Socio-hydrology with hydrosocial theory: two sides of the same coin?

Abstract

This paper reviews socio-hydrology and hydrosocial research, finding a sophisticated relationship with emergent syntheses. We examined 419 papers by topic, region of study, theories implemented, journal, and year published to ascertain trends in both subfields. We found important overlap and considerable difference between subfields. Whereas hydrosocial research took years to develop, socio-hydrology commenced with an inaugural paper in 2012. While the former focuses on power and scale in studying water demand, the latter concentrates on practical responses to climate extremes. Hydrosocial research usually relies on qualitative methods, and socio-hydrology research the quantitative. In the geographic regions where the former does not focus, the latter does. The former often relies on post-structuralist theory, whereas the latter uses positivist approaches. Our review concludes that socio-hydrology and hydrosocial research exist in a complex epistemological relationship, offering fertile grounds for lively discussions from which both will continue to benefit.

Contractual Reciprocity and the Re-Making of Community Hydrosocial Territories: The Case of La Chimba in the Ecuadorian páramos

“…Therefore, as socio-natural networks interrelated by water flows (imagined, designed, and/or materialised), hydrosocial territories present functions, values, and meanings that define processes of inclusion and exclusion, as well as the distribution of benefits and disadvantages that affect different groups in a specific geographic space [10,25]. Hence, it is essential to understand how (i.e., through what strategies and by virtue of what interests) the 'natural' and 'social' constituting elements and borders of the community hydrosocial territories are (re)created, especially since these community hydrosocial territories throughout much of the Andes occupy a geographic space where access to water and other related resources is the basis for maintaining the livelihoods of indigenous peasant economies [26][27][28][29][30].We work from a political ecology or hydro-social perspective rather than a socio-hydrological one (for a discussion, see [31][32][33][34]), because we want to show water and social power relations in a transdisciplinary approach; how hegemonic actors' development and conservations (re)territorialisation projects are not neutral nor objective in these indigenous community territories.…”

Neoliberal commensuration and new enclosures of the commons: mining and market–environmentalism governmentalities

“…As will be shown below, the Santurbán páramo is a disputed 'hydrosocial territory' (Boelens et al, 2016) which is defined by clashes among different actors' conflicting imaginaries and their strategies to materialize their wished for socio-environmental, multi-scale spatial network. In configuring hydrosocial territories, humans, water flows, technology, financial resources, institutions, legal and economic agreements, and cultural practices are defined, aligned and mobilized by diverse (often opposing) actors who strategize political-economic hierarchies, their knowledge repertoires, and discursive regimes and practices (Duarte-Abadía et al, 2015;Hoogendam & Boelens, 2019;Hoogesteger et al, 2016;Ross & Chang, 2020). To construct the hydrosocial territories they desire, dominant actor alliances mobilize powerful imaginaries (Swyngedouw & Boelens, 2018;Zenko & Menga, 2019), seeking to impose regimes of truth to order the socio-natural relations, materially and discursively (Duarte-Abadía & Boelens, 2019;Hidalgo et al, 2018;Hommes & Boelens, 2017Marks, 2019).…”

Flooding Hazard and Vulnerability. An Interdisciplinary Experimental Approach for the Study of the 2016 West Virginia Floods

“…By the same token, SH studies attempt to quantitatively represent human-water interactions through dynamic models and differential equations, over-generalizing and often leaving out contextual and cultural dimensions of human-environment interactions (Di Baldassarre et al, 2013;Ross and Chang, 2020). This approach runs the additional risk of limiting the understanding of water problems as purely natural, depoliticizing and demoting them outside public discourse and policy-making (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014).…”