Close this search box.


10 Responses

  1. Hello, Arthur,
    Thank you for the presentation. It’s always great to get feedback from the field in this freshness!

    In your presentation, I have the feeling that the landscape is becoming more and more complex. And I was wondering if it’s an optical effect (there were a lot of elements in the 17th Century part, but they weren’t mentioned) or if there’s really an accumulation effect? Do you have any information other than the actors for this early period?

    Looking at this complexification of the map over time I wondered if it was an illustration of a phenomenon that J. Linton (in “what is water”) calls a shift towards modern water? “Modern water is an intellectual achievement . Modern water reduces all water to this essential substance, this homogenous chemical compound, both spatially and temporally” (p.18).In Pyrénée this leads us to consider the transfer of water management and control from local authorities (herders?) to the State as a characteristic of modern water. Would that describe the dynamics you observe in the field?

    1. Hi Etienne,

      Thanks for this comment. As an answer I would say that I have very few information for the early period in the 17th century apart from local actors narratives. The accumulation effect is real at every period then new infrastructures have been built and are still partly used today.

      For the second question I would say that it is a good illustration of the phenomenon described by J. Linton. The shift from the first period when the water was managed by local actors to a “conservationnist” authority and tourism is a true characteristic of modern water.

  2. Role-playing games can be important for resolving collective action conflicts. What was the outcome of the games mentioned towards the end of this presentation?

  3. Excellent presentation. You mentioned that your team conducted surveys. I wonder if there is any information in the survey that you can use to measure the level of inequality across households/communities?

    1. Hi Liao,

      Thanks for your comment. This presentation is only partly showing the work I have been setting up in the area. I am currently analyzing my data on three systems with different housholds, practices, actors and narratives. In these three systems, I am analyzing the inequalities, rules of acces and power in place in terms of water uses.

      These results will for sure be presented in future publications.

  4. In this context of exclusion and privatization, do some people still aspire to govern land and water as commons?

    1. Hi Bryan,

      This is a very good question. The answer depends mostly on the age, sex and financial situation of every people questionned. The “old and rich people” with a lot of livestock would like to govern land and water as a commons but the youngest with low income and small livestock would like to get their own share to sell the land or to realize agriculture by drilling a borehole. Still it who be interesting to gather these people to create some scenario on the future managment system.

  5. I enjoyed your presentation. I have a few questions about the concept of waterscape? How is it different from watershed? Is it watershed + social-ecological systems? How do you define the waterscape in your study area? Is it defined by the watershed boundaries? Do you decide what the waterscape is? Or is it your informants who decide what the boundaries of the waterscape is? Or are there no physical boundaries to the waterscape? Obviously I should read the Swyngedouw paper, but I am also interested in your take on the concept of waterscape.

    1. Hi Mark,

      As an answer I would say that: The “waterscape” can be considered as “partly natural and partly social, bringing together a multiplicity of historical-geographic processes and relationships (Swyngedouw, 1999); “watercapes” are a form of socio-nature (Latour, 1993) ”. The “waterscape” is a spatial and temporal representation of the complexity of social and biophysical interactions. In addition, and in our case, the environments produced are specific historical results of socio-biophysical processes. “Most social processes and socio-ecological conditions (cities, agricultural or industrial production systems, etc.) are invariably supported and organized by a combination of social processes on the one hand (such as capital / labor relations and forms work organization) and metabolic and ecological processes (ie the biological, chemical or physical transformation of natural resources), complementary organized by a series of interdependent technologies) on the other hand ”(Swyngedouw, 2009). It is also necessary to understand the existence of new considerations in man / nature and science / society approaches which have moved away from contrasting “scientific” and “local” knowledge, in order to consider knowledge as excluded (Haraway 1988, Goldman 2007, Nightingale 2016). It is certainly a question of considering the power relations between local actors, scientists and foreigners. Conservation is rooted in a “Western” neoliberal paradigm. Beyond the preservation of wildlife and habitat, a park must produce something (tourism, money, research, etc.) through an “hybrid governance” (Brockington & Duffy 2010). Therefore, the driving forces involved are economic, political, historical (for example, the creation of Amboseli National Park), geographic and defined on the knowledge structure as well as a complex posture put in place by this hybrid governance.

      The consideration of these plural epistemologies and ontologies creates different knowledge systems and “watercape” which requires a mixed methodology to obtain a global understanding of local issues that fit into global mechanisms.

Comments are closed.

Event Sponsor / Commanditaire de l'événement