Currents of Change: How Culture Shapes Water-based Livelihood Adaptation

The Centrality of Water in Adapting to Social-Ecological Change

Rural livelihoods and the water systems on which they depend are facing increasing stress and uncertainty from compounding social-ecological changes (Foley et al. 2005, Vörösmarty et al. 2010, Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2016). In response, flexible and resilient governance systems are needed to support adaptation to these complex changes. Adaptive water governance (AWG) has emerged as a promising approach, creating the conditions for water systems and communities to respond to uncertainty and address the interactions between biophysical resources and social institutions (Huitema et al. 2009, Rijke et al. 2012).

AWG draws on the principles of adaptive governance, defined as a flexible, learning-based approach to ecosystem management based on multi-scalar collaboration between diverse networks of institutions (Akamani 2016). Collaboration, public participation, and social learning are key components of AWG, as they allow water governance to be responsive to the unique social-ecological contexts in which adaptation occurs (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper 2014).

Household adaptive capacity is shaped in part by the governance structures found in the multi-scalar landscape in which adaptation takes place (Ivey et al. 2004, Elrick-Barr et al. 2014, Lockwood et al. 2015, Burnham and Ma 2018). AWG provides opportunities to integrate water users’ diverse values and perspectives into management decisions, and their trust in other water users, water institutions, and access to public participation in governance can all support their adaptive capacity (McCord et al. 2018).

Yet, while there is substantial research on water governance and household adaptation separately, little work has examined the linkages between these two critical elements (McCord et al. 2018). This article aims to:

1. Better understand the role of socioeconomic, demographic, and social influence factors in shaping water users’ adaptation strategies.
2. Inform the incorporation of social influence considerations in AWG to support household adaptation to social-ecological change.

Adapting to a Changing Landscape in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

We conducted our research in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan, where the Swat and Kabul rivers supply water for irrigation, fishing, aquaculture, domestic use, hydropower, and tourism. However, urbanization, industrialization, and agricultural intensification have increased pollutants in these water systems (Ullah et al. 2013). Climate change is also projected to increasingly stress Pakistan’s water supply due to changes in precipitation and glacier behavior (Hussain and Mumtaz 2014).

The region has also experienced significant social-ecological disruptions, including armed conflict that displaced 2 million people in 2008 and a devastating flood in 2010 that destroyed infrastructure (DDMU 2015). Yet, the area has seen recent development and rehabilitation, including a revitalization of the tourism industry, with an estimated 4.45 million tourists visiting the Swat Valley in 2018 (World Bank 2019).

Water governance in Pakistan is guided by national policies, with provincial irrigation and drainage authorities, area water boards, farmers’ organizations, and water user associations responsible for managing irrigation water. Domestic water is managed by public health engineering departments and municipal authorities, though some communities self-provision their own water supply. NGOs also play a role in installing water infrastructure and facilitating local governance.

However, there are concerns that the current water governance system hinders communities’ ability to adapt to the complex changes in the region. Conflicts across spatial scales and sectors, as well as an inability to respond to water availability changes, suggest a need for the flexible and collaborative structures of AWG to support resilience and household adaptive capacity (Yang et al. 2014).

Examining Adaptation Decisions through a Social-Ecological Lens

To better understand the drivers of household adaptation in KP, we conducted an in-person survey of 448 self-identified household heads across three communities: Madyan and Landakay in Swat District, and Jehangira in Nowshera District. These communities were selected to represent the diverse livelihood strategies associated with the Swat and Kabul river ecosystems, including irrigated agriculture, wild catch and aquaculture fisheries, and tourism.

We asked respondents about their household demographics, livelihood strategies, water management, perceived social-ecological changes, and the adaptation strategies they had adopted in the past 10 years. This time period was chosen to capture changes associated with the 2010 flood and allow respondents to use that significant event as a reference point.

The survey included 17 potential adaptation strategies, ranging from changing agricultural inputs and water supply to decreased time fishing and migration. We focused our analysis on the five strategies reported by at least 10% of respondents: increasing agricultural inputs, migrating, decreasing time fishing, changing domestic water supply, and changing crop varieties.

We then used binomial logistic regression models to examine how socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, perceptions of social-ecological changes, and perceived barriers to adaptation shaped household decisions to employ these five strategies.

Navigating Multiple Stressors: Household Adaptation in KP

Our survey results provide insights into the complex social-ecological landscape shaping household adaptation in KP. Nearly all respondents reported decreases in river water quality (95%) and increases in solid waste in the waterways (90-93%). The majority also observed declines in fish numbers (89%) and size (78%), reflecting the strain on the region’s aquatic ecosystems.

Respondents also reported changes related to the revitalization of tourism, with 47-50% observing increases in tourists, hotels, and restaurants. Agricultural yields were perceived to be decreasing by 36% of respondents, while groundwater quality (31%) and quantity (37%) were also seen as declining, along with domestic water quantity (37%) and quality (46%).

In response to these diverse social-ecological changes, households employed a range of adaptation strategies. The most commonly reported were increasing agricultural inputs (35%) and having a household member migrate for work (30%). Other strategies included decreasing time spent fishing (21%), changing domestic water supply (12%), and changing crop varieties (10%).

Socioeconomic Factors and Adaptive Capacity

Our regression models revealed that household income and cattle ownership were the only socioeconomic variables that significantly predicted the adoption of certain adaptation strategies. Households with an annual income over 30,000 PKR were three times more likely to engage in migration compared to lower-income households. Additionally, each additional head of cattle owned by a household was associated with a 42% increase in the odds of changing crop varieties and a 62% increase in the odds of increasing agricultural inputs.

These findings align with previous research showing that financial capital, including livestock, supports households’ ability to invest in and recover from adaptation actions (Bryan et al. 2009, Deressa et al. 2009, Below et al. 2012). Households with more economic resources may feel less risk or be better able to take on the upfront costs associated with strategies like migration or agricultural improvements.

However, other socioeconomic factors like age, education, and household size were not significant predictors of adaptation in our models. This may be due to contextual factors, such as the legacy of conflict and instability limiting variation in educational attainment, or the importance of social influence outweighing individual socioeconomic characteristics in shaping adaptation decisions.

The Influential Role of Social Perceptions

In addition to socioeconomic drivers, our results highlight the significant influence of how water users perceive social-ecological changes and the barriers to adaptation. Perceiving changes in the agricultural system, such as decreases in water supply and crop yields, was positively associated with households increasing their agricultural inputs. This suggests that when water users directly observe threats to their production, they are more motivated to adapt, even if those adaptations have significant economic costs.

However, perceiving changes in other social-ecological factors, like water quality and quantity, did not always translate into adaptation actions. This confirms previous research showing that awareness of environmental changes does not necessarily lead to adaptation, as other factors like access to resources and information can constrain households’ capacity to adapt (Bryan et al. 2009, Fosu-Mensah et al. 2012).

Importantly, our models also revealed that perceptions of barriers to adaptation, both economic and social, played a significant role in shaping household decisions. Perceiving financial, time, and labor constraints as barriers was positively associated with adopting strategies like changing domestic water supply, increasing agricultural inputs, and migration. This suggests that even when adaptations are costly, water users may still pursue them if the perceived benefits outweigh the barriers.

Beyond economic factors, we found that social influence from different groups also shaped adaptation decisions. Respondents were more likely to adapt in ways that went against the opinions of community leaders and friends, but less likely to adapt if it conflicted with their family members’ views. This aligns with research showing that the degree of social influence varies based on the strength of group identification (Abrahamse and Steg 2013, Fielding et al. 2008).

In our context, the strong influence of family members’ opinions likely reflects the cultural importance of kinship ties in shaping decision-making in northwestern Pakistan (Ahmed 1980, 2004, Lindholm 1982). Governance approaches that fail to account for these informal, socially-embedded institutions may struggle to effectively support household adaptation.

Implications for Adaptive Water Governance

The complex, multifaceted drivers of household adaptation revealed in our research highlight the need for AWG approaches that are responsive to the unique social-ecological contexts in which adaptation occurs. Several key insights emerge:

1. Beyond Water: Recognizing the Multidimensional Nature of Adaptation: Our findings show that households adapt to a range of social-ecological changes, not just those directly related to water. Effective AWG must therefore adopt a cross-sectoral perspective, coordinating with institutions beyond the water sector to holistically address the factors shaping adaptation decisions.

2. Aligning Governance with Social Influence: The strong influence of family opinions on adaptation choices indicates the importance of aligning governance structures with existing informal institutions and decision-making processes. AWG should consider how to incorporate trusted local leaders and leverage social networks to support adaptation.

3. Addressing Barriers, Not Just Awareness: While improving water users’ awareness of environmental changes is important, our research suggests that addressing economic, time, and labor barriers may be just as crucial for catalyzing adaptation. AWG should work to remove these barriers and provide the resources households need to adapt.

4. Adaptive Capacity through Diverse Capital: The positive relationship between household income, cattle ownership, and adaptation highlights the importance of supporting the development of diverse forms of capital (financial, physical, social, etc.) to strengthen adaptive capacity. AWG can play a role in facilitating access to these resources.

By embracing the complexity of household adaptation and aligning governance structures with the social-ecological realities water users face, AWG can more effectively support resilient livelihoods in the face of compounding changes. This nuanced, contextually-grounded approach is essential for navigating the “currents of change” in water-dependent communities like those in KP.

Conclusion: Charting a Course for Adaptive Water Governance

The findings from our research in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan underscore the importance of understanding the social, economic, and cultural factors that shape household adaptation to social-ecological change. As water systems and rural livelihoods face mounting pressures, adaptive water governance will be crucial for supporting resilience.

By examining the diverse drivers of adaptation decisions, from socioeconomic characteristics to social influence and perceptions of barriers, this study provides valuable insights to inform the development of AWG approaches that are responsive to the complex realities of water users. Integrating these insights can help AWG better align with the informal institutions and decision-making processes that already guide household adaptations in water-dependent communities.

Ultimately, the “currents of change” facing rural livelihoods require governance systems that can navigate the nuanced, multidimensional nature of adaptation. By embracing this complexity, AWG can chart a course towards more resilient, equitable, and sustainable water management that supports the diversity of household strategies for adapting to social-ecological transformation.