Advertisement

GeoJournal

, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 113–127 | Cite as

Down with the flow: public debates shaping the risk framing of artificial groundwater recharge

  • Jari LyytimäkiEmail author
  • Timo Assmuth
Article

Abstract

Securing high-quality potable water is a key challenge for all societies. The question is not only about water availability and quality determined by hydrological, chemical, and biological factors, or technologies and monetary assets, but also about various cultural, social, and political factors that together constitute so-called hydro-social cycles. We focus on risk communication and management, in connection with the debates on planning and construction of an artificial groundwater recharge system in the Virttaankangas esker, aiming to provide potable water for the region of Turku, southwest Finland. Based on print media coverage, online debate, and comments on the environmental impact assessment report, we identify key themes and framings of risk debates and discuss which elements of the hydro-social cycle are prone to be highlighted or omitted. Our results show how different framings of risks and benefits are represented with regard to geography, time span, causative agents, impact types, those exposed, alternative management options, and uncertainties involved. Representations created both by traditional print media and new social media polarise the debate. The adoption of the concept of the hydro-social cycle in planning and communication processes may help in understanding and alleviating polarisation.

Keywords

Managed aquifer recharge Contaminants Mercury Newspaper Social media Water quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research received financial support from the Academy of Finland project Aquatic Contaminants—Pathways, Health Risks and Management (CONPAT) of the Sustainable Governance of Aquatic Resources (AKVA) programme.

References

  1. Anderson, A. (1997). Media, culture and the environment. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, H. (2010). Veden saatavuus. Oikeustieteellinen tutkimus. Helsingin yliopisto, Oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta. Doctoral dissertation. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-92-7482-6 Accessed 12 January 2014.
  3. Artimo, A., Saraperä, S., & Ylander, I. (2008). Methods for integrating an extensive geodatabase with 3D modeling and data management tools for the Virttaankangas artificial recharge project, Southwestern Finland. Water Resources Management, 22(12), 1723–1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Assmuth, T., Hilden, M., Lyytimäki, J., Benighaus, C., & Renn, O. (2009). Big pictures, close-ups, roadmaps and mind-maps: perspectives on integrated treatment of multiple risks. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 13(3/4), 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, J. (2012). Mixing waters: The reuse of agricultural drainage water in Egypt. Geoforum. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.019.Google Scholar
  6. Bouleau, G. (2013). The co-production of science and waterscapes: The case of the Seine and the Rhône Rivers, France. Geoforum. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.01.009.Google Scholar
  7. Bourblanc, M., & Blanchon, D. (2013). The challenges of rescaling South African water resources management: Catchment management agencies and interbasin transfers. Journal of Hydrology. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.001.Google Scholar
  8. Bouwer, H. (2002). Artificial recharge of groundwater: Hydrogeology and engineering. Hydrogeology Journal, 10(1), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, R. R., Keath, N., & Wong, T. H. F. (2009). Urban water management in cities: Historical, current and future regimes. Water Science and Technology, 59(5), 847–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budds, J. (2009). Contested H(2)O: Science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum, 40(3), 418–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey, M., French, A., & O’Brien, E. (2012). Unintended effects of technology on climate change adaptation: An historical analysis of water conflicts below Andean glaciers. Journal of Historical Geography, 38(2), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox, R. (2010). Environmental communication and the public sphere (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, D., Stephenson, M., & Shaw, R. (2009). The present and future use of ‘land’ below ground. Land Use Policy, 26(S1), S302–S316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez, S. (2013). Much ado about minimum flows… Unpacking indicators to reveal water politics. Geoforum,. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.017.Google Scholar
  16. Finewood, M. H., & Stroup, L. J. (2012). Fracking and the neoliberalization of the hydro-social cycle in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 147(1), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helmisaari, H.-S., Illmer, K., Hatva, T., Lindroos, A.-J., Miettinen, I., Pääkkönen, J., et al. (2003). Tekopohjaveden muodostaminen: Imeytystekniikka, maaperäprosessit ja veden laatu. TEMU-tutkimushankkeen loppuraportti. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja, 902, 209.Google Scholar
  18. Hurlimann, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2012). Newspaper coverage of water issues in Australia. Water Research, 46(19), 6497–6507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Isomäki, E., Britschgi, R., Gustafsson, J., Kuusisto, E., Munsterhjelm, K., Santala, E., Suokko, T. & Valve, M. (2007). Yhdyskuntien vedenhankinnan tulevaisuuden vaihtoehdot. Suomen ympäristö 27/2007. Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, J. T. (2012). Place-based learning and knowing: Critical pedagogies grounded in Indigeneity. GeoJournal, 77(6), 829–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jönsson, A. (2011). Framing environmental risks in the Baltic Sea: A news media analysis. Ambio, 40(2), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katko, T. S. (2000). Long-term development of water and sewage services in Finland. Public Works Management Policy, 4(4), 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katko, T. S., Lipponen, M. A., & Rönkä, E. K. T. (2006). Groundwater use and policy in community water supply in Finland. Hydrogeology Journal, 14(1–2), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiljunen, P. (2013). Tiedebarometri 2013. Porvoo: Tieteen tiedotus Ry.Google Scholar
  25. Kitti, H. (2013). Pohjavesien laadullisen turvaamisen ja puhdistamisen hyödyt Suomessa. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 34/2013. Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus.Google Scholar
  26. Kivimäki, A.-L. (1992). Tekopohjavesilaitokset suomessa. Helsinki: National Board of Waters and the Environment.Google Scholar
  27. Klemm, O., Schemenauer, R. S., Lummerich, A., Cereceda, P., Marzol, V., Corell, D., et al. (2012). Fog as a fresh-water resource: Overview and perspectives. Ambio, 41(3), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Kummu, M., Ward, P. J., de Moel, H., & Varis, O. (2010). Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia. Environmental. Research Letters, 5(3), 034006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuusisto, E. (2004). Hydrology. In P. Eloranta (Ed.), Inland and coastal waters of Finland (pp. 2–17). Saarijärvi: Palmenia Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Lahtinen, R., & Vuorisalo, T. (2004). Sewers, wastewater and newspapers: The early environmental debate on water pollution in Turku, Finland, 1887–1934. Scandinavian Economic History Review, 52(1), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lahtinen, R., & Vuorisalo, T. (2005). In search for the roots of environmental concern: Water management and animal welfare issues in the Finnish local press in 1890–1950. Scandinavian Journal of History, 30(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lavapuro, M., Lipponen, A., Artimo, A., & Katko, T. S. (2008). Groundwater sustainability indicators: Testing with Finnish data. Boreal Environment Research, 13(5), 381–402.Google Scholar
  34. Lavento, H. (2009). Nokian vesikriisi yllätti: Vaaran merkkejä ei havaittu. Media and Viestintä, 32(1), 82–96.Google Scholar
  35. Levikintarkastus. (2013). Digilukeminen lisää lehtien kokonaistavoittavuutta. Kansallinen Mediatutkimus 29.4.2013. Levikintarkastus Oy & TNS Gallup Oy. http://www.levikintarkastus.fi/mediatutkimus/KMT_kokonaistavoittavuus_tiedote_huhtikuu_2013.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2014.
  36. Leys, A. J., & Vanclay, J. K. (2011). Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy, 28(3), 574–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lodenius, M. (1985). Kvicksilvret som miljöproblem i Finland—förekomst, emissioner och mobilitet. Helsinki: Institutionen för miljövård, Helsinfors universitetet.Google Scholar
  38. Lyytimäki, J. M. (2007). Temporalities and environmental reporting: Press news on eutrophication in Finland. Environmental Sciences, 4(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyytimäki, J. (2011). Mainstreaming climate policy: The role of media coverage in Finland. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(6), 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lyytimäki, J. (2012). Gone with the wind? Newspaper discourse of eutrophication and blue-green algae blooms in Finland. Water and Environment Journal, 26(3), 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lyytimäki, J., Assmuth, T., & Hildén, M. (2011). Unrecognized, concealed or forgotten—the case of absent information in risk communication. Journal of Risk Research, 14(6), 757–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matamoros, V., & Salvadó, V. (2013). Evaluation of a coagulation/flocculation-lamellar clarifier and filtration-UV-chlorination reactor for removing emerging contaminants at full-scale wastewater treatment plants in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meehan, K., Ormerod, K. J., & Moore, S. A. (2013). Remaking waste as water: The governance of recycled effluent for potable water supply. Water Alternatives, 6(1), 67–85.Google Scholar
  44. Meissner, R., & Turton, A. (2003). The hydrosocial contract theory and the Lesotho Highlands water project. Water Policy, 5(2), 115–126.Google Scholar
  45. Merrett, S. (2004). Integrated water resources management and the hydrosocial balance. Water International, 29(2), 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Micklin, P. P. (1996). Man and the water cycle: Challenges for the 21st century. GeoJournal, 39(3), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Norman, E. S., Bakker, K., & Cook, C. (2012). Introduction to the themed section: Water governance and the politics of scale. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 52–61.Google Scholar
  48. Opare, S. (2012). Rainwater harvesting: An option for sustainable rural water supply in Ghana. GeoJournal, 77(5), 695–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peuhkuri, T. (2002). Knowledge and interpretation in environmental conflict: Fish farming and eutrophication in the Archipelago Sea, SW Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 61(2–4), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmid, A. N., Thompson, J. R., & Bengston, D. N. (2007). The public discourse about land use and water quality: Themes in newspapers in the upper Mississippi river basin. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 6(2), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheelanere, P., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2013). Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Söderman, T. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessmentfrom components to services. Department of Geosciences and Geography A16. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  54. Stenroos, M., & Rajalin, E. (1999). Puhtaan veden valtiaat: Juomavesikysymys Turussa. In S. Laakkonen, S. Laurila, & M. Rahikainen (Eds.), Harmaat aallot—ympäristönsuojelun tulo suomeen (pp. 143–158). Vammala: Suomen Historiallinen Seura.Google Scholar
  55. Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The political economy and political ecology of the hydro-social cycle. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 142(1), 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vallin, J. (1999). Aurajoki avoviemärinä. In S. Laakkonen, S. Laurila, & M. Rahikainen (Eds.), Harmaat aallot—ympäristönsuojelun tulo suomeen (pp. 159–174). Vammala: Suomen Historiallinen Seura.Google Scholar
  57. Vienonen, S., Rintala, J., Orvomaa, M., Santala, E. & Maunula, M. (2012). Ilmastonmuutoksen vaikutukset ja sopeutumistarpeet vesihuollossa. Suomen ympäristö 24/2012. Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus.Google Scholar
  58. YLE. (2003). Tekopohjavesimaku korvien välissä. Finnish National Broadcasting Company, YLE. TV1/MOT. September 26, 2003. Transcript available from: http://yle.fi/mot/mb220903/kasikirjoitus.htm. Accessed 12 January 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations