Gender inequalities exist within commons-dependent communities in developing countries regarding the role of society’s overall attitudes to women as decision-makers. While, in forestry, women have some access to resources and decision-making, in other community resources like fisheries and irrigation water, women are absent and males entirely dominate. Different theories on gender and environment suggest that women’s inclusion is an important step toward reducing their economic marginalization and argue that in reality women’s economic advancement/empowerment may not get carried into home and community spaces as durable empowerment if society holds negative attitudes toward women’s needs, contribution and deservedness in families and beyond.
Due to society’s negative attitudes toward women, women remain trapped in a vicious cycle of exclusion. Breaking this vicious cycle requires combining household assets and income to assess women’s true poverty type. A flat implementation of economic policies toward women’s pathway out of poverty may not yield the desired results and may even be counterproductive if society’s negative attitudes and the poverty characteristics of women or female-headed households are not taken into account. Since all women are not homogeneous and that a few communities hold pro-women attitudes, to promote women’s economic empowerment, the role of society’s attitudes toward women’s participation as decision-makers cannot be ignored as women’s relations to their social, economic, political, and natural environments are itself a culturally and historically specific process, which can be understood only through identifying and understanding gender-specific attitudes and actions toward those environments.
51-60 of 342 Results
Article
Economics of Gender in Resource Dependent Communities
Biswajit Ray and Promita Mukherjee
Article
Evolution of the International Climate Change Policy and Processes: UNFCCC to Paris Agreement
Mostafa Mahmud Naser and Prafula Pearce
Evolution of international climate change policy and processes commenced in 1990 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which made the first global attempt to provide an intergovernmental platform for addressing the effects of climate change. Since then, major advances in the international dialog occurred from 1995 to 2004 during the Kyoto Protocol. However, the Kyoto Protocol outcome was not considered a major success in terms of reducing global emissions, although it succeeded in advancing global market-based flexible mitigation mechanisms, such as emissions trading, joint implementation, and the clean development mechanism. A turnaround in the global approach occurred with the Paris Agreement in 2015, which represented a major turning point in the climate debate, with a bottom-up approach allowing states to set their own emission targets. In addition, the Paris Agreement was the catalyst for formation of bodies and institutions that promote negotiated climate change themes and has permitted countries to work together to share direct practical approaches for tackling climate change. The success of the Paris Agreement can be seen as more countries commit to nationally determined contribution targets. In addition, the practical implication of the bottom-up approach for institutional investors and corporate engagement is evident from the increase in the number of global climate change litigation cases brought against corporations and financial institutions that breach climate change obligations. Going forward, some of the climate change negotiation issues of concern that have yet to be resolved include the differences in contributions required by developed nations as opposed to developing nations, sometimes referred to as the North–South divide in climate change negotiations, the issue of loss and damage associated with climate change events, such as tropical cyclones and storms, and how to account for non-economic loss and damage caused by climate change events.
Article
From Flood Control to Flood Adaptation
Katharine J. Mach, Miyuki Hino, A.R. Siders, Steven F. Koller, Caroline M. Kraan, Jennifer Niemann, and Brett F. Sanders
Societies throughout the world are experiencing more severe and frequent flooding with consequences for people’s livelihoods, health, safety, and heritage. Much flood risk management to date has aimed to maximize economic benefits, reduce the likelihood of flood disasters, and facilitate recovery where needed. It has assumed a stationary climate and focused on extremes and financial losses. But this paradigm of flood control is increasingly at odds with the full set of challenges and requirements for flood risk management.
Critical challenges motivate a shift from flood control to flood adaptation. First, under climate change, flood risks are intensifying and changing, and new normals are appearing, such as daily high-tide flooding or permanent inundation. Fully controlling flood hazards with one-time interventions is increasingly untenable. Second, floods affect numerous, multidimensional aspects of human and ecological well-being and social justice. Past flood control efforts, and the decision-making processes that produced them, have often failed to address these multidimensional concerns or even had negative side effects. Fundamental adjustments are emerging and will be needed: a guiding paradigm of flexibility rather than control, a system-wide approach with coordinated action across scales, and increased attention to the full range of priorities relevant to successful interventions.
For example, science and research for flood risk adaptation increasingly involve processes supporting usable, inclusive knowledge tailored to decision contexts. Integrative science partnerships such as collaborative flood modeling can incorporate the dynamic physical and social landscapes of flood drivers, impacts, and management. Flexible processes allow updating as flood risks change, and collaborative processes can build intuition, trust, and understanding of risks, including improved awareness of the values and relationships that are threatened and preferred response options. The goal of flood risk management is no longer limited to preventing floods; flood risk management must balance risk tolerances with ecological and social benefits and weigh the trade-offs of management strategies against other societal goals. This “science for society” is inherently political, requiring careful attention to and evaluation of who participates, whose goals are prioritized, and who benefits.
Furthermore, methods of evidence-based decision-making must be able to accommodate deep uncertainties, changing risks and values, and limits to responses. Shifts are already occurring, including dynamic adaptive management practices and improvements to tools such as cost–benefit comparisons. These changes illustrate a larger reframing within flood risk management, away from disaster management focused on extreme isolated events and toward adaptation in response to enduring changes across both extreme and average conditions.
The current challenges of flood risk management create opportunities for integrating lessons from diverse domains of actionable science and public policy and thereby innovating processes of climate adaptation relevant to a range of climate risks.
Article
Water Federalism in the United States of America
Rebecca F.A. Bernat and Sharon B. Megdal
Water governance in the United States has followed a water federalism system, in which government functions are shared between federal and state authorities. Water federalism is the sharing of governance across different levels of government over freshwater quantity (water quantity federalism) and quality (water quality federalism). These terms have evolved throughout different eras of U.S. history. Initially, water federalism involved water quantity federalism only, and both state and federal governments had management prerogatives. The 1922 Colorado River Compact and the 1944 U.S. and Mexico Treaty are examples of a combination of horizontal and vertical federalisms. Then, the 1970s marked significant changes in water federalism. First, states regained control over water resources management. Second, water quality federalism arose as a subset of, and at the same time as, environmental federalism. The 1972 Clean Water Act is an example of cooperative federalism, which was commonly used to refer to environmental federalism. In the 21st century, a variety of environmental federalism frameworks have been offered to address the negative effects of climate change on water resources as well as other environmental issues. The contemporary literature on environmental federalism encompasses water quantity and water quality federalism. Throughout history, the role of American Indian tribal primacy has been overlooked in the water federalism literature. Another layer of government, the American Indian tribal government, should be included in discussing states versus federal water management prerogatives. Overall, new water quality and water quantity federalisms must be developed using institutional, sociocultural, and economic principles of good governance that foster a more inclusive, participatory, democratic, and engaged form of federalism.
Article
Air Pollution, Science, Policy, and International Negotiations
Willemijn Tuinstra
In the course of time, the framing of the air pollution issue has undergone a transformation. It is no longer viewed as either a local health issue or a transboundary problem affecting ecosystems but as a global issue that manifests at various levels and has links to various problems. This poses a challenge for processes fostering data collection, international cooperation, and science and policy networking to deal with the issue in its various manifestations. The experience at the Air Convention, officially the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), shows that interaction between science and policymaking at various levels of scale can enhance each other if certain conditions are met. Alignment of, for example, air policy, climate policy, nitrogen policy, health policy, and biodiversity policy not only asks for cooperation at different scales (i.e., at the local, national, regional, and global levels) but also between different arenas of decision-making and negotiation. This means that joint processes of science and policy development are needed to identify where problem formulations meet, how procedures for data collection match or which indicators are comparable, and what is possible with regard to aligning sequence and focus of policymaking. These do not necessarily need to be, or even should be, processes leading to full integration of policymaking or scientific assessment. However, successful joint processes make clear to decision-makers what the (co-)benefits of certain emission reduction measures are for various policy problems while providing a more complete picture of the cost-effectiveness of these measures. History has shown that decision-makers start acting when they can see the benefits of certain policy options or when the costs of inaction exceed those of action. Policy options might range from emission reduction measures to investments in scientific infrastructure and international cooperation. It also helps when problems are viewed as relevant by those who have the power and resources to act. Observations, measurements, and scientific assessment have the potential to point to this relevance but so does informed, critical public opinion. Current international cooperation is aimed at maintaining a network of experts and continuing efforts in capacity building in countries. Also in cities, capacity building is crucial, which is more and more supported by citizen-led air quality monitoring initiatives.
Article
Ecotechnology
Astrid Schwarz
Ecotechnology is both broad and widespread, yet it has never been given a universally shared definition; this remains the case even in the early 21st century. Given that it is used in the natural, engineering, and social sciences, as well as in design studies, in the philosophy and history of technology and in science policy, perhaps this is not surprising. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to come up with an unambiguous definition for ecotechnology: It should be understood rather as an umbrella term that facilitates connections among different scientific fields and science policy and, in so doing, offers a robust trading zone of ideas and concepts. The term is part of a cultural and sociopolitical framework and, as such, wields explanatory power. Ecotechnology approaches argue for the design of ensembles that embed human action within an ecologically functional environment and mediating this relationship by technological means. Related terms, such as ecotechnics, ecotechniques, ecotechnologies, and eco-technology, are used similarly.
In the 1970s, “ecotechnology,” along with other terms, gave a voice to an unease and a concern with sociotechnical transformations. This eventually gave rise to the first global environmental movement expressing a comprehensive eco-cultural critique of society-environment relations. Ecotechnology was part of the language used by activists, as well as by social theorists and natural scientists working in the transdisciplinary field of applied ecology. The concept of ecotechnology helped to both establish and “smooth over” environmental matters of concern in the worlds of economics, science, and policymaking. The process of deliberation about a green modernity is still ongoing and characterizes the search for a constructive intermediation between artificial and natural systems following environmentally benign design principles.
During the 1980s, disciplinary endeavors flourished in the global academic world, lending ecotechnology more and more visibility. Some of these endeavors, such as restoration ecology and ecological engineering, were rooted in the engineering sciences, but mobilized quite different traditions, namely population biology and systems biology. To date, ecotechnology has been replaced by and large by other terms in applied ecology. Another strand of work resulted in the discipline of social ecology, which developed different focal points, most notably critical political economy and a concern with nature-culture issues in the context of cultural ecology. Finally, more recently, ecotechnology has been discussed in several branches of philosophy that offer different narratives about the epistemic and ontological transformations triggered by an “ecologization” of societies and a theoretical turn toward relationality.
Article
Managed Aquifer Recharge as a Tool to Improve Water Security and Resilience
Mary-Belle Cruz-Ayala and Sharon B. Megdal
Groundwater overdraft is an issue faced by urban and rural water users worldwide. With climate change making efforts to meet global water demands even more challenging, improving water security and resilience is of paramount importance. Managed aquifer recharge efforts are being deployed globally to further achieve water management goals, such as helping to reduce groundwater overdraft at a local level. Artificial recharge or managed aquifer recharge (MAR) is a concept that has been applied to describe diverse methods with the aim of both augmenting groundwater resources during times when water is available and recovering the water from the same aquifer in the future when it is needed.
MAR projects are distributed in almost every continent. An extensive study published in 2018 identified that 15 countries and regions account for 76% of the installed MAR capacity (Australia, China, France, Finland, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Netherlands, Qatar, Southern Africa, Spain, United States, and United Kingdom). MAR is considered a viable tool to face the negative impacts of climate change and to increase public water supply at a local level. In arid and semiarid regions, MAR plays an important role because it allows the storage of large volumes of water without the risk of evaporation. MAR is used to provide water for agricultural activities in groundwater-dependent countries and regions. Increasingly, at least in India, many MAR projects are designed to protect domestic water supply. MAR is also used as a water source for maintaining environmental services, although this use is still incipient.
Article
Smart Cities and Water Infrastructure
Katherine Lieberknecht
Water infrastructure is the system of physical (both built and environmental), social (e.g., governance), and technological elements that move water into, throughout, and out of human communities. It includes, but is not limited to, water supply infrastructure (e.g., pipe systems, water treatment facilities), drainage and flood infrastructure (e.g., storm sewers, green infrastructure systems, levees), and wastewater treatment infrastructure (e.g., pipe systems, wastewater treatment plants, reclaimed water facilities). Smart city approaches to water infrastructure emphasize integration of information and communication technologies with urban water infrastructure and services, usually with the goal of increasing efficiency and human well-being.
Smart water meters, smart water grids, and other water-related information and communication technologies have the potential to improve overall infrastructure efficiency, to reduce water use, to match new water supplies with appropriate water uses, to innovate wastewater treatment, and to protect residents from floods and other water-related climate events. However, without stronger attention to issues of equity, social systems, governance, ecology, and place, a smart city approach to water infrastructure may achieve efficiencies but fail to generate broader socioecological values or to contribute toward climate adaptation.
Article
Social Equity, Land Use Planning, and Flood Mitigation
Malini Roy and Philip Berke
Every flood event reveals hidden disparities within cities—disparities in capacities to anticipate, respond to, and recover from disasters. Studies examining drivers of disparity have found that highly socially vulnerable (e.g., poor, minority) neighborhoods sustain more damage, have access to fewer recovery resources, and experience slower recovery. Climate change and unregulated growth are likely to exacerbate these disparities. Scholars argue that disparities along the lines of race and income are partly due to inadequate planning. Planning for flood mitigation has lacked a deep understanding of values and has therefore overlooked needs and exacerbated physical vulnerability in socially vulnerable neighborhoods.
Increasing local and international attention to the socioeconomic drivers of disaster impacts elicits the question: How can land use planning foster more equitable hazard mitigation practices that meet the needs identified by marginalized communities? Equitable hazard mitigation is advanced through three dimensions. First, contextual equity involves preparing an information base that asks who is vulnerable to flooding, who has (not) been engaged in planning decisions that affect vulnerability to flooding, and why. Recognizing contextual inequities in plans is the first step to making visible historic discrimination and addressing drivers of persisting political disenfranchisement. Second, procedural equity involves organizing a participation process that critically considers whom participation processes should target, how stakeholders should be inclusively engaged, and how multiple values should inform policy priorities. Dedicated planning-participation processes can repair past legacies of power information imbalances and co-produce planning goals. A process where vulnerable, marginalized citizens have as much information and as much say in policy decisions as others adds nuance to planners’ understanding of needs, and enables the incorporation of overlooked values into distribution of land use policies. Third, distributional equity involves designing planning policies so that flood mitigation services and infrastructure are directed to neighborhoods and households most in need. Moreover, distributional equity considerations need to be integrated across the local government plans (e.g., transportation plan, housing plan, and hazard mitigation plan) that affect growth in hazardous areas.
Social equity outcomes further rely on the degree of knowledge transfer between the three dimensions. The effectiveness of distributional equity is critically dependent on contextual and procedural equity and affects how plan outcomes align with the needs and values of disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. Likewise, the scope of contextual equity is shaped by historical distributional and procedural equity or lack thereof. To advance equitable outcomes, more research is required on the implementation and effectiveness of different land use planning approaches. Future inquiries should examine social equity through a multihazard lens; empirically analyze the causal relationships among the contextual, procedural, and distributional equity; and explore the effectiveness of different planning tools and governance structures in fostering socially equitable hazard mitigation.
Article
Transboundary Water Governance and Small Basin Councils in Central Asia
Stefanos Xenarios, Murat Yakubov, Aziza Baubekova, Olzhas Alshagirov, Zhassulan Zhalgas, and Eduardo Jr Araral
Central Asia (CA) hosts some of the world’s most complex and most extensive water management infrastructures allocated in the two major transboundary basins of the Amudarya and Syrdarya Rivers. The upstream countries of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan mainly utilize the rivers for hydropower and irrigation, whereas the downstream countries of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan primarily use them for irrigation purposes. The governance of the two river basins has been contested since Soviet times, and more so after the independence of the CA countries. The scheme of Small Basin Councils (SBCs) has been introduced in the region from 2010 to 2022 to improve local and transboundary water governance at a sub-basin and catchment level. Implementing SBCs in CA is still in the experimental phase, and its contribution to river basin management is insufficiently explored. However, there are indications that SBCs play a significant role in raising awareness of and engagement with local communities and improving local and transboundary governance management and coordination. Most important, SBCs can help resolve critical issues in agricultural water allocation, one of the most contentious issues for transboundary water governance in CA. The basin councils could become significant leverage for improving water governance on national and transboundary systems in CA by actively engaging local communities in management, planning, and administration.
