Unavailable or inaccessible water? Inequality as political scarcity.

In this post, I would like to come back to the IWRM principle I tried to explore in this blog -equality- and reformulate it in consideration of political scarcity, a notion we mentioned in the first seminars of the course.

The concept of scarcity has been defined, among others, by Scoones et al., (2014) as absolute, relative and political. In particular, political scarcity can be useful to take into account not only the issue of water availability -which can be viewed as absolute scarcity, but also the problem of water access and distribution.

The previous sentence does not imply that predicted reduction in water resources is not a problem (Taylor, 2004), also considering the effects of climate change and population growth on water availability (Carter and Parker, 2009). Conversely, it aims at highlighting that the narrative of water scarcity has often oriented the debate on water management in the direction of a 'zero-sum game' -in which limited resources have to be allocated in specific sectors at the expense of others (van Koppen, 2003), rather than considering this points:

·         How much water is available?

The use of annual river runoff (MARR) as a criterion in water scarcity indices does not take into account changes in freshwater storage (Taylor, 2009); subsequently, groundwater storage is often excluded from assessments of freshwater availability (MacDonald et al., 2012); the potential of groundwater, for example in irrigation, is often untapped (Villholth, 2013); ); at the same time, increasing costs in groundwater abstraction due to falling levels of groundwater are not considered in the estimation of groundwater withdrawals (Taylor, 2014).

·         Does access and distribution only depend on availability?

Availability of water itself does not seem the only explicatory factor for access to and distribution of water. In particular, Chenoweth (2008) shows absence of significant correlation between water resources per capita and 'the ability of a country to satisfy the basic water resource needs of its population'.

Therefore, I think taking into account political scarcity can be relevant to understand the drivers of access to and distribution of water. I reformulate this concept from Scoones et al., (2014) as the set of power relationships which determine (or have determined) participation of different groups in decision-making processes on water management in past (with colonialism) and present times (with non-institutional social dynamics expressed in cultural norms and attitudes; institutional aid, development and governmental relationships). 

For example, complex cultural dynamics (combined with other factors) shaping traditional gender roles¹ can exclude women from decision-making on the use of water (Jalal, 2014), even when they carry out both productive and reproductive roles (Cleaver and Elson, 1995; Peter, 2006). Participation in water management -which takes many forms: choices on irrigation systems, for example- usually derives from water rights (mainly intended as rights at collective choice level defined by Zwarteveen, 1997: 1339), sometimes not recognised to women as their water needs are not legitimated (ibidem). Water rights are strictly linked to land titles and rights of inheritance, which are denied to women in some cases (Torou et al., 2013; van Koppen et al., 2013; Villholth, 2013).

  
Moreover, development organisations, national and regional governmental institutions can privilege the involvement of some stakeholders (see the first post for an example) in these decisions and reinforce, rather than equalise, gender roles.

© Roger Leguen / WWF-Canon

Patterns of participation determined by the above mentioned dynamics and relationships shape the economic and cultural factors affecting access to and distribution of water resources. For example:

·         Economic factors: 

The agreed or imposed cost of water determines access to this resource, also on the basis of: fixed/progressive costs and level of economic inequality of a country (which rises inequality in access to water at the increase of water costs);

Decisions of both local private and institutional actors on the allocation of economic resources on water supply infrastructures have an impact on access to water (van Koppen, 2003).

·         Cultural factors: 

Groups excluded from active participation in land and water management (women, for example) are more subject to be marginalised in a passive assignation of duties (for example, in domestic water supply -see Schreiner and van Koppen, 2001) and resources (such as a possible unequal distribution of water at the household level).

I believe this view can point out the primary role of equity in participation in determining equity in distribution and access itself: groups excluded from decisional process are often disadvantaged in access to natural resources.

Again, comments and critiques are more than welcome - thanks in advance for reading this post!

¹ I consider Peter’s (2006) definition: behaviours, ‘attitudes and beliefs that a particular cultural group considers appropriate for males and females on the basis of their biological sex’.


Sources:

Carter, R.C. and Parker, A., (2009) Climate change, population trends and groundwater in Africa. Groundwater and climate in Africa: a review.Hydrological Sciences Journal Vol. 54(4), pp. 676-689.

Chenoweth, J. (2008) A re-assessment of indicators of national water scarcity,Water International,33:1,5 —18.

Cleaver, F., & Elson, D. (1995). Women and water resources: Continued marginalisation and new policies. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Jalal, I. (2014). Women, Water, and Leadership, ADB Briefs.

MacDonald, A., Bonsor, H.C., O Dochartaigh, B.E. and Taylor, R.G. (2012) Quantitative maps of groundwater resources in Africa. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 7, 024009.

Peter, G. (2006). Gender roles and relationships: Implications for water management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 31(15), 723-730.

Schreiner, B., & van Koppen, B. (2001). From bucket to basin: poverty, gender, and integrated water management in South Africa. In Intersectoral management of river basins: proceedings of an international workshop on ‘‘integrated water management in water-stressed river basins in developing countries: strategies for poverty alleviation and agricultural growth (pp. 45-69).

Scoones, I., Smalley, R., Hall, R., & Tsikata, D. (2014). Narratives of scarcity: understanding the ‘global resource grab’ (No. 76). FAC Working Paper.
Taylor, R.G. (2004) Water Resources and development challenges in eastern and southern Africa . In: T. Bowyer-Bower and D. Potts (Eds.), East and Southern Africa . Regional Development Text, RGS-IBG Developing Areas Research Group, Addison-Wesley Longman (London), Chapter 7, pp. 198-228.

Taylor, R.G. (2009) Rethinking water scarcity: role of storage. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 90(28), pp. 237-238.

Taylor, R.G. (2014) When wells run dry. Nature, vol. 516, 179-180.
Torou, B. M., Favreau, G., Barbier, B., Pavelic, P., Illou, M., & Sidibé, F. (2013). Constraints and opportunities for groundwater irrigation arising from hydrologic shifts in the Iullemmeden Basin, south-western Niger. Water international, 38(4), 465-479. DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2013.817042

van Koppen, B. (2003). Water reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: what is the difference?. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 28(20), 1047-1053.

van Koppen, B., Hope, L., & Colenbrander, W. (2013). Gender aspects of small-scale private irrigation in Africa (Vol. 1543). IWMI.
Villholth, Karen G. (2013) Groundwater irrigation for smallholders in SubSaharan Africa – a synthesis of current knowledge to guide sustainable outcomes, Water International, 38:4, 369-391, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2013.821644

Zwarteveen, M. Z. (1997). Water: From basic need to commodity: A discussion on gender and water rights in the context of irrigation. World development,25(8), 1335-1349.

Farmer Field Schools

In the previous blog posts, I tried to highlight the importance of community participation in water management and, in the last one, I started reflecting on the most effective methods to enhance this aspects: which community participation formats can be introduced?

Among the solutions implemented by FAO, there are also Farmer Field Schools (FFS)
These are groups of farmers who, on a voluntary basis, weekly gather to:
-discuss about problems in land and and water management;
-exchange techniques drawing from their own experience to find solutions;
-learn good soil and water management practices, guided by the FFS facilitator*, and test them through field experiments;
-collectively monitor data, such as soil moisture, number of pests and beneficial creatures.
*The FFS facilitator is usually an extension worker or a previous participant of a FFS who has 'graduated', thus has attended meetings for the whole duration of the crop season.

I believe one important aspect to focus on is that sharing of local practices among farmers and learning of techniques presented by the facilitator are complementary aspects of information exchange.

Farmer presenting her results of field observations and agro-ecosystem analysis during weekly Farmer Field School sessions, Kendewa village, Anuradhapura District, Sri Lanka, 2002. Photo: Henk van den Berg

Credits: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn61/pn61p3.htm

It could be interesting analysing FFS in view of the three main principles of IWRM: equity, efficiency and environmental sustainability, after recognising that land management -the main decision area of FFS- is strictly related to water use.

-Equity:
The aim of FFS is that of stimulating community members to participate in the decision making process about water and land management.
One of the strengths of these projects is that people participate on a voluntary basis.
Moreover, as I mentioned above, they also choose what are the main areas they want to learn about.
Also, exchange of local agricultural practices gives relevance to Indigenous Knowledge.
FFS enhances equal participation of community members in decisions within the school (but, indirectly, also in other situations in community life) through women's involvement and access to leadership roles; engagement in elections; collective funds management, which increases social responsibility.
Perhaps, the last point is one of the most important aspects to improve. As FAO (2006) reports, FFS members should be kept more updated about the financial situation and regularly involved in the discussion about budget.
The FAO document also points out the need to encourage self-financed farmers schools. Perhaps this can be achieved implementing microcredit systems, as microfinance management groups can have similar sizes and organisational structure of FFS.

-Efficiency:
FFS also intend to increase economic efficiency by enhancing agricultural productivity -measured in change in yield per hectare, returns to labour, returns to input- due to the introduction of more efficient techniques, change in land use (for example, diversification of crops) and increase in soil fertility.
However, cost-benefit analysis led by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) in 2014, registers that FFS are unlikely to be cost effective because of their high per capita costs, which can be offset only by a high adoption rate (the percentage of participants in the projects among all the sustained adopters).
It might be argued that the financial sustainability problem is actually an issue related to lack of access of information about FFS benefits to potential adopters. In this sense, the voluntary basis of these schools is disadvantageous only if communities do not have proper information about the project itself.

-Environmental sustainability:
Environmental objectives of FFS include: increase of biodiversity and water quality and decrease of pollution and soil erosion.
Beyond stated purposes of FFS, studies evaluating their environmental impacts are contrasting.
The above mentioned document of 3ie refers to an impact evaluation of FFS programs in Indonesia, which reports lack of their effectiveness in improving a better use of pesticides. On the other hand, other studies registering reductions in pesticides use are mentioned.

To sum up, FFS impacts are quite controversial; especially in large-scale assessment which lack data, as most analysis focus on specific case studies, as reported in a document for the International Fund For Agricultural Development (IFAD, 2011).
Perhaps the question if FFS are effective in general can be reframed as how FFS can be effective on a local basis, adapting characteristics of this learning tool to specific community features -for example, understanding which are the most suitable methods to engage community in FFS.


Sources:
Braun A., Duveskog D., (2011) The Farmer Field School Approach - History, Global Assessment and Success Stories Background paper for the IFAD Rural poverty report.
FAO (2006) Farmer field schools on land and water management in Africa - Proceedings of an international workshop in Jinja, Uganda, 24–29 April 2006.

http://www.fao.org/nr/land/sustainable-land-management/farmer-field-school/en/

Waddington, H., White, H., and Anderson, J. (2014). Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education. Systematic Review Summary, 1.

Remote sensing technology and community participation

In a previous post, I mentioned how communities can be empowered by providing them with relevant information to become active decision makers in water supply management.

One might think about which kind of information would be more relevant for them.
As regards this question, a recent article on FAO news section reports the decision of the Dutch government to enhance their cooperation with the UN agency by investing $7 million in remote sensing technology to monitor and improve water use for agriculture in Near East and Africa.

'Example of an interpreted satellite image: Blue showing areas with good water-to-yield ratios, yellow showing areas with poor-water-to-yield ratios'

Credits: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/346377/icode/

Thus, this led me to think about the possible usefulness of giving communities access to data collected with this system. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the four-year program is to update a data portal of interpreted real-time remote sensing images -inclusive of data of inputs, such as rainfall and crop transpiration. Thus, experts can quickly identify the causes of low land productivity.

What seems interesting about this project is the possibility to share satellite images of the state of cropped areas to farmers, in order to show the success of good practices in scientific terms and stimulate the discussion about more productive techniques on the basis of the specific characteristics of land. The aim is that of improving water productivity in local agriculture. In this way, environmental sustainability, economic efficiency and community participation -three key elements of IWRM- would be improved. Still, I think that the most appropriate methods to give access to these data and discuss about them have to be explored.

Another aspect worth noting is that images in the database are already 'interpreted'. This can remedy the well-known 'lack of capacity and resources' of governments to 'analyze and work' with data resulting from remote sensing techniques (World Grain). But it does not seem clear how this interpretation will be conducted.

Finally, one might think about the possibility to link the spatial scales of analysis (continental level over the whole of Africa and Near East, country and river basin level and, irrigation scheme level) to decision-making levels. Thus, how it can be ensured that the voices of communities living in the river basin can access to the lower spatial scale data and they -and not only authorities at higher levels- are considered relevant actors in IRBM.

Sources:
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/346377/icode/
http://www.un-spider.org/news-and-events/news/fao-develop-database-support-water-scarce-countries
http://www.world-grain.com/articles/news_home/World_Grain_News/2015/08/Database_to_help_water_scarce.aspx?ID=%7B7DB8D43E-0348-4B13-A0B1-E6F9DE5241F7%7D&cck=1

Community management or community participation?

This week's blog will be about some reflections on two articles focusing on community participation in water supply management.

Both Carter and Howsam (1999) and Harvey and Reed, (2006) report some problems in community water supply and sanitation programs, identified by the authors as reasons of unsustainability.
I tried to reorganise them in two groups:

• Problems due to dissaffection with water supply projects, due to absence of participation of communities at different levels -mainly in decision-making and information sharing;

This takes the form of lack of sense of responsibility for the water supply facilities; doubts about the desiderability of new facilities; absence of trust in the water committee; abandonment of roles in the committee.

• Problems due to lack of institutional support to communities;

The authors report that communities lacking financial and technical resources,can hardly maintain or replace facilities without long-term support from governments and NGOs.

So, what are the possible strategies to cope with these problems?

• As regards the first set of problems, Harvey and Reed suggest that a necessary condition for sustainability is not community management, but community participation, as groups expressing a high sense of ownership still present low levels of sustainability. They consider community management one aspect of participation and express the idea that sometimes the latter does not even imply a real involvement of locals when it is only the result of governments' decision to get rid of their operation and maintenance responsibilities. 

Therefore, a good strategy might seem that of providing communities with information about all the possible systems of management, financing and maintenance in order to enable them to decide among various options with a sufficient level of knowledge. 

For example:

1) management: what are the 'boundaries' of the community? do locals prefer to organise themselves in smaller groups, based on households? which techniques should be used? is 'indigenous knowledge' considered? -in this last case, it seems important to highlight that the preliminary information exchange is not only unidirectional (from external agencies/experts to communities), but also bidirectional (form communities to external agencies/experts);
2) financing: how do member contribute? are there alternative types of contributions for low income families (e.g. providing labour force)?;
3) and maintenance: is the community responsible for maintenance? if so, how are roles assigned and how are members replaced? if not, can private sector take this responsibility?;
It can be argued that communities which choose the desired water management scheme, with a specific division of roles according to the every community member's willingness, are less likely to distrust the committee or abandon their roles.
Moreover, it seems that another important aspect of community participation is receiving correct information about the effects of water supply projects; so that institutions proposing these programs can maintain their credibility and there are less probabilities that locals do not support future projects taking into account that benefits promised failed to materialise.

• The second aspect, addressing the second group of problems, which might be taken into account is a greater institutional financial and technical support.

This can take various form, including training schemes to enable communities to maintain their facilities -in case they decide that this duty is a responsibility of the community.

In conclusion, these papers seem to reinforce the idea that what is really crucial is community empowerment: enabling communities to become active actors of the decision making process in possession of all revevant information.


Sources:

Carter, R. Tyrell, S. and P. Howsam (1999) ‘Impact and sustainability of community water supply and sanitation programmes in developing countries’ Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 13(4), pp. 292–296

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.1999.tb01050.x

Harvey, P. A., & Reed, R. A. (2007). Community-managed water supplies in Africa: sustainable or dispensable?. Community Development Journal, 42(3), 365-378.

Community involvement in financing and maintaining water facilities

In this week's post I will just attempt to highlight two interesting points of  a research on water supply services in Rwanda and Uganda by Golooba-Mutebi.

Who pays for water facilities and how?
The research reports difficulty in collecting money in Ugandian local communities to finance the construction of water sources. The solution has been asking for other types of contribution, such as materials, free labour force, accommodation and food for technicians.
It might be seen as a more feasible strategy to ensure financial sustainability of water facilities, by taking into consideration the real resources which communities can offer in exchange.
However, the question whether communities (instead of state administrations) should be responsible for financing water sources remains open. It might be argued that this solution can increase the communities' sense of ownership of facilities, a crucial issue I have mentioned in my last post.

Who maintains water facilities?
Golooba-Mutebi highlights the relation between lack enforcement mechanisms in water facilities maintenance operated by local communities and their ineffective management.
The author suggests that assigning a definite role to one individual, rather than transferring maintenance responsibilities to the whole community, might be more distant from the theoretical principle of public participation, but has proven to be more effective.
Therefore, a cause for reflection could be thinking if participation in water facilities maintenance implies the indistinct attribution of responsibilities to the community, or if it entails the involvement of locals in finding agreed solutions on how to manage them (including the choice of who is responsible for maintenance).

I hope to further explore these themes in the next posts.
Thanks again for reading this last post, and feel free to correct and comment it!



References:

Golooba-Mutebi F. (2012). ‘In search of the right formula: public, private and community-driven provision of safe water in Rwanda and Uganda’, Public Administration and Development 32 (4-5): 430–443.

Community participation in Tanzania

After a quick glance at a Chinese case, I have moved back to public participation in Africa, in particular to the Tanzanian case studies reported in a paper by Dungumaro and Madulu (2003),

The authors highlight the importance of community participation in water resources management not only from an ethical perspective (ensuring democracy and equity), but also for practical purposes.

As a matter of fact, they claim that development projects which lack public involvement can end up in failure and lead to conflicts between stakeholders. 

A reported example of failure is the Msanzi Irrigation Project, planned and implemented by Rukwa Development Project (RUDEP), a development programme of the Norwegian government, with an estimated value of about 70 million US dollar (2009). According to the authors, the local government stopped funding the irrigation scheme, as it was designed without any consideration of the indigenous techniques used for the construction of the previous Msanzi Irrigation Scheme, which had been destroyed by a series of floods.
In a Review Mission of February 1987 (quoted in a study of the RUDEP impact), it is only mentioned that central government funds were diverted to other sectors; but causes are not specified. In the study there is also a reference to the lacking 'sense of 'ownership and responsibility for the gift [emphasis added] they [the local communities] had received', without questioning the reasons of it.
However, the authors of the study also mention a training progma to promote village level management.

A case of conflicts between stakeholders is the one in the Pangani basin, in which there have been contentions for water use in farming and irrigation, pasture, hydro-power and domestic purposes.
The Pagani Falls Development project tried to solve this conflicts by instituting the Pangani Basin Water Office, in charge of 'allocating, managing, monitoring and controlling water use in Pangani Basin' (2007), One of the reported strengths of the Office is its capability of representing and defending upstream and downstream stakeholders interests.
Therefore, it seems that public participation could be analysed as an important factor for development programs success.
Dungumaro and Madulu list as channels for community involvement: public hearings, notice and comment procedures and  institution of advisory committees.

But what this channels should be used for? What should be content of public participation?
They highlight the importance of enabling communities to identify and report their specific needs, interests and water use problems. An important role is played by programs aimed at providing locals with negotiation skills, as being able to communicate opinions is crucial for communities.

In the paper there is also a great emphasis on the need to consider indigenous knowledge (ID), defined by the World Bank as the local system of 'skills, experiences and insights of people, applied to maintain or improve their livelihood'. As local communities have a deep knowledge of the specific features of their environment, it is suggested that indigenous knowledge is taken into account as a database for 'practical, relevant, achievable and acceptable solutions [emphasis added] to water related problems'.
Also the UN Agenda 21 deals with the relevance of the 'improvement of indigenous technologies 'to fully utilize limited water resources and to safeguard those resources against pollution' (1992).

Indigenous knowledge encompasses not only practical solutions, but also legal and cultural instruments for water resources protection.
By way of example, the authors refer to bye-laws aimed at limiting human activities near sources of drinking water effected in the rural areas of Mwanza Region. An interesting case is the Integrated Water Resources Management Project in the Ghanaian Volta region: the catchment inclusive of its vegetation was declared sacred to prevent cultural activities and waste accumulation in the area. This 'cultural' (rather than 'legal') prohibition proved to be effective for water quality maintenance.

Different types of training and educational programs are also considered of great importance. Besides the above mentioned projects to reinforce communicative and negotiating skills, Dungumaro and Madulu mention educational activities to enhance the understanding of correlation between human behaviour and waterborne diseases in the Tonga water resource management project (South Africa) and training programs to provide local communities with skills to properly maintain irrigation infrastructures.

All the activities aimed at increasing public participation seem to be relevant in raising the sense of responsibility and ownership of water management schemes and, thus, in guaranteeing the effectiveness of projects.
The very central idea of community involvement appears to be community empowerment: that is, not (or not only) transferring skills and technologies from experts to locals, but empowering communities with capacity to communicate their views to experts, negotiate with them and other stakeholders and implement their own solutions.




Sources:

Dungumaro, E.W. and Maduly, N.F. 2003. Public participation in integrated water resources management: the case of Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28, 1009-1014.

Alf Morten Jerve and E.J.K. Ntemi 2009. Rukwa Ruka. The attempt of a foreign donor to uplift a neglected region: A study of the impact of Norwegian aid to Rukwa Region, Tanzania. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI Report R 2009: 12) 98 p.

Kimwaga, R. J., and S. Nkandi 2007. Evaluation of the Suitability of Pangani Falls Redevelopment 

(Hydro Power) Project in Pangani River Basin, Tanzania: An IWRM Approach.

United Nations (UN) 1992. Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio - Chapter 18 'Protection of the Quality and Supply of Freshwater Resources'. United Nations, New York, USA.

http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/basic.htm

Public participation: a case study from China

In this new post, I will try to comment a paper not focused on an African region, but interesting in its contents.

Liu Jingling, Luan Yun, Su Liya, Cao Zhiguo, Zeng Baoqiang (2010) conducted a research about public participation in the upper and middle reaches of Haihe river basin.

They have divided the area in three parts: Anyang and Baoding city as urban modules, Qingfeng and Laishui county as rural modules, Boai and Anxin county as eco-sensitive area.

By measuring public participation in terms of  water environment satisfaction, willingness and actual participation rate, they have been able to rank the three areas in this order: eco-sensitive >urban>rural modules.

According to their analysis, the most relevant drivers of participation level (and, therefore, the explanatory causes of differences between the studied areas) are:

-Importance of river basin environment as income source (such as fishery and tourism) and significance of benefits derived by environmental protection.

-Past environmental incidents, which raised environmental awareness. The authors report the case of the "Dead Fish Incident" in 2000 and 2006, which brought to the attention of locals the damages of water pollution and stimulated their demand for environmental protection.

-Inadequacy of channels for public participation:

 Governmental initiatives are limited, mainly aimed at enhancing the public's environmental  awareness, but not at involving them into the WRM process, in particular in policy-making.  Specialised laws are usually not stipulated and procedures for public participation are not clearly  defined.

 In many cases media take on the government's duty to inform the river basin inhabitants, who  passively receive information.

 School education has a minor contribution in providing environmental knowledge and education.

The first two points seem to be more related to the public willingness to participate, while the third point on their actual possibility to participate granted by institutions.

The research also shows a high correlation between the environmental awareness and the willingness to participate. Citizens with a good knowledge of water pollution risks are more prone to take on water resources management responsibilities, as they are aware of water pollution damages. Therefore, it could be argued that, in this case, participation in water management, whose environmental awareness is one of the preconditions, can reinforce environmental sustainability, one of the three principles of IWRM.

At the same time, the authors highlight the lack of a 'commonly-recognized river basin value' and integration of activities between upper and middle reaches' inhabitants. Moreover, they also stress that publicity, education and participation arrangements were not adjusted to the specific features and needs of the urban and rural areas.

Therefore, it seems that the following scheme for public participation improvement in WRM could be drawn, by recapping the main results and suggestions of this paper.

Furthermore, increases in willingness to participate and in possibility to participate could also be considered mutually-reinforcing: governmental initiatives for public participation are likely to raise in response to a higher demand by well informed stakeholders, and the existence of opportunities to participate in WRM stimulates interest among locals who are informed about them.

Again, I am always grateful to anybody interested in suggesting/correcting/criticising, even more now that I am trying to develop more personal and critical recaps of my readings!

Sources:
Jingling, Liu, et al. "Public participation in water resources management of Haihe river basin, China: the analysis and evaluation of status quo." Procedia Environmental Sciences 2 (2010): 1750-1758.