Geographical Perspectives on a Radical Political Ecology of Water

Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance

“…More importantly, participatory research offers alternative modes to study domestic water service from the perspective of water users (Sultana 2007, Margerum and Robinson 2015). Ethnographic and participatory research methods extend to household and water user participation and inform our understanding of household water insecurity, notions of citizenship, and water users as political agents (O’Reilly and Dhanju 2012, Morinville and Harris 2014, Loftus 2011, Vandewalle and Jepson 2016). Social network analysis can leverage structured data (survey, observational, or archival) to analyze informal water governance networks (Cutts et al 2015) as well as informal flows of resources, influence, and knowledge (Borgatti et al 2016).…”

“…At the societal level, cultural and political structures embed social relations with power dynamics that in turn may expose otherwise similar households to different levels of water insecurity. For example, processes of land tenure, disinvestment, spatial exclusion, and dispossession can increase racial/ethnic-minority households’ risk of experiencing water insecurity (Loftus 2011, Switzer and Teodoro 2017). HWI research thus requires attention to complex interacting processes at multiple levels of analysis, and with attention to socio-spatial differentiation.…”

Historical Political Ecology of Water: Access to Municipal Drinking Water in Colonial Lima, Peru (1578–1700)

“…This level of nuance is not always considered in historical situations, even though it was likely present. Finally, political ecological work has shown how uneven water access also leads to further social differentiation and thus shapes and influences power relations, instead of merely reflecting or responding to them (Swyngedouw 1999;Gandy 2004;Loftus 2009). This can also be observed at a broader level, in terms of urban-rural relations, and usually results in significant urban bias.…”

“…Most important, unequal water access (Swyngedouw 2004;Bakker 2011;Loftus 2011) and the related politics of surface water or aquifer management (Swyngedouw 1999;Norman and Bakker 2008;Brooks and Linton 2011;Jepson 2012) have proven integral themes in understanding current-day water systems and have been shown to have both important historical antecedents and long-term legacy effects. Second, analyses of urban development and urban-rural relations related to water demonstrate strong urban bias, with urban uses often privileged in cases of conflicting multiple uses of water (multifunctionality).…”

Critical approaches to urban water governance: from critique to justice, democracy, and transdisciplinary collaboration

“…In response to this, there have been several recent calls to re‐politicize urban water governance, in part by revealing the ways in which particular values and interests are embedded within seemingly neutral, apolitical decisions about water allocation or infrastructure—often to the detriment of those already marginalized . Loftus, among others, identifies radical urban political ecology as an approach that explicitly aims to re‐politicize water, and the environment more generally …”