Integrating Community-Based AI with Local Knowledge for Sustainable Water Governance
A Case from the Osing People
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32528/penelitianipteks.v10i2.4064Keywords:
sustainable livelihoods, artificial intelligence, indigenous knowledge, epistemic justice, water governance, Osing communityAbstract
Water scarcity is an escalating concern, especially in rural and indigenous regions where ecological vulnerability intersects with institutional weakness. This study investigates how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be integrated with the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) to enhance water governance among the Osing indigenous people in Banyuwangi, East Java. Using a mixed-method, multi-site design—including interviews, focus groups, and participatory observations—the research explores how local knowledge, social capital, and institutional structures shape community responses to AI-based interventions. Findings show that while AI offers predictive potential, its success hinges on epistemic justice and cultural contextualization. Villages with strong social and financial assets, such as Olehsari, exhibit greater readiness for AI integration, whereas others face barriers including low digital literacy, weak infrastructure, and limited trust. A hybrid model of community-based AI is proposed, combining algorithmic tools with indigenous ecological indicators and participatory design processes. The study contributes to the growing discourse on inclusive technology by demonstrating that sustainable water governance requires co-produced knowledge systems, where local and scientific epistemologies interact symmetrically. The integration of AI and SLA offers a replicable framework to address water challenges in indigenous communities without marginalizing their knowledge and identity.
References
Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. Methuen.
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies.
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.
Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. [https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205](https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205)
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
Kumar, M., Bhardwaj, R., & Zhang, X. (2020). Artificial intelligence in water resources management: A review. Journal of Hydrology, 585, 124826. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124826](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124826)
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2019). Big data from the South: Beyond data universalism. Television & New Media, 20(4), 319–335. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419837739](https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419837739)
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action (The Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge University Press.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2008). The importance of social learning and culture in water governance. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 484–495. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007)
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE Publications.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper, 72. Institute of Development Studies.
Shen, Y. (2024). Quantifying energy transition vulnerability helps more just and inclusive decarbonization. PNAS Nexus, 3(2), pgae427. [https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae427](https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae427)
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121](https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121)
UN Water. (2023). World water development report: Partnerships and cooperation for water. United Nations.
World Water Assessment Programme. (2022). The United Nations world water development report 2022: Groundwater – Making the invisible visible. UNESCO.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Emi Hidayati, Ficky Septalinda, M. Iqbal Fardian, Zidniyati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
