Reflections: Contested Epistemologies on Large Dams and Mega-Hydraulic Development

Shah, Esha; Boelens, Rutgerd; Bruins, Bert

doi:10.3390/w11030417

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since large infrastructural projects are still depicted as the main solution to current water problems (Muller et al, 2015;Boelens et al, 2019), it is important to critically assess the uncertainties embedded in the scientific products that support such projects in the face of the social and environmental costs they can cause. In the case of the Zapotillo project, we found that although a lot of efforts were made to reduce uncertainties, the efforts were directed towards reducing uncertainties of accuracy and precision, not epistemic uncertainties nor the ambiguity of multiple frames.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But the team failed to address epistemic uncertainty around emerging problems induced by groundwater over-exploitation as well as ambiguity related to the negative effects in the donor basin and more sustainable and socially just alternatives to the Zapotillo project. We found some indications that UNOPS indulged into what Boelens et al (2019) call the manufacture of ignorance, by recommending Jalisco's government to build a 105 m dam without taking into account climate change, future water demand, nor alternative water supply options. But this result may also be explained by the absence of efforts by UNOPS to facilitate the co-production of knowledge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Melsen et al, 2018, andSrinivasan et al, 2018; see also Brugnach & Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Boelens et al (2019) noted the relation of knowledge and power asymmetry between stakeholders in the context of large infrastructural schemes. Such asymmetry is characterized by hegemonic discourses and does not allow for a fair assessment of different kinds of knowledges to understand a socio-environmental problem (Schneider & Ingram, 1997;Wesselink et al, 2013).…”

Section: Uncertainties and Ambiguity In Science-policy Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such asymmetry is characterized by hegemonic discourses and does not allow for a fair assessment of different kinds of knowledges to understand a socio-environmental problem (Schneider & Ingram, 1997;Wesselink et al, 2013). This may result in what Boelens et al (2019) denominate 'the manufacture of ignorance', understood as the process of cherry-picking facts and knowledge to further one´s position, while discrediting ex-ante competing knowledge without a thorough debate (see also Flyvbjerg, 2009, Moore et al, 2018. In case of large infrastructures, this process is often undertaken by invoking scientific evidence (Brugnach et al, 2011), which is as the only valid frame to understand the socio-environmental problem.…”

Section: Uncertainties and Ambiguity In Science-policy Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the high public regard of science, it is expected for scientists to contribute to unravelling what the problem is, and to offer solutions supported by all actors (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). However, many studies have identified biases in allegedly neutral scientific studies (Budds, 2009;Sanz et al, 2018;Godinez-Madrigal et al, 2019), which has lately discredited the public perception of science as a fair knowledge creator in some controversial large infrastructural water projects around the world (Boelens et al, 2019). Due to this situation among others, more attention has been given to non-expert knowledges in research and decision making (Armitage et al, 2015;Krueger et al, 2016).…”

Section: Water Conflicts and Co-production Of Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Unravelling intractable water conflicts: the entanglement of science and politics in decision-making on a large hydraulic infrastructure project

Madrigal¹,

Cauwenbergh²,

Zaag³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Global trends suggest that cities around the world are increasingly depleting available water resources. A common strategy is to opt for supply augmentation infrastructure. However, this response can be a financial and social burden for many cities, because they entail developing expensive infrastructure and can trigger social conflicts. Science is often expected to play a key role in informing policymakers and social actors to clarify controversies surrounding policy responses to water scarcity. However, managing conflicts is a socio-political process, and the use of models may have the effect of de-politicizing such processes; conveying the idea that optimal solutions can be objectively identified despite the many perspectives and interests at play. This raises the question whether science can depoliticize water conflicts, or whether instead conflicts politicize science-policy processes? We use the Zapotillo dam and water transfer project in Mexico to analyze the roles of science-policy processes in water conflicts. The Zapotillo project aims at augmenting urban water supply to Guadalajara and León, two large cities in Western Mexico, but a social and legal conflict has stalled the project until today. To analyze the conflict and how stakeholders make sense of it, we interviewed the most relevant actors and studied negotiations between different interest groups through participant observation. To examine the role of science-policy processes in the conflict, we mobilized concepts of epistemic uncertainty and ambiguity and analyzed the design and use of water resources models produced by key actors aiming to resolve the conflict. While the use of models is a proven method to construct future scenarios and test different strategies, the parameterization of scenarios and their results depend on the knowledge and/or interests of actors who own the model. We found that in the Zapotillo case, scenarios reflected the interests and strategies of actors on one side of the conflict, resulting in increased distrust by the opposing actors. We conclude that the dilemma of achieving urban water security through investing in either large infrastructure (supply augmentation) or alternative strategies (demand-side management), cannot be resolved if some key interested parties have not been involved in the scientific processes framing the problem and solution space.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%