In the Global North, attempts to manage environmental resources have resulted in uneven results for diverse ecosystems. Weak levels of participation are characteristic of these attempts, as well as a lack of accounting for the stochasticity of both human and environmental systems. To address this lacuna, adaptive management has integrated the concept of environmental stochasticity into the management of complex environmental systems. However, we contend that adaptive management does not ask critical questions that seek to ensure social and environmental equitability, calling into question the effectiveness of the approach in the long term. This article provides an alternative vision of adaptive management that incorporates theoretical approaches from political ecology. Adaptive management provides an applicable framework to sustain the critical questions that political ecology asks. Thus, this marriage of application and theory can result in a framework that recognizes system stochasticity and develops pathways to the equitable management of environmental resources.
Abstract Despite the many programs focused on watershed education, the watershed concept is poorly understood, which can lead to a number of wide-ranging consequences from poor watershed planning and policy to inaccurate scientific studies. We argue that the definition of the term watershed, and the images that accompany the definition, contribute to these misunderstandings. The definition has remained very much the same since it was first documented in Europe in the mid-18th century. However, watershed uses and functions have evolved considerably in the past three centuries, notably in the many ways water moves within and across traditionally-defined watershed boundaries. In this study, content analyses of the definitions of the term watershed from textbooks and online sources, and the accompanying images, highlight that watersheds are nearly universally defined as an area of land that drains to a point on a river. More than half the images that accompany these definitions depict forested landscapes or high mountain relief. While over one half of online images depict human activities or developed landscapes, few textbook images do. These incomplete definitions and idealized images do not reflect the diversity of landscapes and watershed functions. The narrow description can contribute to an individual’s disconnection to their own watershed. Furthermore, the description of watersheds as lumped areas, rather than inter- and intra-connected socio-hydrologic systems, misses a fundamental element of the watershed concept: that activities at every point in a watershed impact all points downstream and are impacted by activities at all points upstream. Thus, we propose a revised definition of a watershed that better captures this connectivity: a watershed defines the boundaries of a system of hydrologically connected people, places, and things.
This paper explores Pittsburgh's water governance to consider the way divergent approaches to urban stormwater management reproduce existing urban metabolisms and belie more radical possibilities for the urban hydro-social cycle. Federal action has forced municipalities in the Pittsburgh metropolitan region to make changes to its urban water systems and develop a plan to comply with water quality regulations. Within Pittsburgh's water governance debates, compliance centers on various sets of technological strategies for defining and solving purportedly wicked urban environmental problems. Urban political ecology, here, is used to deconstruct the tensions and convergences between these different stormwater governance strategies. I argue that green infrastructure approaches (whose intentions are to expand practice and participation) are framed by dominant grey epistemological approaches. In this view, alternative and creative forms of greening the city may not necessarily represent a more democratic process, but instead reproduce uneven urban landscapes under greener cover.
Infrastructure tells a material story of ongoing challenges in cities, reflecting the diverse, normative desires of different communities. In this article we examine the introduction of green infrastructure technologies into urban infrastructure systems to think critically about these challenges and desires. Green infrastructure is an intentionally designed, multifunctional technology that directly uses or mimics the ecological processes of soils and plants (e.g., green rooftops, rain gardens, and bioswales). Facing budget shortfalls as well as demands to mitigate hazards and green the city, urban leaders are looking at green infrastructure as a facility that can provide diverse cobenefits along with traditional services. A focus on stormwater-based metrics, however—effectively reframing green infrastructure as green stormwater infrastructure—discursively tamps down alternative politics and desires for the city. Through a case study of Pittsburgh's stormwater governance, we argue that the work to (re)technologize green infrastructure as green stormwater infrastructure is an act of depoliticization that hinders needed conversations about just infrastructure outcomes. We draw on themes from qualitative interviews with community members engaged in urban water governance to suggest that these moments of transition provide an opportunity to illuminate previously obscured infrastructure politics and challenge the forms of knowledge that bind us to conventional routines of urban environmental governance. We see an opportunity to reframe the conversation in a way that opens up opportunities for historically disenfranchised communities to voice their needs beyond the technocratic problem of stormwater management.
Environmental justice (EJ) in the United States has emerged and evolved in a range of ways. Although founded in explanations of distributional justice (i.e., place and proximity), scholars and activists have expanded our understandings of environmental (in)justice through ideas about recognition, participation, capabilities, and more. In this article, we seek to complement and extend this work by exploring EJ through the lens of a watershed. We consider the case of the Bronx River watershed where environmental injustices are not only proximate, they are also created and exacerbated through upstream/downstream relationships. In other words, the Bronx is at the receiving end of upstream environmental governance, where various forms of pollution are introduced and flow downstream, contributing to already-existing injustices. This perspective suggests the importance of a multiscalar EJ approach that brings attention to the problems created when diverse municipalities share a single watershed, and resulting environmental harms are disproportionately felt by downstream communities. We argue that there is a need to expand the canon of EJ scholarship with a focus on justice in a watershed frame. We draw on both community science data and research as well as a collaboration with the Bronx River Alliance, an environmental and community organization, to emphasize the importance of public engagement in defining and solving environmental injustices.
Abstract: Oil and gas firms are utilizing a controversial drilling technique, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to access unconventional natural gas reserves in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale. The potential impacts of fracking are creating sharp tensions between stakeholders over the costs and benefits of drilling within their communities. In particular, much contention has emerged over water resources as the process both uses and degrades billions of gallons of water. This paper takes a critical look at the way multi‐scale neoliberal discourses obfuscate comprehensive understandings of fracking's effect on water resources. We turn to the neoliberal environments literature as a way to situate the economic logic that normalizes the impacts of fracking on resources, particularly in the absence of an effective regulatory framework. We argue that neoliberal pro‐fracking arguments are (re)defining the relationship among people, the environment, and institutions, which in turn normalizes the impacts on communities and the resources on which they depend.
