Directions for social research to underpin improved groundwater management
Highlights
► Results of a literature review into social dimensions of groundwater management. ► Gaps are identified for how social research can improve groundwater management. ► Key gaps include social construction of risk and sustainable yield. ► Another gap relates to building landholder capacity and how to change behaviour. ► Contemporary issues include coal seam gas developments and managed aquifer recharge.
Introduction
Research to improve groundwater management is increasingly recognising the value of drawing on theory and methods from social research. This recognition builds from a basic assumption that all aspects of the environment have been modified by human activity, including groundwater, and that improving conditions for groundwater and dependent environments requires changing human behaviour. The social sciences offer a range of practical approaches to engaging and developing human and social agency to improve natural resource management (NRM), including a few examples where social researchers have focused on groundwater management issues. Ostrom’s groundbreaking work promoting the role of social norms in NRM governance built on her doctoral thesis examining groundwater management in California (Ostrom, 1965, Ostrom, 1990). In Australia, the work on justice principles by Syme and colleagues (e.g. Syme and Fenton, 1993, Syme et al., 1999) is partly based on research involving reforms in groundwater allocations. More recently, this and other groundwater-related journals have become more open to studies influenced by sociological perspectives. Agencies funding groundwater research, including Australia’s National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT), now expect the adoption of inter-disciplinary approaches (also see Khan, 2012, Wood, 2012). As social researchers in the NCGRT, we recognised an immediate need to review the small but expanding body of literature on the social dimensions of groundwater management. In this paper we draw upon that review to identify an agenda that would enable social researchers make an important contribution to improved groundwater management.
A traditional policy and research focus on surface water management has left major knowledge gaps involving groundwater policy and management (Burke et al., 1999, National Water Commission, 2008, Nevill, 2009), despite the world’s heavy reliance on groundwater. In Australia, for example, groundwater comprises 30% of all water consumed and people in many regions rely almost entirely on groundwater for urban water supply or irrigated agriculture. A challenge for groundwater management and research is that the resource is largely invisible and its interconnections with surface water are poorly understood or mapped. This exacerbates the difficulty faced when trying to modify human behaviour for improved groundwater outcomes as the intended outcomes are not easily or immediately identified, observed or monitored, and are thus more open to contention.
Issues in groundwater management also mirror those faced by NRM more broadly, so it is useful to identify the ways in which social research is helping to improve the wider NRM field. NRM problems are often entrenched and intractable (or “wicked” – see Rittel and Webber, 1973, Allan, 2010) and in most cases, no single actor is capable of addressing these kinds of “wicked” issues on their own. A typical social research response is to focus on strategies to engage and build human capital, i.e. the individual skills, abilities and wellbeing that contribute to our own and other’s satisfaction (Castle, 2002); and social capital, i.e. the social relations, networks, trust and norms that arise between people when they interact, and which can then lead to further benefits (Sobels et al., 2001). This focus has led to strategies to engage stakeholders more effectively both as individuals and as collectives (Curtis, 2007, Brown, 2008), and to enable more inclusive and collaborative approaches for regional NRM governance (Lockwood et al., 2010).
Governance involves the interactions between social structures, processes and traditions that determine how power in society influences how decisions are made, how responsibilities are exercised and who has a say in all of this, and how (Lockwood et al., 2010). In many cases, land and water degradation occur as a result of deficiencies in governance arrangements. That is, our societies have been unable to establish effective formal and informal arrangements to make and implement sound decisions. Indeed, in recognising that the current global water crisis is mainly a crisis in governance, Mukherji and Shah (2005) have called for a change in paradigm away from a focus on “groundwater management” towards a more inclusive and holistic focus on “groundwater governance”. “Management”, they argue, can imply expert-driven processes derived from “mathematical model-building exercises” of hydrologists and “the formulation and implementation of groundwater laws” by water managers, whereas the term “governance” takes into account concerns of hydrologists and other experts, along with policy makers, groundwater users and other stakeholders.
Groundwater issues are especially complex for science to address given that causes and effects are particularly difficult to discern with certainty. It is often difficult to link an intervention with observed changes in resource condition, and effective intervention often requires substantial effort over a considerable period of time. Social researchers engaged with similar kinds of challenges have developed processes for implementing adaptive management at regional scales (Allan et al., 2008), and improving evaluation of NRM programs (Curtis et al., 1998). Even where proposed policy and practice reforms are based on solid scientific evidence, such as reducing groundwater allocations for irrigation, they are often contested and have mixed impacts on society. Social researchers are often engaged to assist in assessing the social impacts of such reforms, with some recommending techniques that are empowering and proactive (Howitt, 1989, Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). There are also many examples in NRM where technological solutions have not been widely adopted because they were not socially acceptable (Pannell et al., 2006). Understanding the role of social norms is one strategy that can be used to influence adoption of new practices (Minato et al., 2010).
There are numerous opportunities then for social research to contribute to improved groundwater management and governance. In reviewing the existing literature on social dimensions of groundwater management, our aims were to:
- 1.
Provide an overview of the current literature related to social dimensions of groundwater management.
- 2.
Identify areas where social researchers can contribute to knowledge.
- 3.
Provide a sound foundation for social research within NCGRT’s work, including the identification of worthwhile topics for doctoral and post-doctoral research.
The paper begins with an overview of the search and analytical methods used for the review and an introduction to the five themes subsequently identified. The literature is then briefly reviewed according to those themes to identify knowledge contributions and gaps. We conclude by summarising recommended future directions for social research related to groundwater management.
Section snippets
Literature search and analysis methods
Three steps were used in an iterative, reflective way to identify relevant literature: a literature search; identifying and prioritising the most relevant literature; and organising the literature into themes.
Thematic analysis of groundwater literature
As depicted in Fig. 1, there is a trend from more general themes towards themes more specific to groundwater management in rural agricultural contexts. Theme 1 explores the effect of power and influence on groundwater management, and conflict over the perceived unsustainable use of groundwater. This broad theme provides a strong rationale for social research in groundwater management and thus underpins much of the discussion of the remaining themes. Theme 2 relates to social impact assessment.
Conclusions
Our review of the international literature exploring social dimensions of groundwater management was conducted over 2010–2011, revealing almost 300 peer-reviewed publications deemed as being relevant. These publications were assessed according to the extent they were based on relevant social theory and on original empirical research using established social research methods. Using an iterative process we categorised the literature into five themes: power and influence; social impact assessment;
Acknowledgements
This research was undertaken as part of post-doctoral research fellowship funding provided by the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, a co-funded Centre of Excellence of the Australian Research Council and the National Water Commission.
References (90)
The theory of planned behavior
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
(1991)Contesting expertise: the politics of environmental knowledge in northern Indian groundwater practices
Geoforum
(2008)- et al.
Fate of the Verde: water, environmental conflict, and the politics of scale in Arizona’s central highlands
Geoforum
(2008) Contested H2O: science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile
Geoforum
(2009)- et al.
Trust relationships between fishers and government: new challenges for the co-management arrangements in the Dutch flatfish industry
Mar. Policy
(2011) - et al.
Reflections on the use of Bayesian belief networks for adaptive management
J. Environ. Manage.
(2008) Changing physical and social environment: hydrologic impacts and feedbacks: Introduction to special issue
J. Hydrol.
(2012)- et al.
Vulnerability assessment of groundwater resources: a modelling-based approach to the Mancha Occidental aquifer
Spain. Environ. Model. Software
(2008) - et al.
Transition from karez to tubewell irrigation: development, modernization, and social capital in Balochistan, Pakistan
World Dev.
(2007) - et al.
Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom
Energy Policy
(2006)
Groundwater governance through electricity supply management: assessing an innovative intervention in Gujarat, western India
Agric. Water Manage.
The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital
J. Rural Stud.
From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources: the Kansas experience
J. Hydrol.
Defining the components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses
J. Environ. Manage.
Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies
Energy Policy
Paradoxes of decentralization: water reform and social implications in Mexico
World Dev.
Access to groundwater and agricultural production in China
Agric. Water Manage.
The adaptations of farmers in an era of declining groundwater supplies
South. Rural Sociol.
A comparison of the views of farmers and the nonfarm public regarding resource use the case of Texas groundwater
South. J. Rural Sociol.
Can adaptive management help us embrace the Murray–Darling Basin’s wicked problems?
Adaptive management and watersheds: a social science perspective
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
The journey from safe yield to sustainability
Ground Water
A ladder of citizen participation
J. Am. Inst. Plan.
Rules for the magic pudding: managing Lockyer groundwater
Soc. Altern.
Reclaiming the balance: social and economic assessment – lessons learned after ten years of water reforms in Australia
Australas. J. Environ. Manage.
On the difficulty of managing an invisible resource: farmers’ strategies and perceptions of groundwater use, field evidence from Morocco
Irrig. Drain.
Implications of stakeholder constellations for the implementation of irrigation rules at jointly used wells: cases from the North China Plain, China
Soc. Nat. Resour.
Groundwater management and socio-economic responses
Nat. Resour. Forum
Social capital: An interdisciplinary concept
Rural Sociol.
Using local knowledge to improve understanding of groundwater supplies in parts of arid South Australia
GeoJournal
Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation
Environ. Policy Gov.
Groundwater banking in aquifers that interact with surface water: aquifer response functions and double-entry accounting
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
Monitoring and evaluation of watershed initiatives: the experience with Landcare in Australia
Lesson from recent evaluations of natural resource management programs in Australia
Aust. J. Environ. Manage.
Aquifer overexploitation: what does it mean?
Hydrogeol. J.
Determinants of trust and cooperation: case study of self-managed tubewell organizations in North Gujarat
India. Int. J. Rural Manage.
Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory
Spaces of water governance: the case of Israel and its neighbors
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach
Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment
Rural Sociol.
Social impact assessment and resource development: issues from the Australian experience
Aust. Geogr.
Understanding the social construction of environmental concern
Hum. Ecol. Rev.
Cited by (49)
Mental models of sustainable groundwater management among farmers in semi-arid regions of Maharashtra, India
2023, Groundwater for Sustainable DevelopmentRegulating agricultural groundwater use in arid and semi-arid regions of the Global South: Challenges and socio-environmental impacts
2022, Current Opinion in Environmental Science and HealthComing together: Insights from an Australian example of collective action to co-manage groundwater
2022, Journal of HydrologyCitation Excerpt :However, a small, homogenous community, with well-defined boundaries, will not necessarily lead to collective action, as users also need to have the capacity and commitment to sustainably manage their resource (Clark and Brake, 2008). Thus, sustainable NRM can be promoted by building human and social capital (Mitchell et al., 2012). Human capital denotes the individuals’ skills and capabilities (i.e., leadership, personality attributes, social skills, communication skills, intelligence, etc.), whereas social capital represents the networks, social relations and trust that arise between people when interacting, as well as their norms and values (Ostrom and Ahn, 2001).