Kaminsky, J and Faust, K (2018) Infrastructure epistemologies: Water, wastewater and displaced persons in Germany. Construction Management and Economics, 36(9), pp. 521-534. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Recent years have seen historically unprecedented global disaster migration; in 2016 Germany received 1.3 million displaced individuals. Regardless of past resources and future potential, disaster migrants are a new, vulnerable population. This new population increases demand for water and wastewater infrastructure services, despite being temporarily unable to pay for services. As such, this kind of sudden population increase is a resiliency challenge for the receiving infrastructure systems. Qualitative analysis of 1,884 open-ended survey responses was blended with a statistical analysis to discover how and why the German public perceives water and sanitation services have been provided to the disaster migrants. Unprompted, 36% (112/314) of respondents referenced at least one of three infrastructure epistemologies, including water and wastewater as a service, as a basic need, and as a human right. These epistemologies share statistically significant relationships with how long respondents feel water and wastewater should be provided to displaced persons. A temporally limited, normative perception of water and sanitation as a humanitarian good functions to enable water and wastewater infrastructure to deliver a high level of service despite the significant disruption of the large and vulnerable population influx, and has practical implications for the structure of cost recovery.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | disaster migration; population dynamics; resiliency; water and wastewater infrastructure |
| Index terms: | survey, population, qualitative analysis, Germany, recovery, humanitarian, migration, statistical analysis, dynamics, water and sanitation, epistemology, level of service |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, Geography, demography, environmental health, systems engineering, research design and methodology, data collection methods, operations management, principle, knowledge theory, data science |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Ethics, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here