Changing Conceptions of Rights to Water?--An Eco-Socio-Legal Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article inquires into the meaning of a ‘right’ to water. It examines how the nature and content of such a right may be changing in the context of greater emphasis in environmental regulation on water stewardship which seeks to tackle risks of water scarcity. In the UK, for instance, water abstractions have been further regulated through the Water Act 2003 and additional reforms are proposed by the draft Water Bill HC (2013–4). The article locates its analysis in literature on the qualification of private property rights through natural resource management, and in the developing socio-legal literature on the intersection between rights and regulation. We critically engage with this literature on the basis of qualitative empirical research about how farmers in England think about a right to water. Our pilot project confirms some accounts in the literature, but questions others. We find empirical support for thinking about rights that is qualified by stewardship practices, but we suggest that conceptions of rights need to be broadened to include administrative concepts, including collective rights to water. On the basis of our data we develop an eco-socio-legal perspective that foregrounds three interpretive frames for understanding how conceptions of rights to water are generated. These are the institutional–legal framework of abstraction licensing in England and Wales, perceptions of the natural space which is governed by this legal framework, and, the economic context in which rights to water are exercised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".