




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (2): 113–123, July 2020 

 
SPECIAL SECTION: New Epistemologies of Water in India  
 

Knowledge Others, Others’ Knowledge: The Need for 
a New Epistemology of Water 
 

Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt   
 
Abstract: This paper examines the ways in which knowledge about water has 
conventionally been generated by modern water scientists and illuminates how this 
approach leaves out the diverse ―ways of knowing‖ water and how scientism 
creates a trap of concrete evidential certainty. Through the example of a failed 
conversation, it questions the basic epistemological underpinnings of 
understanding water in modern scientific inquiries—the means of knowing rivers, 
and how they conflict with feminist epistemologies and fail to account for the 
―knowledge others‖ and ―others‘ knowledge‖. The paper concludes with 
observations on why we need new epistemologies of water in the Anthropocene. 

Keywords: Water, Epistemology, Rivers, Feminist Methods, Scientific Methods 

 

1. EPISTEMICIDE? 

Social science researchers studying water are aware of the hegemony of 
western epistemology, particularly the limits of a singular ―way of knowing‖ 
water. This western epistemology has shaped critical projects that involve 
managing, controlling, and modifying water. A growing body of literature 
argues that these projects are based on the contextually irrelevant 
experiences and perspectives of the West, and hence provide too few 
parameters or none at all, both analytically and conceptually. Thus, in the 
Global South, the challenge is to develop an anti-hegemonic ecology of 
knowledge that is free from the domination of western epistemology. To 
address this challenge, one must acknowledge the alternative ways of 

                                                           
 Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian 
National University, Room 3.25, JG Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, ACTON, ACT 
2601, Australia; kuntala.lahiri-dutt@anu.edu.au.  

Copyright © Lahiri-Dutt 2020. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.226  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.226


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [114] 

knowing water and living with it, and perhaps then understand the costs 
associated with this annihilation. According to a leading critical theorist, 
Boaventura de Sousa Santos, the mass extinction of non-western 
knowledges can be termed as ―epistemicide‖. In his landmark book, 
Epistemologies of the South (2014), de Sousa Santos establishes the parameters 
for a contemporary critical theory that considers the historical and analytical 
limits of Marxism and proposes an epistemology that is global, anti-
colonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-patriarchal. In another article, de Sousa 
Santos (2016, 18) follows up on this argument and notes that awareness of 
this epistemicide encourages researchers to depart from the established, 
mainstream knowledge that derives from the Eurocentric tradition. 
Knowing that an epistemicide is in force can also lead researchers to 
undertake a crucial epistemological transformation that has the potential to 
reinvent social emancipation and sovereignty on a global scale. Finally, the 
understanding can also evoke plural ways of relating to nature that are not 
simply based on a scientific conception of the world. Much of this limited 
epistemology of water, as it is known, is propagated through tertiary 
education (and research) institutions, where pedagogy remains strictly 
discipline-based. Each discipline remains bound by its methodological 
imperatives and proposes a particular understanding of the subjects within 
their boundaries.  

For a complex resource such as water, these limitations invariably invite 
reductionism, as each discipline examines different aspects of water, 
expecting to see the material in its entirety. Within this scenario, geography 
exerts a proprietary claim over the physical containers and carriers of water 
such as rivers, lakes, and other water bodies. Baghel, Stepan, and Hill (2017, 
3) explain how ―epistemic communities‖—groups or networks of experts 
who share common norms, principles, and beliefs, causal credence,  notions 
of validity, and strategies—have a common belief framework to explain the 
production of challenges. Epistemic communities primarily focus on 
transnational policymaking, international regimes, and expert groups using 
science and technology; they operate within a culture of metrics, models, 
projections, and warnings. The science-based epistemic community 
presents (and perpetuates) only a partial view of water and discusses its 
abundance and scarcity in terms of human security. Moreover, Baghel, 
Stepan, and Hill (2017) argue that there is ―something distinct to water, to 
water experiences and water knowledges in Asia‖ (2). In addition to the 
distinctiveness of water as a resource, there is also an explicit recognition of 
the differences that ―place‖ makes to knowledge. Social and feminist 
geographers have consistently argued that knowledge is placed in (and is 
defined by) its context. As Massey (2005) reminds us: ―Without space, no 



[115] Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt 

multiplicity; without multiplicity, no space‖ (9). It is this multiplicity of 
contexts that makes knowledges of water so special, and feminist voices 
contribute to the plurality of these knowledges. Based on my personal 
encounters working within and outside disciplinary boundaries, this paper 
uses two examples to analyse epistemicide in the context of water and ends 
with some thoughts on feminist epistemologies, which might be one of the 
―new‖ alternative knowledge forms in the Anthropocene. 

 

2. KNOWING WATER, UNDERSTANDING THE 
EPISTEMICIDE 

Even if the language and terminology remain different, the idea of an 
epistemicide is not new in water studies. It has been expressed differently 
elsewhere, for example, in Linton‘s (2010) argument that ―modern water‖ is 
a discursive construction that has helped harness and control extensive 
parts of the hydrosocial cycle. This acquisition, according to Linton, was 
accomplished through large hydraulic infrastructures including dam 
construction, wetland draining, irrigation engineering, and water diversion 
into the circulatory systems of urban centres. Schmidt (2017) calls this 
discourse of modernity ―normal water‖, that is, a discourse that repackages 
the political project of human adjustment into notions of adaptation that 
naturalize a certain way of thinking about water as the only possible option. 
Roberts and Philips (2019) argue that ―water is not a neutral and external 
substance or object, but something that is inextricably woven into social, 
economic and political rationalities‖ (5). To understand water ―as we make‖ 
meaning of it, Strang (2010) adopts an anthropological approach to explore 
communities‘ relationships with water. This relationship develops through 
landscapes, cultures, religions, spirituality, as well as gender (Lahiri-Dutt 
2006). The first effect of epistemicide, therefore, is the production of a 
number of geological, technical, and social ideas that conceptualize water as 
a resource that can, and should, be managed to follow an evolutionary model 
of postcolonial progress. 

The second effect is the transformation of nature through science and 
technology. This is enabled by the discourse that supplies of water and 
solutions to shortages fall within the realm of science and technology, 
leading to an objectification and categorization of the natural world 
(Sjolander-Lindqvist 2005). Water, which was previously considered a part 
of nature, has now been transformed into an important urban commodity 
that can be engineered (Stuart 2007). These urban water supply systems and 
networks, Swyngedouw (2006) argues, ―are the mediations through which 
the perpetual process of transformation of nature … takes place‖ (106). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [116] 

Nature is transformed into products to meet human needs, and market and 
regulatory mechanisms price these products for human consumption, 
which then enter the market as commodities (Bakker 2006). Scholars (for 
example D‘Souza 2007) have emphasized this point in their study of dams 
and other colonial water infrastructure. This knowledge of water is walled in 
by scientism as a highly intellectualized, application-oriented and 
rationalized field where, as de Sousa Santos (2014) says, ―the relation 
between knowing and acting has lost its general character and been reduced 
to the relation between knowledge validated by modern science and rational 
social engineering‖ (5). Outside of this wall, it presumes, lies the dark world 
of beliefs, faith, values, myths, and the world of the unsayable, where theory 
and practice are disentangled from each other. The example that follows 
exemplifies this point by showing how scientism becomes incapable of 
conversing with feminist epistemologies even if the scientists themselves 
want to include feminist visions in their work. 

 

3. CONVERSING WITH RIVER BASIN MODELLERS ON 
GENDER 

Established in 1916, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation (CSIRO) is Australia‘s national science agency and one of its 
oldest research organizations. In 2013, it initiated a research programme to 
generate tools and evidence to improve the management of several South 
Asian river basins. Funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
(DFAT) and CSIRO, the Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio 
(SDIP) project at CSIRO uses river system modelling to generate water 
development scenarios—an activity in which the CSIRO has had 
considerable expertise and strength. The aim of the SDIP is to increase 
water, food, and energy security in South Asian countries for the poorest 
and most vulnerable. With women being over-represented in the poor and 
vulnerable groups in the region, CSIRO needed a gender expert. But how 
does one even begin a conversation between natural scientists working on 
basin modelling and gender scholars working with social science tools and 
methodologies? Scientists dealing with the intricately complex river basins 
of South Asia had no robust methodological tools to integrate 
interdisciplinary pluralism and explain the sociocultural contexts within 
which the water is being allocated, shared, and used. To resolve this 
impasse, CSIRO took a big (and unprecedented) step by hiring an ANU-
CSIRO joint appointee gender expert who would divide their time between 
my (social science) department in ANU (The Australian National 
University) and CSIRO. Under my mentorship, the appointee would help 
the scientists integrate gender into their areas of work. Being a feminist who 



[117] Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt 

is not uncomfortable working with physical scientists, I was pleased to take 
on the project. 

Sadly, in reality, this profoundly innovative initiative encountered several 
roadblocks and challenges. A series of multifaceted events are evidence of 
its slow and painful failure. The primary problem was of communication 
between vastly different disciplinary orientations. The gender expert, who 
had a strong background in the domestic decision-making research space, 
found it difficult to converse with the (mostly male) scientists, and vice 
versa. Did this failure occur because the project presented itself to these 
scientists as one of those much-maligned ―add women and stir‖ type 
initiatives? Or are feminist approaches to knowledge inherently different? 

Indeed, some branches of feminism rely on empiricism, or can confer with 
empiricists quite easily and confidently, as evidenced in journals such as 
Feminist Economist or in the innumerable mapping and quantitative works 
carried out by leading feminists. These are significant bodies of work that 
have used quantitative methods and conversed with the harder, physical 
sciences, have sensitized scientists, and made significant contributions to a 
feminist re-envisionings. On the other hand, some feminists have 
consistently argued that our task is not to follow established epistemologies, 
but to reject them altogether and adopt new methods and tools to change 
the existing (scientific) methods. Perhaps this second approach has more 
merit, given the assumed hierarchies between the social and natural sciences 
and within disciplines. These hierarchies of knowledge prevent the kind of 
conversation and integration in which their disparate epistemologies can 
meld with each other. 

In this instance, the scientists‘ disciplinary training equipped them to apply 
quantitative tools for river basin management at a macro level. These tools 
do not lend themselves to an understanding of gender roles and relations, 
which require going beyond the macro and focussing on the micro—the 
minutiae of interactions and dynamics within households and families and 
interpersonal as well as inter-community relations.  

So how does one articulate the multi-directional relationship between rivers 
and human societies and integrate gender into the study of rivers and 
riverine communities? River scientist, Plewa (2010), presents rivers as part 
of the earth‘s hydrosphere and as being determined by geology and climate, 
which in turn determine the river‘s hydraulic properties and hence its 
channel mechanics and chemistry. The epistemic community of classical 
river scientists, therefore, teaches students that although rivers are inert 
parts of the physical environment, they are almost like organisms because 
of their life cycles. This way, a river is imagined outside of the human 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [118] 

domain (Lahiri-Dutt 1999). If humans were separated from the physical 
world, then the epistemology of geomorphology would be characterized by 
the separation of human elements from rivers. Lahiri-Dutt (2015) has 
discussed the consequence of considering fluvial systems as part of the 
larger environmental system, ―a meaningful arrangement of things‖ 
(Schumm 1977, 2), a whole that is formed as the sum of many parts. This 
knowledge invisibilizes human lives, their histories, and their various social 
and cultural connections with rivers and exemplifies how epistemicide is 
legitimized through disciplinary edifices.  

Castree (2005) argues that knowledges are ―produced by myriad knowledge-
communities who possess sometimes similar (and sometimes different) 
outlooks on nature‖ (xiv). Therefore, what we perceive as ―societal‖ 
understandings of the natural world are actually ―local‖ understandings that 
have emanated from their production sites to be considered as real, and 
hence valid, to different communities. According to Castree (2013), these 
sites are not only universities and research organizations, which have 
conventionally presented themselves as the principal knowledge 
communities of professional geographers.  

People who create knowledge through their lives and day-to-day 
interactions with rivers are described by Castree (2013) as ―epistemic 
workers‖. These epistemic workers, through face-to-face and virtual 
interactions, comprise epistemic communities. These communities have 
more or less distinctive languages and ways of communicating. Lave (2015) 
argues that a new era of knowledge production is emerging in this manner. 
She suggests that in this knowledge regime, academia has significantly less 
clout than ever before. The knowledge claims that are broadly seen as 
legitimate are increasingly developed outside of the academy. 

River scientists, who claim to be the primary community producing 
knowledge about rivers, have failed to produce holistic knowledge that 
shows rivers as products of human history, interferences, attachments, and 
imaginations. Without these humane aspects, our knowledge of rivers 
remains incomplete. More importantly, with the humane aspects, the kinds 
of nature knowledges that are produced would simply and truthfully depict 
things that scientism does not seem understand, recognise, or value. Ekers 
and Loftus (2012) underline this perspective and suggest that central to the 
making of nature knowledges are specific embodied practices across 
particular temporal and spatial conjectures that require a historicized and 
geographically rooted understanding of nature.  

River scientists have tried to establish standardized, universal, and 
appropriate conditions and settings for the creation of water knowledge 



[119] Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt 

that can be translated into a model that all knowledge production (and 
knowledge-seeking) can look up to. This knowledge yields empirical 
certainty and considers itself robust enough to effectively silence the 
sceptics or ―non-believers‖ of this worldview.  

Feminists question the presumed certainty of this approach by asking first if 
the sex of the knower is epistemologically significant (Code 1981) and 
second, how masculine and feminine needs, interests, rights, and water uses 
can be illuminated in a gender-differentiated form, across or as ―stretching 
over‖ space. Commenting on the first, the masculine production of 
knowledge, Lorraine Code (2014) observes: 

Any hint of relativism such as is implicit in the suggestion that sex—a non-
intellectual, non-rational, individual characteristic of the putative knowers—
could play a constitutive part in the production of knowledge threatened to 
undermine the founding principles of ‗the epistemological project (9).   

Questioning the sex of the knower could problematize knowledge and 
subjectivity, shifting the focus to what Haraway (1988) considers ―situated 
knowledges‖—knowledges that allow an examination of multiple 
intersections of subjectivity and positionality and their epistemological 
implications—and questions the ―credibility, marginality, epistemic 
responsibility and the politics of testimony‖ (Code 2014, 10). This is a 
simple but first step in understanding differences in epistemologies; in the 
story narrated above, it was not always men who failed to understand the 
roles that gender could play in the lives of riverine communities.  

As noted, some feminists reconcile the difficulties of conversing with 
natural or harder sciences by adopting different forms of empiricism. They 
present numbers, numerical data, and measurements, and maps as accurate 
and scientific evidence. Indeed, this was possibly what might have been 
envisaged by CSIRO at the outset. Therefore, instead of a gender expert, what 
they truly required was an empiricist who can deal with sex-disaggregated 
social, economic, and related data, and incorporate them into river basin 
modelling data of water-flows, sediment load, rainfall, and so on. However, 
is this co-option of sex-based social-economic indicators into the 
measurement and modelling work of the predictive sciences a solution? The 
feminist philosopher of science, Sandra Harding, in her influential book The 
Science Question in Feminism (1986) opposes these attempts and argues that 
feminist standpoint theory rather than feminist empiricism actually offers 
―strong objectivity‖. Feminist standpoint theory unfurls a more inclusive 
and just scrutiny than older conceptualizations of objective analyses and 
addresses the historical-material diversity from which knowledge is 
produced by women and men. The feminist water scholar Zwarteveen 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [120] 

(2006) outlines similar difficulties during her attempts to engage with 
irrigation engineers in a conversation on gender. She claims that the 
masculinity of the creators of water knowledges is responsible for the 
difficulties in finding novel ways of understanding and explaining the 
concept of water.  

Returning to the story told above, was this initiative slated to fail because of 
the predictable collision of the two epistemologies? Would it have been 
better not to mention gender at all in CSIRO‘s project? We now know that 
funding agencies feel compelled to ―mainstream‖ gender in each area of 
their work, and funding imperatives might have pushed CSIRO to even 
want to integrate gender into the work of their river scientists. We also 
know that sometimes well-meaning initiatives such as this one lead to 
disastrous results (Eerdewijk and Davids 2014), failure of projects (Staudt 
2003), unintended consequences (Walby 2005), and, most importantly, a 
depoliticization (Brouwers 2013) and instrumentalization of feminist 
politics that is at the heart of mainstreaming gender (Daly 2005; 
Mukhopadhyay 2014). On the other hand, is it not also true that the effort 
to integrate gender is better than not trying it at all? 

The most significant challenge for the present discussion is that many 
disciplines in the social and natural sciences that analyse water as a resource 
frequently tie water management problems to a society-nature dualism 
(Schmidt 2017). This dualism is no longer tenable, yet our discipline-based 
knowledge production has not yet facilitated the kind of boundary 
transgressions or co-production of knowledge that was envisaged when 
mainstreaming gender in the work of scientists (Barry and Born 2013). 
Addressing this problem, Jasanoff (2004) invokes the need for a generative 
discourse on the role of science and technology in society, because they are 
interwoven with the meanings, values, and power in considering a critical 
inquiry on water. Further, contextual hybridities are described by Jasanoff 
(2004) as the ―rambunctious storyline of modernity‖, because they refuse to 
conform to ―any singular narrative of enlightenment, underlining how 
nature, knowledge, institutions, and identities are co-produced, and showing 
how other ways of knowing water can contribute to alternative and 
expanded knowledges of water‖ (3). No certitude exists within this flux. 
Jasanoff (2004) argues that the ―familiar ingredients of modern life 
continually rearrange themselves in unpredicted patterns, creating rupture, 
violence, and difference alongside the sense of increasing liberation, 
convergence, and control‖ (13). The truth of this statement becomes 
evident in considering the implications of the story narrated here. 

 



[121] Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt 

4. CONCLUSION: NEW WATER EPISTEMOLOGIES FOR THE 
ANTHROPOCENE? 

What could be the implications of this epistemicide in our relations to water 
in the Anthropocene? We are now living in a time when humans are 
considered as a force of nature in a geological sense, thereby conjoining 
nature and humans in ways that enable an immediate co-production of each 
other. How do we think about water epistemologies in these times? In 
situations like this, ―traditional disciplinary discourses fall short‖ (Mehta, 
Huff, and Allouche 2019, 223). It falls upon each discipline to reimagine 
itself, to increase the porousness of its borders to encourage cross-
fertilization, and to inspire younger generations of scholars to think more 
independently whilst also collaborating with others, thus developing an anti-
hegemonic ecology of knowledges that are liberated from the domination 
of western epistemology. Growing evidence shows that conventional 
epistemologies based on the certitude of accurately measuring, modelling, 
and consequently, controlling water bodies are not working. Perhaps this 
realization should help us chart our future course, particularly in the 
countries of the Global South, as against western epistemology-based 
visualizations of water. 

 

REFERENCES 

Baghel, R., L. Stepan, and J. Hill. 2017. Water, Knowledge and the Environment in Asia: 
Epistemologies, Practices and Locales. London: Earthscan. 

Barry, A., and G. Born. 2013. Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural 
Sciences. London: Routledge. 

Brouwers, R. 2013. ―Revisiting Gender Mainstreaming in International 
Development. Goodbye to an Illusionary Strategy.‖ Working Paper Series/General 
Series, International Institute of Sciences, 556: 1–36. 
https://repub.eur.nl/pub/39504/wp556.pdf.  

Castree, N. 2005. Nature. Abbingdon: Routledge.  

Castree, N. 2013. Making Sense of Nature: Representation, Politics and Democracy. New 
York: Routledge. 

Code, L. 1981. ―Is the Sex of the Knower Epistemologically Significant?‖ 
Metaphilosophy 12 (3–4): 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9973.1981.tb00760.x.   

Code, L. 2014. ―Feminist Epistemology and the Politics of Knowledge: Questions 
of Marginality.‖ In The SAGE Handbook of Feminist Theory, edited by M. Evans, C. 
Hemmings, M. Henry, H. Johnstone, S. Madhok, A. Plomien, and S. Wearing, 9–
25. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 

https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Frepub.eur.nl%2Fpub%2F39504%2Fwp556.pdf;h=repec:ems:euriss:39504
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1981.tb00760.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1981.tb00760.x


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [122] 

D‘Souza, R. 2007. Drowned and Damned: Colonial Capitalism and Flood Control in Eastern 
India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 

Daly, M. 2005. ―Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice.‖ Social Politics: 
International Studies in Gender, State & Society 12 (3l): 433–450. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi023 

de Sousa Santos, B. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. New 
York: Routledge. 

de Sousa Santos, B. 2016. ―Epistemologies of the South and the Future.‖ From the 
European South 1: 17–29.  

Eerdewijk, A., and T. Davids. 2014. ―Escaping the Mythical Beast: Gender 
Mainstreaming Reconceptualised.‖ Journal of International Development 26 (3): 303–
316. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.2947.  

Ekers, M., and A. Loftus. 2012. ―Revitalizing the Production of Nature Thesis: A 
Gramscian Turn?‖ Progress in Human Geography 37 (2): 234–252. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512448831. 

Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 
Press.  

Jasanoff, S. 2004. ―Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society.‖ In States of Knowledge: 
The Co-production of Science and Social Order, edited by S. Jasanoff, 13–45. London: 
Routledge. 

Lahiri-Dutt, K. 1999. ―Imagining Rivers.‖ Economic and Political Weekly 35 (27): 
2395–2397. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4409472. 

Lahiri-Dutt, K. 2006. Fluid Bonds: Views on Gender and Water. Kolkata: Stree. 

Lahiri-Dutt, K. 2015. ―Towards a More Comprehensive Understanding of Rivers.‖ 
In Living Rivers, Dying Rivers, edited by R. Iyer, 421–434. New Delhi: Oxford 
University Press. 

Lave, R. 2015. ―The Future of Socio-ecological Expertise.‖ Annals of the Association 
of American Geographers 105 (2): 244–252. 

Linton, J. 2010. What Is Water? The History of a Modern Abstraction. Vancouver: UBC 
Press. 

Massey, D.  2005. For Space. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 

Mehta, L., A. Huff, and J. Allouche. 2019. ―The New Politics and Geographies of 
Scarcity.‖ Geoforum 101 (May): 222–230. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.10.027.  

Mukhopadhyay, M. 2014. ―Mainstreaming Gender or Reconstituting the 
Mainstream? Gender Knowledge in Development.‖ Journal of International 
Development 26 (3): 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.2946.  

Plewa, T. M. 2010. ―Rivers.‖ In Encyclopedia of Geography, edited by B. Warf, 2472–
2477. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 

Roberts, L., and K. Philips. 2019. Multidisciplinary Understandings of Human–Water 
Relationships. London: Earthscan. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi023
https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.2947
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512448831
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4409472
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.10.027
https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.2946


[123] Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt 

Schmidt, J. J. 2017. Water: Abundance, Scarcity and Security in the Age of Humanity. New 
York: New York University Press. 

Schumm, S. A. 1977. The Fluvial System. New York and London: John Wiley & 
Sons. 

Sjolander-Lindqvist, A. 2005. ―Conflicting Perspectives on Water in a Swedish 
Railway Tunnel Project.‖ Environmental Values 14 (2): 221–239. 

Staudt, K. 2003. ―Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Links to Institutional 
Machineries.‖ In Mainstreaming Gender, Democratizing the State? National Machineries, 
edited by S. M. Rai, 40–66. Manchester and New York: Manchester University 
Press. 

Strang, V. 2010. ―Water, Culture and Power: Anthropological Perspectives from 
‗Down Under‘.‖ Insights, Journal of the Institute of Advanced Study 3 (4): 2–26. 

Stuart, N. 2007. ―Technology and Epistemology: Environmental Mentalities and 
Urban Water Usage.‖ Environmental Values 16 (4): 417–431. 
https://doi.org/10.3197/096327107X243213.  

Swyngedouw, E. 2006. ―Circulations and Metabolisms: (Hybrid) Natures and 
(Cyborg) Cities.‖ Science as Culture 15 (2): 105–121. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430600707970.  

Walby, S. 2005. ―Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and 
Practice.‖ Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 12 (3): 321–343. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi018.  

https://doi.org/10.3197/096327107X243213
https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430600707970
https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi018

