A System Method for the Assessment of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Mountain Watershed Areas: The Case of the “Giffre” Watershed (France)

In the last fifty years, many mountain watersheds in temperate countries have known a progressive change from self-standing agro-silvo-pastoral systems to leisure dominated areas characterized by a concentration of tourist accommodations, leading to a drinking water peak during the winter tourist season, when the water level is lowest in rivers and sources. The concentration of water uses increases the pressure on “aquatic habitats” and competition between uses themselves. Consequently, a new concept was developed following the international conferences in Dublin (International Conference on Water and the Environment – ICWE) and Rio de Janeiro (UN Conference on Environment and Development), both in 1992, and was broadly acknowledged through international and European policies. It is the concept of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). It meets the requirements of different uses of water and aquatic zones whilst preserving the natural functions of such areas and ensuring a satisfactory economic and social development. This paper seeks to evaluate a local water resources management system in order to implement it using IWRM in mountain watersheds. The assessment method is based on the systemic approach to take into account all components influencing a water resources management system at the watershed scale. A geographic information system was built to look into interactions between water resources, land uses, and water uses. This paper deals specifically with a spatial comparison between hydrologically sensitive areas and land uses. The method is applied to a French Alps watershed: the Giffre watershed (a tributary of the Arve in Haute-Savoie). The results emphasize both the needs and the gaps in implementing IWRM in vulnerable mountain regions.     

Misunderstanding the “Nature” of Co-Management: A Geography of Regulatory Science and Indigenous Knowledges (IK)

Governments, NGOs, and natural scientists have increased research and policy-making collaborations with Indigenous peoples for governing natural resources, including official co-management regimes. However, there is continuing dissatisfaction with such collaborations, and calls for better communication and mutual learning to create more “adaptive” co-management regimes. This, however, requires that both Western and Indigenous knowledge systems be equal participants in the “co-production” of regulatory data. In this article, I examine the power dynamics of one co-management regulatory regime, conducting a multi-sited ethnography of the practices of researching and managing one transnational migratory species, greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons frontalis), who nest where Koyukon Athabascans in Alaska, USA, practice subsistence. Analyzing the ethnographic data through the literatures of critical geography, science studies and Indigenous Studies, I describe how the practice of researching for co-management can produce conflict. “Scaling” the data for the co-management regime can marginalize Indigenous understandings of human–environment relations. While Enlightenment-based practices in wildlife biology avoid “anthropomorphism,” Indigenous Studies describes identities that operate through non-modern, deeply imbricated human–nonhuman identities that do not separate “nature” and “society” in making knowledge. Thus, misunderstanding the “nature” of their collaborations causes biologists and managers to measure and research the system in ways that erase how subsistence-based Indigenous groups already “manage” wildlife: by living through their ethical commitments to their fellow beings. At the end of the article, I discuss how managers might learn from these ontological and epistemological differences to better “co-produce” data for co-management.     

“Housing for all” at the era of financialization; can (post-disaster) cities become truly socially resilient and egalitarian?

This paper examines the realism of the resilience ambition and process of the U.S. housing system, shedding light on its heterogeneity as well as the financialization currently acting as the driving force in real estate production. The resilience ambition leading to enhanced justice and egalitarianism is understood as the provision and maintenance of post-disaster housing for all within an institutionally diverse landscape of housing policy makers and implementers. Particular emphasis is given to the post-Katrina institutional transformations resulting from multifarious interactions between multilevel institutional structures and a diverse landscape of low-income housing policy implementers – referred as social resilience cells (SRCs) in this paper. The nature and level of these transformations determine the degree to which resilience in its heterogeneous form has been incubated in New Orleans. The paper concludes with a discussion on the macro conditions and bottom-linked governance structures under which all SRCs could be better bolstered in a post-financialization, radicalised neowelfare U.S., and which in turn create possibilities for materialising the resilience ambition.     

“New roads – new goals. Positions of feminist planning”. Frei.Räume no. 10, edited by the German FOPA (feminist organisation of (female) planners and architects) in 1998

This Translations contribution presents the 10th issue of the series Frei.Räume (in English: Free spaces), edited by the German Feminist Organisation of (female) Planners and Architects (FOPA) in 1998. The issue was titled “New roads – new goals. Positions of feminist planning” and reflected the contemporary discussions on the state of the art of feminism, gender and planning. While progress was recognized, many authors felt uncomfortable with the ways that feminist concerns had been implemented into planning, and they were looking for ways forward. Among the authors were the most important protagonists of the debates at the time. Looking at the issue today, it becomes clear that many concerns are as up to date as they were in the late 1990s, although circumstances have changed. The paper argues that it is worthwhile to pay attention to these feminist debates in order to develop future strategies for feminism in planning.