Evolving connections, discourses and identities in rural–urban water struggles

Hydrosocial hinterlands: An urban political ecology of Southern California’s hydrosocial territory

“…The huge variation in socio-ecological conditions, power dynamics, and urban-rural relationships described in the three case studies in this paper illustrates the importance of using theoretical and empirical tools that are attentive to place-based difference and nuance. Third, I argue here that the concept of hydrosocial territories provides a way to think beyond the limits of place-bound city/countryside dichotomies by emphasizing how resource flows can shape relationships at multiple scales, including transcending ruralurban divides (Boelens et al, 2016;Hommes and Boelens, 2017;Hommes et al, 2019aHommes et al, , 2019b). An emphasis on territorial dimensions stresses the ways in which multidirectional processes of urban metabolism are "rooted" in specific, actually-existing places (Cantor et al, 2018b;Rocheleau, 2015;Rocheleau and Roth, 2007) in a diversity of forms.…”

“…Cantor et al, 2018b;Rocheleau, 2016;Rocheleau and Roth, 2007), but territories that are simultaneously produced and (re)created through interactions amongst a variety of actors across multiple scales. The concept of hydrosocial territories has been usefully applied to explore ruralurban water relationships in particular (Hommes and Boelens, 2017;Hommes et al, 2019aHommes et al, , 2019b. Because water infrastructure so often reaches beyond city bounds, water frequently links urban and rural places, providing a useful illustration of how urbanization processes stretch beyond the city.…”

“…Recent literature has used the term "hydrosocial territories" (Boelens et al, 2016) to emphasize spatial dimensions of hydrosocial relationships: the processes through which socio-ecological spaces are made at multiple scales through interactions and material flows of water. By focusing on the diverse spatial configurations and relationships created through the metabolic flows of a particular resource, the concept provides a useful model for demonstrating how UPE can move beyond city borders (Hommes et al, 2019a(Hommes et al, , 2019b.…”

Resistance to hydropower developments in contexts of violence and organised crime in Mexico

“…Thus, bringing together micropolitical ecology with theories of resistance, opens avenues for understanding and unravelling resistance to global development projects in narco-environments -where, because of the explosive mix of violent actors, acts of resistance might become less predictable -looking at the interactions between different forms of resistance, the different actors, resistance strategies and where the resistance takes place (Rasch & Köhne 2016). It also allows for a deeper understanding of actual practices of participation and resistance (Singto, Fleskens & Vos 2018) and the complexities of (local water) governance (Hommes et al 2019), including the sometimes less predictable ways in which, and reasons why, individuals create alliances as a way of engaging in resistance (Lohman 1995). In doing so, we not only add violence and illegality as disruptive and unpredictable elements that inform and produce new forms of resistance in micropolitics.…”

“…Resistance towards such developments has been widely documented by scholars for different parts of Latin America: Hidalgo-Bastidas and Boelens (2018) on Ecuador, Walker and Simmons (2018) on Brazil, and Aguilar-Støen and Hirsch on Guatemala (2017), among others. From this strand of literature, it becomes clear that resistance against hydropower is mostly not only about the negative consequences of such projects, but also about the participation in decision-making processes and power (see also Hommes et al 2019).…”