islands.

KEYWORDS:

• Pacific Islands
• Oceania
• small islands
• island hydrology
• hydrological research

Editor A. Castellarin; Associate Editor T. Krueger

1 Introduction

Considering that we are now mid-way through the United Nations’ 2018–2028 International Decade for Action on Water for Sustainable Development, the recent contribution to understanding the profile of island hydrological research across the Pacific Islands by Leong et al. (2023) is both welcomed and timely. From their search of the refereed scientific literature, sourced from three major databases, the authors investigated the body of published hydrology research in Oceania (i.e. the Pacific Islands) according to themes, geography, authorship and output over time. Their analysis expresses valid concerns, in particular the relative lack of fundamental hydrological investigations in the region, but also highlights imbalances in research (publication) leadership between local and foreign experts. Based on their findings, Leong et al. offer a number of suggestions, the principal one being that a transdisciplinary “socio-hydrology” approach might be a way of addressing continuing obstacles to hydrological research that are embedded within the cultural complexities of the Pacific Islands. Adopting such an approach would simultaneously reinvigorate hydrological research and help elevate the contributions of local scientists to such research.

We applaud this initiative by Leong and his team that draws attention to the issues affecting the scope and output of water research within Oceania. Indeed, the somewhat thorny issue of limited research productivity in and about the Pacific Islands is likely to be a common challenge across many scientific disciplines, not just hydrology. At the same time, however, as a group of scientists with long-standing interest in Pacific Islands hydrology, water sustainability and development, we would like to take this opportunity to question several findings in the Leong et al. study, and to offer alternative perspectives on some of the viewpoints expressed therein.

2 Acknowledging limitations and caveats

Any methodology for data collection will have inherent limitations. This is an accepted truth in scientific investigation. It is therefore usual practice to describe likely methodological shortcomings, and to acknowledge caveats that qualify the interpretations subsequently drawn. In their work, after applying certain filters, Leong et al. identified 115 research articles on “island hydrology” within Oceania in the existing peer-reviewed literature, upon which their analysis is then based. What remains unknown, however, is: how effective was their data retrieval method and, more explicitly, how much literature on Pacific Islands hydrology² was likely to have been overlooked? No information is provided, but missed literature is a certainty. This can be illustrated: if it is assumed that Leong et al. cited all 115 of the publications they identified, then their compiled bibliography on island hydrology is missing a number of relevant articles (e.g. Terry et al. 2008, Terry and Wotling 2011, Chui and Terry 2012, 2013, 2015, Terry and Chui 2012, Nolet 2016, McAneney et al. 2017, Begg et al. 2021), several of which are well-cited works.

Another question is: how did the team determine whether on not an author was an Oceania Citizen (OC)? There are several unidentified articles where the lead author is an OC employed outside the Pacific Islands, although still residing within the Oceania Region sensu stricto (e.g. Anshuka et al. 2021a, 2021b, Moishin et al. 2021). Of greater concern is that the authors stress how no single research article was OC first-authored, and then offer this point of evidence to support the notion that Pacific Island cultural habits impose a “don’t go the extra mile” mentality on local scientists, thus hindering their research productivity. Yet the Fijian first-authored works on stream hydrology (Ram and Terry 2016) and coastal aquifers (Lal and Datta 2019a, 2019b), also missed, call into question this highly subjective premise. Our request, therefore, is that the authors discuss the robustness of their methods, present some caveats on the likely completeness of their n = 115 dataset, and exercise a more cautionary tone with their subsequent interpretations.

3 Abilities and collaborations in the Pacific Islands

Leong et al. cast doubt on the perceived abilities of Pacific Islands scientists and the level of collaborative efforts in the Oceania region, which together hamper sound hydrological research. Our personal experiences over several decades suggest an alternative view, founded on previous partnerships with regional and national institutions (including SOPAC³, SPC⁴ and government departments). The main point here is that because these bodies are not academic institutions, the goal of publishing research in peer-reviewed journals will (and should) always remain low on their list of organizational priorities. Hydrologists employed in the Hydrology Division of the former Fiji Public Works Department (PWD), for instance, possess expert knowledge on the hydrological behaviour of Fiji river systems and capabilities in both field investigation and the analysis of archived data. As would be expected, however, daily operations mean that such hydrological expertise must be foremostly applied to meeting societal needs, i.e. the provision of domestic water supply, agricultural irrigation and hydro-power generation. An absence of research publications implies neither a lack of skills nor an unwillingness to collaborate. Thus, when faculty based at the University of the South Pacific (USP) requested collaboration in a joint programme of hydrological research over the period 1998–2002, PWD hydrologists proved enthusiastic and supportive, with published science as the end result (e.g. Terry et al. 2004).

4 Customization of Pacific training in IWRM

Leong et al.’s proposal for embracing a new transdisciplinary socio-hydrology approach has merit as one way of grappling with the many factors that constrain both water resources research and management in the Oceania region. However, the authors preface it by stating that, in spite of much previous discussion, there has been no bold step so far to address the socio-cultural influences. An example they give is the diploma in integrated water resources management (IWRM)⁵, launched at USP in 2007 (now discontinued), which Leong et al. believe “lacked imagination and depth” regarding the “Pacific Style” elements of the programme. We disagree with this criticism. First, the IWRM pilot programme was developed by the UNU-INWEH⁶ in close consultation with USP and SOPAC, in full recognition that holistic, cross-sectoral and participatory approaches are crucial for tackling the often unique and diverse water resources and management needs across the Pacific. That socio-cultural considerations (as well as environmental and economic issues) were not ignored is demonstrated by the specific module of the IWRM curriculum dedicated to, amongst other themes, water governance, gender issues, capacity building and community involvement (Terry et al. 2007). Second, the importance of traditional practices in land, water and environmental management was acknowledged through “Pacific customization” of the IWRM programme, in part through the incorporation of relevant local field investigations and case study components. It is worth noting that Leong et al. themselves emphasize a similar point at the start of their paper, i.e. that “imported solutions” for managing hydrology and water resources in the Pacific are unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. We agree – hence the substantial efforts to tailor the pilot IWRM programme to suit Pacific cultural contexts.

5 Socio-hydrology and Indigenous knowledge

According to Māori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith, “the Pacific has been authored by non-Indigenous Pacific scholarship in such ways that have marginalized the Indigenous knowledge systems of the Pacific and Pacific authority over knowledge” (Smith 2004, p. 5). In their paper, Leong et al. have proffered “socio-hydrology” as a research methodology advocating a transdisciplinary approach that empowers local communities through education and inclusion in research efforts within Oceania. Their hydrological research discussion, however, is centred predominantly on Western empirical and modelling frameworks that lack an intrinsic culturally grounded approach. What is missing is the socio-cultural integration advocated by Pacific Island scholars (Thaman 2003, Nabobo-Baba 2008, Naepi 2019, Smith 2021), which calls for the decolonization of research and foregrounds Indigenous Pacific peoples while advocating an emphasis on Pacific ontologies and epistemologies. Whereas Western scientific orthodoxy often prioritizes empirical and quantifiable data, this approach, unfortunately, tends to overlook centuries of Indigenous knowledge, thus limiting its contextual relevance (Smith 2021). To decolonize scientific research in hydrology is not to advocate for the wholesale rejection of theory and research (Smith 2021), but rather to imbue scientific research with more holistic methods that involve Indigenous Pacific peoples in meaningful ways. This type of blending of Indigenous knowledge with scientific inquiry is crucial. Pacific Islander values of respect (especially with regard to collaborators who hold traditional titles), reciprocity (both in the research process and in knowledge dissemination and utilization), and relationships (developed and maintained over time in a respectful manner) provide insight into how these values operate within Oceanic research (Naepi 2019). This could entail community-led data collection, acknowledging traditional water management practices, and ensuring research agendas align with local priorities, thereby fostering a research environment where Pacific Islander communities are active contributors to, and beneficiaries of, scientific understanding within their hydrological systems. From the perspective of Fijian scholar Unaisi Nabobo-Baba (2008), this means understanding the Vanua (i.e. “land”) – “the interconnectedness of people to their land, environment, cultures, relationships, spirit world, beliefs, knowledge systems, values and God(s)” (p. 143). Respecting this perspective in Pacific research is paramount.

6 Self-reliance in the Pacific Islands

We agree wholeheartedly with Leong et al. on the need for greater self-reliance in Pacific Island nations through improved education in hydrology, especially at the advanced level. Before this can be achieved, however, a major impediment must be overcome: that of limited funding. Few sponsors provide scholarships for master’s studies, while support for doctoral research is almost non-existent. Hence, the most promising postgraduate students normally seek funded PhD and MSc opportunities at universities outside the region⁷. The situation is similar for established academics within the region: resources to conduct research on water issues are scarce. The situation has unfortunately become worse in the post-Covid world, where many Pacific Islands universities are making cuts to save costs. At times various government sections may approach academia, but they do not usually bring resources with them. On the brighter side, enthusiasm is growing for hydrological research, as shown by the crop of recent theses conducted on water-related issues (e.g. Randhir 2001, Pende 2009, Yuen 2013, Lata 2014, Lal 2019, Walenenea 2019, Kumar 2020, Dorevella 2021). A number of these projects were initiated and supported by PaCE-SD⁸ at USP, a goal of the unit being to “empower the people of the Pacific with the knowledge to be able to adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue sustainable development.” Nonetheless, in spite of these encouraging endeavours, such research on “island hydrology” in the Pacific Islands will remain below the radar for any search methodology that seeks out only peer-reviewed publications.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

¹ C. Leong et al. (2023), “An assessment of small island hydrological research activity conducted in the Oceania Region”, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 68:14, 2105–2120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2252406.

² Here, “hydrology” refers to the full aims and scope of the Hydrological Sciences Journal.

³ Formerly the South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission, now a division of the Pacific Community (https://gem.spc.int/).

⁴ Formerly the South Pacific Commission, now the Pacific Community (https://www.spc.int/).

⁵ Integrated Water Resources Management.

⁶ United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (https://inweh.unu.edu/).

⁷ Such as SIDS scholarships for the MSc in water and sustainable development offered by IHE-DELFT (https://www.un-ihe.org/education/master-programmes/msc-programme-water-and-sustainable-development/tuition-and-scholarships).

⁸ Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (https://www.usp.ac.fj/pace-sd/).