Irrigation modernization and the efficiency paradox: a meta-study through the lens of Networks of Action Situations

Abstract

Infrastructure and technology investments that increase water-use efficiency (also called modernization investments) have become one of the most preferred solutions to cope with water scarcity in the context of climate change, increase productivity to satisfy growing demand, and save water to maintain ecosystems. In many cases, however, the higher efficiencies have led to more, instead of less, water consumption. This is generally known as the efficiency paradox or rebound effect. Understanding the processes behind the efficiency paradox remains a difficult task, given the variety of variables that either directly or indirectly factor into farmers’ water-use decisions and the strategic nature of many of those. This is even more the case when water is managed collectively by water-user associations, as in many irrigation systems worldwide. In order to better understand this complexity, our study applies the Networks of Action Situations approach to 37 studies of irrigation modernization investments in collectively managed irrigation systems. Through a systematic case review method, we identify 12 different action situations and 192 institutional, physical, and informational linkages that connect them. Although some studies report linkages between the modernization-investment and water-saving decision situations, many others relate them to situations typically associated with the collective management of irrigation systems (like the water application or infrastructure maintenance situations). A number of these situations, also including the water-saving situation, involve collective action problems that need to be integrated in current analyses. The solution towards more water saving may indeed benefit from a more active involvement of irrigation associations, given their proven capacity to promote collective action among farmers vis-à-vis other irrigation management situations.

Understanding the governance of sustainability pathways: hydraulic megaprojects, social–ecological traps, and power in networks of action situations

“…Formally, a network of action situations (NAS) constitutes an array of action situations differing in, e.g., degrees of proximity, function, and the game into which they theoretically fit (McGinnis 2011a;Kimmich 2013). More generally, four types of links across the NAS can be distinguished (Kimmich 2013;Hoffmann and Villamayor-Tomas 2022 this issue): biophysical transactions; information; institutions; and actors involved. The application of the NAS approach involves two initial steps: (1) the definition of a "focal action situation" (FAS) and the "adjacent action situations" affecting it; (2) the identification of the strategic games that might be at play, thus helping to unravel the foundational structure of dilemmas, conflicts, or coordination problems (Kimmich and Villamayor-Tomás 2019).…”

Sustainability and modernization of agricultural irrigation: A comparative assessment of two irrigation schemes

“…Thus, technology and infrastructure investments (modernization) in irrigation that increase IE have been among the most important priorities in combating water scarcity and climate change, increasing water productivity and saving water to maintain ecosystems. However, the connection between water saving and modernization is not as simple as stated (Hoffmann & Villamayor-Tomas, 2022).…”

Networks of action situations in social–ecological systems: current approaches and potential futures

“…It is also important not to delimit boundaries of an NAS too strictly, as more distant ASs can significantly impact on a case (Ortiz-Riomalo et al 2022). While standardized approaches certainly help to diagnose potentially cross-cutting features of cases (Unnikrishnan et al 2023), they can imply omission of particularities of cases, when not going beyond standardized conceptions, because NAS can vary greatly between cases (Hoffmann and Villamayor-Tomas 2022). Ultimately, solutions to sustainability problems may become even less simple when the NAS approach uncovers the complexities of cases.…”

“…An archetypal NAS could be the integration of sectorspecific governance approaches (Warbroek et al 2022), for example. There also appears some promise in identifying archetypal NAS even when NAS tend to be different across cases of a similar issue area such as irrigation modernization (Hoffmann and Villamayor-Tomas 2022). NAS archetype development can also build on experiences with situation archetypes.…”