1,721,028 research outputs found
Evidence against the involvement of a cytochrome P-450 mechanism in pulmonary hemodynamics in the newborn pig
No full textIntroduction: Exclusion and Struggles for Co-Decision : from Part III - Exclusion and Struggles for Co-Decision
No full textWater justice is often sought in “good water governance.” Yet, what “good governance” means is not something that can be straightforwardly decided or linearly implemented: different stakeholders hold different power positions, have conflicting interests and deploy different valuation languages regarding water, land and livelihoods. Deliberative policy-making processes, including local communities’ participation in decision-making, are often presented as the tool to help craft inclusive, democratic water governance arrangements. However, here, a fundamental but commonly neglected or actively suppressed question is, “who participates in whose project”? Although water governance is about institutional configurations, regulations and policy-making and implementation, it is also about capabilities, powers and social struggle over access to resources, setting the agenda and discursively framing problems. Water justice, then, is not something that can easily be crafted through tinkering with governance arrangements, but requires struggles and continuous renegotiation as part of larger battles for justice and democracy. Water injustices often imply exclusion of vulnerable groups from access to clean water and affordable services, but also from representation in water-control decision-making. This exclusion can be based on gender, race, caste, class, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation. Maria Rusca, Cecilia Alda-Vidal, and Michelle Kooy (Chapter 11) provide clear examples of this in their chapter on drinking water in Kampala. Joyeeta Gupta (Chapter 14) contends that privatizing irrigation water services may often exclude smallholders. Climate Justice Climate change also causes major distributive injustices. Droughts and floods tend to affect the poor more severely than the relatively rich (Adger, 2001; Ikeme, 2003; IPCC 2014; Ribot, 2010; Schneider and Lane, 2006). Skewed vulnerabilities in relation to effects of climate change lead to asymmetrical impacts (Gardiner and Hartzell-Nichols, 2012). This is even more unfair and imbalanced considering that the poor’s share in emission of greenhouse gases is much less than the gigantic emissions by the rich. A report commissioned by the World Bank (2008) estimates the impacted populations killed or left homeless per region by seven common chronic and sudden disasters that are increasingly related to climate change: droughts, extreme temperatures, floods, landslides, tidal surges and wind storms. Already millions of people are affected by floods in Southern and Eastern Asia and droughts in South America, South Asia and East Africa. Likewise, health effects of climate change affect the poor disproportionally (Costello et al., 2009
Introduction: Re-Politicizing Water Allocation : from Part I - Re-Politicizing Water Allocation
No full textIntroduction: Governmentality, Discourses and Struggles over Imaginaries and Water Knowledge : from Part IV - Governmentality, Discourses and Struggles over Imaginaries and Water Knowledge
No full textStanding Rock The protesters called themselves “water protectors.” They came from all corners of the US and Canada, and included members of over 100 Native American tribes and their non-indigenous allies. At the peak of the protest, in early autumn 2016, they numbered in the thousands, but by late February, when the Governor sent some 200 police officers to clear the encampment, only a few dozen remained. Those who left burned their temporary shelters in an act of defiance, and the embers were still smoldering when the police moved in and arrested the few who stayed behind (Smith and Blinder, 2017). For a brief period, it seemed the protesters might have won: the Obama administration halted construction of the Dakota Access pipeline and asked the US Army Corps of Engineers, which was overseeing the project, to find an alternate route. But then the political winds shifted. A right-wing populist was elected President and the winter cold brought with it a form of revanchist politics that had little patience for Native Americans and their atavistic attachments to land and water (Healy and Fandos, 2016; Smith, 2017). The protesters had gathered on the banks of the Cannonball River, near its confluence with the Missouri, where the Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners planned to build the last section of the pipeline. Construction was nearly complete, and all that remained was a short stretch to be built under the Missouri River. The pipeline route consisted entirely of private land, but because it had to cross a navigable waterway, it required the approval of the US Army Corps of Engineers (New York Times, 2016a). Despite opposition from the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US State Department and the Sioux Nation’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office, the Army Corps seemed determined to fast-track the pipeline’s approval. Contrary to federal requirements, it approved construction without meaningful consultation with the Standing Rock Sioux, whose lands and waters the pipeline would impact (Archambault, 2016; Sammon, 2016). Although the pipeline would not cross the Standing Rock reservation, instead passing half a mile north of the reservation boundary, tribal members argued that it crossed land they considered sacred (and which had formerly been part of Sioux territory, of which they were dispossessed in the 1870s when they were confined to the reservation)
Conclusions: Struggles for Justice in a Changing Water World : from Part IV - Governmentality, Discourses and Struggles over Imaginaries and Water Knowledge
No full textIntroduction: Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition : from Part II - Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition
No full textWater governance fundamentally deals with the question of how to organize decision-making about water access, use and management in contexts of diverging interests, conflicting normative repertoires, and unequal power relations. It aims to produce particular socio-natural orders by controlling water resources, infrastructure, investments, knowledge, truth, and ultimately, water users and authorities (Boelens, 2014; Bridge and Perreault, 2009). To achieve this, as the chapters in Part I have illustrated, water governance reforms and interventions commonly emphasize strongly de-politicized common wellbeing, shared progress, and efficient, rational resource management. This naturalizing discourse of sustainable, progressive, clean development, achieved by egalitarian “stakeholders,” obscures the fact that water reforms and interventions entail competing claims and conflicts over water, territorial ordering, and reconfiguring socio-economic and politico-cultural realities (Harris and Alatout, 2010; Hommes et al., 2016; Kaika, 2006). These issues are directly related to disputes over problem definitions, knowledge frameworks, ontological meanings, decision-making powers and preferred solutions. The chapters in Part II will focus on this field of water (in)justice, the dynamics of contested imaginaries and materializing socio-natural, techno-political networks: de-patterning and re-patterning multi-scalar hydrosocial territories (Baviskar, 2007; Boelens et al., 2016; Linton and Budds, 2014; Swyngedouw, 2004, 2009). A governmentality perspective toward disputed, overlapping, hybridizing hydrosocial territories may help us to understand how water control is embedded in the broader political context of governance over and through socio-natures. Governmentality refers to the ways societies are governed, not only through direct application of laws and military force, but also through subtle and invisible “capillary” working of power to control, at once, the conduct of people and their socio-environment (Foucault, 1991). The concept of hydrosocial territory provides a lens to analyze water flows, water infrastructures, and water control as simultaneously, interactively constituted compositions of physical, social, political and symbolic entities and dimensions. Together, these domains form multi-scaled, networked mosaics, which produce techno-political and socio-ecological territoriality (Boelens et al., 2016; cf. Hommes et al., 2016; Hoogesteger et al., 2016; Swyngedouw, 2007). This analytical framework views humans and nature - social, technical and natural - not as separate entities that interact, but as mutually influencing, co-producing and constituting each other, in complex ways (see also Harris and Alatout, 2010; Latour, 1994)
Introduction: The Multiple Challenges and Layers of Water Justice Struggles
No full textIntroduction Water is a resource that triggers profound conflicts and close collaboration, a source of deep injustices, and fierce struggles for life. In many regions of the world, rising demand and declining availability of adequate-quality water foster severe competition and ferocious clashes among different water uses and users. People also suffer from flooding; contamination caused by industry and mining; privatization of public water utilities; corruption; and displacement by large dam projects. Climate change intensifies most human-made water problems. In struggles for water security, the poor tend to lose (e.g. Crow et al., 2014; Escobar, 2006; Harvey, 1996; Perreault et al., 2011). Through exemplary cases, the chapters in this book show how new competitors - including megacities, mining, forestry, and agribusiness companies - demand and usurp a mounting share of available surface and groundwater resources (e.g., Donahue and Johnston, 1998; GRAIN, 2012). Water deprivation and water insecurity affect marginalized urban households, and rural smallholder families and communities. In many regions, this poses profound threats to environmental sustainability and local and national food security (e.g., Escobar, 2008; Mehta et al., 2012; Mena et al., 2016). Such proliferating problems of material and social “water injustices” provide the backdrop for this book. Distribution of access water rights and water-related decision-making is extremely skewed. Smallholder communities’ water-based livelihoods and rights in many countries of the global South are constantly threatened by bureaucratic administrations, market-driven policies, and top-down project intervention practices. Despite the fact that water injustices have existed throughout human history, water justice problems and related policy interventions have changed rapidly over recent decades (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014). For instance, rather than focusing on simply enlarging water flows through new hydraulic engineering projects, new perspectives focus on water saving and conservation (Vos and Marshall, 2017; Zwarteveen, 2015). New scientific fields and water professionals have entered the water policy-making and intervention worlds to accompany (increasingly high-tech) hydraulic engineering (Buscher and Fletcher, 2015; Goldman, 2007, 2011). Also, climate change threats and water-related disasters have changed science and policy debates and water funding projects related to issues such as “mitigation and adaptation,” flood control and drought prevention (Heynen et al., 2007; Lynch, 2012; Martínez-Alier, 2002). Further, global neoliberalism has assured that water development and governance are no longer seen as the exclusive realm of the state, with water knowledge and authority concentrated in powerful public agencies (Hommes et al., 2016; Loftus, 2009; Zwarteveen, 2015)
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
