Search

We convened a workshop to enable scientists who study water systems from both social science and physical science perspectives to develop a shared language. This shared language is necessary to bridge a divide between these disciplines’ different conceptual frameworks. As a result of this workshop, we argue that we should view socio-hydrological systems as structurally co-constituted of social, engineered, and natural elements and study the “characteristic management challenges” that emerge from this structure and reoccur across time, space, and socioeconomic contexts. This approach is in contrast to theories that view these systems as separately conceptualized natural and social domains connected by bi-directional feedbacks, as is prevalent in much of the water systems research arising from the physical sciences. A focus on emergent characteristic management challenges encourages us to go beyond searching for evidence of feedbacks and instead ask questions such as: What types of innovations have successfully been used to address these challenges? What structural components of the system affect its resilience to hydrological events and through what mechanisms? Are there differences between successful and unsuccessful strategies to solve one of the characteristic management challenges? If so, how are these differences affected by institutional structure and ecological and economic contexts? To answer these questions, social processes must now take center stage in the study and practice of water management. We also argue that water systems are an important class of coupled systems with relevance for sustainability science because they are particularly amenable to the kinds of systematic comparisons that allow knowledge to accumulate. Indeed, the characteristic management challenges we identify are few in number and recur over most of human history and in most geographical locations. This recurrence should allow us to accumulate knowledge to answer the above questions

Anthropological fieldwork conducted in two North Indian villages focused on cultural differences attributable to recent irrigation development. The study of introduced irrigation systems is distinguished from studies of traditional irrigation systems. The varieties of impacts due to irrigation development are reviewed from the literature and hypotheses formulated relating to economic change (cropping patterns, labor demand, profitability), socio-economic behavior (occupations, patron-client relations, household composition), and cultural values (modernization and traditionalization). The methodology of controlled comparison was adopted as a means of isolating the effects of canal irrigation (Bhakra canal) in the Bagar region of Northwest India. A mostly unirrigated village served as a control to measure the effects of irrigation in a "wet" village. Data on agricultural practices, labor use, occupations, household composition, and material culture were collected from a systematic sample of 40 households in each village. The primary irrigation effects have been economic: higher yields, new crops (wheat and cotton), and much higher profits. Labor demand is much higher in the irrigated village, though cropping intensity is actually lower. Residents of the drier village have diversified into non-farm work both within and outside the village. A few families have migrated out, in contrast to the wet village which has experienced a dramatic rise in population, largely from immigrants. Sociocultural measures, including jajmani relations, household composition, and religious shrines show relatively few contrasts between the villages. Both villages have undergone significant changes in the past generation, in one case due primarily to agricultural intensification, and in the other case due to economic diversification. The villages are more remarkable for their present similarities than their differences.

We convened a workshop to enable scientists who study water systems from both social science and physical science perspectives to develop a shared language. This shared language is necessary to bridge a divide between these disciplines’ different conceptual frameworks. As a result of this workshop, we argue that we should view socio-hydrological systems as structurally co-constituted of social, engineered, and natural elements and study the “characteristic management challenges” that emerge from this structure and reoccur across time, space, and socioeconomic contexts. This approach is in contrast to theories that view these systems as separately conceptualized natural and social domains connected by bi-directional feedbacks, as is prevalent in much of the water systems research arising from the physical sciences. A focus on emergent characteristic management challenges encourages us to go beyond searching for evidence of feedbacks and instead ask questions such as: What types of innovations have successfully been used to address these challenges? What structural components of the system affect its resilience to hydrological events and through what mechanisms? Are there differences between successful and unsuccessful strategies to solve one of the characteristic management challenges? If so, how are these differences affected by institutional structure and ecological and economic contexts? To answer these questions, social processes must now take center stage in the study and practice of water management. We also argue that water systems are an important class of coupled systems with relevance for sustainability science because they are particularly amenable to the kinds of systematic comparisons that allow knowledge to accumulate. Indeed, the characteristic management challenges we identify are few in number and recur over most of human history and in most geographical locations. This recurrence should allow us to accumulate knowledge to answer the above questions