Address: South East Wing, Bush House, 300, Strand, London WC2R 1AE
Everyone is welcome to two panel discussions on the Sustainable Development Goals, organised by King’s Water Hub and the Environmental Dynamics Research Group
Panel 1 SDGs: politics and policy (Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:00 – 6:00pm)
Bush House Lecture Theatre 3 Bush House (North East Wing) 0.01
Paul Steele, IIED The political economy of the SDGs
Kate Schreckenberg, KCL SDGs on the ground
Stephen Lintner, KCL The SDG Ocean Agenda
Panel Discussion moderated by Helen Adams
Followed by refreshments in 6.05
Panel 2 Nature, Water and SDGs (Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:00 – 6:00pm)
Bush House Lecture Theatre 3 Bush House (North East Wing) 0.01
Jane Catford Water and the SDGs
Mark Mulligan, KCL Nature’s contributions to meeting the SDGs
Emma Tebbs Earth Observation and the SDGs
Panel Discussion moderated by Kate Schreckenberg
Followed by an undergraduate poster event
Dr Margaret Kadiri is a Teaching Fellow in the Geography Department at King’s College London. Her research tackles one of the main challenges facing the tidal renewable energy sector which is the lack of understanding of the hydro-environmental impacts associated with tidal renewable energy schemes. Tides are a highly attractive source of renewable energy. The regularity of tides reduces uncertainty over power generation while also reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy security. In the UK, tidal energy presents substantial opportunities for large scale clean energy generation and there has been an increased interest in the generation of electricity from tidal energy sources in recent years, with plans for a tidal lagoon scheme in Wales, the first in the world. Alongside plans for the development of such schemes comes the need to understand their potential impacts on the hydro-environment as this has impeded the growth of the UK’s tidal energy sector. Margaret’s work aims to address some of the hydro-environmental concerns, and to find mitigating measures to minimise the impacts, particularly the risk of eutrophication by nutrient enrichment. Ultimately, this will help in designing schemes which can maximise power output with the least environmental impacts. To this end, Margaret recently returned from a field expedition of the potential site for the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay in collaboration with colleagues from Swansea University and Imperial College London.
In addition to providing baseline conditions, the water quality data collected during the field expedition will be used to assess the robustness of a novel coastal ocean model which is been developed at Imperial College London (http://thetisproject.org/). The aim is for the model to be employed as a reliable tool for water quality impact assessment of prospective tidal renewable energy schemes and to develop a functionality to accurately assess the risk of eutrophication.
Come join us for the first talk of the academic year, on September 20th at 4pm in room 6.05 in the North East Wing of Bush House!
Lineu N. Rodrigues will give a brief overview of food production and water resources in Brazil, specifically in the Cerrado’s region. The presentation will cover a general idea of agricultural challenges, water resources legislation, irrigation, water use and some irrigation strategies adopted in regions facing water conflicts.
King’s Water welcomes Nora Buletti, who is joining us from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. She will be collaborating with us and finalising her PhD research on participatory processes for watercourse management in Switzerland. As part of a joint research project with the University of Lausanne, and mandated by the Swiss Government’s Federal Office for the Environment, Nora specifically evaluates the effect of the introduction of subsidies for participation in projects of watercourses management. In collaboration with her colleagues of the research project, she also drafted principles to encourage the practice of participation. In her thesis, she is exploring the theoretical concepts necessary to develop a critical approach to analyse institutionalised public participation, and more precisely the role of experts in these processes. Her PhD project therefore includes two dimensions: an applied one and a theoretically based analysis. Nora principally refers to Foucault’s concept of governmentality to analyse dynamics of exclusion and control within the participatory approaches taking place in specific context of river course management projects.
Nora has been at the University of Fribourg since her Bachelor’s degree in Geography, followed by an Msc in Human Geography. She has also been undertaking supervision and teaching of methodological practical courses in human geography, and been a tutor at the Environmental Sciences section. She chose to come to King’s College London to benefit from inputs from her host Dr. Alex Loftus, as well as other PhD students in the department. Her aim is to consolidate her theoretical framework, exploring advantages and limits, as well as creating long-lasting academic relationships for her academic career.
She is supervised by Prof. Olivier Graefe at the University of Fribourg and Dr. Olivier Ejderyan at ETH Zurich, and is working in close collaboration with Dr. Alex Loftus at King’s College London.
Nora’s three water words:
Institutionalized public participation
Dr. Maria Rusca – a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Research Fellow and Lecturer in Water and Development at our Geography Department at King’s College London – is the Principal Investigator of “Investigating Natural, Historical and Institutional Transformations in Cities (INHAbIT Cities)”, aiming at improving understandings of the dynamics of basic service provision in urban and suburban spaces in the global South. The project particularly investigates the relation between urban infrastructures, distribution of everyday risks and uneven conditions of access to water in Maputo (Mozambique) and Lilongwe (Malawi).
Maria believes that strong connection and commitment to a cause comes with inspiring stories; she has thus decided to engage with larger non-academic audiences and policy makers by disseminating INHAbIT’s research findings through a short documentary. “Lilongwe Water Works?” tells the stories of women accessing or providing water where the formal utility provides water through public water kiosks (see picture).
In addition to using her documentary intitled “Lilongwe Water Works?” as part of the education curriculum of Water and Development at King’s College London, and Water Governance at IHE Delft, Maria returned to Lilongwe a few weeks ago to share her findings at various events she organised.
The documentary was projected at the Water User Association in one of the informal settlements, where some community members, water users, and contributors to the documentary were able to discover and discuss the final output; the same was done in an informal settlement’s school; another projection was done at the Lingadzi Hotel, with water stakeholders (the World Bank, UNICEF, the Ministry of Water, Lilongwe Water Board, the Economic Justice Network, Lilongwe City Council, WASAMA) and journalists (Zodiac, Reuters, AFP, Free Expression institute, Times Group, Capital Radio, Nyasa Times).
The most impressive moment for Maria was to see how the documentary was able to raise debates and even confrontations in ways she had never experienced before. During these debates, concerns were raised about the role of Water Users Associations: while on the one hand they are considered to be useful in ensuring water supply, they are also causing water to low-income areas to become increasingly expensive and often unaffordable (see referenced papers at the end of the post).
To watch the documentary:
WATCH ON VIMEO: https://vimeo.com/240647554
DIRECTOR: Maria Rusca
SYNOPSIS: The water utility in Lilongwe, capital city of Malawi, serves people living in low-income neighbourhoods through a system of water kiosks. The kiosks work like shops, which opening hours when people can go buy 20 litre buckets of water. This documentary tells the stories of the women and men that access water through the kiosks and those who are involved in running them. Their stories reveal both the successes and the failures of providing water through kiosks and call us to question whether this system can ensure the human right to water to the residents of Lilongwe’s peripheries and to others elsewhere in the world.
PRODUCER: Whales That Fly and Hyphen Media
FUNDING: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 656738
For related peer-reviewed papers:
- Tiwale S., Rusca M., Zwarteveen M., The power of pipes: mapping urban water inequities through the material properties of networked water infrastructures. The case of Lilongwe, Malawi, Water Alternatives, Water Alternatives 11(2): 314-335.
- Rusca, M., Schwartz K., Hadzovic, L., Ahlers R., (2015), Adapting Generic Models through Bricolage: Elite Capture of Water Users Associations in Peri-urban Lilongwe, European Journal of Development Research, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 777–792. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.58
- Rusca M., Alda Vidal C., Hordijk M., Kral N., Bathing without water, and other stories of everyday hygiene practices and risk perception in urban low-income areas: the case of Lilongwe, Malawi, Environment and Urbanisation, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247817700291
- Alda Vidal C., Kooy M., Rusca M., (2018) Mapping operation and maintenance: an everyday urbanism analysis of inequalities within piped water supply in Lilongwe, Malawi,Urban Geography, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp. 104- 121 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1292664
- Rusca M. and Schwartz K., (2018) The Paradox of Cost Recovery in Heterogeneous Municipal Water Supply Systems: Ensuring Inclusiveness or Exacerbating Inequalities?Habitat International, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.002
- Sarpong Boakye-Ansah A., Ferrero G., Rusca M and van der Zaag P., (2016) Inequalities in microbial contamination of drinking water, supplies in urban areas: the case of Lilongwe, Malawi, Journal of Water and Health, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp. 851-863, doi: 10.2166/wh.2016.258
For related blogs:
Are we paying enough attention to water quality? https://flows.hypotheses.org/686
Bathing without water https://flows.hypotheses.org/659
New Research Output by Dr. James Porter: 22 Reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water innovation research
- Bold and inventive solutions are urgently needed to safeguard the future use of water.
- Collaborative-innovations are increasingly championed but it’s often unclear what influences the success (or failure) of these efforts.
- Using an international systematic literature review of empirical studies, we identify 22 key themes.
- Yet the importance attributed to each theme, agreement amongst the studies reviewed, and compatibility of the themes, varies considerably.
- We caution against the uncritical use of different themes and call on researchers and practitioners to recognise the darker side of water collaboration.
Recommended reference: Porter, J.J.; Birdi, K. (2018) 22 Reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water innovation research, Environmental Science & Policy, 89, 100-108.
The paper is freely available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.004
This research is first of a series of outputs produced as part of the Engineering and Physical Sciences (EPSRC) TWENTY65 – Tailored Water Solutions for Positive Impact – Grand Challenge programme. The next research outputs will critically examine the themes identified here by comparing them with the first-hand experiences of those working in the UK water sector (e.g. water companies, suppliers, regulatory bodies, and research institutions).
Abstract: Bold and inventive solutions are urgently needed to safeguard the future use of water. In response, collaborative-innovation is increasingly championed. If stakeholders including water utilities, supply-chain companies, research institutions and local communities work together, share their experiences and pool ideas, meaningful change could happen, it’s argued. But effective collaboration is far from easy. For every incentive that drives collaboration forward, another barrier blocks its path. Whilst the literature offers many possible factors that influence the success (or failure) of collaborative-innovations, it remains unclear which factors are most important, where the highest agreement and disagreement exists, and if accommodating one factor creates problems for another. This is important because its not always practical, nor necessary, to apply everything from the academic literature. In this paper, we report findings from an international systematic literature review that brings together a range of studies that cross the water collaboration and water innovation divide. We identify 22 broad themes that are spread (unevenly) across the entire collaborative-innovation process; highlight how the level of attention given to each theme varies greatly; and where disagreement exists. Our research provides practical insights on how to create more effective collaborative-innovations in water and where future research should be directed.
King’s Water with colleagues from University of New South Wales and Arizona State University are currently in Botswana undertaking field activities with a PLuS Alliance support project on river sustainability of the Okavango basin.
Joining the team this year is Georgia, a 2nd yr King’s Geography student:
“My name is Georgia Edwards, i’m a second year physical geography student. Since finding climate studies to be a highly relevant and diverse topic at A-Level, it has become my main academic focus as it is applicable to so many different fields.
Fieldwork is one of my favourite parts of the discipline, giving freedom to travel whilst demonstrating theory in reality. I have been lucky enough to work around the UK, in Morocco, Spain and now to Botswana.
This King’s Undergraduate Research Fellowship (KURF) is particularly exciting due to participation of academics and likeminded students from the US and Australia. They will lead research and give lectures in the Okavango Delta on different aspects of the environment and its inhabitants. This will allow me to gain more of an academic understanding of conservation and wildlife in the Delta.
Conservation of African wildlife has always been an interest of mine, which only grew after I visited the Meru game park in Kenya. I am hoping to be able to combine conservation and climatic factors into my IGS project. To work on how climate change could affect certain species of animals in the Okavango Delta, bringing a personal interest of mine into an academic field.”
See this video to find out what days in the field are like:
This in the works blog post brings reflexions together on how to integrate issues of positionality when undertaking geographical research in water issues. This initiative stems from our experiences as young water researchers sharing field work experiences; we question how our (missed) encounters may affect the processes and outcomes of our research and explore the realm of our diverse backgrounds and field sites. Many experiences are shared between researchers on field sites, but rarely make it into papers or reports. We intend this post to encourage an open conversation with young researchers like us seeking to reflect on the impacts of positionalities on research. As qualitative researchers, we explore situations in which our positionalities have first affected access to respondents; how our positionalities affected the types of information we manage to retrieve; if our positionalities affect the way we understand collected data; overall, how would results have differed if the data were collected by a different individual?
Geography is probably not the least self-aware among the disciplines of the methodological and ethical trappings of power relations between the researcher-researched as well as the importance of acknowledging the researcher’s positionality in the field. Feminist Geographers deserve much of the credit for putting the ethical implications of the method in conducting research front and centre. Debates have been given space in journals that explore if a certain form of research, let’s say collaborative ethnography, fosters a less exploitative relation with the informant than quantitative survey-taking (McDowell, 1992; Pile, 1992). Feminist ethnographers, in sharing their intimate experiences of research, problematize this assumption and have highlighted how methodologies committed to a non-hierarchical engagement and the co-production of knowledge can still produce dependency and feelings of betrayal especially as the initial positions of power and privilege can be hard to surmount; as well as sympathetic engagements, be misconstrued as a promise of intervention (Stacey, 1988; Patai, 1991). Different research topics and audiences bring forth different and unique challenges that are beyond the scope of an encompassing methodological or ethical standpoint. Initial power relations in a research can be skewed either ways: Sallie Westwood’s (1984) research on everyday work lives of female workers in a Midlands hosiery factory is an example among countless others of a privileged researcher position, but Llerena Searle’s (2016) anthropological investigation of the practices and worldviews of international real estate consultants in Gurgaon where her informants were foreign MBA-educated Indian and white males with pay-checks several times higher than her research stipend constitutes an inverted position of power, which is not very uncommon in research. The positionality of the researcher in relation to the informant influences not only her level and ease of access to gaining information, but also strategies and unconscious practices of leveraging privilege. The contradiction within these strategies may burst forth in the open at moments exposing the workings, innocent or manipulative, of actual research practice. An experience from Ananya Roy’s book Calcutta: A Requiem (2002) illustrates such a moment which we present before narrating experiences from our own work.
To the settlement where she had already completed six months of fieldwork in, one day she accompanied a high-ranking party worker going on his rounds. The party worker was with Roy in her chauffeur-driven Ambassador car, a facility that Roy would always park a distance away and hide the fact from her subjects during her fieldwork. The party worker however insisted that they drive in the car to the heart of the settlement. When the crowds gathered around the worker, he introduced Roy: “She is a visitor from America, the richest country in the world, a country on whose aid the entire world survives. She owns a house here in Calcutta and a car. We came here today in her car.” Ananya Roy mentions her mortification given that her ethnographic performance had always been of a shabbily-dressed middle-class Calcutta girl, studying in America but hiding the fact of her hefty research grant. Her experience of feeling like deceiving her subjects ties in with some of the contradictions of our own methodologies, our positionalities and our apprehensions of appropriate conduct against the striving for information for our project.
We share our experiences below and would like to receive other experiences from junior and senior researchers in geography.
My research focuses on Water (Resources) Users Associations in the Great Ruaha river in Tanzania and the Mara river in Kenya. My methods included inter alia participative observation and semi-structured interviews with a very wide range of people, who were socio-economically and culturally diverse. I am a junior white European researcher, who was often accompanied by British and local partners from an international environmental NGO in the field. I first describe a situation in which I felt underpowered due to my youth and being a female, and then contrast this experience by a second scenario where I felt overpowered as a European person, part of the “donor” community.
The spark to dig this conversation emerged from discussions between white British PhD students and post-docs in Tanzania, realising that targeted interviewees were often the same people in the water sector. This is certainly to be expected for elite interviews with professionals in the water sector holding key positions, and eminent local experts/researchers. The intrigue started when I – as a young female PhD student – realised I was not accessing the “elites” my connections/friends were easily interviewing. These connections and friends were also PhD and post-doc students, new to the Tanzanian context, but male. There could be a myriad of reasons for which this situation occurred, some of them coming from the potential interviewer and some of them coming from the potential interviewee. Whatever the reason may be, and whether systematic or not, I started to question myself on how my research would be impacted by not having access to these key interviewees. Is it enough to recognise my positionality and failure to access perspectives offered by these elites? Is this recognition of importance for methodology, or is it a factor to take into account when discussing limitations to my findings? The elite interviews my connections and friends had allowed them to access hydrological data which was not offered to me upon polite, official and subsequently unofficial requests. My connection had described to me the “buddying” he had with one of the academics, based on having drinks at the local pub near the campus. As a young woman, I had come to the pub as well but such “buddying” with a senior male researcher would have been culturally inappropriate. (I had an experience trying to listen to beer hole conversations between pastoralists on the cow market day and gradually realised that all men left, as I was unwelcomed in this space reserved to men).
How can I assess the effects of the bias created by my positionality? The outcome in my case is that I did not access flow and rainfall data for my study basin. This type of experience repeated itself when I requested to hold interviews with the basin water officer and the director of water resources at the ministry of water and irrigation; these were not granted to me, contrarily to my connections. I was finally successful in holding a conversation with the basin water officer when I was in the company of senior male colleagues my partner NGO.
The second power relation trap I found myself in were the expectations from interviewees for a certain type of compensation for the time spent helping me with my research. Having myself been an interviewee in other student’s research projects or professional research, I knew a gesture was always appreciated (usually in the form of a coffee or drink during the interview). However, as I started my research as a participant observer at the NGO’s programme deployments, I got to understand the per diem culture. Those accustomed to working with foreign organisations, and those working within the foreign organisations (in local branches for example) will expect per diems for taking part in workshops, round tables and activities; I realised there was even an informal monetary scale, and some employees factor these per diems in in their family’s budgets. It became increasingly apparent that I would have to follow these codes when undertaking my own research, particularly if I were to involve participants who were used to the NGO I was working with. Slightly before setting off for my independent field work (without the partner NGO), I shared these thoughts with my translator who was a young man having previously translated for other western women undertaking their PhD research. He confirmed that the practice was to give a small contribution to each person we would interview (TZS 2’000). Himself and other Tanzanian friends confirmed that this was a common practice that they would also follow, were they to ask for help or information from people they do not know. I definitely can follow the logic: I was taking time off people’s daily activities, and it seemed fair to show appreciation for the information I need so dearly for my PhD. It seemed a little less logical to do so with government employees for whom I expected this type of activity to be set as a job task (and so I usually did not make a gesture of this kind). The questions which came up from these practices were whether the monetary transaction which was often expected, and taking place, was impacting the interviewees I was reaching, and the answers I was retrieving. Were those who knew there would be a monetary transaction keener? Would this mean I interviewed those who were already familiar with working with NGOs? Did I receive responses formulated specifically considering my linkage with the NGO? If so, what did I miss out on? I considered these issues and tried to overcome some gatekeepers in order to access marginalised people, who were not regularly involved with donor programmes.
My PhD research is on the political ecology of water flows in the drinking and wastewater canals that exist to serve cities but also flow across many peri-urban and rural villages along their course. The field site is Gurgaon, a major city of North India adjoining Delhi. I look at how farmers in the villages located along the canals of Gurgaon are affected and negotiate the water flows especially for irrigation, and a complementary part of that research is looking at the bureaucracy of the Irrigation and Flood Control Department who manage the canal’s structure and oversee its flow. I am an Indian upper-caste/ class male who is not from the region (I am from East India) but hardly find my position disadvantageous. I am often asked my full name during interviews, and my surname which is a sure indication of my caste fits in with the identity of a researcher. The counter-factual of how a less- privileged positionality might have influenced my research is difficult to draw out, but I rather here dwell on a personal account of a research engagement. It is illustrative of how asserting your position of privilege is often a useful though uncomfortable component of research. Here I leverage my class and educational privilege in a way that went against my notion of research ethics while being unaware, at most times, how my caste and gender privilege are part of my everyday toolkit in accessing research sites and individuals.
I am outside the Irrigation Asst. Superintendent Engineer’s office, having just returned from the field. In my case, calling it the field was appropriate because hours ago, I was standing upon harvested wheat fields of jutting stalks, standing remnants from what was an ordinary harvest that year. I interview farmers and study their practices and institutions of water use from canals. It’s been a hot day and I was sweating through my shirt, lugging around my backpack, basically being in an unpresentable manner. That never hindered me in the farms though, I would like to think it was an advantage. I looked ordinary, possibly pitiable, to them and farmers would be generous with their time and food and often invited me into their homes for extended discussions on arrangements of water sharing in the village. In the Bureaucrat’s office I was a pestilence upon their time. After a few hours of being redirected around and waiting on closed doors with meetings, I would be turned away with polite excuses and asked to arrive on a later day. Though I might have scheduled appointments over the phone, a meeting or other would come up and someone would be warmly welcomed as if an act of God had occurred against my purpose. This continued for a few days and I slowly frustrated of my interest in studying the bureaucracy. I did manage some interviews but not nearly enough.
I took advice from a senior whose research involved interviewing the bureaucrats of a different departments in a different state. My mistake soon became apparent. The next time I went, I dressed up, took an Uber instead of a bus to the Irrigation office and had a new decent self-made business card announcing my involvement in a research project covering 3 sites across India, Nepal and Bangladesh, and funded by the Netherland’s Scientific Research Organization NWO. I actively projected the airs of a person whose time was valuable, switching to English in my introductions rather than the colloquial Hindi that served me very well in my research with farmers. It was a temperament of haughtiness that I wasn’t used to at all, and goes against, I think, the general ethos of academic research. It did predictably serve me well though. The Superintendent Engineer bestowed his grace upon me and soon I managed to do all my interviews, as well as got permission to join junior engineers in their patrol ride along the canals.
This episode highlights nothing especially shocking. It’s common sense that a well-dressed person is received better. But one should also consider that the dealings of the irrigation department is overwhelmingly with farmers and contractors/ labourers, and so being well-dressed or important should not be a requirement. I just remember being uncomfortable and keenly aware of my own role in shifting the power relations and exercising my privilege so blatantly. Especially when I was talking to the Superintendent Engineer for the greater part of an hour while farmers who had travelled a distance had to wait outside for their turn in voicing their grievances.
If you would like to continue this conversation or provide any feedback, please get in touch directly with Nathalie (Nathalie.email@example.com) and Pratik (Pratik.firstname.lastname@example.org)
McDowell, L. (1992). Doing Gender: Feminism, Feminists and Research Methods in Human Geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17 (4): 399-416
Patai, D. (1991) US academics and Third World women: is ethical research possible?, in Gluck, S. B. and Patai, D. (eds) Women’s words: the feminist practice of oral history. Routledge, London. pp 13
Pile, S. (1991) Practising interpretative geography. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers, 16: 458-69
Roy, A. (2003). City requiem, Calcutta: gender and the politics of poverty. Univ of Minnesota Press.
Searle, L. G. (2016). Landscapes of accumulation: Real estate and the neoliberal imagination in contemporary India. University of Chicago Press.
Stacey, J. (1988) Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11: 21-7
Westwood, S. (1984). All day, every day. Pluto. London
Mike holds a BSc in Zoology from Newcastle University and an MSc in Wild Animal Biology from the Institute of Zoology. He is currently undertaking a PhD investigating the environmental drivers influencing the movement networks and social ecology of reef sharks in the British Indian Ocean Territory under Dr Emma Tebbs at King’s College London and Dr David Jacoby at the Institute of Zoology as part of the London NERC DTP.
Mike’s research interests lie in using tagging technologies and remote sensing to investigate movement ecology of marine fauna. From 2010 – 2015, Mike was employed as the research officer for the University of Queensland, investigating the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance of humpback whales. From 2016 to starting his PhD, Mike worked as a freelance field researcher, employed on a number of projects by institutions such as St Andrews University and the World Conservation Society, investigating many aspects of movement ecology in marine fauna, such as humpbacks, dugongs and northern bottlenose whales.
Mike’s PhD project will use extensive acoustic tracking data from grey reef and silvertip sharks over a five-year period from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), and environmental data from satellite remote sensing to provide insights into how reef shark movement, habitat and social patterns are influenced by environmental change. This is valuable data for policy makers in order to aid management decisions for the conservation of highly mobile marine fauna. He chose King’s for his PhD due to the expertise and experience of his supervisor (Dr Emma Tebbs) in remote sensing and aquatic research.
The key objectives for the project are to:
- Explore the temporal periodicity of reef shark movements in BIOT (temporally recurring motifs in movement networks).
- Define how best to incorporate new, high resolution environmental monitoring data into animal movement networks at an appropriate spatial and temporal scale.
- Model the relationship between environmental drivers and reef shark movement networks in BIOT.
- Develop fine scale remote sensing techniques for reef health in BIOT to detect long and short-term impacts of coral bleaching events.
- Measure the indirect impacts of coral bleaching events on the structural connectivity of the reef shark population using satellite imagery.
Mike’s three Water Words: