Explaining the Hydroplitical paradigm model with the Grand Theory Foundation

پژوهش ‎های جغرافیای سیاسی

Article 2, Volume 6, Issue 1 - Serial Number 21, April 2021, Pages 24-46   

Document Type: مقالات علمی -پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/pg.2021.27225.0

Authors

Morad Kavianirad¹; Reyhaneh Salehabadi²; zakeyeh Aftabi^{* 3}

¹Associate Professor, Department of Political Geography, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

²PhD in Political Geography, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

³PhD Student in Political Geography, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The limitation of shared water resources has led to a range of different patterns from cooperation to conflict, which are explored in the from of hydropolitical knowledge . however, various aspects of hydropolitics have been the focus of scholars in various aspects of hydropolitics have been the focus of scholars in various sciences, including political geography.
To the extend that many of these experts have studied hydroplitics and its constituent dimenisions in different ways. The purpose of this paper, which is fundamental in nature, is to provide a paradigm model of hydropolitics based on the Grand Theory method has been qualitative, with refrence to 14 experts, internal and external sources and using the libarary method. samples were selected through purposive sampling.The obtained data were coded and analyzed using Grand Theory method. The result shows that in hydropolitics, the underlying factors fall into fifty central categories and five main categories: geopolitics, geoculture, geoeconomics, thechnopolitics, and politics.causal factors in hydropolitics were identified in 27 central categories and three main categories, as follows:1.community culture 2. Location and geographical status3. Infrastructural and fundamental. Strategic factors in 57 central categories and three main categories: formulation of educational and research strategies, strategic insight and formulation of mission and macro goals and the consequences of hydropolitics in 58 center categories and six main categories as follow: political-legal, socio- cultural, military- security, ecmomic and environmental factors, case Attention are.

Keywords

Model; Grand Theory; Water Resources; hydropolitic

References

1. K. (2003). An Uncooperative Commodity: Privatizing Water in England and Wales. Oxford and New York. Oxford University Press. 2003.
2. Barry A. (2001).Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. London and New York: The Athlone Press. 2001.
3. Bernauer T. (1997). Managing international rivers. In: Young OR (ed) Global governance: drawing insights from the environmental experience. The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. 155–196
4. Birkenholtz T. (2009). Irrigated landscapes, produced scarcity, and adaptive social institutions in Rajasthan, India. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2009. 99:118–137
5. Boelens R, Hoogesteger J, Swyngedouw E, Vos J, Wester P. (2016). Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective. Water Int. 41:1–14
6. Boelens R, Hoogesteger J, Swyngedouw E, Vos J, Wester P. (2016). Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective. Water Int 2016. 41:1–14.
7. Boelens R. (2014).Cultural politics and the hydrosocial cycle: water, power and identity in the Andean highlands. Geoforum 2014. 57:234–247.
8. Cabrera, D., L. Cabrera, and E. Powers. (2015). A unifying theory of systems thinking with
9. Dombrowsky I (2009) Revisiting the potential for benefit sharing in the management of trans-boundary rivers. Water Policy 11(2):125–140
10. Dryzek, J.S. (1997). The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxfor66d, UK: Oxford University Press67
11. Elhance AP. (1999). Hydropolitics in the third world: conflict and cooperation in international river basins. US Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC
12. Faure, G. O., and G. Sjostedt. (1993). Introduction. Pages 1-16 in G. O. Faure, and J. Z. Rubin, editors. Culture and negotiation: the resolution of water disputes. Sage, Newbury Park, London, England.
13. Furlong K.(2011). Small technologies, big change: rethinking infrastructure through STS and geography. Prog Human Geogr 2011, 35:460–482.
14. Gleick PH. (1993). Water and conflict: fresh water resources and international security. Int Secur 18(1):79–112
15. [Hafeznia.M.R, Mojtahedzadeh. P, Alizadeh. J.(2oo6 ).Helmand Hydropolithcs and its impact on Iran- Afghanistan political Relations. Iran. Tehran: modares of human-planing and landscaping]. In persian.
16. Hecht G. (2001). Technology, politics, and national identity in France. In: Allen MT, Hecht G, eds. Technologies of Power. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press; 2001, 253–294.
17. Hecht G. (2011). Introduction. In: Hecht G, ed. Entangled Geographies: Empire and Technopolitics in the Global Cold War. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press; 2011.
18. Hughes TP. (1983). Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880–1930. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press; 1983.
19. Hussein, H. (2017). Whos68e “reality”? Discourses and hydropolitics along the Yarmouk River. Contemporary Levant,69 2(2), 103–115.doi:10.1080/20581831.2017.1379493 
20. Hussein, H., & Grandi, M. (2017). Dynamic political contexts and power asymmetries: The cases of the Blue Nile and the Yarmouk Rivers. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,17(6), 795–814.
21. Hussein, H., 2017a. Politics of70 the dead sea canal: a historical review of the evolving discourses, interests, and p71 Water international, 42 (5), 527–542. doi:10.1080/02508060.2017.1344817
22. .[Iraqchi.S.A.(2014). Water diplomacy, from conflication to cooperation. iran. Tehran: world politics] in Persian
23. Jensen, S., and A. Kushniruk. (2016). Boundary objects in clinical simulation and design of eHealth. Health Informatics Journal 22:248-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458214551846
24. kaviani Rad.M. (2019).Hydropolitical strains and approaches. Iran. Tehran: center for strategic studies] in Persian
25. Lukes, S., (1974). Power: a radical view. London: Macmillan.
26. Meehan KM. (2014). Tool-power: water infrastructure as wellsprings of state power. Geoforum 2014, 57:215–224. 33.
27. Nagheeby, M., Warner, J. (2018). The geopolitical overlay of the hydropolitics of the Harirud River Basin. Int Environ Agreements18, 839–860 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-018-9418-9
28. Nandalal, K. D. W., and S. P. Simonovic. (2003). Resolving conflicts in water sharing: a systemic approach. Water Resources Research 39:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002172
29. psychosocial applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 32:534-545. https://doi. org/10.1002/sres.2351
30. Rai, S. P., Wolf, A. T., & Sharma, N. (2017). Hydropolitics and hydropolitical dynamics between India and Nepal: an event-based study. Water Policy, 19(5), 791–819. doi:10.2166/wp.2017.063 
31. Rai, S. P., Wolf, A. T., Sharma, N., & Tiwari, H. (2016). Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation. River System Analysis and Management, 353–368.doi:10.1007/978-981-10-1472-7_19
32. Riveraine S. Walters, Erin S. Kenzie, Alexander E. Metzger, William Jesse Baltutis, Kakali B. Chakrabarti, Shana Lee Hirsch and Bethany K. (2019). Laursen Ecology and Society Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jul 2019) (21 pages)
33. Rogers P. (1993). The value of cooperation in resolving international river basin disputes. In Proceedings of the natural resources forum. Wiley Online Library, pp 117–131
34. Rogers, S., & Crow-Miller, B. (2017). The politics of water: a review of hydropolitical frameworks and their application in China. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(6), e1239. doi:10.1002/wat2.1239 
35. .[Sadeghi. S. Sh. (2016 ).Hydropolitics and national security( case study: Persian Gulf countries). Tehran.iran:Rahbord] in Persian
36. Sadoff CW, Grey D. (2002). Beyond the river: the benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy 4(5):389–403
37. Savenije, H. H., & Van der Zaag, P. (2000). Conceptual framework for the management of shared river basins; with special reference to the SADC and EU. Water Policy,2(1–2), 9–45.
38. Sneddon C. (2015). Concrete Revolution: Large Dams, Cold War Geopolitics, and the US Bureau of Reclamation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2015.
39. Stahl, K. (2005). Influence of hydroclimatology and socioeconomic conditions on water-related international relations. Water International 30(3), 270–282
40. Swyngedouw E. (2009). The political economy and political ecology of the hydro-social cycle. J Contemp Water Res Educ 2009, 142:56–60.
41. Thomas, V., & Warner, J. (2015). Hydropolitics in the Harirud/Tejen river basin: Afghanistan as hydro-hegemon? Water International,40(4), 593–613.
42. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2007. Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience along international waters: Latin America and the Caribbean. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. [online] URL: http:// wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7803/-Hydropolitical% 20Vulnerability%20and%20Resilience%20Along%20International% 20Waters%20_%20Latin%20America%20and%20the%20Caribbean-2008858.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
43. Whitehead M, Jones R, Jones M. (2007). The Nature of the State: Excavating the Political Ecologies of the Modern State. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.
44. AT. (1998). Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. Water Policy 1(2):251–265
45. Worster D. (1985). Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity and the Growth of the American West. New York: Pantheon Books; 1985.