AI-IOT Hydroponics and smart humans in the bush: There is more than one way to deal with AI
Open accessAbstract
This case study explores the contrasting approaches of two rural communities, Donkerbos, Namibia, and Sweetwaters, South Africa, to adopt AI-IoT hydroponic systems. In Donkerbos, Shorty Kandjengo, a community leader without prior farming experience, actively adopted the technology by overriding AI algorithms to adapt to local conditions by adjusting the dosing of nutrients for mineral rich groundwater and optimizing the use of solar energy. In Sweetwaters, experienced farmers Edna Mtalane and Sbongile Nkala treated AI as a "co-growing employee," maintaining strict human control over nuanced farming tasks while relying on automation for labor reduction. The study highlights how cultural context, prior knowledge, and agency shape technology appropriation, providing insight into designing inclusive AI systems in agrarian communities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These acts of repair and adjustment became an integral part of the San community's daily lives, and the system gradually evolved alongside them.
“These acts of repair and adjustment became an integral part of their daily lives, and the system gradually evolved alongside them [70].”
From Designing Responsible AI with Indigenous Communities: Towards Participatory AI with ovaHimba and San People in Namibia (2026) · cites this paper as [70]
Section 2.2 describes Shorty adjusting the hydroponic system over a year, and sections 2.2.1–2.2.2 give examples of his nutrient-dosing and lighting workarounds. The paper does not say these were acts of repair, that they became integral to the San community’s daily lives, or that the system itself gradually evolved; it says the research team considered retraining the AI. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA relational focus on learning and co-evolvement between community, the AI systems and wider ecological environment would be the basis of a strong and long-term trustworthy relation.
“This relational focus on learning and co-evolvement between community, the AI systems and wider ecological environment would be the basis of a strong and long-term trustworthy relation Till et al. [70, 71], Winschiers-Theophilus et al. [77].”
From Designing Responsible AI with Indigenous Communities: Towards Participatory AI with ovaHimba and San People in Namibia (2026) · cites this paper as [70]
Section 3.2, “Employing the AI,” reports that the South African farmers came to trust the system after two years, provided they retained control. Section 4, “Reflection and conclusion,” describes farmers adapting to the AI in different ways. The paper does not establish that co-evolution among the community, AI, and wider ecological environment is the basis of a long-term trustworthy relationship. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 10.1145/2207676.2208350 · DOI
- 10.1145/3674829.3675081 · DOI
- BA Sheikh. 2006. Hydroponics: Key to sustain agriculture in water stressed and urban environment. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary Sciences 22 2 (2006) 53–57.
- 10.1109/ETNCC63262.2024.10767553 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3674829.3675090 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indongo, N. N., Smith, R. C., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Kandjengo, S., & Mbinge, U. (2026) · Proceedings of the 19th Participatory Design Conference 2026, Vol. 1: Full Papers · doi:10.1145/3796624.3796667
“These acts of repair and adjustment became an integral part of their daily lives, and the system gradually evolved alongside them [70].”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Till, S., Kadjengoq, S., Nkala, S., Mtalane, E., & Winschiers-Theophilus, H.
- Affiliations
- The Independent Institute of Education (ZA)
- Donkerbos Community, Donkerbos, Namibia
- Sweet Waters, Durban, South Africa
- Namibian University of Technology, Windhoek, Namibia
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial African Human-Computer Interaction Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2025-11-04
- Pages
- 486-490
- OpenAlex
- W4415870716
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- African Human Computer Interaction Conference (AfriCHI) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Innovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
- Keywords
- technology appropriation, rural communities, human-AI interaction, human agency, cultural context, prior knowledge, inclusive AI design, agricultural automation, solar energy, groundwater, labor reduction, Sweetwater
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
