Suchergebnisse

Water links the environment, culture, and biology. An integrative approach is needed to attain a complete picture of how water affects human biology due to its inherent interdisciplinary nature. First, this review describes advances in human water needs, thirst, and hydration strategies from a biocultural perspective. Second, it provides a critical appraisal of the literatures on water insecurity (WI) experiences and coping strategies used to mitigate WI to illustrate how they intersect to affect human biology through the embodiment framework. Deviations from water needs and heightened WI can alter hydration and coping strategies, which have implications for a suite of psychological and physiological outcomes. These disruptions are embodied in cellular damage, dehydration, nutrition, stress, mental health, cognitive impairment, aging-related effects, cardiometabolic health, and kidney function. Disrupting forces such as lifestyle changes and climate change have important implications for water needs, WI, coping and hydration strategies, and the embodiment of each.

AbstractAnthropological theories of reciprocity suggest it enhances prestige, social solidarity, and material security. Yet, some ethnographic cases suggest that water sharing—a form of reciprocity newly gaining scholarly attention—might work in the opposite way, increasing conflict and emotional distress. Using cross‐cultural survey data from twenty global sites (n = 4,267), we test how household water reciprocity (giving and receiving) is associated with negative emotional and social outcomes. Participation in water sharing as both givers and receivers is consistently associated with greater odds of reporting shame, upset, and conflict over water. Water sharing experiences in a large, diverse sample confirm a lack of alignment with predictions of classic reciprocity theories. Recent ethnographic research on reciprocity in contexts of deepening contemporary poverty will allow development of ethnographically informed theories to better explain negative experiences tied to water reciprocity.

Water sharing offers insight into the everyday and, at times, invisible ties that bind people and households with water and to one another. Water sharing can take many forms, including so-called "pure gifts," balanced exchanges, and negative reciprocity. In this paper, we examine water sharing between households as a culturally-embedded practice that may be both need-based and symbolically meaningful. Drawing on a wide-ranging review of diverse literatures, we describe how households practice water sharing cross-culturally in the context of four livelihood strategies (hunter-gatherer, pastoralist, agricultural, and urban). We then explore how cross-cutting material conditions (risks and costs/benefits, infrastructure and technologies), socio-economic processes (social and political power, water entitlements, ethnicity and gender, territorial sovereignty), and cultural norms (moral economies of water, water ontologies, and religious beliefs) shape water sharing practices. Finally, we identify five new directions for future research on water sharing: conceptualization of water sharing; exploitation and status accumulation through water sharing, biocultural approaches to the health risks and benefits of water sharing, cultural meanings and socio-economic values of waters shared; and water sharing as a way to enact resistance and build alternative economies.

Water sharing offers insight into the everyday and, at times, invisible ties that bind people and households with water and to one another. Water sharing can take many forms, including so‐called "pure gifts," balanced exchanges, and negative reciprocity. In this study, we examine water sharing between households as a culturally embedded practice that may be both need‐based and symbolically meaningful. Drawing on a wide‐ranging review of diverse literatures, we describe how households practice water sharing cross‐culturally in the context of four livelihood strategies (hunter‐gatherer, pastoralist, agricultural, and urban). We then explore how cross‐cutting material conditions (risks and costs/benefits, infrastructure and technologies), socioeconomic processes (social and political power, water entitlements, ethnicity and gender, territorial sovereignty), and cultural norms (moral economies of water, water ontologies, and religious beliefs) shape water sharing practices. Finally, we identify five new directions for future research on water sharing: conceptualization of water sharing; exploitation and status accumulation through water sharing, biocultural approaches to the health risks and benefits of water sharing, cultural meanings and socioeconomic values of waters shared; and water sharing as a way to enact resistance and build alternative economies.