Place for sociohydrology in sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture: Review and ways forward

Abstract

Given the increasing demand for high-quality food and protein, global food security remains a challenge, particularly in the face of global change. However, since agriculture, food and water security are inextricably linked, they need to be examined via an interdisciplinary lens. Sociohydrology was introduced from a post-positivist perspective to explore and describe the bidirectional feedbacks and dynamics between human and water systems. This review situates sociohydrology in the agricultural domain, highlighting its contributions in explaining the unintended consequences of water management interventions, addressing climate change impacts due to/on agriculture and incorporating human behaviour into the description of agricultural water systems. Sociohydrology has combined social and psychological insights with novel data sources and diverse multi-method approaches to model human behaviour. However, as agriculture and agriculturalists face global change, sociohydrology can better use concepts from resilience thinking more explicitly to identify gaps in terms of desirable properties in resilient agricultural water systems, potentially informing more holistic climate adaptation policy.

Review article: Drought as a continuum: memory effects in interlinked hydrological, ecological, and social systems

“…Similarly, groundwater depletion should be analysed using approaches that include the complexity of hydro-social interactions over time (Schipanski et al, 2023). Also studies on maladaptation to drought should take into account the interactions and feedback within the hydro-eco-social system (Adla et al, 2023). Furthermore, we advocate for more collaboration between climate scientists and ecologists (Mahecha et al, 2022).…”

Unraveling the phenomenon of supply-demand feedback in agricultural water interventions

“…Examples include an increase in water use as farmers adopt more efficient irrigation methods to intensify production 7,9 . Of particular concern is the phenomenon of supply-demand feedback where demand rises following increased water availability or perception thereof 8,10,11 . This is because a significant portion of AWM interventions pertain to the supply side, such as the construction of small storages and groundwater recharge interventions 5 .…”

“…However, there is a risk that poor implementation of the interventions may lead to unintended consequences leading to inequitable and unsustainable outcomes 7,8 . Examples include an increase in water use as farmers adopt more efficient irrigation methods to intensify production 7,9 .…”

“…Additionally, the distribution of benefits (or losses from unintended consequences) may not be equitable 7 with benefits of water harvesting, and groundwater recharge concentrated in nearby farms in low-lying areas 11 and among the influential, wealthier farmers who have the financial capacity to invest in irrigation infrastructure 7,13 . These unintended consequences arise from bidirectional feedbacks and dynamics between human and water systems 8,14 . These are often not the focus of hydrological models used to simulate and assess the impacts of agricultural water interventions 7,8,14 .…”

“…These unintended consequences arise from bidirectional feedbacks and dynamics between human and water systems 8,14 . These are often not the focus of hydrological models used to simulate and assess the impacts of agricultural water interventions 7,8,14 . Often elements of human systems (e.g., crops, adoption of interventions) are prescribed as boundary conditions.…”