Cross-scale interactions of socio-hydrological subsystems: examining the frontier of common pool resource governance in Arizona

Abstract

A critical frontier of water management in the western US is the challenge of cross-scale interactions. It is difficult to establish clear governance boundaries and collectively act when basins are interconnected, surface water and groundwater flows are interrelated, and urban and rural water demands are increasingly affected by regional and international telecoupling. Changing climate, snowpack, and rainfall, peri-urbanization, and shifting economics of rural landscapes further increase sustainable governance challenges. Using a lens of cross-scale interactions drawn from the social-ecological literature, we develop a set of conceptual frames for socio-hydrology that highlight:(1) spatial and temporal mismatches, (2) telecoupled flows, and (3) networked and nested systems. Using the exemplary case of Central Arizona, we explore nesting of the system within the larger western sociohydrological system (SHS), impacts of changing Colorado River policies, such as the Drought Contingency Plan, and emerging institutional arrangements between the State of Arizona, agricultural communities, and Tribal Nations. We conclude with a set of questions that inform analyses of crossscale, multi-level governance within social-ecological systems. Without grappling with the dynamics and interconnectedness of SHSs, we cannot sustainably manage water in an increasingly arid West.

A Systematic Review of Spatial-Temporal Scale Issues in Sociohydrology

“…A socio-behavioral measure considered to have greater top-down determination is policy preference, choice, action, or intention. In fact, 21% of the studies included variables representing a socio-behavioral dimension including policies or a policy (Liu et al, 2015;Srinivasan, 2015;Di Baldassarre et al, 2016;Garcia and You, 2016;Giuliani et al, 2016;Grames et al, 2016;Bakarji et al, 2017;Farjad et al, 2017;Gonzales and Ajami, 2017;Haeffner et al, 2017;Han et al, 2017;Khan et al, 2017;Kotir et al, 2017;Noël and Cai, 2017;Re et al, 2017;Sanderson et al, 2017;Essenfelder et al, 2018;Keys and Wang-Erlandsson, 2018;Robinne et al, 2018;Abebe et al, 2019a,b;York et al, 2019;Bradford et al, 2020;Du et al, 2020;Wilfong and Pavao-Zuckerman, 2020;Bou Nassar et al, 2021;Hanus, 2021;Oneda and Barros, 2021;Savelli et al, 2021;ZamanZad-Ghavidel et al, 2021).…”

To which extent are socio-hydrology studies truly integrative? The case of natural hazards and disaster research

“…Therefore, recognizing the interactions across scales is fundamental for improving future projections, particularly in systems dominated by changing social dynamics (Srinivasan et al, 2017;York et al, 2019). Although no cross-scale studies were identified in our review, cross-scale analyses exist for applications other than natural hazards, including water resources management (York et al, 2019). We observed an overreliance on local case studies that ignore broad socio-political contexts, and vice versa.…”

“…This is required as the dynamic interactions between natural hazards and society share nonlinear behaviours that are driven by forces interacting across spatial and temporal scales (Adger et al, 2005;Birkmann and von Teichman, 2010;Nelson et al, 2006;Peters et al, 2004;Räsänen, 2021;Vanelli and Kobiyama, 2021). Therefore, recognizing the interactions across scales is fundamental for improving future projections, particularly in systems dominated by changing social dynamics (Srinivasan et al, 2017;York et al, 2019). Although no cross-scale studies were identified in our review, cross-scale analyses exist for applications other than natural hazards, including water resources management (York et al, 2019).…”

Salience, Credibility and Legitimacy in a Rapidly Shifting World of Knowledge and Action

“…Each of the above cases shows a deepening grasp by scientists and decision-makers that understanding cross-scale interactions are critical to both comprehending complex socio-ecological systems and to crafting solutions to such problems [23,24]. This is not a new insight and, indeed, some of the earliest theories of managing the commons acknowledged the impact of the interaction of higher jurisdictions (such as national governments or international bodies like the United Nations) on the provision of collective public goods through the actions of individuals and households [25,26].…”