Picturing waters. A review of Photovoice and similar ......like climate change or health were...

Advanced Review

Picturing waters: a review ofPhotovoice and similarparticipatory visual research onwater governanceEmanuele Fantini*

Seeing is one of the main sensory experiences for knowing water and for gener-ating meanings of it. To acknowledge this, visual research methods are increas-ingly popular in social sciences. In this paper, research using Photovoice orsimilar participatory visual methods is reviewed in order to assess their potentialcontribution to the study of water governance. A total of 23 articles related to20 projects on (1) water, health, and sanitation; (2) participation in water manage-ment; (3) landscapes and water spaces; and (4) domestic urban waters, wereidentified. They are assessed on the basis of the research’s purpose, participants,visual outputs, and outcomes. Results are discussed against the three main goalsstated by Photovoice’s advocates: to record and reflect on communities’ strengthsand concerns, to facilitate critical dialogue, and to reach policymakers. We findsome evidence about participatory visual methods contribute to the first twogoals. However, while most articles assert that Photovoice proved an effectivetool for communicating participants’ views to a wider audience and for reachingpolicy makers, data and analysis on these processes are generally lacking. Docu-menting and reflecting on these processes are crucial issues that future visualresearch on water governance should address, particularly in a time when sci-ence is increasingly asked to outreach and impact on societal issues. © 2017 The

Authors. WIREs Water published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

How to cite this article:WIREs Water 2017, e1226. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1226

INTRODUCTION

Scholars—in particular social scientists—studywater mainly through writing and reading, while

people experience it by mobilizing the whole spectrumof senses: taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight. Thisreview focuses on the use of the latter, in view of thegrowing popularity of visual research methods in socialsciences. Given water’s ‘mesmeric qualities,’1 seeingplays a crucial role in influencing how people knowwater and generate meanings about it. However, in

most industrial countries water is ‘conquered,’2 piped,and flushed away3 through knowledge and capitalintensive services, and has become invisible and de-socialized.4 Water often disappears during the expan-sion of human settlements, when rivers are covered orhydrogeological limits challenged. Equally, globaltrade fluxes hide ‘virtual’ or ‘embedded’ water. Thus,visualizing water might contribute to highlightingwater’s universal meanings,5 to situating them in spe-cific historical, social, political and geographical con-texts. Visualizing water may also help to re-socializingwater, which emphasizes the interplay between society,nature, and technology. Perhaps, it is not a coincidencethat creative projects on water at the crossroadbetween art, research, communication, and civicengagement are blossoming everywhere.a

*Correspondence to: [email protected]

Integrated Water Systems and Governance, IHE Delft Institute forWater Education, Delft, Netherlands

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of inter-est for this article.

1 of 16© 2017 The Authors. WIREs Water published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This review addresses the potential contributionof participatory visual research in the study of watergovernance. As it was acknowledged that the currentwater crisis is mainly ‘a crisis of governance,’6 theterm ‘governance’ has gained popularity within inter-national water institutions and studies. However,water governance remains a broad concept, with noshared understanding of its content and meaning.7,8

The term has informed normative, descriptive, andinstrumental analyses within academia9,10 and hasresulted in mainstream water institutions prescribinghow water should be managed. It also generated ana-lytical descriptions and critical investigations of theprocesses of water distribution and uses, includingdiscussions on how the reference to water govern-ance legitimizes these processes.11,12 This reviewunderstands water governance as the processes thataddress ‘the questions about water distributions andtheir organization and coordination: distributions ofwater (and of water related rights, risks, responsibil-ities, benefits, and incomes), as well as distributionsof (scientific or political) voice, power and authority.Importantly, questions include those about the lin-kages between these different distributions.’13

Aiming to contributing to debates on equityand justice in water governance,14 this review is con-cerned with on one of the main problematics associ-ated with the notion of (environmental) governance,that of political participation, or ‘the core politicalquestions of whose voices get heard and who makesdecisions.’15 In this context, the review focuses on aspecific method, Photovoice, as it is one of the mostwidespread participatory visual techniques. Inspiredby social constructivism, empowerment education,feminist theory, and documentary photography, theproponents of Photovoice emphasize strongly how itcan support the empowerment of researchparticipants—mainly local communities or vulnerablegroups—in the identification, analysis, and transfor-mation of local problems. As stated in a seminal arti-cle by its initiators,16 main goals and intendedoutcomes of Photovoice are as follows:

1. to enable people to record and reflect theircommunity’s strengths and concerns,

2. to promote critical dialogue and knowledgeabout important issues through large and smallgroup discussion of photographs, and

3. to reach policymakers.

To achieve these goals, the Photovoice method placesthe camera in the hands of research participants—usually small groups of maximum 20 persons—,

asking them to take pictures about the matter of con-cern17 for at least one week. Pictures are later used toelicit information and reflection on participants’ lifeexperiences, both in individual interviews and groupdiscussions, to raise awareness, trigger debate, andinstigate social change. To these ends, visual outputsare often presented to the wider community or policymakers by dint of photo-exhibitions, publications orpublic events. Photovoice is sometimes referred to asPhoto-Novella,18 or Photo-Story if participants areasked to record their observations in written dia-ries.19,20 This review equally considers those and otherparticipatory visual methods inspired by Photovoiceand sharing similar goals. Their common denominatoris that researchers ask the participants to take picturesof specific issues and then they elicit information withthe participants from those photos. This technique isoften referred to as ‘auto-driven photo elicitation’ or‘respondent generated image production.’21 Here thelabel ‘Photovoice’ is used for readability but keeping inmind that several similar methods exist.

Previous reviews of Photovoice projects havemainly concerned health issues.22,23 In their reviewof Photovoice projects on environment and social jus-tice issues, Powers and Freedman24 identify 4 of17 projects that are water related; they have beenincluded in this review too.

This article aims to understand the added valueof Photovoice and participatory visual research forthe study of water governance. In doing so, it takes acritical approach to the ‘participatory turn’ that hasbeen influencing social and visual research in the lasttwo decades.25,26 As argued by Pauwels, Photovoice,and other participatory visual methods are based on‘largely undisclosed assumptions’ and are ‘often char-acterized and advocated by their intended outcome,and lack both empirical evidence and methodologiesfor arriving at that outcome.’21 For this reason, theprojects reviewed here are assessed by according tosome of the aspects that for Pauwels need further elu-cidation in order to offer a ‘critical-constructiveassessment of epistemological, methodological, andsocial activists tenets’ in participatory visualresearch.21 The aspects discussed here are:

• the distinct purposes of various research set-upsand their methodological and ethical conse-quences (purpose),

• the kinds of participation/collaboration(participants),

• ways to measure the expected and unexpectedshort- and long-term effects for the differentparties involved (outcomes), and

Advanced Review wires.wiley.com/water

2 of 16 © 2017 The Authors. WIREs Water published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

• the different ways to present and process thevisual output (visual outputs).

The analysis will discuss findings on these aspectsagainst the three goals and outcomes of Photovoicestated above. It concludes by highlighting Photo-voice’s main achievements and areas that need fur-ther attention when applying participatory visualmethods to study water governance.

METHODS

This review includes peer-reviewed journal articlespublished prior to July 2016 which present Photo-voice and similar participatory visual research onwater issues. Articles have been identified through athree steps search.

First, initial articles were found by searching onscientific databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, ISI Webof Science, Jstor, ProQuest, and Cairn) and academicsocial networks (Academia.edu and Research Gate)using the following keywords: ‘photovoice’ OR ‘photovoice’OR ‘photo story’OR ‘photo novella,’OR ‘visualmethods’ AND ‘water.’ These broad searches resultedin over 2000 items (e.g., books, conference presenta-tions, reports, and articles), that were narrowed downto scholarly, peer-reviewed articles (n = 114). Thesearticles were reviewed by looking at title, abstract, andkey words in order to identify those that matched twocriteria: (1) adopting Photovoice or similar participa-tory visual methods, and (2) focusing on water as maintopic. Articles that simply mentioned water in the titleor in the abstract but primarily dealt with related issueslike climate change or health were dismissed. Thisresulted in 18 articles that met the inclusion criteria.

Second, the references of these initial articleswere reviewed to identify additional studies matchingthe two criteria. Five additional articles were discov-ered through this search.

Third, selected water journals (Water Alterna-tives, Water Policy, Water Resources Management,Water Research, International Journal of Waterresource development, WIREsWater, and WaterInternational), visual studies journals (Visual studies,Visual Communication, Journal of Visual Culture,and Photography & Culture), and journals with spe-cific sections dedicated to visual methods (EchoGeorubrique ‘sur l’image’) were searched in their entirety.This last search did not yield any additional study,suggesting that an exhaustive sample had beenalready assembled through the previous steps.

In spite of searching also French and Italiansearch engines, journals, and key words, only articles

in English were found. Thus, this review is based on23 articles, pertaining to 20 separate research pro-jects, presented in Table 1.

Consistent with previous reviews ofPhotovoice,22,23 articles were analyzed by developing adescriptive coding scheme, which in this case includedthe following categories: methods, purpose of the study(knowledge building, empowerment, and influencingpolicy makers), specific objective of the study, partici-pants (number, profile, place, and length of the study),urban/rural, visual outputs, outcomes of the study,gender issues. All text in the articles corresponding tothese categories was labeled and transferred to amatrix (streamlined in Table 1) to facilitate an over-view of each article, as well as their comparison.

RESULTS

Articles have been grouped according to: (1) watergovernance themes and concerns addressed, identi-fied under the category ‘specific objective of thestudy,’ and (2) geographical focus, identified underthe categories ‘participants (place)’ and ‘urban/rural.’The four groups thus identified are:

1. Projects identifying issues and concerns inwater and health, sanitation, hygiene (sixarticles27–32 and five projects): these studieshave been undertaken in Sub-Saharan Africa(South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya, and Tan-zania) by researchers based in Canada and theUnited States with local African partners.

2. Projects promoting participation in waterresources management (eight articles19,33–39

and eight projects), in Australia and New Zee-land undertaken by national research groups,and in India by an international consortium ofAustralian and Indian researchers.

3. Projects aiming at understanding experiences andperceptions of landscapes and water spaces (fivearticles40–44 and four projects): these projectshave been undertaken in Canada (2) and Japan(1) by national research groups and in SierraLeone (1) by a researcher based in Canada.

4. Projects aiming to explore the link betweendomestic water and urban water management(four articles20,45–47 and three projects) under-taken in Australia (2) and New Zeeland (1) bynational research groups.

This classification highlights the link between specificthemes and geographic locations (as shown by themap of Figure 1). For instance, water and sanitation

WIREs Water Photovoice on water governance

© 2017 The Authors. WIREs Water published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 3 of 16

TABLE 1 | Articles Reviewed

First Authorand Year Article Title Methods Purposes Participants Visual Outputs Outcomes

Water and health, sanitation, hygieneBadowski,2011

Understandinghouseholdbehavioral riskfactors fordiarrheal diseasein Dar es Salaam:a Photovoicecommunityassessment

Photovoicemodified withgreater presenceof authors(i.e., in selectingpictures)

Knowledgebuilding

13 householdmothers from2 peri-urbancommunities inDar El Salam,Tanzania

Examples ofpictures of waterrelatedbehavioralpracticesincluded in thearticle

Identification ofbehavioralpractices thatperpetuate thetransmission ofpathogensthroughcontaminatedwater, and offinancial factorsthat hamperimplementationof propersolutions

Bisung,2015a

Dreaming of toilets:using Photovoiceto exploreknowledge,attitudes andpractices aroundwater–healthlinkages in ruralKenya

Photovoice knowledgebuilding,empowerment,reach policymakers

8 women of ruralcoastalcommunity inUsoma (LakeVictoria), Kenya

Examples ofpictures selectedby participantsfor the interviewsincluded asonline annex tothe article

Identification ofsocioeconomicfactors thatbecomeembodiedthrough lack ofaccess to waterand sanitationand createbarrier tocollective action

Bisung,2015b

Using Photovoiceas a communitybasedparticipatoryresearch tool forchanging water,sanitation, andhygienebehaviors inUsoma, Kenya

Photovoice Knowledgebuilding,empowerment,reach policymakers

8 women of ruralcoastalcommunity inUsoma (LakeVictoria), Kenya

Not documented Betterunderstandingof thecomplexity ofwater healthissues, strongdesire amongcommunitymembers toaddress waterand sanitationchallenges,examples ofactivitiesimplemented bycommunity.

Levison,2012

Using mixedmethods tovisualize thewater-healthnexus: identifyingproblems,searching forsolutions

Photovoice andcommunitymapping

knowledgebuilding,educatingparticipants,empowerment,reach policymakers

25 members(F = 17 M = 8)of rural coastalcommunity inUsoma, LakeVictoria, Kenya

Not documented Betterunderstandingof water andsanitationpractices,identification ofi) differencesbetween ageand genderpreferencesaround water

(continued overleaf )



TABLE 1 | Continued


and health, ii)communityattributes thatcan facilitatechange

Scorgie,2016

‘Bitten by shyness’:menstrualhygienemanagement,sanitation, andthe quest forprivacy inSouth Africa

Photovoicematched withother visualtechniques like‘Body mapping’

knowledgebuilding, reachpolicy makers

7 women in 3 lowincomecommunities inDurban,South Africa

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantspresented in thearticle

Identification ofarea of concernin the interfacebetweenmenstrualhygiene andsanitationsystems

Virgi, 2011 Picturing policy inaddressing waterand sanitation:the voices of girlsliving in abjectintergenerationalhardship inMozambique

Photovoice withparticipants alsointerviewing theirolder femalerelatives

Knowledgebuilding,empowerment,reach policymakers

10 girls (aged10–14) from aschool in peri-urban Maputo,Mozambique

10 pieces of artsand 100 pictures,some photos andstories publishedin Unicef report

Identification ofwater andsanitation asareas of girlsconcern,identification ofpracticalsolutions,promotion ofgirls overallconfidence andenthusiasm

Participation in water resources managementBaldwin,2012

Bridging troubledwaters: applyingconsensusbuildingtechniques towater planning

Photovoice andother consensusbuildingtechniques

Knowledgebuilding, reachpolicy makers

33 participants(irrigators,government,environmentalassociations) inLockyerCatchment,Queensland,Australia

Not documented Participants valuesclarified andconsensus builtaroundcommonstrategies,furthernegotiationfacilitated

Keremane,2011

Using PhotoStory tocaptureirrigators’emotions aboutwater policy andsustainabledevelopmentobjectives: a casestudy in ruralAustralia

PhotoStory andother qualitativeand quantitativemethods


11 participants(4 irrigators,6 staff irrigatorscooperative,1 local business)in Coleambally,New SouthWales, Australia

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantsincluded in thearticle, Photoexhibition andbook

Identification ofparticipantsvalues andconcerns andcommunicationto the widercommunity andpolicy makers

Keremane,2012

Picturingsustainable waterresourcesmanagement:photo-conversations

PhotoStory andother qualitativeand quantitativemethods


26 participants(70% irrigations,30% policymakers) inLimeston Coastand Coleambally,Australia

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantsincluded in thearticle, Photoexhibition andbook

Identification ofparticipantsviews andemotions,offering amedium tovoice concerns




TABLE 1 | Continued


with irrigatorsand policymakers

to widercommunity andpolicy makers

Kilvington,2011

Creative platformsfor sociallearning in ICM:the WatershedTalk project

Photo diaries Knowledgebuilding, reachpolicy makers

19 participants—identified amongpeople beingknown as‘thinkers,Moutekacatchment, NewZeland

Participantspresenting theirpictures in groupdiscussion,project booklet

Shifts inparticipantsviews about thecatchment andtheir own rolein watermanagement,changes inideas onnetworking andproblemsolving,preparednessfor furtherengagementand action

Maeshwari,2014

The role oftransdisciplinaryapproach andcommunityparticipation invillage scalegroundwatermanagement:insights fromGujarat andRajasthan, India

Photovoice andother qualitativeand quantitativemethods

Knowledgebuilding, educateparticipants,reach policymakers

Local village andschoolcommunities intwo watershedsin Gujarat andRajasthan, India

Not documented Collection ofrelevant datarelated ongroundwater,reinforcedawarenessabout the needoftransdisciplinarymethods toaddress waterissues

Maclean,2013

Photovoiceevaluated: anappropriatevisualmethodology forAboriginal waterresource research

Photovoice Knowledgebuilding,empowerparticipants,reach policymakers

Two projects:16 members ofKulu Nyungkalpeople,Queensland WetTropics;6 members ofNauiyu Nambiyucommunity,Northernterritory,Australia

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantsincluded in thearticle tocomplementnarratives,research reportshared withcommunityduring open day

Photovoice foundculturallyappropriate toAboriginalvalues andknowledge,promotingparticipantsself-empowerment,facilitatingcommunicationwith nonAboriginalresearches,tensions mightarise incommunicatingresearch (whorepresentparticipants?Which is the




TABLE 1 | Continued


mainaudience?)

Maclean,2015

Crossing culturalboundaries:IntegratingIndigenous waterknowledge intowatergovernancethrough co-research in theQueensland WetTropics, Australia

Photovoice Knowledgebuilding,empowerment,reach policymakers

16 members ofKulu Nyungkalpeople,Queensland WetTropics, Australia

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantspresented in thearticle, report(two version, onewith culturallysensitiveinformation forinternal use)

Report asboundary objectfacilitated thetranslation ofindigenousknowledge andvalues in a waythat it isunderstood bynonindigenousplanners andscientists

Pierce,2008

On communitycapitals as wesee themthroughphotovoice:Cowell oysterindustry in SouthAustralia

Photovoice anddiaries

Knowledge building 7 communitymembers inCowell, Eyrepeninsula,Australia

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantspresented in thearticle toillustrate the5 researchquestions

Identification ofparticipantsviews andperspectives

Water spaces and landscapesFresque-Baxter,2013

Participatoryphotography as ameans to exploreyoung people’sexperiences ofwater resourcechange

Participatoryphotography andclassroom basedcurriculumactivities

Knowledgebuilding,educatingparticipants

5 high schoolstudents (aged10–12) in FortResolution,Northwestterritories,Canada

Students’ photoessays, photosused in schoolactivities, storiesand photospublished innewspaper,3 stories withpicturespresented in thearticle

Identification andpromotion ofparticipantsviews andconcerns;importance ofadaptability andflexibility ofresearchmethods, visualmethodsfacilitatingrelationshipbetween schooland researcher

Sherren,2013

What can photo-elicitation tell usabout howmaritime farmersperceivewetlands asclimate changes?

Auto driven photo-elicitation

Knowledge building 20 livestockfarmers in NovaScotia, Canada

Examples of photosand narrativespresented in thearticle

Identification ofparticipantsvalues andperceptions

Thompson,2009

‘I am a farmer’:young womenaddressconservationusing Photovoicearound TiwaiIsland, SierraLeone

Photovoice Knowledgebuilding,empowerment

7 young womenfarmer aged16–36 in TiwaiIsland, SierraLeone

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipants toillustrate a poem(visual abstract)

Identification andexpression ofparticipantsviews andconcerns




TABLE 1 | Continued


Thompson,2011

Picturing genderedwater spaces: atextual approachto water in ruralSierra Leone

Photovoice Knowledgebuilding,empoweringparticipants

28 farmers, womenand men, inTiwai Island,Sierra Leone

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantspresented in thearticle

Identification ofparticipantsviews andconcerns,understandingof thecomplexity ofgenderednature of waterand itssocioeconomiccauses

Yamashita,2002

Perception andevaluation ofwater inlandscape: use ofphoto-projectivemethod tocompare childand adultresidents’perceptions of aJapanese riverenvironment

Photo-projectivemethod (takingphotos andrecording verbaland writtennarratives aboutthem)

Knowledge building 46 adults and49 children ofthe rural town ofTanushimaro,Kyushu area,Japan

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantspresented toportray differentviews adult/children

Identification ofdifferences inparticipantsviews andperception ofwater

Domestic water and urban water managementAllon, 2006 Everyday water:

cultures intransition

Water diaries,photo elicitation,auto drivenphoto elicitation,questionnaire

Knowledge building 25 participants in anew housingsettlement inWestern Sydney,Australia

Not documented Identification ofparticipantsviews, practices,aspirations andincentives tosupport socialchange

Golder,2013

Writing andphotographing‘little water’

Photo diaries andwater diaries

Knowledge building 11 households(total29 participants)in Auckland city,New Zeeland

Examples ofpictures taken byparticipantsincluded in thearticle tocomplementnarratives

Visual methodsmade talkingand writingabout watereasier andfacilitatedgrowingawareness andconstruction ofnarratives abouteveryday waters

Keremane,2014

The emotionalconnection tourban waterthrough the lensof the watercustomer: aphotostoryexercise inmetropolitanAdelaide

PhotoStory Knowledge building 8 participants fromdifferent suburbsin Adelaide,Australia


Identification ofparticipantsemotions,values andviews on waterpolicies,creation of aspace to look,listen and learn




issues are studied through Photovoice only in Sub-Saharan Africa, while participatory visual methodsare applied to the study of indigenous waterresources management and to the study of domesticurban water mostly in Australia and New Zealand.

Methods Used in the Reviewed ArticlesParticipatory visual research appears to facilitate con-nections. First of all among people and institutions:all projects but one are presented in coauthored arti-cles, being the outcome of collective research bynational or international consortia. Visual methodsare also reported as facilitating the partnershipbetween researchers and nonacademic organizationssuch as NGOs, international institutions, local asso-ciations, or schools.40

Second, visual techniques are often used in com-bination with more traditional quantitative or qualita-tive methods such as interviews, questionnaires orsurveys, in the framework of broader research projects(13 cases). Half of the projects reported to use Photo-voice (9 cases). Six other studies adopted a techniquereferred to as photo diaries or Photo-Story, whichinvolves taking pictures and writing associated com-ments in a diary. One project adopted a method alikePhotovoice, referring to it as ‘participatory photogra-phy.’40 Another one used the Photo Projective method,‘which asks residents to take pictures of their environ-ment and record their descriptions of each scene onsite.’44 Finally, one study qualified its method as‘photo-elicitation’ because it used the same techniqueof Photovoice but only in a one-off engagement withparticipants.41 The two last studies have been includedin the review because they use visual material gener-ated by respondents to elicit information, in spite of

not involving them in iterative participatory research.In fact similar low participation studies, whereresearchers tend to have minimal interaction with par-ticipants have been included in other reviews aboutPhotovoice too.23

PurposesParticipatory visual research methods like Photovoicecan have different purposes along a continuum goingfrom the scientific goal of generating newknowledge—both about the method itself and thesituations where it is used—to the more practical andpolitical goals of supporting local groups in docu-menting and transforming social realities. In betweenstand the goals of educating and/or empowering par-ticipants. These purposes are not necessarily exclu-sive and often coexist within the same project.21

Since they present their research in academicjournals, all articles had ‘knowledge building’ onwater governance issues among their main purposes.In addition, almost all research on water, health,and sanitation, as well those on water resourcemanagement, included ‘reaching policy makers’among their goals. Research on water, health, andsanitation also add empowerment purposes, associ-ated with gender.32 This is also the case in Thomp-son’s study of water spaces in Sierra Leone.43 Besidethese cases—and a quick mention in Maeshwari36—gender does not emerge as focus of any of the otherstudies. Empowering local or indigenous groups—and also researchers—in gathering information andpresenting their knowledge is a purpose shared byseveral studies on water, sanitation and health, aswell as on participation in water resourcemanagement.29,30,34,37,38

TABLE 1 | Continued


from thecommunity

Wu, 2016 Sustainable urbanwatermanagementthrough the lensof community—aphotostoryexercise inmetropolitanAdelaide

PhotoStory andotherquantitative andqualitativemethods

Knowledge building 8 participants fromdifferent suburbsin Adelaide,Australia


Identification ofparticipantsemotions,values, viewson waterpolicies, linkbetweenindividualaction andurban waterflows



While Photovoice has been widely used toengage with students and schools, only three projectsexplicitly mentioned educating the participantsamong their goals; two of those projects directlyinvolved schools and students.36,40 Virgi alsoinvolved a school in Mozambique, ‘interested in theissues that the girls themselves would identify’32 butwithout explicit educational goals.

Research on water and landscapes and ondomestic urban water aims exclusively for knowledgeproduction. It is worth highlighting that some of thearticles refer only to the visual research component—aiming at generating knowledge—of wider projects.These projects might entail additional goals ofinforming and influencing policy making, which aresometimes mentioned but not discussed in the articlesreviewed here. Generally while the production ofknowledge through Photovoice is extensively docu-mented and discussed, other purposes such asempowering participants and reaching policy makersare presented in a more elusive way.

ParticipantsBy definition Photovoice targets participants identi-fied as vulnerable or subaltern. This is the case innearly half of the projects (9), involving

indigenous groups, women, girls, youth, or urbandwellers living in low income suburbs. Photovoiceis described as ‘culturally appropriate’ and ‘engag-ing visual methodology tool’ especially whenworking with indigenous populations37 or vulnera-ble groups.29 Similar considerations apply togroups like farmers or students targeted by otherprojects, whose voices are equally considered notto be sufficiently heard in public debates and bypolicy makers.

The majority of the studies here reviewed tar-geted homogeneous groups of participants. Howeversix projects recorded and compared the perspectiveof different actors, e.g., irrigators and policymakers,19,33,34 children and adults,44 men andwomen.30

The number of participants in the projects ran-ged from 5 to 95, with an average of 18, dependingon the length of the involvement of the researcherswith local communities and the commitmentrequested from participants. Project using Photovoicehanded the camera to participants for 1 or 2 weeks,while Photo Story and photo diaries project lastedfrom 1 to 4 months. Particularly in the latter, thecommitment and efforts requested have beenreported as the main obstacle to recruit and keepparticipants in the research.19,20,47 Participatory

FIGURE 1 | Themes and locations of the reviewed studies.



visual research’s high time demand also complicatesits use together with other techniques on hot issuesrequesting rapid actions such as water conflicts.33

Some projects overcame the challenge of high timedemand for participants and achieved rewardingempowerment outcomes in terms of public outreachby working closely with local institutions such asschool32 or with local associations motivated by thefact that the research addressed the issues of their pri-mary concern.33,37,38

OutcomesAll projects emphasize the potential of visual researchin terms of generating knowledge because it allowsto identify and explore participants’ views, emotions,practices, and aspirations. In this respect, Photovoicefacilitated to highlight the complexity of water issues,by revealing the consequences of power relationslinked to socioeconomic factors27,29 or gender.43 Par-ticipatory visual research also elicited reflections andawareness about the need for a holistic approach inwater-health interventions to address political, eco-logical and social (micro and macro) factors,27,28 aswell as the need for transdisciplinary work to addresssuch complexity.36

A second reported effect of participatory visualmethods is facilitating interactions and connections.Photovoice allowed to equalize the status ofparticipants,35 e.g., translating the language of indig-enous knowledge to planners and policy makers,38 orfacilitating communication between the researcherand students40 or making writing and talking aboutwater easier for participants.46

A third effect pertains to the dimension of trans-formation. Visual methods facilitated awareness rais-ing on the topic addressed,46 a shift in participants’perceptions, views and attitudes,35 the empowermentof participants by building their overall confidenceand enthusiasm,32 the identification of factors andincentives to support behavioral change29 and ofpotential solutions to the problem addressed.

In spite of several articles reporting among theoutcome of Photovoice the creation of a space toempower participants and communicate their con-cerns and identified solutions, there is a general lackof documentation (indicators, data, photos, etc.) andreflection about those spaces and their real impact interms of social change.

Visual OutputsHow did projects use and display photos taken byresearch participants? All articles describe the use of

pictures to elicit interviews or group discussions, with14 of them including examples of photos taken byparticipants to illustrate the research’s main findings.In these articles, pictures are mainly used to illustrateoutcomes related to knowledge production, in partic-ular about participants’ views and concerns identified(Figure 2). Only two articles—referring to the sameproject—included pictures related to the relationalaspects of the research, namely the interactionbetween participants, researchers, and policymakers.37,38 This project considers photos as a‘boundary object’38 facilitating the understanding ofindigenous knowledge by nonindigenous plannersand researcher. The latter is identified as ‘translatorand re-presenter of outcomes to policy makers’.37

Only two projects reported about the publicdisplay of photos at the end of the research, eitherthrough a photo exhibition and a book19,34 or thesharing of photos and story as a display banner dur-ing a community open day.38 In two other cases, par-ticipants’ photos and stories have been reproduced ina Unicef report32 or in a local newspaper.40 In fiveprojects, the visual outputs and their disseminationwere not visually documented at all. This appearsparticularly surprising given the fact that four ofthose projects included reaching out policy makersamong their goals, and that the public display ofphotos is considered one of Photovoice key dissemi-nation tool. One of the reasons for this finding mightbe related to the limits of this review, which takes into

FIGURE 2 | An example of picture illustrating participants’ viewsand concerns. ‘So the important rule [is that] we take great care ofthe pump because we get clean water as a whole community.’Credits: James Gbomgbotoh, Kambama. Source: Thompson.43



account only academic peer reviewed articles. Photo-voice visual outputs and end products are often nonsci-entific contributions (video, exhibitions, books,catalogues, and posters) presented in media and spacesother than academic journals. However, the lack ofany reference and documentation in the reviewed arti-cles of such nonscientific contributions suggests theidea that when it comes to water governance, Photo-voice potential in terms of outreach and disseminationremains untapped.

ANALYSIS

The results of the review are here analyzed in light ofPhotovoice three main goals: to record and reflectstrengths and concerns of participants’ communities,to promote critical dialogue and knowledge, and toreach policymakers.

Visualizing the Hydrosocial Cycle andWater Universal MeaningsParticipatory visual methods facilitated participantsto ‘think above water,’ raising awareness aboutwater in everyday life.46 Researchers report that theyproved effective in recording and reflecting partici-pants’ views and emotions, highlighting affective,identity, spiritual and sensory values associated towater19,20,34,47(Figure 3). These methods provide vis-ual representation of ‘insider views’ of everyday lifeexperiences and community activity,32 often on inti-mate issues and dimensions of water experienceswhich otherwise might not have been captured withmore traditional methods.30

In addition, taking and commenting picturesfacilitated a multidimensional understanding of every-day water,46 linking participants’ feelings and emotionswith natural spaces (rivers, ponds, etc.),43 material infra-structures (latrines, canals, etc.),31 and sociotechnicalsystems (urban water services).47 The majority of thearticles facilitate the visualization of this links by pre-senting examples of pictures taken by participants tocomplement their narratives (Figure 4). Thus, visualresearch appears particularly meaningful for researchaiming at integrating biophysical and social process35,45

to address the so called hydrosocial cycle.48

The projects reviewed involved different types ofcommunities, both in high and low income countries,internally diverse in terms of gender, generation, andsocioeconomic background. This appears to indicatethat Photovoice should not be considered exclusively amethod tuned to work with vulnerable groups whose‘exotic’ esthetics, ‘traditional’ knowledge, or ‘unfamil-iar’ practices would request less conventional methodsto be captured. Rather the fact that Photovoice hasbeen equally applied to groups which might not bequalifies as subalterns—such as irrigators, urbandwellers in industrialized countries or even govern-ment representatives—suggests that visual methodscan effectively reflect water’s ‘universal meanings.’5

Facilitating Dialogue on Water ConflictsBeside recording and reflecting on participants’ viewsand concerns, Photovoice aims to facilitate both the

FIGURE 3 | An example of picture recording emotions associatedto water. ‘Even though the dead trees in the picture were not causedby lack of water (rather rising salinity) the desolate landscape thatthey present emphasizes the lack of hope that can be held by farmerswhen they have to look at the view everyday.’ Source: Keremane.19

FIGURE 4 | An example of picture linking participants’ feelingwith infrastructures. Exterior view of a “Ventilated Pit Latrine”(VIP) inDassenveld (South Africa). The pipe on the left of the structures helpsto remove odor from inside the latrine. “That’s the toilete, this is theoutside...there is no lock.” Credits: 34 year old woman, Photovoiceproject, Source: Scorgie.



communication of those views to other actors, and col-laborative learning. Participatory visual methods werereported as facilitating communication, dialogue, andbuilding relationships both between participants andthe researchers,34,38,40,46 and between different cate-gories of participants, such as irrigators, policy makers,and environmentalists.19,33,34 In some cases, such a dia-logue reinforced participants’ identities and ‘collectivesocial cohesion of the wider communities’ like in thecase of the Aboriginal communities that took part andco-authored Maclean’s research.37,38 In other cases, itresulted in ‘fostered understanding and dialoguebetween parties with fundamentally different views’ byfacilitating listening and mediation.33 Baldwin presentsan interesting case in which Photovoice has been used,together with other techniques, to build consensusaround water allocation plans in Australia. In this case,visualization facilitated helping in clarifying values, bet-ter information sharing, exploring and recognizingviews, conflict assessment, identifying divergences onwhich to focus, reframing, and finding commonground.33 Involving different stakeholders as researchparticipants appears to facilitate dialogue.19,33,34 Thismight also create a space for direct communicationbetween different groups, overcoming the concern ofMaclean, who points at the risk of disempowering par-ticipants when the researcher represents their voice infront of policy makers, rather than letting them speakfor themselves.38

Two studies (Refs 19, 33 and 34) identify con-cerns over water allocation and building consensuson water planning. This suggests that participatoryvisual research could be an effective tool to addressthe growing concerns over water scarcity and tofacilitate mediating the related disputes and conflictsthat might arise between different water users, at dif-ferent scales, both local and international. In theseendeavors, Photovoice effects in terms of reinforcingcommunity belongings and understanding others’perspectives need to be carefully balanced and morethoroughly evaluated. Similarly, trade off and choiceshave to be made in selecting the audiences targetedwhen communicating Photovoice results. The stylesand codes more suitable to communicate with localcommunities might not be equally appropriated tointeract with policy makers, for instance in terms oflexicon, or informality of the setting.37

Reaching Policy Makers?Most of the studies here reviewed included influen-cing policy makers among their objectives. Manyconsidered visual methods an effective technique tosupport this goal, presenting them as ‘critical

component of policy dialogue’32 creating a ‘windowof opportunity to communicate to the wider commu-nity and policy makers.’19,34 The limits of Photovoicein changing prevailing governance paradigms38 aswell as and in documenting its very impact in termsof social change46 are acknowledged too.

Several of these studies were undertaken in theframework of larger projects addressing water gov-ernance issues and implemented in partnership withinternational organizations, NGOs, or local institu-tions. These partnerships are identified as instrumen-tal to ensure the link between researchers and policymakers,30 but are hardly described in the articles.

Bisung provides anecdotic description of initia-tives undertaken by the community following theresearch—completion of a water and sanitation blockand increased participation to local WASHcommittee—but without a systematic analysis.29 Bald-win and Maclean reflect on the process of involvingpolicy makers in the research or sharing its outcomeswith them, as well as on the delicate role of theresearcher as broker and translator within this proc-ess.33,37,38 Kilvington appears to offer a more thoroughanalysis, describing tools to assess outcomes, benefits ofvisual methods, and shifting views and practices in indi-vidual and collective reflection and problem solving inintegrated catchment management.35

Beside these few references, the process ofreaching policy makers and the related outcomes, aswell as the impact of the knowledge produced interms of social change are hardly documented in thearticles. While Photovoice is claimed to be an effec-tive method to give voices to participants and toallow these voices to be heard by the wider commu-nity and policy makers, the great majority of thereviewed studies fail to support these claims withempirical evidence and adequate documentation, inline with a general trend in participatory visualresearch.21 Two studies recall that Photovoice can beused also as a tool to evaluate projects, but fail inapplying it for this purpose.29,35 More broadly, inspite of aiming at reaching policy makers, the greatmajority of the reviewed studies offer very limited ornone information about the political contexts and thepower relations shaping—or shaped by—water gov-ernance that they aim at influencing.

CONCLUSION

As a contribution to inform future research, I willreturn to the initial definition of water governance tohighlight the added value of participatory visual



methods in its study, as well as the area that needfurther exploration.

The review has highlighted two main achieve-ments of participatory visual research on water gov-ernance. First, the articles document—also visually—the potential of Photovoice in terms of generatingknowledge about the ‘distribution of water,’ as wellas on eliciting emotions, values, and concerns onthese issues. They also show the potential of linkingemotions, values and concerns to natural spaces andtechnical systems, suggesting thus that visual meth-ods can be meaningfully adopted in research inspiredby the hydrosocial cycle approach.

Second, in terms of ‘distribution of voice,’ par-ticipatory visual methods are reported to facilitatethe dialogue between different actors involved in oraffected by water governance processes. Theseeffects are well documented particularly in the stud-ies involving different typologies of groups or stake-holders as research participants, or in those openlyreflecting on the role of the researcher in this proc-ess. By virtue of these features, participatory visualresearch appears a meaningful technique to addresscontentious topics such as conflicts over wateraccess or distribution.

In relation to these achievements, two issuescould be further explored. First, Photovoice poten-tial in terms of addressing gender issues has beenexploited so far only in research on water, sanita-tion, and health in Sub-Saharan Africa. The contri-bution of participatory visual methods to study thegender dimension of water resources management,domestic and urban water governance, and percep-tions of landscapes or waterscapes deserves furtherstudy. Second, the articles emphasize the role ofparticipatory visual research in facilitating connec-tions, not only between the natural, social, andtechnical dimension of water governances, but alsobetween different people: the researcher and partici-pants, different groups of participants, participantsand policymakers. An issue that might be furtherexplored is whether and how visualization

facilitates also the connection between different dis-ciplines, supporting inter or trans-disciplinary work.

On the other side, the review also points at amain knowledge gap, which is related to the prob-lematic of political participation in water governanceand ‘the linkages between the distribution of waterand the distribution of voice.’ While articles docu-ment how participatory visual methods might givevoice to subaltern groups in the production ofknowledge, it is not clear whether and how they sup-port those groups in achieving immediate and tangi-ble impact on their social, political, and ecologicalenvironments. In other words, Photovoice attributesin terms of empowering participants, reaching policymakers and triggering social change often appeartaken for granted. An adequate analysis of the politi-cal context and the power relation in which theresearch is embedded, as well as tools and frame-work to monitor the interaction with policy makersand its outcomes are lacking in the great majority ofthe articles here reviewed. Thus, when it comes towater governance, further research is badly needed toassess Photovoice promises in terms of reaching pol-icy makers and fostering social change. This alsoimplies tracking visual outputs and end products thatare nonscientific contributions and that might be dis-seminated through grey literature, civic events orartistic performances. Such research appears particu-larly compelling in light of an utilitarian considera-tion and a moral imperative: first, research fundingagencies increasingly call on science to make andmeasure impact on societal issues; and second, wheninvolving subaltern or already disadvantaged groupsin lengthy participatory projects, researchers shoulddo their best to ensure that all conditions are in placeto achieve the expected outcomes and benefits.

ENDNOTESa See for instance the website http://www.hydrocitizens.com that aims at tacking these initiatives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research leading to these results has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) ofthe European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA grant agreement n�

PCOFUND-GA-2013-606838. I wish also to acknowledge: the colleagues of the Water Governance ChairGroup at IHE Delft (in particular Anna Wiesselink and Frank Jasper), Sam Trowsdale and two anonymousreviewers for their comments on the previous versions of this manuscript; Giacomo Pettenati for his help increating the map of Figure 1. Usual disclaimers apply.



http://www.hydrocitizens.com

http://www.hydrocitizens.com

FURTHER READINGBlackman A. The PhotoVoice manual: a guide to designing and running participatory photography projects. Photo-Voice 2007.

REFERENCES1. Strang V. The Meaning of Water. New York:

Berg; 2004.

2. Goubert J-P, Ladurie ELR. La conquête de l’eau:L’avènement de la santé à l’âge industriel. Paris: Rob-ert Laffont; 1986.

3. Kawa NC. What happens when we flush? AnthropolNow 2016, 8:34–43.

4. Van Aken M. Virtual water, H2O and the de-socialisation of water—a brief anthropological journey.In: Antonelli M. and Greco F. (eds.) The Water WeEat. Cham, Switzerland Springer; 2015, 103–121.

5. Strang V. Common senses water, sensory experienceand the generation of meaning. J Mater Cult 2005,10:92–120.

6. UNESCO. Water, a shared responsibility. The UnitedNations World Water Development ReportNo. 2, 2006.

7. Castro JE. Water governance in the twentieth-first cen-tury. Amb Soc 2007, 10:97–118.

8. Colebatch HK. Making sense of governance. PolicySoc 2014, 33:307–316.

9. Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin R. Adaptive water governance: asses-sing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defin-ing a research agenda. Ecol Soc 2009, 14.

10. Biswas AK, Tortajada C. Future water governance:problems and perspectives. Int J Water Resour Dev2010, 26:129–139.

11. Franks T, Cleaver F. Water governance and poverty: aframework for analysis. Prog Dev Stud 2007,7:291–306.

12. Mollinga PP, Bhat A, Cleaver F, Meinzen-Dick R,Molle F, Neef A, Subramanian S, Wester P. Water,politics and development: framing a political sociologyof water resources management. Water Altern2008, 1:7–23.

13. Zwarteveen M. Regulating Water, Ordering Society:Practices and Politics of Water Governance. Universityof Amsterdam; Amsterdam 2015.

14. Lu F, Ocampo-Raeder C, Crow B. Equitable WaterGovernance: Future Directions in the understandingand analysis of water inequities in the global South.Water International 39(2):129–142.

15. Bridge G, Perreault T. Environmental governance. In:Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B. (eds.)A companion to environmental geography. John Wiley

& Sons. A Companion to Environmental Geography.John Wiley & Sons. 2009, 475–497.

16. Wang C, Burris MA. Photovoice: concept, methodol-ogy, and use for participatory needs assessment.Health Educ Behav 1997, 24:369–387.

17. Latour B. Why has critique run out of steam? Frommatters of fact to matters of concern. Crit Inq 2004,30:225–248.

18. Wang C, Burris MA. Empowerment through photonovella: portraits of participation. Health Educ Behav1994, 21:171–186.

19. Keremane GB, McKay J. Using PhotoStory to captureirrigators’ emotions about water policy and sustainabledevelopment objectives: a case study in rural Australia.Action Res 2011, 9:405–425.

20. Keremane GB, Wu Z, McKay JM. The emotional con-nection to urban water through the lens of the watercustomer: a PhotoStory exercise in metropolitan Ade-laide. Water J 2014, 41:61–65.

21. Pauwels L. ‘Participatory’visual research revisited: acritical-constructive assessment of epistemological,methodological and social activist tenets. Ethnography2013, 1466138113505023.

22. Hergenrather KC, Rhodes SD, Cowan CA,Bardhoshi G, Pula S. Photovoice as community-basedparticipatory research: a qualitative review.Am J Health Behav 2009, 33:686–698.

23. Catalani C, Minkler M. Photovoice: a review of the lit-erature in health and public health. Health Educ Behav2010, 37:424–451.

24. Powers MC, Freedman DA. Applying a social justiceframework to photovoice research on environmentalissues: a comprehensive literature review. Crit SocWork 2013, 13:81–100.

25. Gubrium A, Harper K. Participatory Visual and Dig-ital Methods. Routledge; 2013.

26. Gubrium A, Harper K, Otañez M. Participatory Visualand Digital Research in Action. Routledge; 2015.

27. Badowski N, Castro CM, Montgomery M,Pickering AJ, Mamuya S, Davis J. Understandinghousehold behavioral risk factors for diarrheal diseasein Dar es Salaam: a photovoice community assessment.J Environ Public Health 2011, 2011:130467.

28. Bisung E, Elliott SJ, Abudho B, Schuster-Wallace CJ,Karanja DM. Dreaming of toilets: using photovoice toexplore knowledge, attitudes and practices aroundwater-health linkages in rural Kenya. Health Place2015, 31:208–215.



29. Bisung E, Elliott SJ, Abudho B, Karanja DM, Schuster-Wallace CJ. Using photovoice as a community basedparticipatory research tool for changing water, sanita-tion, and hygiene behaviours in Usoma, Kenya.Biomed Res Int 2015, 2015:903025.

30. Levison M, Elliott S, Schuster-Wallace C, Karanja D.Using mixed methods to visualize the water-healthnexus: identifying problems, searching for solutions.Afr Geogr Rev 2012, 31:183–199.

31. Scorgie F, Foster J, Stadler J, Phiri T, Hoppenjans L,Rees H, Muller N. “Bitten by shyness”: menstrualhygiene management, sanitation, and the quest for pri-vacy in South Africa. Med Anthropol 2016,35:161–176.

32. Virgi ZS, Mitchell C. Picturing policy in addressingwater and sanitation: the voices of girls living in AbjectIntergenerational Hardship1 in Mozambique. Int Educ2011, 40:40.

33. Baldwin C, Ross H. Bridging troubled waters: applyingconsensus-building techniques to water planning. SocNat Resour 2012, 25:217–234.

34. Keremane GB, McKay JM. Picturing sustainable waterresources management: photo-conversations with irri-gators and policymakers. Int J Environ Cult Econ SocSustain 2012, 7:145–153.

35. Kilvington M, Atkinson M, Fenemor A. Creative plat-forms for social learning in ICM: theWatershed Talk-project. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 2011, 45:557–571.

36. Maheshwari B, Varua M, Ward J, Packham R,Chinnasamy P, Dashora Y, Dave S, Soni P, Dillon P,Purohit R, et al. The role of transdisciplinary approachand community participation in village scale ground-water management: insights from Gujarat and Raja-sthan, India. Water 2014, 6:3386–3408.

37. Maclean K, Woodward E. Photovoice evaluated: anappropriate visual methodology for aboriginal waterresource research. Geogr Res 2013, 51:94–105.

38. Maclean K. Crossing cultural boundaries: integratingindigenous water knowledge into water governancethrough co-research in the Queensland Wet Tropics,Australia. Geoforum 2015, 59:142–152.

39. Pierce J, McKay J. On community capitals as we seethem through photovoice: Cowell oyster industry inSouth Australia. Australas J Environ Manage 2008,15:159–168.

40. Fresque-Baxter JA. Participatory photography as ameans to explore young people’s experiences of waterresource change. Indig Policy J 2013, 23.

41. Sherren K, Verstraten C. What can photo-elicitationtell us about how maritime farmers perceive wetlandsas climate changes? Wetlands 2012, 33:65–81.

42. Thompson J. “I am a farmer”: young women addressconservation using photovoice around Tiwai Island,Sierra Leone. Agenda 2009, 23:65–69.

43. Thompson J. Picturing gendered water spaces: a tex-tual approach to water in rural Sierra Leone. Agenda2011, 25:43–53.

44. Yamashita S. Perception and evaluation of water inlandscape: use of photo-projective method to comparechild and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japaneseriver environment. Landsc Urban Plan 2002, 62:3–17.

45. Allon F, Sofoulis Z. Everyday water: cultures in transi-tion. Aust Geogr 2010, 37:45–55.

46. Golder C, Trowsdale S, Fisher K. Writing and photo-graphing ‘little water’. Australas J Environ Manage2013, 20:242–255.

47. Wu Z, Keremane G, McKay J. Sustainable urbanwater management through the lens of community—aphotostory exercise in metropolitan Adelaide. Austra-las J Environ Manage 2016, 23:141–156.

48. Linton J, Budds J. The hydrosocial cycle: defining andmobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water.Geoforum 2014, 57:170–180.



Picturing waters. A review of Photovoice and similar ......like climate change or health were...

Documents

Transcript of Picturing waters. A review of Photovoice and similar ......like climate change or health were...