Search

Copyright of Professional Geographer is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Scaling up development measures to target global food insecurity has a distinctly spatial character and is often cited as a solution to the global hunger crisis. Development does not occur without scaling and consensus on the ontological meaning of scaling up is a vital component to developing sustainable solutions to the global hunger crisis across geographical scales. Yet 'scaling up', while frequently used throughout Research and Development (R&D) and Natural Resource Management (NRM) literature, lacks ontological agreement. We begin by considering the noun, 'scale' and existing literature on scaling up, then present a visual analysis of definitions provided for scaling up across development institutions. Our study finds that the organization of terms used across these definitions falls into three distinct categories: Interventions, Mechanisms, and Outcomes. Further, we contend that the continued uncertainty is linked to scale being applied in two fashions: as a noun (outcome) and verb (process). Rather than calling for reformed definitions, we argue for precision of definitions. To that end, we present a conceptual framework of scaling up that gives greater emphasis on separating the noun scale, from the verb, to scale. Further, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in our model complements scaling efforts beginning with how scaling up is defined by program, through to final evaluation of success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As countries of sub-Saharan Africa expand irrigation to improve food security and foster economic growth, it is important to quantify the malaria risk associated with this process. Irrigated ecosystems can be associated with increased malaria risk, but this relationship is not fully understood. We studied this relationship at the Bwanje Valley Irrigation Scheme (800 hectares) in Malawi. Household prevalence of malaria and indoor Anopheles density were quantified in two cross-sectional studies in 2016 and 2017 (5,829 residents of 1,091 households). Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate the association between distance to the irrigation scheme and malaria infection and mosquito density. The prevalence of malaria infection was 50.2% (2,765/5,511) by histidine-rich protein 2-based malaria rapid diagnostic tests and 30.1% (1,626/5,403) by microscopy. Individuals residing in households within 3 km of the scheme had significantly higher prevalence of infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18, 1.68); school-aged children had the highest prevalence among age groups (aOR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.11, 1.63). Individuals who reported bed net use, and households with higher socioeconomic status and higher level of education for household head or spouse, had lower odds of malaria infection. Female Anopheles mosquitoes (2,215 total; Anopheles arabiensis, 90.5%, Anopheles funestus, 9.5%) were significantly more abundant in houses located within 1.5 km of the scheme. Proximity of human dwellings to the irrigation scheme increased malaria risk, but higher household wealth index reduced risk. Therefore, multisectoral approaches that spur economic growth while mitigating increased malaria transmission are needed for people living close to irrigated sites.