Multiple ontologies of water: Politics, conflict and implications for governance

Yates, Julian S.; Harris, Leila M.; Wilson, Nicole J.

doi:10.1177/0263775817700395

Cited by 188 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

204

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent HWI research suggests that conventional approaches are inadequate to capture core dimensions of the experience of water insecurity (Linton and Budds 2014, Yates et al 2017, Norman 2017). These findings warrant expanding the conceptualization of household water insecurity to include three relational dimensions in addition to traditional measures: entitlements and human capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political institutions and processes that produce water-related inequities (Jepson et al 2017b).…”

Section: Developing Methods For Assessing Relational Dimensions Of Homentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Household water insecurity has serious implications for the health, livelihoods and wellbeing of people around the world. Existing methods to assess the state of household water insecurity focus largely on water quality, quantity or adequacy, source or reliability, and affordability. These methods have significant advantages in terms of their simplicity and comparability, but are widely recognized to oversimplify and underestimate the global burden of household water insecurity. In contrast, a broader definition of household water insecurity should include entitlements and human capabilities, sociocultural dynamics, and political institutions and processes. This paper proposes a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods that can be widely adopted across cultural, geographic, and demographic contexts to assess hard-to-measure dimensions of household water insecurity. In doing so, it critically evaluates existing methods for assessing household water insecurity and suggests ways in which methodological innovations advance a broader definition of household water insecurity.

show abstract

Section: Developing Methods For Assessing Relational Dimensions Of Homentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are myriad cultural‐religious ontologies and values that deserve to be seen, enfolded, and centralized in discourses about fresh waters' values. And if Groenfeldt is right that “water governance is all about values,” then those cultural‐religious ontologies and values that have been long occluded also have implications for governance (Groenfeldt, ; see also Norman, ; Oestigaard, ; Strang, ; Sullivan, ; Wateau, ; Wolf, ; Yates, Harris, & Wilson, ).…”

Section: Aperture 2: Discourses Of Liberal Governance—human Right To mentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing fresh waters

Zenner

2019

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an era increasingly focused on the question of how to value fresh water, this essay argues that questions of value cannot be parsed apart from the multiple ontologies that undergird those value judgments. Returning to Nelson's observation that water exists "in a metaphysical blindspot," this essay describes what chastened metaphysics have to do with fresh waters' pluralities and depicts three apertures by which contemporary water discourses delineate fresh waters' values: economic theory and neoliberal market practice, paradigms of liberal governance, and culturalreligious multiplicities. In the latter, fresh waters' life-giving properties tend to be accorded central respect in ways that often exceed the ontological understandings and moral possibilities preferred by western liberal discourses in an era that has been decisively shaped by scientific, hydraulic/extractive modernity and rational planning. Parsing the ways that selected cultural-religious formulations align with or challenge dominant governance paradigms, this essay argues that decolonial ways of proceeding are necessary if value discourse and ethical action are to be substantially oriented toward the inclusive, long-term flourishing of human and other bodies of waters. The final section summarizes these claims and underscores necessary warnings. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Value of Water Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented Human Water > Methods K E Y W O R D S cultural-religious multiplicities, decolonial methods, human right to water, ontology of fresh waters, value of water 1 | INTRODUCTION: FRAMING FRESH WATERS The value of water is a rising conceptual infatuation for twenty-first century agents of water distribution (High Level Panel on Water, 2018a; Value of Water Campaign, 2019; Watershed, 2017). Recognizing Nelson's (2003) assertion that "water exists in a metaphysical blindspot," this essay first argues that fresh waters are plural, not singular, and that questions of value cannot be parsed apart from the multiple ontologies that undergird those value judgments, with implications for contemporary water discourses. Next, this essay depicts three apertures by which contemporary water discourses delineate fresh waters' values: economic theory and neoliberal market practice, paradigms of liberal governance, and cultural-religious multiplicities. The typology provided by these three apertures is of course permeable, but it is also an instructive heuristic for the project of gaining clarity on how different strands of water discourse inflect the conclusions drawn about fresh waters' values. While the first two apertures on economic theory and governance, respectively, will be familiar to many readers, the third aperture-culturalreligious multiplicities-may seem far afield. "Cultural-religious multiplicities" is a term used here to depict the epistemic commitment that cultural, customary, and religious ecological rationalities and practices are often interwoven; that they are many in number and kind; and that th...

show abstract

“…Valladares & Boelens, 2017). It is a development that challenges us to not only think of what respectful coexistence among a plurality of laws and normative frameworks might look like, but to also contemplate dialogue among multiple ontologies (Salmond, 2014;Taylor et al, 2017;Yates, Harris, & Wilson, 2017). According to Salmond (2014), management models like the Whanganui represent a means by which Indigenous peoples can escape the double bind of recognition that only affords ancestral relations protection if those relations are redefined as property interests in a language based on possessive individualism.…”

Section: Conferring Legal Personhood As a Means Of Recognizing Recimentioning

confidence: 99%

Water and Indigenous rights: Mechanisms and pathways of recognition, representation, and redistribution

Jackson

2018

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous water rights contests take many forms, manifesting in conflict over water resource development, exclusion from decision‐making, marginalization in regional political economies and opposition to environmental degradation. A growing number of institutional options are available to recognize Indigenous water rights and a diversity of approaches is being taken by governments, courts of law, Indigenous peoples and others in response to historical and contemporary inequities and discrimination in patterns of distribution and participation in the institutions of water governance. Although not the only arena, political action directed towards change in state‐based institutions is a principal focus for Indigenous peoples engaged in water struggles. This article reviews the literature on Indigenous water rights in national frameworks of water governance from a range of disciplines. It describes the leading approaches to recognition, representation, and redistribution that exist under the domestic arrangements of nation‐states to recognize localized norms and rules of water use and custodianship, as well as Indigenous forms of political organization. These include statutory mechanisms to increase water access, treaties and settlements, constitutional protections for collective rights, self‐organized or internal governance models, market‐based approaches and moves in law to recognize reciprocal relationships to water and legitimize custodianship of rivers. Rather than take recognition for granted as an essential condition of or ideal end‐point to Indigenous water rights struggles, the paper critically reflects on the multi‐faceted dimensions of this ambivalent concept, revealing the opportunities as well as tensions and dilemmas in the leading approaches to addressing Indigenous water rights claims. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Rights to Water Human Water > Water Governance

show abstract

Multiple ontologies of water: Politics, conflict and implications for governance

Cited by 188 publications

References 66 publications

Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance

Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance

Valuing fresh waters

Water and Indigenous rights: Mechanisms and pathways of recognition, representation, and redistribution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About