An official website of the United States government
ircular economies are often framed as addressing a trio of problems: environmental degradation, economic stagnation, and social ills, broadly defined. Our paper centers on this last claim – that circular economies promise social benefits. There is a dearth of literature focused on the social dimensions of circular economies (Geissdoerfer, Martin, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M. P. Bocken, and Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. “The Circular Economy – A New Sustainability Paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (February): 757–768. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.), and even less attention to the meaning of social justice in the context of circular economies, let alone how it might be enacted in policy and practice. Drawing on data generated from focus groups with circular economy experts and a content analysis of US-based governmental, NGO, and business literature on circular economies, we explore whether and how justice emerges in circular economy discourse. We explore the narratives that these actors use to describe justice, and the barriers they see in achieving just and inclusive circular economies. We aim to identify the ways in which social justice is defined and discussed – or not – by the actors who seem to be most actively pushing for a circular economy (CE). Our work addresses the critical need to articulate clearly what it is we mean by social justice in relation to the CE. For if the CE is to contribute to sustainable social transformations, justice must be more than a buzzword – the CE must be just by design.
more »
« less
Moral economies for water: A framework for analyzing norms of justice, economic behavior, and social enforcement in the contexts of water inequality
Abstract Over the past two decades, scholars have invoked E. P. Thompson's and James Scott's concept of a “moral economy” to explain how people mobilize notions of justice to make claims to water. We draw together 20 years of literature to assess the state‐of‐the‐art present in research on moral economies for water. We trace the historical foundations of the moral economies concept and its relevance to water; define the three basic components of a moral economy for water—(1) shared understandings of justice, (2) normative economic practices, (3) social pressure mechanisms—and provide examples of how they manifest globally. We then discuss how moral economies for water can cycle through four basic states—balanced struggle, intensified reaction, mass revolt, and collapse and dissolution—at different scales. We also explore the implications of the moral economies framework for key areas of current research on water: water sharing, water commons, water markets, and biocultural outcomes, and discuss the ways in which the moral economies framework dovetails with recent advances in water research, especially the economics of water and development. We argue that the moral economies framework is a powerful explanatory tool for understanding the relationships between ideas of water justice, economic behaviors, and mechanisms of social enforcement that complements other methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives. We envision moral economies for water as a field that can facilitate a range of norm‐based analyses of economic behavior and water justice, including across scales—from local to global—and in broad, integrative, multiscalar, and cross‐disciplinary ways. This article is categorized under:Human Water > Water GovernanceHuman Water > Value of WaterHuman Water > Rights to Water
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10387327
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- WIREs Water
- Volume:
- 10
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2049-1948
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Informed by decades of literature, water interventions increasingly deploy “gender‐sensitive” or even “gender transformative” approaches that seek to redress the disproportionate harms women face from water insecurity. These efforts recognize the role of gendered social norms and unequal power relations but often focus narrowly on the differences and dynamics between cisgender (cis) men and women. This approach renders less visible the ways that living with water insecurity can differentially affect all individuals through the dynamics of gender, sexuality, and linked intersecting identities. Here, we first share a conceptual toolkit that explains gender as fluid, negotiated, and diverse beyond the cis‐binary. Using this as a starting point, we then review what is known and can be theorized from current literature, identifying limited observations from water‐insecure communities to identify examples of contexts where gendered mechanisms (such as social norms) differentiate experiences of water insecurity, such as elevating risks of social stigma, physical harm, or psychological distress. We then apply this approach to consider expanded ways to include transgender, non‐binary, and gender and sexual diversity to deepen, nuance and expand key thematics and approaches for water insecurity research. Reconceptualizing gender in these ways widens theoretical possibilities, changes how we collect data, and imagines new possibilities for effective and just water interventions. This article is categorized under:Human Water > Value of WaterEngineering Water > Water, Health, and SanitationHuman Water > Water as Imagined and RepresentedHuman Water > Methodsmore » « less
-
Abstract Classifying the diverse ways that plants respond to hydrologic stress into generalizable ‘water‐use strategies’ has long been an eco‐physiological research goal. While many schemes for describing water‐use strategies have proven to be quite useful, they are also associated with uncertainties regarding their theoretical basis and their connection to plant carbon and water relations. In this review, we discuss the factors that shape plant water stress responses and assess the approaches used to classify a plant's water‐use strategy, paying particular attention to the popular but controversial concept of a continuum from isohydry to anisohydry.A generalizable and predictive framework for assessing plant water‐use strategies has been historically elusive, yet recent advances in plant physiology and hydraulics provide the field with a way past these obstacles. Specifically, we promote the idea that many metrics that quantify water‐use strategies are highly dynamic and emergent from the interaction between plant traits and environmental conditions, and that this complexity has historically hindered the development of a generalizable water‐use strategy framework.This idea is explored using a plant hydraulics model to identify: (a) distinct temporal phases in plant hydraulic regulation during drought that underpin dynamic water‐use responses, and (b) how variation in both traits and environmental forcings can significantly alter common metrics used to characterize plant water‐use strategies. This modelling exercise can bridge the divide between various conceptualizations of water‐use strategies and provide targeted hypotheses to advance the understanding and quantification of plant water status regulation across spatial and temporal scales.Finally, we describe research frontiers that are necessary to improve the predictive capacity of the plant water‐use strategy concept, including further investigation into the below‐ground determinants of plant water relations, targeted data collection efforts and the potential to scale these concepts from individuals to whole regions. A freePlain Language Summarycan be found within the Supporting Information of this article.more » « less
-
Abstract Centralized water infrastructure has, over the last century, brought safe and reliable drinking water to much of the world. But climate change, combined with aging and underfunded infrastructure, is increasingly testing the limits of—and reversing gains made by—this approach. To address these growing strains and gaps, we must assess and advance alternatives to centralized water provision and sanitation. The water literature is rife with examples of systems that are neither centralized nor networked, yet meet water needs of local communities in important ways, including: informal and hybrid water systems, decentralized water provision, community‐based water management, small drinking water systems, point‐of‐use treatment, small‐scale water vendors, and packaged water. Our work builds on these literatures by proposing a convergence approach that can integrate and explore the benefits and challenges of modular, adaptive, and decentralized (“MAD”) water provision and sanitation, often foregrounding important advances in engineering technology. We further provide frameworks to evaluate justice, economic feasibility, governance, human health, and environmental sustainability as key parameters of MAD water system performance. This article is categorized under:Engineering Water > Water, Health, and SanitationHuman Water > Water GovernanceEngineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of Watermore » « less
-
Abstract Sustainable management of lakes requires us to overcome ecological, economic, and social challenges. These challenges can be addressed by focusing on achieving ecological improvement within a multifaceted, co‐beneficial context. In‐lake restoration measures may promote more rapid ecosystem responses than is feasible with catchment measures alone, even if multiple interventions are needed. In particular, we identify restoration methods that support the overarching societal target of a circular economy through the use of nutrients, sediments, or biomass that are removed from a lake, in agriculture, as food, or for biogas production. In this emerging field of sustainable restoration techniques, we show examples, discuss benefits and pitfalls, and flag areas for further research and development. Each lake should be assessed individually to ensure that restoration approaches will effectively address lake‐specific problems, do not harm the target lake or downstream ecosystems, are cost‐effective, promote delivery of valuable ecosystem services, minimize conflicts in public interests, and eliminate the necessity for repeated interventions. Achieving optimal, sustainable results from lake restoration relies on multidisciplinary research and close interactions between environmental, social, political, and economic sectors. This article is categorized under:Science of Water > Water QualityWater and Life > Stresses and Pressures on EcosystemsWater and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awarenessmore » « less
