Search for: All records

Abstract An increasing number of studies find that water sharing—the non-market transfer of privately held water between households—is a ubiquitous informal practice around the world and a primary way that households respond to water insecurity. Yet, a key question about household water sharing remains: is water sharing a viable path that can help advance household water security? Or should water sharing be understood as a symptom of waterinsecurity in wait for more formalized solutions? Here, we address this question by applying Sen’s entitlement framework in an integrative review of empirical scholarship on household water sharing. Our review shows that when interhousehold water sharing is governed by established and well-functioning norms it can serve as a reliable transfer entitlement that bolsters household water security. However, when water sharing occurs outside of established norms (triggered by broader entitlement failures) it is often associated with significant emotional distress that may exacerbate conditions of waterinsecurity. These findings suggest that stable, norm-based water sharing arrangements may offer a viable, adaptive solution to households facing water insecurity. Nevertheless, more scholarship is needed to better understand when and how norm-based water transfer entitlements fail, the capacity of water sharing practices to evolve into lasting normative entitlements, and the impact of interhousehold water sharing on intrahousehold water security. 

Abstract American anthropology is engaged in significant self‐reckonings that call for big changes to how anthropology is practiced. These include (1) recognizing and taking seriously the demands to decolonize the ways research is done, (2) addressing precarious employment in academic anthropology, and (3) creating a discipline better positioned to respond to urgent societal needs. A central role for ethnographic methods training is a thread that runs through each of these three reckonings. This article, written by a team of cultural, biocultural, and linguistic anthropologists, outlines key connections between ethnographic methods training and the challenges facing anthropology. We draw on insights from a large‐scale survey of American Anthropological Association members to examine current ethnographic methods capabilities and training practices. Study findings are presented and explored to answer three guiding questions: To what extent do our current anthropological practices in ethnographic methods training serve to advance or undermine current calls for disciplinary change? To what extent do instructors themselves identify disconnects between their own practices and the need for innovation? And, finally, what can be done, and at what scale, to leverage ethnographic methods training to meet calls for disciplinary change? 

Abstract In this article, we introduce the “dwelling paradox” to explore how the state actively produces water insecurity for people experiencing homelessness in the Global North. We explain that the dwelling paradox is (1) produced by a modernist ideology of public service delivery that privileges water provision through private infrastructural connections in the home; (2) is reproduced by the welfare‐warfare state, which has increasingly weaponized public water facilities and criminalized body functions in public space; and (3) is actively contested by some houseless communities, who challenge hegemonic ideals of the “home”—and its water infrastructure—as a private, atomized space. In advancing a relational and spatial understanding of water insecurity, we use the dwelling paradox to illustrate how unhoused people are caught in a space of institutional entrapment that is forged by state power and amplified by anti‐homeless legislation. Such spaces of entrapment make it extremely difficult for unhoused people to achieve a safe, healthy, and thriving life—the basis of the human rights to water and sanitation. This article is categorized under:Human Water > Water Governance 

Abstract   Rapid adaptation is necessary to maintain, let alone expand, access to reliable, safe drinking water in the face of climate change. Existing research focuses largely on the role, priorities, and incentives of local managers to pursue adaptation strategies while mostly neglecting the role of the broader public, despite the strong public support required to fund and implement many climate adaptation plans. In this paper, we interrogate the relationship between personal experiences of household water supply impacts from extreme weather events and hazard exposure with individual concern about future supply reliability among a statewide representative sample of California households. We find that more than one-third of Californians report experiencing impacts of climate change on their household water supplies and show that these reported impacts differently influence residents’ concern about future water supply reliability, depending on the type of event experienced. In contrast, residents’ concern about future water supplies is not significantly associated with hazard exposure. These findings emphasize the importance of local managers’ attending to not only how climate change is projected to affect their water resources, but how, and whether, residents perceive these risks. The critical role of personal experience in increasing concern highlights that post-extreme events with water supply impacts may offer a critical window to advance solutions. Managers should not assume, however, that all extreme events will promote concern in the same way or to the same degree. 

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 

There has been a recent explosion of articles on minimum sample sizes needed for analyzing qualitative data. The purpose of this integrated review is to examine this literature for 10 types of qualitative data analysis (5 types of saturation and 5 common methods). Building on established reviews and expanding to new methods, our findings extract the following sample size guidelines: theme saturation (9 interviews; 4 focus groups), meaning saturation (24 interviews; 8 focus groups), theoretical saturation (20–30+ interviews), metatheme saturation (20–40 interviews per site), and saturation in salience (10 exhaustive free lists); two methods where power analysis determines sample size: classical content analysis (statistical power analysis) and qualitative content analysis (information power); and three methods with little or no sample size guidance: reflexive thematic analysis, schema analysis, and ethnography (current guidance indicates 50–81 data documents or 20–30 interviews may be adequate). Our review highlights areas in which the extant literature does not provide sufficient sample size guidance—not because it is epistemologically flawed, but because it is not yet comprehensive and nuanced enough. To address this, we conclude by proposing ways researchers can navigate and contribute to the complex literature on sample size estimates.