2 Homework

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

Women, Water, and Development Isha Ray Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007. 32:421–49

First published online as a Review in Advance on August 13, 2007

The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is online at http://environ.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.32.041806.143704

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

1543-5938/07/1121-0421$20.00

Key Words

access to water, drinking water, Dublin Principles, gender, irrigation

Abstract That women play a central role in the provision, management, and safeguarding of water is one of the four internationally accepted principles of water management. This principle is especially impor- tant for the developing world where millions of women lack access to water for their basic needs. The objectives of this chapter are to summarize what is known about women with respect to water and about water with respect to women as well as to provide a sense of the current debates around these themes. A review of the literature suggests that the lack of gender-disaggregated data on the impacts of water policies, and underlying disagreements on how gender and development should be theorized, makes it difficult to reach robust conclusions on which policies can best assure poor women reliable access to water for their lives and livelihoods.

421

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 1.1. Why Study Women, Water,

and Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 1.2. Outline of the Chapter . . . . . . . 423

2. WOMEN, GENDER, AND DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . 424

3. MODELING THE HOUSEHOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 3.1. Unitary and Collective

Household Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 3.2. Unitary versus Collective

Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 4. WOMEN AND WATER FOR

DOMESTIC USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 4.1. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 4.2. Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 4.3. Gender, Water, and

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 5. WOMEN AND WATER

FOR IRRIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 5.1. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 5.2. Gender, Irrigation, and

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 6. GENDER ASPECTS OF

TRENDS IN THE WATER SECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 6.1. Cost Recovery and

Market-Based Access . . . . . . . . . . 438 6.2. Designing for Multiple Use . . . 439

7. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS . . 440 7.1. The Need for Gender-Specific

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 7.2. The Need for Collaborative

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441

1. INTRODUCTION

The urgency of extending reliable and afford- able access to drinking water to the 1.2 billion who lack such access, mostly in the developing world, is by now accepted and understood well beyond the world of water professionals. Less well understood is the need to extend irriga- tion services to the millions who practice sub-

sistence farming on small plots of land, often 2 hectares or less, in semiarid conditions (1, 2). And even less is understood about the com- plex relationship of women’s lives and access to water, even though the burden of providing households, and frequently family farms, with water falls disproportionately on women (3, 4). This review brings together the literatures on the dominant theoretical frameworks in which gender and development can broadly be understood; on what is known about women’s access to and use of freshwater in the develop- ing world; and on policies aimed at ensuring that low-income women have access to, and a measure of control over, sources of water for their domestic and livelihood needs. The ob- jectives of this chapter are to summarize what is known about women with respect to water and water with respect to women as well as to give the reader a sense of the current de- bates and unanswered questions around these themes.

1.1. Why Study Women, Water, and Development?

By the mid-1970s it had become clear to scholars, practitioners, and advocates engaged in the field of economic development that development and modernization were affect- ing men and women in different ways. Rather than acting as a rising tide for all boats, the in- tended and unintended consequences of mod- ernization were bypassing many women and even adversely affecting others (5). Overall the process of economic development was rad- ically changing women’s roles in the home and in society at large (6). At the same time, it was also seen that especially rural women spent long working days on diverse activi- ties such as farming; agroprocessing; market- ing; handicrafts; animal husbandry; collecting water, fuel, and fodder; and childcare, all of which contributed to the local economy and to development more broadly (3, 7). Women came to be recognized as key participants in efforts to alleviate poverty and achieve so- cial transformation. The field of women and

422 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

development thus grew out of the recognition that international assistance to low-income countries, and national policies in these coun- tries, had to be better directed toward “im- proving (women’s) status and assisting the de- velopment effort” (8). Literally thousands of articles, policy documents, books, and disser- tations have now been written on this topic. Water use and water management have been recognized in these literatures as central to sustainable development efforts as well as to women’s domestic and economic activities.

In 1992 the International Conference on Water and the Environment held in Dublin, Ireland, produced four key principles to guide policies for water and sustainable develop- ment (http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/ PSP?iNodeID=1345[0]N). Known as the Dublin Principles, they represent the interna- tional consensus, albeit one that was reached after contentious discussions, on best prac- tices in the water sector. They are as follows:

I. Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, devel- opment and the environment.

II. Water development and management should be based on a participatory ap- proach, involving users, planners, and policy makers at all levels.

III. Women play a central part in the provi- sion, management and safeguarding of water.

IV. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recog- nized as an economic good.

In 2000, at the United Nations Millen- nium Summit, world leaders committed to a collaborative program of sustainable develop- ment, greater gender equality, and increased access to health and education through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Greater access for women and men to water and sanitation is key to achieving each of the eight goals (4, p. 22–24), but of especial inter- est to this review are the following two:

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and em- power women.

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainabil- ity, with a specific target to halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustain- able access to water and sanitation.

International agencies have thus made wa- ter for women a cornerstone of their de- velopment and humanitarian efforts (9), but much debate surrounds the nature and con- sequences of their policies. It may be worth noting that Dublin Principle III, unlike, for instance, Principles II and IV, simply states the centrality of women to water and of wa- ter to women. No specific actions or recom- mendations are embedded in its language. In- fluential gender-equity advocates argue that there is a positive synergy between women’s interests and the management and conser- vation of natural resources (10, 11). How- ever, critics counter that naively designed “women-centered” projects can merely add to the responsibilities of already overburdened women, without transforming the power im- balances that constrain their lives at home or in society (12, 13). So are water projects in which women play a central part likely to increase their workloads rather than their well-being? Is the participation of women in these projects either necessary or sufficient for project success or for higher levels of access for women? Can more secure access to water spill over into greater economic and decision- making power? This review concludes that we can answer these questions in a tentative manner at best. This is so in part because of the general disconnect between scholarship on water policy and scholarship on gender and also in part because the water sector is weak on the kinds of data we would need to get more definite answers.

1.2. Outline of the Chapter

The primary purpose of this chapter is to re- view and organize the diverse and somewhat uneven literature on women’s access to and use of freshwater as well as to present some case studies on projects in the water sector that are

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 423

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

women centered or otherwise relevant to gen- der and access.1 The women-and-water liter- ature is largely made up of policy documents produced by international agencies that are rarely peer reviewed in the academic sense, and small-n case studies that are often, but not always, published in peer-reviewed journals. These documents are valuable on their own terms, but also need to be understood in light of the dominant framings of gender, environ- ment, and development that (often implicitly) inform their assumptions, data collection, and conclusions. Specifically, these framings in- form the evaluation of interventions aimed at increasing women’s access and participa- tion. Because the field of women and water integrates the broad fields of gender, environ- ment, and development, Section 2 summa- rizes these frameworks with attention to their relevance to the water literature. In Section 3, we turn to models of the household, the primary locus of gendered decision making with respect to water use and priorities. This chapter will show that how the household is conceptualized determines both data collec- tion and subsequent analyses of water sector interventions.

Moving on from these theoretical discus- sions, Section 4 reviews the empirical liter- ature on women in the domestic water sec- tor, and Section 5 reviews that on women and water use in the agricultural sector. The first part of each reviews the state of knowledge on women’s access and the consequences of access or the lack thereof, and the terms and processes of access. The second part discusses selected case studies of gender and water with respect to participation, since participation in water management is both a major thrust of international policy as well as a topic of in- tense debate. The cases and their possible im- plications are presented with some caution, because it is sometimes hard to distinguish

1 It may be useful to distinguish scholarship related to gen- der from feminist scholarship. Feminist theories are not necessarily reflected in empirically based research on gen- der and environment or development.

the features of a case from its “lessons” and because examples of “success” are often writ- ten up with a robust optimism that prevents detailed examination of failures along the way. The highlighted cases are from South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, homes to the largest num- bers in absolute poverty and lacking access to the most basic amenities (14, table 5). For reasons of space and scope, Sections 4 and 5 do not include sanitation, fisheries, or aquatic ecosystems, although these are also important sites of the gender-water interface. Section 6 reviews the literature on the potentially gen- dered consequences of two global trends in the water sector—cost recovery and multi- ple use. Finally, Section 7 concludes with a brief discussion of recurrent tensions in the water and gender literature and with sugges- tions for future data collection and collabora- tive research.

2. WOMEN, GENDER, AND DEVELOPMENT

In order to integrate the gendered nature of social, economic, and political processes into development theories, three broad frame- works were proposed over the 1970s and the 1980s. Although the third, gender and de- velopment, has become the mainstream po- sition of most academics as well as donors concerned with development, all three ver- sions can be found in research and policy documents on women and development. The way in which the role of women within de- velopment is conceptualized determines, of- ten implicitly rather than explicitly, why ac- cess to water is considered important and in which ways access should be sought. The rest of this section is drawn from several peer- reviewed papers (7, 13, 15–17) and the gen- der policy position papers of the World Bank and the Food and Agricultural Organization (3, 18, 19).

In the 1970s, the term “women in devel- opment” (WID) came to stand for the argu- ment that economic development was leaving women out because they lacked the access, or

424 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

were not allowed access, to the very resources that made development possible. These re- sources included healthcare, education, vot- ing rights, employment opportunities, credit, and also basic services such as water and san- itation. Women, it was argued, had to be in- tegrated into the development process (20). WID was subsequently critiqued because its focus on access to the tools of development ignored the complexities of gender relations in different societies, and because emphasiz- ing the importance of women’s access for de- velopment emphasized the instrumental over the intrinsic value of such access. Over the next two decades, the mainstream position on this issue moved from “women” to “gender” and from “in” to “and,” i.e., gender and devel- opment. Nevertheless WID-style arguments appear frequently in the water literature, for example, arguing for easier access to water be- cause women can use their freed up time to generate more income for their families.

In the early 1980s, an influential group of feminist scholars attacked the WID approach for assuming that being left out of develop- ment was the problem when it was the very process of development that marginalized women. The women, environment, and de- velopment (WED) proponents’ core premise was that there was a special relationship be- tween women and natural resources because they use them most and know them best. This “ecofeminist” perspective saw analogies be- tween the marginalization of women and the marginalization of the environment, arguing that the dominant and male forces of develop- ment were responsible for both (e.g., 10, 21). The WED position had two related strands. The first argued that women, especially poor women, were victims of a development pro- cess that was destroying the environmental re- source base. The second argued that women were the natural defenders of land, trees, and water and could use these efficiently and sus- tainably if given the chance to do so. WED was, and continues to be, heavily criticized for universalizing women’s natures. Soft versions of WED, however, continue to inform gender

and resource positions at both multilateral or- ganizations and more local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Starting from the mid-1980s, gender has been mainstreamed2 into the literature on re- sources and on development as well as into the policy documents of international agen- cies, through the framework of gender and development (GAD). GAD challenges gen- eral assumptions about what women need, and emphasizes the importance of understanding gender relations, which are dynamic, in or- der to understand, for example, how women use water. Gender equality is understood to be contextual rather than rigidly defined. Fur- thermore, GAD argues that women and men have interests in addition to their gendered interests, such as those associated with eth- nic or class identities. Rather than assume that women are naturally sustainable users of re- sources, GAD asks why women have histor- ically developed these relationships. Rather than assume that access to credit will en- able women to irrigate their land, GAD asks what are the common and conflicting inter- ests that men and women have over that land. As Jackson (13) says, that which WID as- sumes, GAD problematizes. GAD is explic- itly the gender position of the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the United Nations Organization members. However, donor policies on the ground often seem to reflect the other two frameworks because the refusal of GAD to make simplifying assump- tions makes policy prescriptions problematic.

3. MODELING THE HOUSEHOLD

The most basic social unit in which resources are allocated and decisions about water use

2 Gender “mainstreaming” refers to the understanding that gender is not its own topic of interest within, e.g., water management or development, but is “an integral compo- nent of every aspect of the economic, social, daily and pri- vate lives of individuals and societies” (19) and should thus be integrated into every part of a research or intervention project.

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 425

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

are made is the household. It is sometimes surprising to scholars unfamiliar with devel- oping countries that enumerating households is not a straightforward task. Rural as well as urban households in Asia and Africa may con- sist of one nuclear family or several, with a common kitchen or not. Thus if a munici- pality defines the lifeline volume of water by household, as many do for South Africa’s Free Basic Water Policy, low-income households could easily use up more than the allocated 6 kiloliters a month (22). Moreover, even in a nuclear household, the household as such makes no decisions—individuals do. These realizations have led to a rich literature in an- thropology, economics, and gender studies on the nature and structure of household alloca- tions with respect to food, money, and time (23, 24). The way in which research or prac- tice constructs the household determines the data collected, the level of disaggregation of those data, and the interpretation of gender equality in water projects.

3.1. Unitary and Collective Household Models

The traditional model of the household is unitary—a single decision-making unit that is led by a benevolent dictator, or that takes account of the needs and wants of each mem- ber either as part of an explicit calculation or “as if” so (e.g., 25). In these frameworks, there is frequently (though not always) an assump- tion that household well-being is maximized within the constraints of a single household budget—thus equating individual well-being with that of the household to which the indi- vidual belongs. In the unitary model, there is no need to disaggregate the household’s utility function into its gender-specific components.

The conceptualization of the household as a single decision-making unit has been criti- cized on theoretical and on empirical grounds. Researchers have started modeling the house- hold as a negotiated unit, often as a bargain- ing game, in which the adult members have separate utility functions but also common

interests (26, 27). Household allocation ap- proaches that are not based on specific bar- gaining frameworks have also been developed (28, 29). These analyses are in the process of being extended and refined, for example, to take account of extrafamilial factors that in- fluence the intrafamilial balance of power, and the role of social norms and perceptions (30). Overall, collective approaches to the house- hold start from the premise that male and fe- male members may not have joint utility func- tions because they may have different ideas of what constitutes personal as well as household well-being.

3.2. Unitary versus Collective Models

The unitary model has the advantage of par- simony, but much evidence points to the col- lectively negotiated approach as the more re- alistic framework. In 1995, five economists (all men) argued in an influential paper that, in the face of overwhelming field evidence, the collective rather than the unitary frame- work should be the default one for analysis of the household (31). For water supply or man- agement policies, the working assumption of what constitutes the household is central to our understanding of the gender impacts of these policies. Several international agencies, without explicitly engaging competing frame- works of the household, recognize the need for gender-sensitive policies (9, 19) and no longer assume that poverty reduction or bet- ter access to water at the household level au- tomatically ensures the greater well-being of women.

In practice, however, the household is still the dominant unit of intervention and anal- ysis in the water sector. Research on house- hold water demand or willingness to pay for water, for example, rarely disaggregates de- mand or willingness by gender (e.g., 32–34). Community- and participation-based studies in both water and sanitation are usually inclu- sive of women’s perspectives (e.g., 35). But this can sometimes amount to equating women’s well-being with household well-being and

426 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

gender with women (17)—a position that the collective approach to the household, and the GAD framework discussed above, explicitly reject. Many irrigation management studies, even now, treat the farm household as uni- tary. Large water sector studies such as global- scale assessments or models are also largely silent on gender (e.g., 36). With few excep- tions, therefore, researchers on irrigation in- terventions or cross-country comparisons do not collect, or perhaps do not report, gender- specific data, and so the reader cannot infer gender-specific information.

The tension between the unitary and the collective constructs of the household has many reasons. Even if the collective version has become the norm for academic research, national and even international policy is often implemented in line with conventional wis- dom rather than research insights (37). The work of Amartya Sen (38) on what he calls “cooperative conflicts” within the household points out that it is a delicate matter to de- construct the household when pressures, per- ceptions, and norms could all work together to make male-female asymmetries appear en- tirely natural. Hart (39) finds that the negoti- ated model is inherently more politicized and therefore can be resisted both at the research and the implementation levels. The point here is that the empirical and especially policy- oriented literatures on women and water have models of the household embedded in them, and it is necessary to uncover these embedded models in reading the literature on access to water.

4. WOMEN AND WATER FOR DOMESTIC USE

About 1.2 billion people lack access to the minimum quantity of water needed for basic health and hygiene, and this number is almost certainly an underestimate. Throughout the developing world, the task of providing do- mestic water is a female one. Thus the health consequences of lack of access to water and of transporting water on a daily basis, and

the policy frameworks in which access can be improved, are of particular relevance to women and development.

4.1. Access

Access to the minimum quantity of water nec- essary for domestic use, usually meaning that for drinking, cooking, washing utensils, and basic hygiene, can be defined in many ways. The UNICEF/World Health Organization Joint Monitoring Program (JMP), the main source of national level data on access, defines reasonable access as 20 liters per person per day from an improved source, no more than 1 km distant from the dwelling (36). Improved sources are household taps, public standpipes, boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, and collected rainwater. Unimproved water sources according to the JMP are un- protected wells; unprotected springs, rivers, or ponds; vendor-provided water; and bottled water.3 The data are compiled primarily from reports received from participating countries, but since 2000, these have been supplemented where possible by household-level surveys and calibrated using other regional studies. The unit of analysis for data collection is the household, although the data are reported as per person. Gleick cautions that these data should be used for cross-country comparisons with a degree of skepticism because there are major disparities in data collection capacity and accuracy across regions (40).

Current JMP estimates are that 85% of the population has access in Latin America and the Caribbean, 81% in Asia, and 62% in Africa (Table 1). Globally, approximately 65% of the population without access to safe water lives in Asia and 28% in Africa. Even though these access numbers do not directly translate to those of access for women, they are reasonable proxies because it is almost al- ways women and children who are responsible

3 Bottled water is explicitly recognized as an “unimproved” source because it is considered too expensive to be the primary source of drinking water for most people.

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 427

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

Table 1 Access to drinking water by regiona

Region Area within

region Percent of population

with access Latin America and Caribbean Overall 85

Urban 93

Rural 62 Asia Overall 81

Urban 93

Rural 75 Africa Overall 62

Urban 85

Rural 47

a Adapted from Reference 36.

for the daily provision of domestic water. The Gender and Water Alliance further claims that gender development indices can be used as indicators of overall water supply development because of the positive correlation between low achievement along the Gender Development Index (GDI) and low water coverage (41). For example, putting together data collected by the JMP and the Human Development Report, it can be seen that eight of the ten countries in Africa with less than 50% of overall population served (Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mauritania, and Rwanda) all scored higher than 120 on the GDI out of 146 countries ranked.4 However it is not clear what can be inferred from this particular correlation given that these countries suffer from a host of problems such as low per capita incomes, low literacy levels, and internal conflicts.

Lack of access to an improved water source, or even difficult or unreliable condi- tions of access, translates to what the 2006 UN Human Development Report (4) has called “time poverty” for women and chil- dren. The report cites studies that found households in rural Uganda that spent almost 2 h/day collecting water (4) and parts of ru-

4 A high GDI rank indicates low levels of gender development.

ral Benin where young girls spent 1 h/day on this task (42). Overall, it is estimated that some 40 billion mostly woman-hours per year are spent fetching water in sub-Saharan Africa (43, p. 19). An estimate of the value of the time spent collecting water from wells versus more accessible kiosks in rural Kenya suggested that women placed high values on the opportunity cost of their time (44).

Estimates from South Asia are quite simi- lar. NGOs working in rural India report that women in many villages find themselves walk- ing 2 km or more to their drinking water source (45). Time-allocation studies have found that women in the Konkan region of Maharashtra spent nearly 2 h/day fetching and storing water (46) and that, in the dry season, women in the state of Gujarat had to walk 3– 4 h/day in order to secure the daily domestic supply (47). The same study from Gujarat also presented evidence that when access to wa- ter improved, the women devoted more time to income-generating microenterprises. Sim- ilarly, an econometric study of time alloca- tion in rural Pakistan found that 15% of an average woman’s monthly work effort went to collecting water and that more accessible water infrastructure would allow some sub- stitution of income-generating activities for water collection (48). It has, however, been argued that the implication in many time- allocation studies, which is that women would necessarily use time freed up from collect- ing water in income-generating activities, is based more on WID-like assumptions than on broad-based evidence. Freed up time is used for income generation if such opportunities exist and if women are able and willing to use them. Some researchers have made the case that easier access to water is desirable not just for economic reasons but for overall quality of life, regardless of how the extra time is spent (42, 49).

Urban and periurban areas in the develop- ing world may have household connections or standpipe water within a short distance of the home. In such cases, women and chil- dren would not have to walk long distances,

428 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

but waiting in line takes time. In survey data from across India, 21% of urban households reported spending 20 min or more to get to the water source to which waiting time and the return journey have to be added (50). In densely populated slums such as Kibera, Kenya, waiting times at water kiosks of 1–2 h have been reported, and slums in Dhaka, Bangladesh, could have a standpipe-to-person ratio of 1:500 (51). As in rural areas, most of the fetching and waiting in urban areas fall upon women and girls.

Although the disproportionate burden that water provision imposes on women is well documented in the water and development literature, the opportunity cost of girls’ time is less studied. The 2006 Human Develop- ment Report concludes, mostly on the basis of African case studies and interviews in the course of producing the report, that there is a “straight trade-off between time spent in school and time spent collecting water” and that this is much less true for boys than it is for girls (4, p. 47). This is an area where more research must be conducted. If confirmed by further research, the lack of reliable access to water and sanitation could be a major contrib- utor to continuing gender inequality in educa- tion and the opportunities that education can provide.

4.2. Health

Even households with access to what the JMP calls an improved source might not actually be getting water that is safe to drink. Sources of surface as well as ground water are increas- ingly contaminated from human and animal waste, agricultural runoff, chemicals such as fluorine or arsenic, and industrial effluents (52). Few municipalities in the developing world provide potable quality water in their pipelines, and few rural water supply agen- cies systematically test wells for water qual- ity or treat poor-quality water even to a sec- ondary level (53). The most deadly health cost of waterborne diseases is the 1.8 million lives of children under age five that diarrhea

claims every year (36). In addition, the suf- fering caused by sickness and disability from waterborne, water-washed and water-related diseases, such as intestinal helminths, periodic episodes of cholera, blinding trachoma, and schistosomiasis is amply documented in the public health and epidemiological literatures (e.g., 54, 55). The benefits to health and well- being from better-quality drinking water for the urban and rural poor (e.g., 56) and the potential for low-cost technologies to allevi- ate water quality problems (e.g., 57) are also well known—at least to the broader water and health community. But much less attention has been paid to the health risks that women face as water carriers.

Women and (usually) girl children fetch water in pots, buckets, or ideally more mod- ern narrow-necked containers, which are car- ried either on the head or on the hips. A fam- ily of five within 1 km of an improved water source would need 100 liters of water a day to meet its minimum needs. The weight of that water is 100 kg (220 pounds) without the container. Plastic is the lightest material for carrying the water; traditional clay pots are much heavier. In these circumstances, women and children may need to walk to the water source two or three times daily, with the first of these trips taking place at around 5 a.m. (45). Globally, more than 50% of poor women suffer malnutrition and iron deficiency (23), and thus it should not be surprising that, espe- cially during the dry season in rural India and Africa, 30% or more of a woman’s daily energy intake is spent just in fetching water (58, 59). When several trips are not possible, rural and periurban families make do with 10 liters or less per person per day, even if they live within 1 km of an improved source, and thus have “access.” Carrying heavy loads over long pe- riods of time causes cumulative damage to the spine, the neck muscles, and the lower back, leading to the early ageing of the vertebral column (60). Symptoms in the form of con- stant pain in the neck and the knees may also occur (46). The burden of daily carrying is rarely covered in leading public health and

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 429

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

epidemiological journals, as it falls outside of the conventional categories of water-borne, water-washed, and water-related ailments.

4.3. Gender, Water, and Participation

In the years leading up to and immediately following the Dublin Principles, water re- searchers as well as practitioners at the com- munity, national, and international levels have become more gender sensitive than was previ- ously the case. There was broad agreement on the need to include women in water planning and decision making but perhaps less of a con- sensus on what such inclusion meant in a con- crete sense, in different contexts, and at dif- ferent scales (61). During the 1990s, however, researchers and practitioners alike gradually converged on the desirability of local-level or community participation in water manage- ment, especially that involving women.

The voices in favor of women participating in decision making over the use and manage- ment of local water resources can be (a) WID leaning, arguing that women’s involvement is central not only to their empowerment but also to greater efficiency and sustainable de- velopment (3, 18, 62); (b) mixed WID and WED leaning, arguing that women use and know local resources best and therefore rep- resent the natural loci of decision making (23); and (c) GAD leaning, arguing that attention to how both women and men use and negotiate over water resources is important (13), as is the potential for women to increase their self- confidence and status through control over water (63). The failure of many community- based water resource management projects has been attributed to the exclusion of women at all levels of the project and to the inability of project planners to take their (often hidden) knowledge and priorities into account (61, 64). Numerous reports from Asia and Africa suggest that the inclusion of women as par- ticipants and decision makers increased their access to, and control over, local water re- sources. Most of these reports are case studies, and some of them may seem more advocacy

oriented rather than analysis driven. Cases for these analyses are purposively rather than ran- domly chosen; therefore it is important to rec- ognize potential selection biases in the case study literature on women, water, and partici- pation. Nevertheless, these studies provide in- sights into the ways in which women-centered policies have affected women’s control over water resources, and the consequences of that control.

Early studies from Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, and Kenya came to mixed conclusions about the role of women in participation and de- cision making with respect to the mainte- nance of village handpumps.5 A study by Cleaver (65) reported that the national policy of Zimbabwe was to have women take promi- nent roles in their local Waterpoint Com- mittees but that few women actually were in such leadership positions. Nevertheless, tradi- tional authority figures in many villages were quite effective in managing their local water- points. The Ethiopia study, however, argued that the development of successive genera- tions of the Afridev Pump had, with World Bank and UNDP support, evolved to the point where it was simple enough that ru- ral women readily undertook the installation and maintenance of the pumps. Installing and taking care of the pumps gave women much- appreciated control over both water and tech- nology (66). The Kenya study describes the frequent breakdowns and lack of maintenance of handpumps in a cluster of Kenyan vil- lages until a FINNIDA grant trained women to repair the pumps. The maintenance im- proved, as did the self-esteem and author- ity of the women mechanics. However, the women were expected to install, operate, and care for the pumps without compensation, whereas the previously lax and male mechan- ics had been paid (67). A more recent study of the Mvula Trust, a South African NGO devoted to community capacity building for

5 Handpumps are the primary water withdrawal mecha- nisms for millions of South Asians and Africans.

430 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

sustainable water and sanitation, highlights an example of women-led community participa- tion in KwaZulu Natal. Community stand- pipes and their diesel pump were maintained and paid for by community members, and all the standpipe “wardens” were women. The sustained success of this arrangement was partly attributed to the prominence of women, drawn from a long-standing women’s community organization, in the Village Water Committee (68).

More recently, an ambitious report from UNICEF and the Water and Supply and San- itation Collaborative Council (69) provides case-based evidence on women-centered par- ticipation in water and sanitation efforts from around the world. This study is squarely in the WID tradition; its opening paragraph ar- gues for improvements in women’s capacity to make water and sanitation decisions and states, “ultimately, what is good for women is good for the family and the whole com- munity, who share the benefit from all these improvements.” Citing a wide variety of ex- periences from Pakistan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, and several other na- tions, the report finds that “placing women at the center” of water and sanitation deci- sions can lead to more households with access to water, more cost-effective service delivery, better placement and maintenance of water infrastructure, better community health and hygiene, and less corruption in financial mat- ters. The report concludes that when women are enabled to make decisions and act on their priorities the overall impacts are always a safer and more sustainable water system and greater empowerment of women.

By contrast, a statistical study of World Bank water projects in rural India is more cir- cumspect about the consequences of women’s participation. The analysis of participatory water projects in 45 villages found that women’s involvement was often of a token kind; although in the few cases of substan- tive decision-making power, participation was found to lead to greater self-confidence and status. Overall, though the correlation be-

tween community participation and project success was positive and significant, there was no effect of women’s participation in project success (70). Similarly, a comprehensive re- view of 121 rural water supply projects from around the world found that women were not critical to participation and that it was a myth that involving the community in the project would automatically involve the women (71).

For almost three decades, it has been un- derstood in the water management commu- nity that a project plan with no mention of a role for women cannot improve the status quo with respect to empowerment or access to water. However, a review of the case-based literature on women and water in the domes- tic sphere reveals that it is not clear when and on what terms participation in commu- nity projects improves their access to and con- trol over water, or their empowerment over- all. Three broad points emerge from a review of gender and participatory drinking water projects. First, although the roles that women play in planning and management can be very important to water projects, effective com- munity participation does not always require women to play a central part. Firmer con- clusions from the empirical evidence cannot be reached because there are few projects for which comprehensive gender-disaggregated data are collected. Many well-cited studies of participation in the water sector do not even mention women and instead use the house- hold or the community as the smallest units of analysis (e.g., 72, 73).

Second, participation takes many forms (70). At low levels of power, although not nec- essarily of time, it can mean donating labor or perhaps attending meetings without speak- ing up. At higher levels of power, it can mean active involvement in decisions about water- related technologies and priorities as well as the ability to ensure action on these priorities. The original champions of participatory de- velopment argued that the priorities, aspira- tions, and constraints of marginalized groups were to shape the entire process of participa- tion (74). It seems plausible that the level and

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 431

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

nature of participation could make a differ- ence both to the success of the water project and to any spillover effects on women’s lives. However, many case studies omit the details on what levels of participation were actually achieved and on the mix of project design, so- cial structure, and women’s preferences that constrained or enabled particular forms of participation.

Third, it may be necessary to read be- tween the lines of a case study to under- stand whether the central role of women in managing and safeguarding water resources was considered of instrumental or intrinsic value. Embedded in most case studies, often only implicitly, is a WID-, WED-, or GAD- sympathetic worldview. Projects that enable women to supplement their agricultural in- comes on account of access to water (75) or that require women to work extra hours to manage their water sources (67) may be suc- cessful in WID terms but may contribute less to empowerment (76). Participatory projects in which women take on water-related re- sponsibilities for which they are not paid have been critiqued for their WED-like assump- tions that women are natural protectors of water and thus do not need payment (e.g., 13, 77). However, the more complex GAD- based perspective, which arguably represents the mainstream academic and donor position, is more commonly used as a critique of exist- ing interventions than as the guiding principle for new interventions (78).

5. WOMEN AND WATER FOR IRRIGATION

Irrigation has transformed thousands of once dry-farmed hectares of cereal crops into pro- ductive, double-cropped diversified plots of land. Yields with irrigation of cereals, pulses, and vegetables in developing countries are from 100% to 400% higher than they are without irrigation (79). Yet 800 million people are estimated to suffer from chronic hunger, and the majority of them live on small farms, of less than 2 hectares, in South Asia and sub-

Saharan Africa (52). Increasing the access to irrigation for these tiny farms, which are usu- ally overlooked by large-scale water infras- tructure and which are too small to benefit from conventional groundwater withdrawal technologies, would be a major step toward food security and poverty alleviation (52, 80).

5.1. Access

In a paper on integrating women into water policies in Sri Lanka, Athukorala (81) suggests that women’s priorities have proven easier to integrate into the domestic water sector than in the irrigation sector because domestic wa- ter has always been considered in the women’s sphere and because conflicts over irrigation water challenge traditional ideas about the division of rural labor. But Zwarteveen (82) argues that a near-exclusive focus on gen- der in the domestic water sector overlooks the potentially gendered impacts of irrigation technologies and institutions, especially with the increasing number of woman-headed farm households. She also suggests that it risks ce- menting gender inequalities by emphasizing the role of women as homemakers and moth- ers, rather than as producers as well.

The literature on irrigation reviewed here brings to the fore three gender-specific con- cerns. First, it suggests that women are often denied direct (that is, not mediated by male relatives) access to irrigation water. From the productivity as well as equity perspectives, there is considerable evidence to suggest that allocating water to men and to women would increase household incomes. However, the literature indicates that formally allocating irrigation rights to women is not sufficient and, in a few cases, may not even be necessary for women to benefit from the water. Second, new participatory irrigation management policies may not improve women’s access to water unless the policies take account of gender-specific roles in agriculture. Unlike drinking water, which is accepted as being in the women’s domain, women and men in a community or even household may need

432 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

and use irrigation water in different ways. Third, the transformation in agriculture that irrigation brings about increases women’s well-being through increases in household incomes but could also increase women’s workloads without increasing control over the additional income.

The default image of the farmer and of the farm head of household in the majority of research and policy documents is male. Yet almost 10 years ago, an FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) bulletin reported that in sub- Saharan Africa and the Caribbean 80% of staple foods was grown by women and that al- most 90% of the labor in Asian rice fields was female (62). More recent FAO fact sheets con- tinue to show that women do approximately 70% of the agricultural work in low-income food-deficit countries (3). Field surveys from India, Nepal, and South Africa confirm that, although agriculture is organized by gender-specific activities, both men and women participate in irrigation, especially in female-headed households (83). Another field survey from Kenya found that the de facto head in 35% of the households was a woman and that 44% of the irrigation labor was carried out by women (84). Similar research in South Africa found that the smallest plots tended to be farmed exclusively by women because adult males had migrated (85).

For access to irrigation water, there is no equivalent of a JMP that keeps consistent lists of percentages of farm households with and without irrigation. Region-based research on access to irrigation takes the unitary house- hold to be the unit of analysis, and so gender differences in access cannot be inferred. The primary sources of information on women and irrigation are case studies from agricul- tural communities around the world. These illustrate the structural and household-level constraints to women’s access to irrigation as well as the multiple ways in which access can be mediated. As with the literature on drink- ing water, existing case studies of gender and access to irrigation may exhibit selection bias.

They are thus sources of understanding the processes and terms of access and of possible entry points for policy interventions, rather than of generalizable data on the extent of access.

The most common constraint identified by a number of studies from around the world is that women typically lack formal or enforceable rights to irrigation water. In a pioneering study of land rights in India, Agarwal (86) showed that women were de- nied access to a range of social and economic opportunities because these were available primarily to the formal holders of land. The author used her findings to challenge the uni- tary model of the household because access to land mediated through husbands and fathers versus direct access to land had very different consequences for women’s poverty and phys- ical well-being (86, p. 30). Zwarteveen (82) suggests that direct access to water is similarly important for women’s well-being and for greater productivity in agriculture. Her re- search in Burkina Faso concluded that when both men’s and women’s plots were separately titled and irrigated the overall productivity of agriculture rose (87). Several field-based studies in anthropology as well as economics have confirmed that women are efficient irri- gators as well and productive farmers (88–90). However, in most canal irrigation systems, water is allocated to the official landowner, usually a male (82, 91). Women who have become de facto heads of households are not necessarily entitled to reliable water rights. Well ownership is also often a function of land ownership (91), and although water rights are more fluid than land rights, rights to water, land, and trees generally go together (92). Thus land ownership patterns directly preclude many women from water rights.

Of course these patterns also exclude the poor from access to water. From a number of canal irrigation studies in Asia and Africa, van Koppen (93) concludes that the poor in general and poor women in particular can be given access to irrigation if water rights are vested in land users rather than just land

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 433

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

owners, and to both men and women rather than to the assumed male head of household. In a major policy report on women and de- velopment, the World Bank has identified the combination of (enforceable) formal rights and social norms as one of the key barriers to development and gender equity (18). How- ever, Jackson (13) suggests that the danger of too much emphasis on land rights and titles is that one might assume that a changed prop- erty rights regime will automatically ensure access and opportunity for hitherto deprived women. She and other GAD-sympathetic scholars argue that these WID-like policy prescriptions are “only the beginning” and that water policies must also take into account the multiple ways in which gender relations influence access to resources (13, 94).

Ribot & Peluso (95) conceptualize access as the ability to benefit from a resource— whether through de jure rights, de facto rights, theft, purchase, or access to social net- works. This framework is useful in consid- ering the many ways in which women either have, or are denied, access to irrigation. For example, norms and social custom may deny women a place or a voice in the collective man- agement of irrigation water, whether or not they hold land (e.g., 96). But Zwarteveen & Neupane (97) challenge the assumption that public exclusion always leads to deprivation. They find that, in a Nepali irrigation scheme, female heads of household were able to use their allegedly vulnerable status to get ac- cess to water and to reduce their contribu- tion to the required maintenance labor (97). Other cases confirm that women without for- mal rights attempt to get water through so- cial networks or through access to paid labor, or through helpful or influential men (e.g., 98). One such way is to send their sons or sons-in-law to the formal water users’ asso- ciation meetings, so they can get their needs and complaints expressed without participat- ing themselves (99). Another way might be to ask a brother or male relative to irrigate fields owned by women because neighboring farmers may be less likely to interfere with

a fellow male neighbor, especially in times of scarcity (A. Kome, unpublished report). How- ever, these authors conclude that such infor- mal channels are generally not available to a majority of women, and access through them can be haphazard. Such channels of access also need continual maintenance with social visits and small gifts. They are thus likely to be less conducive to women’s access than more for- mal or even customary rights.

Several studies show that gender-specific roles are the norm in agriculture, which cre- ates opportunities for both conflict and co- operation when it comes to water use. Field observations indicate that South Asian pat- terns of irrigation needs and uses may be less gender differentiated than those of sub- Saharan Africa (91). Carney’s work (100) in The Gambia showed that with the arrival of pump irrigation, rice went from being a tra- ditional women’s crop to a new men’s crop, after which men started to control both the farming and the revenues (100). Research us- ing a large dataset from Ghana showed that the common distinction between cash crops for men and food crops for women was not a clear-cut one but that gender differences in agricultural responsibilities did exist (101). The agrarian household in sub-Saharan Africa is increasingly modeled as a “separate spheres” household, although separate responsibilities coexist with interdependence in production (102). These separate responsibilities may call for trade-offs in irrigation delivery and its tim- ing. In Sri Lanka, for example, rice is largely a male responsibility and millet largely a female one, but the delivery schedule for canal wa- ter usually favors rice as it is the “main” crop (103). Irrigating homestead crops, which con- tribute to family health and nutrition but not to revenues, may be discounted when making up the seasonal canal water delivery schedule (104). Irrigated agriculture constantly brings up cases of Sen’s (38) cooperative conflict, and Meinzen-Dick et al. (92) conclude that “hard choices” have to be made when there are many uses of a resource and many desirable policy goals.

434 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

Given that there are no indicators of access to irrigation comparable to the flawed but uni- versally accepted indicators of access to drink- ing water, it is worth discussing in some detail van Koppen’s comprehensive attempt to de- sign a gender performance indicator for irri- gation (GPII). The GPII is rooted in a WID approach and in a negotiated model of the household. It first categorizes (mostly canal- irrigated) farming systems into male dom- inated, female dominated, and mixed (90). Gender performance is then indicated by the presence or absence of gender-based differ- ences along three axes: equal access to water for both genders at the farm level, equal par- ticipation in fora for water management ar- rangements, and equality at the community leadership level that reflects the gender com- position of the farm community. After field tests of this indicator in Burkina Faso, South Africa, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, the au- thor finds that the main source of exclusion in female and mixed systems is usually the official irrigation department itself; whereas where the farming system is male dominated, many social-structural factors limit women’s access to water and to power. In these cases, the author suggests mandating inclusion, such as requiring that women serve on the water committee, is unlikely to improve women’s access, rights, or participation.

5.2. Gender, Irrigation, and Participation

Even more than for the drinking water sec- tor, decentralized management, devolution of rights and responsibilities to water users’ asso- ciations (WUAs), and financial accountability in the public irrigation sector have taken hold throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America (105). This devolution is known as partici- patory irrigation management (PIM) or irri- gation management transfer (IMT). The pri- mary reasons for the rapid acceptance of PIM were (a) the heavy financial burden of ma- jor canal systems on governments and (b) the growing belief that if water systems are owned

by their users they will be better able to use, allocate, and manage them (106). As such, the spirit of PIM seemed to reflect both the sec- ond and the fourth Dublin Principles—that water management decisions should be made in a participatory manner by farmers and users and that water is an economic good and thus should be used efficiently (105). The evidence on the irrigation and economic performance of PIM has been both positive and negative, and the introduction of PIM has certainly im- pacted both women and men farmers (85, 91). However, the treatment of gender issues in the PIM literature is quite different from that in the domestic water literature.

As discussed above, despite theoretical and policy differences in the domestic water sec- tor, there has been an explicit consensus that the inclusion of women is necessary, prefer- ably at all levels. Because irrigation bureau- cracies rarely consider women as farmers in their own right, and because the usual assump- tion is that women will automatically bene- fit from water allocated to their households, PIM policies were not formulated or imple- mented with gender equity in mind (e.g., 104). The literature to date remains gender neutral in academic research as well as policy docu- ments, with the words women or gender rarely appearing in them. The few research papers there are on women and PIM are generally skeptical of the value of PIM to women and of the ability of women to participate mean- ingfully in PIM-created WUAs.

Management transfers from the official irrigation agency to officially recognized asso- ciations of water users changes old systems of allocation based on usufruct rights to new sys- tems of allocation based on formal member- ship. As Agarwal puts it, “membership is re- placing citizenship” in joint government-user management programs for several resources, including water and forests (16, p. 1). All resi- dents may be eligible for membership, or just one member per household, or just heads of households. Each of these membership cri- teria has gender impacts, sometimes exclud- ing women from the ability to participate. Van

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 435

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

Koppen finds that throughout Asia and Africa, irrigation agencies vary greatly in whether they include or exclude women and small- holders and that, where labor participation entitles a person to water rights, women are sometimes excluded from the right to that collective labor (93). Meinzen-Dick & Zwarteveen (99), on the basis of several case studies in South Asia, also conclude that irri- gation agencies have considerable influence in organizing WUAs but that women are rarely recognized as irrigators and therefore as po- tential members. They note that women par- ticipate informally by, for example, assisting their husbands (as shown in Reference 107) but argue that access to formal participation in WUAs would increase women’s bargain- ing power in the home as well as better se- cure their access to water. By contrast, Cleaver (108) suggests that there is little evidence that the participation of a few women in WUAs can raise access to water or opportunities for the majority of women. Finally, Zwarteveen (104) points out that as long as PIM studies are conducted at the aggregate scheme level and neglect to collect and analyze data on gender and women, we cannot know the gender im- pacts of PIM. This neglect, she avers, not only leaves the irrigation community uninformed about gender, but it also reinforces the view that gender is not an important aspect of PIM (104).

Formal PIM has been a part of national water policies for about two decades and mostly for publicly managed canal irrigation systems. There are, however, many less formal forms of farmers’ organizations and irrigation groups, some of which have been working for several years and others that have recently been revived through NGO mediation. The source of irrigation water for such users’ groups may be canals, tanks, wells, or harvested rainwater. Effective and indigenous water users’ groups have been the inspiration for several models of successful commons management (e.g., 109). However, there are only a handful of studies on women’s participation in decision

making, technology use, and maintenance in these contexts. Depending on the goal of participation—household well-being, women’s empowerment, or both—each study attempts to evaluate the level of participation and its impact on productivity, equity, and (in rare cases) sustainability.

Two small studies from the state of Gujarat, India, show the enabling role that established NGOs can play in encouraging women to participate in irrigation opera- tions and decisions. Three years into an in- tervention promoting women’s irrigation co- operatives, the first project appears to have succeeded in raising crop revenues, in chang- ing the pattern of irrigation and equipment management in the community, and in rais- ing the confidence of the women committee members (110). The second case assesses an NGO-organized lift irrigation effort, which raised household revenues and gave women easier access to water and fodder. Four years after the initial intervention, the women in the case study village organized a milk produc- ers’ cooperative and gradually started to par- ticipate in irrigation committees themselves (111, 112). In both cases, the authors acknowl- edge the continued community-level aware- ness raising and capacity building that the NGOs in question had to undertake.

Several technologies have been discussed in the literature on irrigation development as affordable, sustainable, and gender equity friendly. Rainwater harvesting, for example, is enjoying a revival in many arid parts of Asia and Africa, with widespread NGO and international donor support. Its proponents emphasize its ability to recharge ground- water and its potential for gender equality through access to water, higher attendance for girls in school, women’s participation in community decisions, and increased employ- ment for women in construction and mainte- nance activities (113). Although several stud- ies confirm that rainwater harvesting increases community (and thus women’s) well-being through the availability of year-round water for drinking and irrigation (e.g., 114, 115),

436 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

there is hardly any research on the hoped-for gender equality effects.

Another promising candidate for poverty alleviation with women’s participation is the human-powered treadle pump, which has gained popularity in the shallow aquifer zones of India, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Actively promoted as a sustainable development and business model by NGOs such as Interna- tional Development Enterprises, research has shown that the treadle pump can increase the incomes of extremely small farms by up to $100 a year (116, 117). Field observations indicate that both men and women can and do use the pump (80, 117). Promotional im- ages of the treadle pump are usually shown with a woman at the helm. But as with rain- water harvesting, there is no reliable infor- mation on gender-specific impacts with re- spect to the treadle pump. On the contrary, Palmer-Jones & Jackson’s fieldwork (118) in Bangladesh concluded that women plot own- ers could treadle for short periods of time for their vegetable crops, whereas many very poor women suffered pain and fatigue when they treadled for wages for long hours. In such cases affordable and sustainable technologies, the authors argue, are not conducive to gender (and class) equity. The role of low-cost irri- gation technologies in poverty alleviation for men as well as women, and for greater gender equity, needs much more detailed research.

This chapter so far has shown that women’s participation at all levels is widely considered necessary for productivity, equity, and sus- tainability and is central to donor policies in the rural water sector (4, 18, 19, 53). How- ever, that women should play prominent (if not equal) roles with men in irrigation man- agement, or even that efficient irrigation is unambiguously good for women, has been questioned on several counts. The productiv- ity of irrigated agriculture, or the substitution of labor for water in order to use water effi- ciently, could lead to higher levels of women’s labor (12, 118). This is particularly possible if the terms of trade within households are bi- ased against women (104). Carney’s research

(100) on the introduction of pump irrigation in rice production in The Gambia found the intensification of agriculture was accompa- nied by the intensification of, and seasonal disruptions to, women’s labor. The Gambia study explicitly confronted the unitary model of the household, arguing that any technol- ogy transfer that occurred under the assump- tion of a joint utility framework would fail to see the gendered effects of such a transfer. Collective institutions that emphasize formal membership are often based on pooling time and cash resources, thus tending to exclude poor women and women with young chil- dren who are typically pressed for both (76, 119). In particular, the implicit ideal woman in current discussions of mainstreaming women has been sharply challenged. In addition to providing drinking water, food and care for the family, as well as for domestic animals, a woman should also participate in collec- tive water management decisions, raise funds for and help to maintain water facilities, be empowered to demand good service, and im- prove her family’s health and income through access to these water facilities (39, 108).

By contrast, the Gender and Water Al- liance calls for more women’s participation in irrigation precisely on the grounds of higher productivity in women’s hands be- cause of “their more conscientious labor inputs and attention to detailed management” (41, p. 39). They argue that drinking wa- ter interventions that do not have livelihood- improving potential may not be considered a priority by women in rural communities. Corroborating this point, an early study of handpumps in rural Indonesia found that most women used the water not primarily for drinking, which was the original intent of the project, but for irrigating tomatoes, which they then could sell for a profit (75). Agarwal (16) has argued that, unless women fully participate in community-based natu- ral resource management, both productivity and equity are likely to suffer. Such propo- nents of participation conclude that irriga- tion policies should include not only rights

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 437

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

allocations and enforcement, but also gender- inclusive approaches to specific agricultural, household structure, and social-economic contexts.

It is difficult to come to robust conclu- sions about women’s participation in the do- mestic water or irrigation sectors with the studies that the literature currently provides. Even research that links community partici- pation to positive project performance is un- clear on how women participated (71, 120). Mansuri & Rao (73), in an extensive review of community-based development projects, con- clude that without honest and unbiased im- pact evaluations, we cannot say much to guide policy about the impact of participation on development goals. Although few studies in their review focused on women, their con- clusion is highly pertinent to water and gen- der. Given that women’s inclusion and active participation are goals of water sector pol- icy and funding almost everywhere, credi- ble impact studies are critical to understand in what circumstances participation in water and irrigation can benefit women, in which ways, and—because women are not a homo- geneous category—which women. They are in fact critical to our understanding of the cir- cumstances in which the second and the third Dublin Principles are compatible.

6. GENDER ASPECTS OF TRENDS IN THE WATER SECTOR

Water sector reforms are under way in many countries in order to cope with the increasing and competing demands on freshwater as well as to raise simultaneously the productivity, ef- ficiency, sustainability, and equity of water re- source use. Two emerging trends and their po- tential gender impacts are highlighted here. The first is the increasing emphasis on cost recovery in the water sector and on market- based access; the second is a new trend away from a sectoral approach to water toward de- signing for multiple uses.

6.1. Cost Recovery and Market-Based Access

Paying for domestic as well as irrigation water is seen by many as efficient for the user and for the state, especially since the fourth Dublin Principle became internationally accepted. The literature on cost recovery in urban water utilities of developing countries includes ur- ban pricing reform, efficient system manage- ment, and, increasingly, privatization. Both price reform (with or without private sector participation) and privatization have led to polarized debates on efficiency, sustainability, and equity. Advocates of price reform argue that current subsidies do not help the poor and that not recovering costs leads to poor maintenance and inadequate system expan- sion (121, 122). Privatization is a more radical step than merely raising water tariffs, and it encompasses a range of options from simply contracting out repairs and bill collection all the way to full divestiture of the water util- ity. Advocates of privatization argue that the public water sector has failed to reform itself in most cases and that the provision of wa- ter services is better left to the more efficient private sector (see Reference 123 for a com- prehensive review). Higher water prices in the irrigation sector have been proposed for simi- lar reasons, i.e., cost recovery, the inefficiency of public sector water schemes, and the rela- tive efficiency of private groundwater irriga- tion (124).

Although these issues have given rise to a voluminous literature, hardly any of it explic- itly addresses the impacts of cost recovery on women. Willingness-to-pay studies that esti- mate household demand for water, for exam- ple, routinely use the household as the unit of analysis (32, 33). This is unfortunate because this review has shown that it is women who are usually responsible for securing the family, and sometimes the on-farm, water supplies. It has been argued that women pay the coping costs of distant and unreliable water supplies and so would benefit from more expensive but better access (125), and it has been argued

438 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

that if women do not control the household cash income they may not be willing or able to pay more for water (e.g., 12, 23). Gender- disaggregated data on willingness to pay, abil- ity to pay, and the potential impacts of water pricing reform on differently situated women are thus key to our understanding of the cir- cumstances in which the third and the fourth Dublin Principles are compatible.

Market-based access to irrigation water is usually through groundwater purchases from well owners who have surplus water to sell. Groundwater markets are common throughout Asia, spurred by the boom in groundwater exploitation made possible by low drilling costs and cheap pump sets (126). As with drinking water, the commodification of irrigation water could exclude not only the poor, but also women. However, some studies indicate that even the poorer buyers benefit from reliable irrigation, available on demand (126, 127). Again, there are few sys- tematic studies on the impacts of local water markets on women farmers. On the one hand, it has been argued that women may be willing but not able to pay for water, and if irriga- tion water has to be purchased, then women’s uses will be shortchanged because they may be less quantifiable in terms of market value (77). As a counterargument, Zwarteveen (104) asks if access through the market is really much worse than unreliable access through informal networks, political connections, and socially conforming behaviors. She argues that better questions to ask (given the huge variations in women’s participation in agri- culture, women’s participation in irrigation, and intrahousehold bargaining power) are: Which mechanisms of access to water benefit women? And in what circumstances? As be- fore, we want to know in what circumstances the third and the fourth Dublin Principles are compatible.

6.2. Designing for Multiple Use

Several of the papers cited thus far have com- mented on the unrealistic assumptions of sep-

arate needs and separate sources embedded in the traditional sectoral approach to water re- sources planning and development. Instead, in rural areas, multiple uses and users of water are more the norm. Women use drinking wa- ter for irrigating tomatoes and for other daily water needs (75, 127); they use irrigation wa- ter for a range of uses such as washing, laundry, bathing, and washing livestock (119); and men use women’s handpumps to wash and bathe (17). A study of irrigation systems in Kenya concluded that, in reality, formal and infor- mal rules of rural water use blended into “the reciprocities and interactions of social life” (98, p. 727). It is thus being argued, especially by researchers in the irrigation management sector, that designing for multiple use from the start will more optimally allocate the wa- ter among all the stakeholders and users, and such designs will increase the chances for gen- der equity and negotiated cooperation at both household and community levels.

As an example, Renwick’s model (128) of irrigated paddy and fisheries in the Kirindi Oya system of Sri Lanka shows that the rel- ative values of rice and fish, and their in- terdependence in production, argued for a combined approach to irrigation planning and design. A recent report on multiple use makes the case that designing for multiple use would make it more feasible to use water policy to achieve the MDGs (129). It found that it is often the poor who use water desig- nated for irrigation for nonirrigation purposes and that often women find irrigation canals a handy source of water for a range of pro- ductive and domestic needs. Thus accommo- dating these uses in the volumes and tim- ings of canal water delivery could promote poverty alleviation, sustainable development, and gender equity—all MDG items. The au- thors advocate a thorough understanding of all the livelihood-enhancing ways in which water is used and coordinated action between sectors and agencies as two basic principles for multiple-use design. They conclude that the primary reason that design for multiple use is not the norm is because the separate

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 439

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

jurisdictions of water agencies do not match people’s integrated uses of water. They there- fore suggest that a shift toward designing for multiple use could hold promise for total pro- ductivity, gender equity, and cooperation in the use of water.

7. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The published literature on women and water, although acknowledging the gravity of mil- lions of women’s lack of, or highly circum- scribed, access to basic water supplies, is nev- ertheless a contentious one. There are debates over whether access to water should be sought primarily for its value to general well-being and development or for its intrinsic value for quality of life; over whether participation is necessary, or even desirable, to ensure action on women’s priorities for water in addition to men’s priorities; and over whether emphasiz- ing the cooperation or the conflict aspect of Sen’s cooperative conflict is the better strat- egy and in what circumstances. Some of the assumptions and observations driving these debates are consequences of the complexity and variety that Dublin Principle III encoun- ters in its implementation. Other debates are driven by implicit or explicit divisions on the framework that best integrates women and development.

Some of the tensions in the literature re- flect the gaps between theory and policy and between policy and practice. Although gen- der has been mainstreamed into the policy frameworks of many international agencies, there is almost no documented evidence of donor agencies refusing to fund a project on the grounds that the gender policies of the donor were not being followed (61). And even when gender-sensitive policies are im- plemented, the actual implementation may be in the hands of water and sanitation engineers who are trained to deliver water, not empow- erment. It is certain, however, that progress toward resolving some of the debates could be made by a concerted effort by researchers, agencies, and NGOs in the water sector to

collect gender-disaggregated data as their de- fault practice and to work more collabora- tively with the broader community of gender and development scholars.

7.1. The Need for Gender-Specific Data Collection

Writing 25 years ago, the economist Benerı́a (130) noted that survey data systematically underestimated women’s contributions to the economy because the production of use value, such as in food processing and water carry- ing, as opposed to of exchange value, was in- visible. This invisibility is still a feature of water policy research, although much less so than in the past. In 1999, the Global Water Partnership published a major review (131) of the legal and institutional aspects of the Dublin Principles, which completely by- passed the third Principle. In 2003, the An- nual Report of the Gender and Water Alliance lamented that “the authors were handicapped by a lack of reliable disaggregated data on out- puts and impacts” (41, p. 9). A subsequent report in the UN-published journal Natural Resources Forum concluded that, despite the adoption of the third Dublin Principle, the fo- cus on women in water management had been “somewhat lost” (132). Overall, few compre- hensive assessments of the international water situation emphasize the third Dublin Princi- ple (e.g., 14, 133, 134).

Similarly, few water-related indicators have anything to say on the role of women in fetching, purifying, or irrigating. To give but one example, the first World Water Devel- opment Report of the United Nations com- piled 176 indicators for cross-regional com- parisons in different contexts and at different scales, and although several access or health indicators were clearly relevant to women’s lives, none was gender specific (135). A no- table exception is the extension of the Water Poverty Index to the community level, which explicitly includes data on water carried by women and the time spent in this work (136). Leading indicators of women’s status, such

440 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

as the Gender Empowerment Measure, are composed of conventional measures such as literacy, formal economic earnings, and par- ticipation in national politics (4, table 25). In- dicators of status do not include measures spe- cific to water access, such as “average walking distance to improved water source.”

Impact evaluation, process documenta- tion, and success or failure analysis are all ultimately dependent on disaggregated data. Gender-disaggregated data collection does not necessarily commit the researcher to a particular model either of women and devel- opment or of the household. It does not re- quire the researcher to espouse aspects of cur- rent feminist scholarship. A recurrent theme in the literature discussed in this review, from many different political and disciplinary po- sitions, was the lack of the kind of data that would allow critical questions to be asked and answered. It should be admitted, however, that collecting and compiling data separately for men and women are inherently politi- cal acts, and some of the reviewed litera- ture claimed that research that appeared to be “too” women focused could be seen as inappropriate.

7.2. The Need for Collaborative Research

Evaluating the success of women’s partici- pation is dependent not only on data avail- ability but also on what constitutes success. From the researcher’s perspective, the policy- oriented literature on gender and water is sometimes unclear on the goal of a participa- tory project: Is it women’s empowerment, sus- tainable development, simply easier access to a water source, or some combination of these? What Sen has called the well-being aspect and the agency aspect (137, p. 190, emphasis in orig- inal)6 of gender analysis inevitably intersect

6 Agency is used in the sense of autonomy or empowerment; it is the individual’s ability to act in accordance with his or her preferences or interests.

and yet they are conceptually quite different. To include women in water planning might mean to consider their interests (for greater well-being) or it might mean to bring them into the active planning and decision-making process (for greater agency). At present, the women-and-water literature sometimes ap- pears caught between the goals of well-being and agency and, at other times, appears to con- flate the two.

A parallel tension in the water-and-women literature is that between structure and agency. Almost all the examples of women’s participation in water projects for drinking or for irrigation in this chapter focus on in- creasing women’s involvement and/or agency at the local and community levels. These same studies are clearly aware of the struc- tural constraints to greater involvement and agency, such as long-standing asymmetries in the roles and expectations of men and women; unequal property rights in land and water; the gendered impacts of the policy agenda of dominant multilaterals (e.g., 138, 139); and the larger ecological-environmental changes within which women’s local partici- pation must take place. Social structures also divide women from other women by class, community identity, age, and marital sta- tus, and thus deconstructing the category of “women” could be central to studies of gen- der and natural resources (16, 17). Yet struc- tures are not static and do change in response to changes in the broader economy and also to bottom-up pressures. Gender and devel- opment analysis in academia has struggled for some time to balance the roles of structure and agency as well as to understand what shapes the conditions of and opportunities for choice for women and men within specific structures (13, 140). Water policies, however, are gener- ally prescriptive and do not reflect the diver- sity of how men and women live and work with water. Thus much of the empirical literature on gender and water—especially the policy- oriented literature—has yet to confront ex- plicitly the tensions between structure and agency.

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 441

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

There is an urgent need for more col- laborative research between gender scholars and water policy analysts, a collaboration that may have to overcome field-specific theoret- ical, philosophical, and practical differences. The challenge ahead for an integrative under-

standing of women, water, and development is to address the general lack of a gendered anal- ysis, or even focus, in large parts of the water management literature as well as the general lack of a water focus in large parts of the gen- der and development literature.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Despite the adoption of the Dublin Principles and the MDGs, many millions of women lack access to water for even basic domestic and livelihood needs. Most of the deprivation is concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

2. It is estimated that 40 billion hours are spent each year in Africa, mostly by women, in carrying water. The economic and health costs of this burden are enormous.

3. Many women are excluded from formal usufruct rights to water, especially to irriga- tion water, although the evidence confirms that women are productive and efficient farmers. However, some women are able to access water in informal though unreliable ways.

4. International and many national agencies have adopted the view that participation in water investments and decisions would enable women to bring their water needs to the table, empower them in other ways, and contribute to more productive and efficient uses of water. However the role of participation is being debated because its contribution to women’s well-being and to their workloads is unclear.

5. There is considerable debate on whether policies should be geared toward women’s access to water resources or also to women’s agency through such access.

FUTURE ISSUES

1. Gender-disaggregated data are vital for the resolution of many unresolved debates in the gender, water, and development arena.

2. More collaborative work is needed between water managers, policy researchers, and gender and development scholars to balance the roles of cooperation and conflict, of well-being and agency, and of structure and agency, which arise from access to water for women.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank two reviewers from this journal for their helpful comments and suggestions. I also thank Mike Kiparsky, Giorgos Kallis, Anne Short, and Sintana Vergara for their comments on

442 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

an earlier draft, Seemin Qayum and Sinclair Thomson for helpful discussions, and Carol Kolb for research assistance in preparing this paper. Support from the Hellman Family Fund and the Prytanean Women’s Honor Society is gratefully acknowledged.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Postel S. 1999. Pillar of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last? New York/London: World- watch Inst./Norton

2. Rijsberman F. 2004. The water challenge. Copenhagen Consensus Chall. Pap., project En- viron. Assess. Inst., Den. (Accessed 12/2006) http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com

3. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2005. Women, agriculture and food security. (Accessed 2/2007) http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/facts/index.html

4. UN Dev. Programme (UNDP). 2006. Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the global water crisis. Hum. Dev. Rep., UNDP, New York

5. Tinker I, ed. 1990. Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development. New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

6. Boserup E. 1990. Economic change and the roles of women. See Ref. 5, pp. 14–26 7. Pearson R. 2000. Rethinking gender matters in development. In Poverty and Development

into the 21st Century, ed. T Allen, A Thomas, pp. 383–402. Oxford: Open Univ. Oxford Univ. Press

8. US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Percy Amendment 1973, Sect. 113 9. Cleaver F, Jobes K. 1996. Donor policies and gender in the water and sanitation sector.

Nat. Resour. Forum 20:111–16 10. Shiva V. 1989. Staying Alive: Women, Technology and Development. London: Zed Books 11. Merchant C. 1996. Earthcare: Women and the Environment. New York: Routledge 12. Green C, Baden S. 1995. Integrated water resources management: a gender perspective.

IDS Bull. 26:92–100 13. Jackson C. 1998. Gender, irrigation and environment: arguing for agency. Agric. Hum.

Values 15:313–24 14. Gleick PH. 2006. The World’s Water 2006–2007: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources.

Washington, DC: Island 15. Jackson C. 1993. Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development.

World Dev. 21:1947–63 16. Agarwal B. 1997. Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Dev.

Change 28:1–44 17. Singh N, Jacks G, Bhattacharya P, Gustafsson J-E. 2006. Gender and water management:

some policy reflections. Water Policy 8:183–200 18. World Bank. 2001. Engendering Development. A World Bank Policy Research Report.

Washington, DC/Oxford: World Bank/Oxford Univ. Press 19. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2001. Gender and development plan of action 2002–2007.

(Accessed 4/2006) http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/003/Y1521e.htm 20. Boserup E. 1970. Woman’s Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin’s 21. Plumwood V. 1992. Beyond the dualistic assumptions of women, men and nature. Ecologist

22:8–13 22. Smith JA, Green JM. 2005. Free basic water in Msunduzi, KwaZulu-Natal: Is it making

a difference to the lives of low-income households? Water Policy 7:443–67 23. Dasgupta P. 1993. An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution. Oxford: Clarendon

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 443

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

24. Haddad L, Hoddinott J, Alderman H. 1997. Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries. Baltimore/London: Int. Food Policy Res./Inst. Johns Hopkins Press

25. Becker G. 1965. A theory of the allocation of time. Econ. J. 75:493–517 26. Lundberg S, Pollak RA. 1993. Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market.

J. Polit. Econ. 101:988–1010 27. Carter MR, Katz EG. 1997. Separate spheres and the conjugal contract: understanding

the impact of gender-based development. See Ref. 24, pp. 95–111 28. Folbre N. 1986. Hearts and spades: paradigms of household economics. World Dev.

14:245–55 29. Guyer J. 1997. Endowments and assets: the anthropology of wealth and the economics

of intrahousehold allocation. See Ref. 24, pp. 112–27 30. Agarwal B. 1997. “Bargaining” and gender relations: within and beyond the household.

Fem. Econ. 3:1–51 31. Alderman H, Chiappori P-A, Haddad L, Hoddinott J, Kanbur R. 1995. Unitary versus

collective models of the household: Is it time to shift the burden of proof? World Bank Res. Observ. 10:1–19

32. Whittington D, Lauria D, Mu X. 1991. A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Dev. 19:179–98

33. Bajpai P, Bhandari L. 2001. Ensuring access to water in urban households. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 29(Sept.):3774–78

34. Gulyani S, Talukdar D, Kariuki RM. 2005. Water for the urban poor: water markets, household demand and service preferences in Kenya. Water Supply Sanit. Sect. Board Discuss. Pap. Ser., Pap. 5., World Bank, Washington, DC

35. Kurian M, Dietz T. 2005. How pro-poor are participatory watershed management projects? An Indian case study. Res. Rep. 92, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

36. WHO/UNICEF Jt. Monit. Programme Water Supply Sanit. 2000. Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 rep. (Accessed 1/2007) http://www.who.int/ docstore/water sanitation health/Globassessment/GlobalTOC.htm

37. Kanbur R. 2002. Economics, social science and development. World Dev. 30:477–86 38. Sen A. 1990. Gender and cooperative conflicts. See Ref. 5, pp. 123–49 39. Hart G. 1997. From rotten wives to good mothers: household models and the limits of

economism. IDS Bull. 28:14–25 40. Gleick PH. 2003. Water use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28:275–314 41. Gend. Water Alliance (GWA). 2003. The Gender and Water Annual Report: Gender Per-

spectives on Policies in the Water Sector. GWA Secr., Delft, Neth. (Accessed 12/2004) http://www.genderandwateralliance.org

42. Wodon Q, Blackden CM, eds. 2006. Gender, Time Use, and Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank

43. Lenton R, Wright AM, Lewis K, UN Millenn. Proj. 2005. Health, dignity and develop- ment: What will it take? London: Task Force Water Sanit./Earthscan

44. Whittington D, Mu X, Roche R. 1990. Calculating the value of time spent collecting water: some estimates for Ukunda, Kenya. World Dev. 18:269–80

45. Res. Found. Sci. Technol. Ecol. 2005. Women and water. Rep. Natl. Comm. Women, New Delhi. (Accessed 2/2007) http://navdanya.org/publications/women-water.htm

46. Joy KJ, Paranjape S. 2005. Women and water: relationships, experiences, approaches. In Women of India: Colonial and Post-Colonial Periods, ed. B Ray, pp. 351–91. New Delhi: Sage Publ. India

444 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

47. James AJ, Verhagen J, van Wijk C, Nanavaty R, Parikh M, Bhatt M. 2002. Transforming time into money using water: a participatory study of economics and gender in rural India. Nat. Resour. Forum 26:205–17

48. Ilahi N, Grimard F. 2000. Public infrastructure and private costs: water supply and time allocation of women in rural Pakistan. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 49:45–76

49. Carr M, Sandhu R. 1988. Women, technology and rural productivity: an analysis of the impact of time and energy saving technologies on women. UNIFEM Occas. Pap. 6. UN Dev. Fund Women, New York

50. McKenzie D, Ray I. 2005. Household water delivery options in urban and rural India. Stanford Cent. Int. Dev. Work. Pap. 224, Stanford Univ. (Accessed 1/2007) http://scid.stanford. edu/publications/WorkingPaperList.html

51. UN Hum. Settl. Programme. 2003. Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities. Local Action for Global Goals. London: Earthscan

52. Postel S. 2003. Securing water for people, crops and ecosystems: new mindset and new priorities. Nat. Resour. Forum 27:89–98

53. World Bank. 2004. Making services work for poor people. World Dev. Rep. 2004, World Bank/Oxford Univ. Press, Washington, DC/Oxford

54. Esrey SA, Potash JB, Roberts L, Shiff C. 1991. Effects of improved water supply and sanitation on ascariasis, diarrhoea, dracunculiasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis, and trachoma. Bull. WHO 69:609–21

55. Gleick PH. 1998. The World’s Water 1998–1999: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Washington, DC: Island

56. Bartram J, Lewis K, Lenton R, Wright A. 2005. Millennium project: focusing on improved water and sanitation for health. Lancet 365:810–12

57. Gadgil A. 1998. Drinking water in developing countries. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 23:253–86

58. Mehretu A, Mutambirwa C. 1992. Gender differences in time and energy costs of distance for regular domestic chores in rural Zimbabwe: a case study in the Chiduku Communal Area. World Dev. 20:1675–83

59. Seaforth W. 2001. Why water is a women’s issue. Habitat Debate 7:1. Nairobi: Cent. Hum. Settl. (UN HABITAT)

60. Page B. 1996. Taking the strain—the ergonomics of water carrying. Waterlines 14:29–31 61. van Wijk C, de Lange E, Saunders D. 1996. Gender aspects in the management of water.

Nat. Resour. Forum 20:91–103 62. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 1998. Women and farm tools. Agriculture 21, Oct. (Accessed

1/2007) http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/magazine/9810/ spot1.htm

63. van Wijk-Sijbesma C. 1985. Participation of women in water supply and sanitation: roles and realities. Tech. Pap. 22., IRC Int. Water Sanit. Cent., Hague

64. Kalbermatten JM. 1991. The water decade: personal reflections. Waterlines 9:2–4 65. Cleaver F. 1991. Maintenance of rural water supplies in Zimbabwe. Waterlines 9:23–26 66. Wood M. 1992. A handpump for Africa: the Afridev experience. Waterlines 11:29–31 67. Hoffman L. 1992. Women handpump mechanics in Kenya. Waterlines 11:19–21 68. Water Sanit. Program (WSP). 2002. The Mvula Trust in South Africa: An independent

partner to the government. Field Note. UNDP/World Bank WSP-Afr. Reg. 69. Water Sanit. Hygiene. 2006. For her it’s the big issue: putting women at the centre of water

supply, sanitation and hygiene. UNICEF/Gend. Water Alliance (GWA). (Accessed 12/2006) http://www.genderandwater.org/page/5124

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 445

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

70. Prokopy LS. 2006. Women’s participation in rural water supply projects in India: Is it moving beyond tokenism and does it matter? Water Policy 6:103–16

71. Narayan D. 1995. The Contribution of People’s Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Supply Projects. Washington, DC: World Bank

72. Kleemeier E. 2000. The impact of participation on sustainability: an analysis of the Malawi rural piped scheme program. World Dev. 28:929–44

73. Mansuri G, Rao V. 2004. Community-based and -driven development: a critical review. World Bank Res. Observ. 19:1–39

74. Chambers R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. London: Intermed. Technol.

75. Melchior-Tellier S. 1992. A lesson in listening. Waterlines 11:5–8 76. Mayoux L. 1995. Beyond naivety: women, gender inequality and participatory develop-

ment. Dev. Change 26:235–58 77. Cleaver F, Elson D. 1995. Women and water resources: continued marginalisation and

new policies. IIED Gatekeeper Ser. 49. London: Int. Inst. Environ. Dev. 78. Guijt I, Kaul Shah M. 1998. Waking up to power, conflict and process. In The Myth of

Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development, ed. I Guijt, M Kaul Shah, pp. 1–23. London: Intermed. Technol.

79. Food Agric. Organ. 2005. Water and food security. (Accessed 3/2007) http://www.fao.org/ worldfoodsummit/english/fsheets/water.pdf

80. Polak P. 2005. The big potential of small farms. Sci. Am. 293:84–91 81. Athukorala K. 1996. The need for gender analysis in strategic planning for effective water

management in Sri Lanka. Water Resour. Dev. 12(4):447–59 82. Zwarteveen M. 1997. Water: from basic need to commodity: a discussion on gender and

water rights in the context of irrigation. World Dev. 25:1335–49 83. Upadhyay B. 2003. Water, poverty and gender: review of evidences from Nepal, India

and South Africa. Water Policy 5:503–11 84. Manundu M. 1997. Social and gender considerations in water management. In Manage-

ment of Water Demand in Africa and the Middle East: Current Practices and Future Needs, ed. DB Brooks, E Rached, M Saade, pp. 50–55. Ottawa: Int. Dev. Res. Cent.

85. Shah T, van Koppen B, Merrey D, de Lange M, Samad M. 2002. Institutional alternatives in African smallholder irrigation: lessons from international experience with irrigation management transfer. Res. Rep. 60, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

86. Agarwal B. 1994. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

87. Zwarteveen M. 1997. A plot of one’s own: gender relations and irrigated land allocation policies in Burkina Faso. Res. Rep. 10, Int. Irrig. Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

88. Udry C, Hoddinott J, Alderman H, Haddad L. 1995. Gender differentials in farm produc- tivity: implications for household efficiency and agricultural policy. Food Policy 20:407–23

89. Quisumbing AR. 1996. Male-female differences in agricultural productivity: method- ological issues and empirical evidence. World Dev. 24:1579–95

90. van Koppen B. 2002. A gender performance indicator for irrigation: concepts, tools, and applications. Res. Rep. 59, Int. Irrig. Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

91. Zwarteveen M, Meinzen-Dick R. 2001. Gender and property rights in the commons: examples of water rights in South Asia. Agric. Hum. Values 18:11–25

92. Meinzen-Dick RS, Brown L, Feldstein HS, Quisumbing AR. 1997. Gender, property rights and natural resources. World Dev. 25:1303–15

446 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

93. van Koppen B. 1998. Water rights, gender and poverty alleviation. Inclusion and exclusion of women and men smallholders in public irrigation infrastructure development. Agric. Hum. Values 15:361–74

94. Cleaver F. 2000. Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management of com- mon property resources. Dev. Change 31:361–83

95. Ribot J, Peluso NL. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociol. 68:153–81 96. Mosse D. 2003. The Rule of Water. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press 97. Zwarteveen M, Neupane N. 1996. Free riders or victims? Women’s nonparticipation in

irrigation management in Nepal’s Chhattis Mauja Irrigation Scheme. Res. Rep. 7, Int. Irrig. Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

98. Adams WM, Watson E, Mutiso SK. 1997. Water, rules and gender: water rights in an indigenous irrigation system, Marakwet, Kenya. Dev. Change 28:707–30

99. Meinzen-Dick R, Zwarteveen M. 1998. Gendered participation in water management: issues and illustrations from water users’ associations in South Asia. Agric. Hum. Values 15:337–45

100. Carney JA. 1998. Women’s land rights in Gambian irrigated rice schemes: constraints and opportunities. Agric. Hum. Values 15:325–36

101. Doss CR. 2002. Men’s crops? Women’s crops? The gender pattern of cropping in Ghana. World Dev. 30:1987–2000

102. Evers B, Walters B. 2000. Extra-household factors and women farmers’ supply response in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 28:1341–45

103. Shah AC. 2002. Women, water, irrigation: respecting women’s priorities. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 37:4413–20

104. Zwarteveen M. 1998. Identifying gender aspects of new irrigation management policies. Agric. Hum. Values 15:301–12

105. Vermillion DL. 1997. Impacts of irrigation management transfer: a review of the evidence. Res. Rep. 11, Int. Irrig. Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

106. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

107. Athukorala K, Zwarteveen M. 1994. Participatory management: Who participates? Econ. Rev. 20:22–25

108. Cleaver F. 1998. Choice, complexity and change: gendered livelihoods and the manage- ment of water. Agric. Hum. Values 15:293–99

109. Wade R. 1988. Village Republics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press 110. van Koppen B, Nagar RK, Vasavada S. 2001. Gender and irrigation in India. The women’s ir-

rigation group of Jambar, South Gujarat. Work. Pap. 10, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

111. Ahmed S. 1999. Changing gender roles in irrigation management. Sadguru’s lift irrigation co-operatives. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 34:3596–603

112. Saini H, van Koppen B. 2001. Gender in lift irrigation schemes in East Gujarat, India. Work. Pap. 11, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

113. 2005. Global rain water harvesting collective. (Accessed 2/2007) http://webapps01.un.org/ dsd/partnerships/public/partnerships/1101.html

114. Agarwal A, Narain S. 1997. Dying Wisdom: The Rise, Fall and Potential of India’s Traditional Water Harvesting Systems. New Delhi: Cent. Sci. Environ.

115. Shah T, Raju KV. 2001. Rethinking rehabilitation: socio-ecology of tanks and water harvesting in Rajasthan, Northwest India. CAPRi Work. Pap. 18, Int. Food Policy Res. Inst., Washington, DC

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 447

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

116. Water Sanit. Program (WSP). 2000. The Treadle Pump: An NGO Introduces a Low-Cost Irrigation Pump to Bangladesh. Washington, DC: WSP

117. Shah T, Alam M, Kumar D, Nagar RK, Singh M. 2000. Pedaling out of poverty: social impact of a manual irrigation technology in South Asia. Res. Rep. 45, Int. Food Policy Res. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

118. Palmer-Jones R, Jackson C. 1997. Work intensity, poverty and gender in sustainable development. Food Policy 22:39–62

119. Cleaver F. 1998. Incentives and informal institutions: gender and the management of water. Agric. Hum. Values 15:347–60

120. Sara J, Katz T. 1998. Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project Rules. Washington, DC: Water Sanit. Program

121. Foster V, Pattanayak S, Prokopy LS. 2003. Do current water subsidies reach the poor? Water Tariffs and Subsidies in South Asia. Pap. 4., Water Sanit. Program/UNDP-World Bank, Washington, DC

122. Boland J, Whittington D. 2000. The political economy of water tariff design in developing countries. In The Political Economy of Water Pricing Reforms, ed. A Dinar, pp. 215–36. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

123. Davis J. 2005. Private sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:145–83

124. Ray I. 2005. Get the prices right: water prices and irrigation efficiency. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 40:3659–68

125. Water Sanit. Program (WSP) (no date). Credit connections: SEWA Bank. UNDP-World Bank WSP-South Asia & DfID

126. Shah T. 2001. Wells and welfare in the Ganga basin: public policy and private initiative in eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Res. Rep. 54, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

127. WaterAid. 2001. Looking back: the long-term impacts of water and sanitation projects. (Accessed 1/2007) http://www.wateraid.org/documents/lookingback.pdf

128. Renwick ME. 2001. Valuing water in irrigated agriculture and reservoir fisheries: a multiple-use irrigation system in Sri Lanka. Res. Rep. 51, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

129. van Koppen B, Moriarty P, Boelee E. 2006. Multiple-use water services to advance the millennium development goals. Res. Rep. 98, Int. Water Manag. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka

130. Benerı́a L. 1982. Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies. New York: Praeger

131. Solanes M, Gonzalez-Villarreal F. 1999. The Dublin principles for water as reflected in a comparative assessment of institutional and legal arrangements for integrated water re- sources management. Glob. Water Partnersh. TAC Backgr. Pap. 3. (Accessed 05/2005) http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=23

132. Brewster M. 2004. Gender and water focus of new interagency task force. Nat. Resour. Forum 28:77–78

133. Gleick PH. 2004. The World’s Water 2004–2005: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Washington, DC: Island

134. Kjéllen M, McGranahan G. 1997. Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World. Stockholm, Swed: Stockholm Environ. Inst.

135. UN Organ. 2003. 1st UN world water development report: water for people, water for life. (Accessed 12/2006) http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr1/table contents/ index.shtml

448 Ray

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

ANRV325-EG32-15 ARI 14 September 2007 20:58

136. Sullivan CA, Meigh JR, Giacomello AM, Fediw T, Lawrence P, et al. 2003. The water poverty index: development and application at the community scale. Nat. Resour. Forum 27:189–99

137. Sen A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford Univ. 138. Haddad L, Brown L, Richter A, Smith L. 1995. The gender dimensions of economic

adjustment policies: potential interactions and evidence to date. World Dev. 23:881–96 139. Griffin E. 1996. Gender analysis and international financial institutions. Nat. Resour.

Forum 20:153–61 140. Kabeer N. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: reflections on the measurement of

women’s empowerment. Dev. Change 30:435–64

www.annualreviews.org • Women, Water, and Development 449

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

AR325-FM ARI 21 September 2007 16:39

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 32, 2007Contents

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Feedbacks of Terrestrial Ecosystems to Climate Change Christopher B. Field, David B. Lobell, Halton A. Peters, and Nona R. Chiariello � � � � � �1

Carbon and Climate System Coupling on Timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene Scott C. Doney and David S. Schimel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31

The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services Kate A. Brauman, Gretchen C. Daily, T. Ka’eo Duarte, and Harold A. Mooney � � � � � 67

Soils: A Contemporary Perspective Cheryl Palm, Pedro Sanchez, Sonya Ahamed, and Alex Awiti � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 99

II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? Ambuj D. Sagar and Sivan Kartha � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 131

Models of Decision Making and Residential Energy Use Charlie Wilson and Hadi Dowlatabadi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 169

Renewable Energy Futures: Targets, Scenarios, and Pathways Eric Martinot, Carmen Dienst, Liu Weiliang, and Chai Qimin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 205

Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation Aaron T. Wolf � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 241

The Role of Livestock Production in Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles Henning Steinfeld and Tom Wassenaar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 271

Global Environmental Standards for Industry David P. Angel, Trina Hamilton, and Matthew T. Huber � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 295

Industry, Environmental Policy, and Environmental Outcomes Daniel Press � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

vii

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

AR325-FM ARI 21 September 2007 16:39

Population and Environment Alex de Sherbinin, David Carr, Susan Cassels, and Leiwen Jiang � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 345

III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Carbon Trading: A Review of the Kyoto Mechanisms Cameron Hepburn � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 375

Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework Donald R. Nelson, W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 395

IV. Integrative Themes

Women, Water, and Development Isha Ray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 421

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 23–32 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 23–32 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 455

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles may be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org

viii Contents

A nn

u. R

ev . E

nv ir

on . R

es ou

r. 2

00 7.

32 :4

21 -4

49 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

U ni

ve rs

it y

of D

en ve

r on

0 2/

26 /1

6. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.