In the wake of a growing concern about both the unchecked rise of poverty and the local and global consequences of water scarcity, the relationships between water and poverty are the object of a sprawling literature. Indicators are presented as indispensable tools for informing and orienting policy-making, comparing situations and measuring performance. This paper first reviews different conceptions of water scarcity and shows the variety of associated causes. A brief look at the virtues and shortcomings of some of the indicators used in the development sector then serves to introduce a review of the major water-scarcity/poverty indicators found in the literature. The reasons for their popularity and vitality are critically examined, and the links between indicators and policy-making are discussed.
SYMPOSIA Resilience is one of the concepts aiming to capture the system-level properties of natural resources (management) systems. Resilience, like sustainability, vulnerability, adaptive capacity, robustness, transformability, and other concepts, seeks to defi ne a quality of natural resources (management) systems that simultaneously captures their stability or endurance, as well as their capacity to respond to change and adapt. This paper does not address substantive questions regarding the defi nition and operationalization of such concepts, but takes as its starting point the observation that concepts like resilience attempt to capture properties of natural resources (management) systems as complex systems. The paper takes its direction by asking what, generally speaking, "dealing with complexity" involves, and how this might aff ect research practice.The paper fi rst identifi es three types of complexity in relation to research on natural resources management (NRM). This is followed by a brief and selective literature review on how inter-and transdisciplinary research has dealt with complexity. Some useful insights from diff erent perspectives developed in diff erent regions and scientifi c traditions are listed. The paper subsequently presents the notion of "boundary work" as a framework for systematically addressing the challenges related to complexity. The framework has three components: boundary concepts, boundary objects, and boundary settings. The paper continues by illustrating some of Boundary Work and the Complexity of Natural Resources ManagementPeter P. Mollinga* ABSTRACTThis paper discusses how research on natural resources management systems can address the complexity of such systems. Three different types of complexity are identifi ed: ontological, societal, and analytical. Signifi cant ideas for "dealing with complexity" are extracted from U.S., Swiss, and U.K. literature on inter-and transdisciplinary research. Based on this, the "boundary work" framework is presented to systematically think through complexity challenges. The framework suggests that inter-and transdisciplinary research on natural research management requires three types of work: (i) the development of suitable boundary concepts that allow thinking of the multidimensionality of NRM issues; (ii) the confi guration of adequate boundary objects as devices and methods that allow acting in situations of incomplete knowledge, nonlinearity, and divergent interests; and (iii) the shaping of conducive boundary settings in which these concepts, devices, and methods can be fruitfully developed and effectively put to work. The ideas presented are illustrated with an example of a research program on sustainable land and water management in Uzbekistan. The concluding section highlights three issues important for increasing the effectiveness of inter-and transdisciplinary research on natural resources management.
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIWRM has emerged as a popular ideology in the water sector since the 20 th century. From a highly technocentric approach in the past, it has taken a new turn worldwide, following a Habermasian communicative rationality, as a place-based nexus for multiple actors to consensually and communicatively take decisions in a hydrological unit. This communicative practice expects to be consensual, stable and static in integration of water management. This how IWRM should be approach had a remarkable appeal worldwide as promoting authentic participation of all stakeholders in integrating water management. Its Foucauldian critiques argue how IWRM cannot be achieved given the power dynamics in social interactions. The critiques reveal that the domain of water resources management is a discursive terrain of collective action, contestation and negotiation, making water management a socio-political process, where there are multiple forms and meanings of integration. The emphasis is on complexities, contextuality, power dynamics and importance of analysing real world situations, but without proposing any concrete actions. These apparently contradictory discourses depict a polarised world of water management, without offering any insights for future water resource management. On one hand, the Habermasian communicative practice emphasises on 'ideal speech situations', in which no affected party is excluded from discourse or by asymmetries of power for collective decisions. On the other hand, the Foucauldian theory argues for analysing the real world situation of integration and the power dynamics. A prospective option to further the integration of water resource management is to consider these apparently contradictory discourses as interdependent by examining how integration actually does take place in a strategic context, notwithstanding the absence of Habermasian conditions and the presence of Foucauldian relations of power.
Starting from the assessment that past efforts at reform in agricultural water management in developing countries have achieved very little, this article argues that a fundamental change is required in the approach to policy and institutional transformation if the present deadlock in the internalisation of ecological sustainability, human development/poverty alleviation and democratic governance into the ‘core business’ of water bureaucracies is to be overcome. ‘Social engineering’ approaches need to be replaced by ‘strategic action’ approaches that acknowledge the inherently political character and the plurality of actors, institutions and objectives of water management — a perspective operationalised here around the notions of ‘problemshed’ and ‘issue network’.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.