Elsevier

Journal of Hydrology

Volumes 448–449, 2 July 2012, Pages 223-231
Journal of Hydrology

Directions for social research to underpin improved groundwater management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.056Get rights and content

Summary

Improvements in groundwater management require strategies to change human behaviour, yet there has been limited social research in the broad arena of groundwater management. This paper provides a critical review of the small but expanding literature on that topic to identify future directions for social researchers. Comprehensive search methods identified almost three hundred potentially relevant publications, which were sorted thematically and assessed in terms of their theoretical underpinning and the evidence used to support key findings. This process enabled the authors to identify a small number of high quality publications and to identify future research opportunities. The latter includes analysing how concepts of risk and sustainable yield are constructed differently by stakeholders, especially related to divisive issues concerning coal seam gas developments and reforms that reduce irrigation allocations; how governance arrangements can be improved to achieve more effective collaborative management of groundwater, especially if managed aquifer recharge is to be more widely implemented in rural agricultural contexts; and the role that trust and social norms can play in changing groundwater use practices.

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)

  • T. Shah et al.

    Groundwater governance through electricity supply management: assessing an innovative intervention in Gujarat, western India

    Agric. Water Manage.

    (2008)
  • J. Sobels et al.

    The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital

    J. Rural Stud.

    (2001)
  • M. Sophocleous

    From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources: the Kansas experience

    J. Hydrol.

    (2000)
  • G.J. Syme et al.

    Defining the components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (1999)
  • K. van Alphen et al.

    Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies

    Energy Policy

    (2007)
  • M. Wilder et al.

    Paradoxes of decentralization: water reform and social implications in Mexico

    World Dev.

    (2006)
  • L. Zhang et al.

    Access to groundwater and agricultural production in China

    Agric. Water Manage.

    (2010)
  • D.E. Albrecht

    The adaptations of farmers in an era of declining groundwater supplies

    South. Rural Sociol.

    (1990)
  • D.E. Albrecht

    A comparison of the views of farmers and the nonfarm public regarding resource use the case of Texas groundwater

    South. J. Rural Sociol.

    (1995)
  • C. Allan

    Can adaptive management help us embrace the Murray–Darling Basin’s wicked problems?

  • C. Allan et al.

    Adaptive management and watersheds: a social science perspective

    J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.

    (2008)
  • W.M. Alley et al.

    The journey from safe yield to sustainability

    Ground Water

    (2004)
  • S. Arnstein

    A ladder of citizen participation

    J. Am. Inst. Plan.

    (1969)
  • C. Baldwin

    Rules for the magic pudding: managing Lockyer groundwater

    Soc. Altern.

    (2008)
  • C. Baldwin et al.

    Reclaiming the balance: social and economic assessment – lessons learned after ten years of water reforms in Australia

    Australas. J. Environ. Manage.

    (2009)
  • Y. Bekkar et al.

    On the difficulty of managing an invisible resource: farmers’ strategies and perceptions of groundwater use, field evidence from Morocco

    Irrig. Drain.

    (2009)
  • B. Bluemling et al.

    Implications of stakeholder constellations for the implementation of irrigation rules at jointly used wells: cases from the North China Plain, China

    Soc. Nat. Resour.

    (2010)
  • Brown, V.A., 2008. Leonardo’s Vision: A Guide to Collective Thinking and Action. Sense,...
  • J.J. Burke et al.

    Groundwater management and socio-economic responses

    Nat. Resour. Forum

    (1999)
  • E.N. Castle

    Social capital: An interdisciplinary concept

    Rural Sociol.

    (2002)
  • I. Clark et al.

    Using local knowledge to improve understanding of groundwater supplies in parts of arid South Australia

    GeoJournal

    (2009)
  • K. Collins et al.

    Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation

    Environ. Policy Gov.

    (2009)
  • B.A. Contor

    Groundwater banking in aquifers that interact with surface water: aquifer response functions and double-entry accounting

    J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.

    (2009)
  • A. Curtis

    Monitoring and evaluation of watershed initiatives: the experience with Landcare in Australia

  • A. Curtis et al.

    Lesson from recent evaluations of natural resource management programs in Australia

    Aust. J. Environ. Manage.

    (1998)
  • E. Custodio

    Aquifer overexploitation: what does it mean?

    Hydrogeol. J.

    (2002)
  • H. Diwakara

    Determinants of trust and cooperation: case study of self-managed tubewell organizations in North Gujarat

    India. Int. J. Rural Manage.

    (2006)
  • M. Douglas

    Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory

    (1994)
  • E. Feitelson et al.

    Spaces of water governance: the case of Israel and its neighbors

    Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.

    (2009)
  • R.E. Freeman

    Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach

    (1984)
  • T. Greider et al.

    Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment

    Rural Sociol.

    (1994)
  • Hammani, A., Hartani, T., Kuper, M., Imache, A., 2009. Paving the way for groundwater management: transforming...
  • R. Howitt

    Social impact assessment and resource development: issues from the Australian experience

    Aust. Geogr.

    (1989)
  • Jacquet, J., 2009. Energy Boomtowns and Natural Gas: Implications for Marcellus Shale local Governments and Rural...
  • L. Kalof

    Understanding the social construction of environmental concern

    Hum. Ecol. Rev.

    (1998)
  • Cited by (49)

    • Coming together: Insights from an Australian example of collective action to co-manage groundwater

      2022, Journal of Hydrology
      Citation 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).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text