HESO 449: Ecohealth SDS

This week’s article on watershed management effectively illustrates the micro and macro benefits of a healthy water system. The micro effects of a healthy water system include improvements in mental health, social conditions (allow women more time to devote towards community and human capital building activities) and a decrease in disease risk (like diarrhea).

In terms of the macro implications of a healthy water system, the example of how healthy water systems can decrease the risk of zoonotic pathogens is especially worth mentioning. Earlier in the year, my group’s presentation on the connections between agricultural practices and global disease outbreaks similarly suggested the importance of healthy watersheds in decreasing agricultural diseases, like the avian influenza. This article’s example of wetlands succinctly illustrates how local environmental conditions, like watershed management, are a social responsibility, as they can have widespread impacts beyond local residences, as we have recently witnessed with swine flu.

Although the article did use examples from the 1993 Mississippi River flood, I would be interested in learning more about the mental and social impacts of flooding from Hurricane Katrina. What lessons, if any, did EcoHealth people take from 1993 in addressing New Orleans?

I feel this paragraph from the article to describe watershed management nicely:
“Water resources management is, among
other things: a livelihood issue, a land-use issue, an industrial and agricultural development issue, an aesthetic and spiritual issue, a social equity issue, a climate change issue, an environmental issue, a governance issue, an urban issue, and a human health issue. In part because of this, watershed
governance requires collective, often multistakeholder, processes that have considerable overlap with those familiar to health promotion. We view watershed
governance (which encompasses management) as a social process that should involve adaptive management, social
learning, and often collective decision making.
Such social processes have strong potential to fulfill both ecosystem management and public health objectives.”
The ecohealth approach encompasses so many different disciplines and schools of thought that it can often seem daunting to approach a situation without getting lost in the complexities. This article presents a look at how this kind of holistic systems thinking can be structured and organized in a manageable way. Of course there are still challenges, and the point April raised about lessons learned from 1993 in addressing Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath is an example of the gaps that exist in efficiently and effectively using the ecohealth approach in emergency/disaster situations (where it’s highly necessary).
I was also intrigued by the concept of “Social Learning” presented in the paper:
“Social learning focuses on the development of shared meanings, new institutions, and capacity at the level of the social entity as a result of participation and collaboration, and learning generated by feedback between project outcomes and the problem context.”
Successful ecohealth practice relies on ecohealth practitioners to be social learners, and in the case of disaster situations, the application of social learning has to be done as quickly and context-specifically as possible… hard to do…

As this article points out, participation in the management of watersheds is vital for successfully maintaining healthy water systems. Without community involvement not only is it unlikely that watersheds will be managed properly, but also a lack of local knowledge maybe very damaging to any attempts to manage watersheds. As Vanda Shiva explains in her book “Water Wars”, the building of large dams and use of genetically modified crops in the developing world, while given by developed actors with the intention of aiding developing countries with issues such as energy and hunger, have often been done without the involvement of local communities resulting in depleted and contaminated watersheds. As was the case throughout regions in India, new water pumping technology greatly increased people’s access to water, but did not account for recharge times resulting in dried up wells. Indigenous water management techniques, on the other hand which have been used in these water scarce regions for centuries have adapted to these particular environments in order better manage the watershed. I think it is important to remember that while technology can work wonders, it is useless unless it is customized to the specific region which can best be accomplished through understanding and participation from local communities.

Another interesting case study for watershed management is the the Ogallala Aquifer in the High Plains of the U.S. It is a major source of water for the region particularly for agricultural practices. Incidentally, it is being rapidly depleted as well as contaminated. From what I have learned in other classes, depleted aquifers can turn into what is basically a sink hole, void of any biodiversity. Considering this aquifer sustains such a significant region, human health and environmental sustainability would be greatly impacted if the Ogallala Aquifer were to dry up, meaning this watershed is in great need of better management.
Here some information about the Ogallala Aquifer in case you’re curious: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html

This article gave a good overview of how watershed management is central to human and ecological health. I liked the description of water as the ‘bloodstream’ of the world, because that is how vital watershed health is. As we saw in some of the case studies presented in class already, poor water management/narrow-minded development projects can be extremely detrimental to a region’s people and ecosystem. Nikki and I presented on an article about the Three Gorges Dam in China. This dam displaced several million people, destroyed their traditional livelihoods, and dramatically altered the ecosystem in ways that have increased vectors and the risk of natural disasters, all in the aim to generate power. The Watershed article explains an alternative way that the Yangtze River could be managed, when it points out that healthy ecosystems can actually reduce natural disasters, and sustainably managed watersheds can help alleviate poverty. An ecohealth approach was entirely missing from the Three Gorges Dam project, and if the community (3 million strong!) had been included I think the health of the watershed and the people could likely have improved.
Also, thought I would share that I just learned this weekend about the concept of a ‘foodshed’. It’s the idea that, like a watershed, the food system should be viewed as an interconnected whole (and that this view will help make the system more just).

Thanks guys for all the informative posts. The article describes ?Watersheds are effective units in which to link our discussion of water and health management because of the function of water as the ?bloodstream? of both the anthropogenic world and the non-human world. The watershed also clearly frames upstream and downstream concerns related to water quality and quantity, and watersheds are closely related to the provision of and access to ecosystem services that are non-negotiable determinants of human health and well-being.?
The article emphasizes on the complexity and the important interlink relationships that exist between watershed management and many aspect of ecosystem. Successful Watershed management can lead to better ecosystem health. The authors however, recognize the challenges that rise in order to apply ecohealth approach to improve human well beings. According to the authors these challenges include integrating different discipline and profession, complexity of social and ecological system, different world view and different form of scales.
This is an interesting link that describes a project with watershed management within the National water program
http://www.usawaterquality.org/themes/watershed/default.html

I don’t know why my quotation marks come up as question mark when I post! Sorry about this!!

There are some definite links between ecohealth and watershed management that the article discusses. I found this quote interesting and important for an ecohealth approach in general and to be applied to watershed management:
?indigenous and place-based understandings of the relationship among health, ecosystems, and communities that have developed over millennia. Inclusion of such knowledge through participation of relevant stakeholders also builds social capital and shared ownership of the process. This can lead to enduring capacity and relationships that underpin resilience in coupled social?ecological systems.?
Shared ownership and inclusion of local communities is key and results in a long-term impact. Instead of simply using the up to date technologies, actually focus on the region specific situation and how it will work for that population. Like the article says, the current technologies are not compatible for every place in the world. Thus, through an ecohealth approach there is a possibility to make the community passionate about sustainable watershed management and make them aware of the negative affects bad watershed management has directly on their health and the environment. This relates to the Coca-Cola example, in that giving the power of a local community member to sell the product him or herself is a great marketing tool and effectively implements something that would not otherwise work if an outsider was responsible for selling the product. By involving the community and figuring out what works best for them, making them passionate and feel like a part of something, use materials that are best adapted to their way of life and culture will ultimately result in better watershed management. Of course, there are many other obstacles socially and politically but starting with an ecohealth approach could be the basis for better watershed management. This approach could help get at the root of the problem before its too late and the government faced with paying billions of dollars to restore the watershed.

I like how the article highlights the role of watersheds in multiple domains, such as disaster prevention by acting as a buffer zone; in public health, improving livelihoods and aiding poverty. I was intrigued with the article’s brief mention of watershed councils, which integrate the interests of community members in efficient watershed management. I came across an article summary that talks about just this, and that I believe complements the information presented:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124151721.htm

It takes a psychological approach by identifying the elements that are key in the internal team dynamics and external communication among members of a watershed council in order for them to promote successful land management. For instance, they found that establishing trust with landowners, educating them and increasing their awareness of issues and interventions proved to be critical in their overall approach. Similarly, they underlined the importance of having scientists as ‘equal partners’ and not as authoritative ones in conducting and implementing research.

What stood out to me the most in the article is the part where it talks about “Resilience and complexity.” Previously, I tend to think that things that are complex are often complicated. Thus, they are difficult to understand or approach. The article points out that ecosystems and social systems are complex, which contain “a bundle of key relationships operate in a way that leads them to self-organize (and maintain organization) within a limited domain of behavior.” Systems like these are resilient! They undergo changes to maintain or even enhance their structures and functions. Surprising changes are necessary for innovation and adaptation to happen, which is contradictory to what I thought before. This concept is accordant to the equilibrial relation between extinction and immigration rates that I learn in my ecology class. Basically, an optimal number of species in a particular community is obtained through the process of elimination and addition of species through competition between new and local species and interactions between new species and the community’s physical factors. Changes such as natural disturbances (e.g. big fire, storm) are necessary for creating opportunities for new and adaptive species to thrive. Species richness, in turn, strengthens the resilience of the ecosystem since species are the building blocks of a system. Thus, as mentioned in the article, “instead of attempting to design and implement a ‘system,’ we instead encourage the evolution of a complex adaptive system through strategic intervention so that the likelihood of systems evolving toward potential desirable attractors is maximized.”

I think the idea of integrating Ecohealth and water resources management approaches is an important step to enhance the resilience of not only the ecosystem, but it helps people to see themselves as part of a huge system (ecologist call it “biosphere”) that consists of sub systems (e.g. social system, ecological system). This approach gives people the sense of responsibility to do their part to contribute to the resilience of the system.

To successfully tackle water resource management, it requires systems thinking with stakeholders from multiple domains taking part in forming a sustainable policy.

Donell Meadows was an acclaimed systems thinker and writer, her article “Portugal’s Generation of Hope” (http://www.sustainer.org/?page_id=90&display_article=vn134portugaled) describes how Portugal is rising enthusiastically to the complex challenge of managing their water sustainably.

Part of the solution the people of Portugal envision is a system robust to government and policy changes. This requires the populace to be aware of the issues, and for there to be structural changes in resource management.

However, the key point in their solution is the shift in thinking from waiting for the government to fix the problem, to a proactive approach where stakeholders work together with or without government intervention to manage their water. I think this is idea is vital to many of the issues we’ve discussed in class and especially ecohealth. There are many actors in our ecosystem and health system, each with their own idea of what reflects an ideal system. Unfortunately, because it seems like a consensus is difficult to reach, they wait for an intervention that never comes. If instead the stakeholders realized that no intervention was coming, and any action could only come from them forming a common goal, we could find hope as Portugal has.

What I found really insightful with the Bunch et al article was their definition of ecohealth; generally, I’m intrigued by any different definition of this topic since it’s not only a new field but also an approach that is entirely unique to each region where it is implemented. Ecohealth in their definition is centered around human wellbeing being dependent on the environment.
My take on it is that there’s a cycle of our species shaping the environment and it, in turn, shaping us in ways that are oftentimes detrimental to our health. This feedback system is almost like the ‘boomerang’ effect in that we are seeing the echoes of our impact on our surroundings. Pertaining to watersheds, or catchments, what needs to be addressed primarily poverty a region; a lack of resources pose great challenges to a society in simply getting by, let alone advancing their sustainable technologies. An Ecohealth approach would be ideal here, since policymakers, researchers and community members can collaborate and “tailor” interventions to ease the burden on the ecoystem while remaining within a society’s financial means.

As mentioned by others as well, an ecohealth approach is vital for a healthy watershed system. But what complicates things is the fact that ecohealth is an approach that is distinct and precise for every region, thus if an approach to a sustainable watershed system works in one area, chances are, it will not work as well in a different region. As Dr. Maclean stated in her presentation, when one goes to a new region, they must start from a level zero knowledge in that they know absolutely nothing about anything. Although she stated this in a different context, I believe it can go well in this context as well. If a watershed system is not managed properly, it may dry up and no longer be of any use. However, if the system is sustainably dealt with, and an effort is made to maintain the ecological health of the system at a maximum, then the watershed management would be great.

What has remained in my mind since February 24th is Kay Teschke’s presentation on water systems in Langly BC. If I recall correctly, the results of her study showed that the homes with private wells contained much less harmful substances in them than public wells. To me it seemed like in a way the results encourage individuals from the area to use private wells. My question is, wouldn’t private wells have a much worse long term impact in that pumping out ground water will result in ground water depletion, thus higher water tables, and eventually the collapse of the ground into sink holes and so on. If this is the case, shouldn’t there be great measures being taken to raise public water supply qualities in order to decrease private installations?

Personally, I was shocked to find out that there were so many individuals being treated to illnesses caused by the drinking water in Langly since most water supply problems that are public and well known are from developing countries. So Canada dealing with this issue was very surprising for me.

To properly address water filter
resource management, systems thinking is required, with stakeholders from many domains participating in the development of a sustainable policy.

To properly address water filter
resource management, systems thinking is required, with stakeholders from many domains participating in the development of a sustainable policy.