Dr Samantha Jones: Presentation for the ASIA- LINK CALIBRE Project Phnom Penh, May 8 th /9th

Teaching Themes (MSc, BA, BSc) Poverty-population- environment relationships Gender and the environment Environmental governance and decentralisation Livelihoods, agriculture and diversification Indigenous and scientific knowledge of natural resources and environmental change Deforestation, land degradation, desertification – causes etc. Political ecology Community-based natural resource management and wildlife/biodiversity conservation Risk perceptions, resilience Power, resistance, environmental struggles and ‘violent environments’ Challenging environmental narratives Research methods – qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies

Research outputs and interests village/ community level; human-environment interactions; informed by social theory; combination of qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies Current research: Nepal – risk and resilience, risk perception, risk governance, institutions for disaster management

Research outputs and interests Tanzania – land degradation, agricultural and social change Thailand – soil conservation, conservation farming and actor-orientated perspectives Zambia – sustainability, institutions and resettlement The Gambia – ecotourism and social capital Nepal – community forestry, decentralisation and environmental governance Review papers and edited book – political ecology and environmental degradation; changing approaches to wildlife conservation; environment, development and rural livelihoods

Social science research on arsenic in groundwater Quantitative medical/ epidemiological research –Hadi and Parveen 2004, 1675 people in sample, found age and economic status to be significant predictors of arsenicosis; –Argos et al 2007: dataset of found skin lesions more prevalent in men; individuals over 35 years and those with lower socio-economic status. Landlessness modified the relationship between skin lesions and exposure

Semi-quantitative social research Awareness/ knowledge of the arsenic problem, identifying knowledge gaps –Paul 2004: 365 questionnaires in 4 villages - found gender, level of education and age as important determinants of arsenic knowledge; –Caldwell et al 2005; Hadi 2003 The relationship between knowledge and behaviour (Madajewicz et al 2007) –6943 sample – households that change wells increase time spent obtaining water fifteen-fold –Door to door information delivery did not increase knowledge more than the media, but was more effective in changing behaviour (especially with well testing and information about alternatives

Qualitative, sociological/ political geography research Social (mis)understandings of the problem (stigmatisation, being ostracised, thought of as contagious); impacts of arsenicosis on social activities and livelihoods, coping stratagies (e.g. Hassan, Atkins and Dunn 2005) Expert knowledges, scientific uncertainty, safety standards (Atkins, Hassan and Dunn, 2007) Governance and democracy in response to the arsenic hazard, legal geographies (Atkins, Hassan and Dunn 2007; Atkins, Hassan and Dunn 2006)

Further potential social science research on arsenic in groundwater (Conceptual frameworks may be applied to other environmental issues) –Awareness raising and safe water decision-making –Governing the arsenic problem –Sustainable livelihoods, the role of livelihood assets in gaining access to uncontaminated water –Social capital, gender relations – A political ecology of arsenic in groundwater

Environmental Governance Governance may be defined as: the structures and process of power sharing in society or the interactions of different stakeholders (NGOs, state, civil society) to make decisions and generate formal and informal rules Principles of ‘good governance’ include: Participation, effectiveness, accountability, transparency, equity, deliberation, empowerment, justice

Environmental Governance Research questions on arsenic and governance: Who are the stakeholders? To what extent is the problem being governed according to the principles of good governance? What is the most appropriate level to govern the arsenic problem? What are the constraints to effective governance of the problem? Methodology – in depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders

Sustainable Livelihoods

How does access to these capital assets mediate access to uncontaminated water? How is access to the various assets differentiated in society? Who is most vulnerable and why? How do people cope with other shocks and stresses in their livelihoods? What is the impact of arsenicosis on livelihood strategies and asset portfolios?

Social Capital Networks of relations and trust that generate mutually beneficial collective action. Includes structural and cognitive social capital How strong is social capital? What has affected the development of social capital? What community level institutions exist? To what extent does the availability of social capital affect mitigation preferences? To what extent do neighbours influence each other in terms of behaviour? (Maadajewicz et al 2007)

References Argos, M et al (2007) Socio-economic status and risk for arsenic- related skin lesions in Bangladesh, American Journal of Public Health, 97, 5, Atkins, P., Hassan, M and Dunn, C. (2007) Poisons, pragmatic governance and deliberative democracy: The arsenic crisis in Bangladesh, Geoforum, 38, Atkins, P., Hassan, M. and Dunn, C. (2007) Environmental irony: Summoning death in Bangladesh, Environment and Planning A, 39, Atkins, P., Hassan M and Dunn, C (2006) Toxic Torts: Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and the legal goegraphies of responsibility, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, Caldwell, B.K., Smith, W.T., Caldwell, J.C. and Mitra, S.N. (2005) Trends in water usage and knowledge of arsenicosis in Bangladesh, Population, Space and Place, 11,

References Hadi, A and Parveen, R. (2004) Arsenicosis in Bangladesh: prevalence and socio-economic correlates, Public Health, 118, Hadi, A (2003) Fighting arsenic at the grassroots: experience of BRAC’s community awareness initiative in Bangladesh, Health Policy and Planning, 18, 1, Hassan, M., Atkins, P. and Dunn, C. (2005) Social implications of arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh, Social Science and Medicine, 61, Madajewicz, M et al (2007) Can information alone change behaviour? Response to arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh, Journal of Development Economics, 84, Paul, B.K (2004) Arsenic contamination awareness among the rural residents in Bangladesh, Social Science and Medicine, 59,