IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v29y2011i5p872-888.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Values, Meanings, and Positionalities: The Controversial Valuation of Water in Rio de Janeiro

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio A R Ioris

    (School of Geosciences, Department of Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, Scotland)

Abstract

Water is not only a valuable substance, but is also valued in different ways dependent on substantive social, ecological, and historical conditions. The concept of water value positionality is introduced to describe the dynamic ensemble of meanings forged from cooperation and competition in the allocation, use, and conservation of water. Positionality helps us to understand water conflicts as individuals and groups struggling to legitimise their valuation of water. The explanatory function of positionality is demonstrated with an empirical case study in the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro. Hegemonic positionality depicts water as an economic resource required for regional development and urban growth. This has been increasingly challenged by sectors of the state apparatus who call for the monetary valuation of water. Beyond these two perspectives, there exists a vast range of water values articulated by the local communities in their struggle for survival and political affirmation. The conclusion is that, in the process of constantly revaluing water, there are temporary ‘positions of value’ that last and change with sociocultural and politicoecological experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio A R Ioris, 2011. "Values, Meanings, and Positionalities: The Controversial Valuation of Water in Rio de Janeiro," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(5), pages 872-888, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:29:y:2011:i:5:p:872-888
    DOI: 10.1068/c10134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c10134
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c10134?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    2. Van Houtven, George & Powers, John & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 2007. "Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 206-228, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    2. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    3. Artur José Sitoe & Seunghoo Lim, 2024. "Understanding citizens' perception of channels for participating in administration based on their motivation in an authoritarian regime: The case of Gaza Province, Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 606-625, January.
    4. Moeltner, Klaus, 2019. "Bayesian nonlinear meta regression for benefit transfer," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 44-62.
    5. David A Keiser & Joseph S Shapiro, 2019. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 349-396.
    6. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    7. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    8. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    9. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Weber, Matthew A. & Meixner, Thomas & Stromberg, Juliet C., 2016. "Valuing instream-related services of wastewater," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 59-71.
    11. Patrick J. Walsh & William Wheeler, 2012. "Water Quality Index Aggregation and Cost Benefit Analysis," NCEE Working Paper Series 201205, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Jul 2012.
    12. Sebri, Maamar, 2015. "Use renewables to be cleaner: Meta-analysis of the renewable energy consumption–economic growth nexus," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 657-665.
    13. Jing Zhao & Hui Hu & Jinglei Wang, 2022. "Forest Carbon Reserve Calculation and Comprehensive Economic Value Evaluation: A Forest Management Model Based on Both Biomass Expansion Factor Method and Total Forest Value," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Dennis Guignet & Matthew T. Heberling & Michael Papenfus & Olivia Griot, 2022. "Property Values, Water Quality, and Benefit Transfer: A Nationwide Meta-analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 191-218.
    15. Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2014. "Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 29-39.
    16. David A. Keiser & Joseph K. Shapiro, 2018. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 17-wp571, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    17. John Rolfe & Roy Brouwer, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1095, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    18. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    19. Rodríguez-Piñeros, Sandra & Martínez-Cortés, Oscar & Villarraga-Flórez, Liz & Ruíz-Díaz, Alejandra, 2018. "Timber market actors' values on forest legislation: A case study from Colombia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    20. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:29:y:2011:i:5:p:872-888. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.