1 Introduction

Access to clean and healthy freshwater is a human right and requires sustainable resource management. However, freshwater is a scarce resource and a growing proportion of the human population experiences water stress (Boretti, A., & Rosa, L. 20. Despite that, global water use is increasing and the global water demand is expected to continue to increase during the next decades (Boretti, A., & Rosa, L. 2019). Freshwater makes up only a fraction, approximately 0.01%, of the world’s water reserves and is unevenly distributed on a global scale. The challenges, therefore, are multifaceted and often related to regional conditions. Water vulnerability is not only measured by abstraction rates but also by management regimes, regulations and purification techniques, which all affect water sustainability.

Climate change leads to more extreme weather such as both heavy rain and drought. Islands are especially exposed since they have a limited surface area. A changing climate is also expected to lead to raised sea levels, and these will determine the future of islands situated in oceans. For islands with a sensitive water situation, raised sea levels lead to an increased risk of seawater intrusion in groundwater aquifers, placing further strain on the water resources (McNutt, 2013; Neset et al., 2019a; Borrelli et al., 2020; Hristov et al., 2020).

There is increasing public awareness that climate change is a major challenge of today. The level of knowledge, however, is fragmented. The level of knowledge regarding ‘causes’ is greater than knowledge of the potential ‘effects’ (Hofmann et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2016). But local knowledge can also be an important path to understanding climate change impacts on a local and regional scale (Reyes-García et al., 2015). The need for information campaigns to increase knowledge and thereby give incentives for mitigating actions is also evident (Hofmann et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2016). In a study on sustainable water use and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) among global companies, Lambooy (2011) showed that both awareness and sense of responsibility were increasing among water-consuming companies.

It is important to stress, however, that simply focussing on increasing public knowledge and awareness as a single factor to raise climate change concerns is not enough (Shi et al., 2016), since awareness and knowledge do not automatically induce behavioural change. Legislation and the level of governance are important to secure water resources. Legal repercussions, as well as incentives, tend to be important tools to prevent over abstraction. There are significant differences regarding legislation between countries, which give water consuming companies a greater responsibility in ‘weak governance regions’ (Lambooy, 2011). Both companies and individual consumers, however, tend to regard governments and politicians as responsible for actions to mitigate climate change. Governments have the agency and authority to act while individuals and individual companies do not (Stoddart et al., 2012; Mo Jang, 2013; Bouman et al., 2020).

Modern day tourism development in attractive areas is an additional stress factor on water reserves, especially in coastal or island destinations, where the peak seasons for tourism and farming often coincide with the dry summer season. Both farming and tourism are water-intensive activities (Gössling et al., 2012; Cole, 2014). In many island destinations, freshwater demand and water consumption accelerate as a result of increasing volumes of incoming tourists in addition to rural restructuring, farmland expansion and livestock changes. The capacity to cope with low amounts of precipitation for long continuous periods is becoming increasingly challenging.

This competition between key industries may lead to a situation where responsibility is disowned and passed on between the different groups/industries. Several studies have shown that individual groups tend to pass on blame to others and thereby fail to acknowledge the group’s own liability (Jamieson, 2010; Schneider, 2014; Bache et al., 2015).

There is a lack of research on perspectives and implications of water scarcity for tourism and farming from a Scandinavian perspective (Neset et al., 2019b). With a changing climate, there is a need to map; how the two industries have adapted to water shortages, their level of knowledge, their view on who is responsible, and their mitigation measures. This knowledge can be used to achieve a transition to sustainable management of water bodies and catchment areas.

1.1 Aim

The aim of this paper was to survey sectoral adaptation to water shortage in tourism and farming companies by comparing awareness and knowledge, perception of responsibility and mitigation measures.

1.2 Research questions

  1. 1

    To what extent are actors in the tourism and farming industries aware of and do they have knowledge of the current situation and freshwater scarcity?

  2. 2

    How do tourism and farming representatives perceive their own responsibility towards freshwater use and scarcity?

  3. 3

    How do tourism and farming representatives perceive their own behaviour and the behaviour of other groups?

  4. 4

    To what extent have the tourism and farming industries taken measures to mitigate the impact of or adapt to situations of water scarcity?

2 Method

2.1 Study area

Also in a country such as Sweden, that has limited experience of drought on a national level, recent years have strained the water resources in exposed areas (Lindqvist et al., 2021). Öland and Gotland are the two largest islands in Sweden, located off the south-east coast, in the Baltic Sea (see Fig. 1). These islands are interesting since their water resources are under strain from several sources (Eriksson et al., 2018; Sjöstrand et al., 2019; Speckhahn & Isgren, 2019).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The islands of Öland and Gotland in Sweden and their main camping areas and agricultural areas

Full size image

Both Öland and Gotland have a limited amount of precipitation due to their location in south-east Sweden. The precipitation mean is 500 mm for Öland and 600 mm for Gotland, which is relatively low compared to south-west Sweden with a mean of about 1000 mm. The combination of location and varying soil conditions makes the island aquifers vulnerable.

Tourism and farming both hold an important position in the livelihood systems of these islands (see Table 1). The water resources on the two islands are scarce, which is especially troubling since these two most important industries compete for them. During the summer in particular, the islands have to sustain a large number of tourists while the dairy farmers’ demand for water is constantly high. During the past five years, groundwater levels for both Öland and Gotland have been below the normal reference value, placing a strain on both industries, in particular as the summers of 2016 and 2018 were unusually dry. Measurements by the Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU) show a fluctuation in groundwater recharge due to a lack of precipitation in Sweden at an interval of twenty years. Significant water scarcity events occurred in 1976–1977, 1996–1997 and 2016–2017 (Geological Survey of Sweden, 2021).

Table 1 Comparison of the islands of Öland and Gotland in Sweden
Full size table

Scarcity of freshwater and limited access to water is therefore not a new phenomenon. The capacity and accessibility of freshwater reserves have historically had a significant effect on farming, land use and human actions and culture. Meteorological cycles of drought have affected societies, land use and human actions leading to displacement and forced migration. Water scarcity and droughts have also been experienced on these two islands. Over the last centuries, periods of drought caused numerous farmers from Öland and Gotland to emigrate to North America and the remaining inhabitants to adapt by building irrigation ponds and multiple wells on each farmstead. In the 19th century, wetlands were systematically drained and lakes lowered to gain agricultural areas and this has led to lowered groundwater levels on both Öland and Gotland (Jacks, 2019; Speckhahn & Isgren, 2019). At the present time, the municipalities on Öland have the lowest number of lakes and permanent water bodies in Sweden. The freshwater conditions on Gotland are somewhat better than on Öland; however, Gotland is more remote, which limits the options for efficient freshwater distribution from the mainland.

Due to the long tradition of farming on Öland and Gotland, the farmers have extensive experience of recurring drought. Tourism is however, in comparison, a relatively new but important activity for these islands. The increase in tourism consumption have made it a significant export industry both nationally and for Öland and Gotland. A higher proportion of the visitors to Gotland stay at hotels, which leads to a somewhat higher water consumption (hotels vs. camping) (Hadjikakoua et al., 2013), while camping is the dominant form of accommodation on Öland. In 2018 the total number of guest nights on Gotland was over 1 million, and on Öland about 1.4 million (Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional growth, 2019).

2.2 Focus groups

Two different methods were used: focus groups and questionnaires. Focus groups are often used in combination with other methods as a means to provide in-depth perspectives or insights (Krueger, 2009).

Focus groups were conducted in May and September 2017 with three groups representing the regional tourism sector, public organisations (Regional Federation of Kalmar County, The Farmers Association ‘LRF’ and Kalmar Water) and the municipalities on Öland (Mörbylånga and Borgholm). The discussions were recorded fully transcribed and categorised.

The focus groups represented three stakeholder groups: municipalities, tourism stakeholders and public organisations related to water supply and farming/agriculture.

The municipality stakeholders consisted of representatives from the municipalities on Öland, namely Mörbylånga municipality (department for water supply and sewage systems) and Borgholm municipality, energy and freshwater (Borgholm Energi). These representatives and the organisations they represented were directly involved in water management and water supply issues in their daily work. Therefore, they provided managerial perspectives on the issues discussed.

In the second group, public organisations, local representatives came from the Swedish Farmers Association (LRF), Region Kalmar County and Kalmar municipality (Kalmar Water). The stakeholder group provided both an industry perspective on water supply issues, from the farming industry, and insights from a regional perspective.

The tourism stakeholder group comprised representatives from the tourism industry. Five tourism businesses in the county were represented, among them the largest accommodation company on Öland. These representatives provided perspectives on water scarcity from a service provider perspective, which added complexity to the water management puzzle.

Four major categories were identified for the study based on the main content of the answers:

  1. 1.

    1. Awareness and knowledge.

  2. 2.

    3. Responsibility.

  3. 3.

    2. Behaviour.

  4. 4.

    4. Actions and mitigation measures.

The logical steps leading from awareness to mitigation measures are illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

From awareness to action

Full size image

To elaborate the findings from the focus groups, a questionnaire was sent to tourism and farming companies based on the categories found in the focus groups.

2.3 Questionnaires

The questionnaires consisted of three parts, where the first part comprised background information about the respondent and the company they represented. The second part consisted of questions concerning knowledge and awareness, opinions about water scarcity, drought, and also responsibility and solutions. The third and final part of the questionnaire contained questions about actions and mitigations, behaviour, water management, regulations and responsibility. The final two sections, Parts II and III, provided data that could be divided into the same four categories as those for the focus group discussions, namely: (1) awareness and knowledge, (2) responsibility, (3) behaviour, (4) actions and mitigation measures. The questionnaire is shown in Supplemental Material.

The questionnaire was distributed by post together with envelopes for return post with prepaid stamps. The questionnaire was distributed between November 2016 and September 2017. Tourism and farming companies on Öland received their questionnaires during the winter (November 2016 to March 2017) while farmers on Gotland received theirs in September 2017. This was to avoid high seasons and thus to receive as many responses as possible.

The objective was to cover all firms within the tourism accommodation sector on Öland and Gotland, as well as to cover different tourism sub-sectors (camping, hotels, B&B, hostels etc.), which resulted in 144 questionnaires being sent. A further 392 questionnaires were distributed to farming companies. The total number of returned answers was 130, of which 121 proved valid answers. Of these 121valid answers, 34 were from tourism companies and 87 from farms. For each question, blank and “don’t know” responses were excluded from the analysis when the groups were compared statistically.

GIS (Geographic Information System) tools were used to produce vector maps and descriptive statistics of the research area. The software used was QGIS (previously Quantum GIS).

3 Results

3.1 Questionnaire demographic

In all, there were 121 valid respondents to the questionnaire: 34 from the tourism industry (19 male and 15 female) and 87 from agriculture (74 male and 9 female).

The age distribution in the agricultural sector compared well to the national average for agricultural businesses (Swedish Board of Agriculture 2017). There are no corresponding figures, national averages, for the tourism businesses in Sweden, but the respondents corresponded to the agricultural group in age distribution. In both groups, the proportion of older respondents (+ 65 years) was high (25% and 29% respectively for farming and tourism), and this corresponds to the national average for private business owners in Sweden, who generally retire at a later age than the national average (Anxo et al., 2019).

The gender distribution for tourism companies corresponded well with the national average while for the agricultural companies men were overrepresented among the respondents. The gender distribution among agricultural companies on a national level was 25% women (19% 2014) and 75% men (81% 2014) in crop cultivation, livestock farming and mixed operations (Statistics Sweden, 2016). The corresponding national gender distribution for tourism companies in 2014 was, for the hotel, food and beverage sector 33% women and 67% men, while for culture and personal services it was 68% women and 32% men (Statistics Sweden, 2016).

3.2 Awareness and knowledge

3.2.1 Focus groups

The stakeholder groups were asked about the underlying reasons for water shortages and drought and they discussed the cause and effect internally in each group. The level of awareness among the participants was high.

The municipality representatives were able to incorporate both local and regional, as well as global, climatic variables into their reason. They claimed that there was a regional cyclical pattern to drought that determined the regional climate. According to this group, there was a period of about thirty years between every period of drought, a fact which people living in the region tended to forget. Climate change, however, was expected to place extra strain on the region since it will provide a drier and warmer climate with changing precipitation patterns. The group was able to correctly describe expected future changes in the local climate.

The representatives from public organisations recognised the same variables in their discussion. Both the cyclical pattern and climate change were discussed, as well as the scope and effect of land-use changes from the 1960’s until today. Growing farming units and more livestock along with wetland degradation and increasing groundwater abstraction were important variables. The Federation of Swedish Farmers was also actively informing members in an effort to raise awareness of the crisis.

The discussion in the tourism stakeholder group was, however, more diverse. They too recognised continuous droughts but they were less precise in pin-pointing variables that might be the cause of these droughts. The group argued that the problem was too complex, and that it was hard to know if the droughts were temporary or not. They agreed that the only thing that was certain was that the situation would be different thirty years from now.

When they estimated their level of knowledge as compared to other actors, all stakeholder groups declared that their own level was relatively high but they did not think that was the case among other actors or people in general. Instead, they believed that these issues were too complex and hard to grasp for people in general. They did believe, however, that the level of interest and awareness was increasing.

Awareness was important according to all stakeholder groups. Being aware of and acknowledging the situation was a prerequisite for finding solutions to the problem (see Fig. 2).

3.2.2 Questionnaire

Both tourism companies and farmers were aware of the water scarcity, and on a general level both groups agreed that the water scarcity was not a natural fluctuation and that summers with water scarcity should be expected more frequently in the future.

Even so, the perception of water scarcity differed significantly between tourism companies and farmers. The tourism companies were generally more inclined than the farming companies to view water scarcity as temporary (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.001). There was no difference between the groups’ belief that water scarcity was connected to climate change and no difference in their expectation that water scarcity would be likely to occur repeatedly in the future.

Among the tourism companies, 44% of the respondents felt they had been affected by the water scarcity. Among the farmers, the corresponding figure was 33%.

Responses to the open ended questions in the questionnaire included statements implying that some farmers felt that water shortage was a normal, recurring phenomenon on Öland and Gotland: “No water shortage. Annual variations have occurred for many years. 2017 was not the worst year, several major water shortages have occurred over the past 50 years.” and “Have had no water shortage. I have planned and changed [my activities] before water shortages occur. Most farmers on Gotland experience this “water shortage” as a normal situation and act on the basis that it will be dry. However, the authorities and the region seem to be equally surprised every year!”

A knowledge question was added to the questionnaire to enable us to see if the respondents knew how groundwater was formed. In the question, the respondents were asked to mark during what period of the year groundwater was mainly formed. Of the tourism group, 73% gave the correct answer while the corresponding figure for the agricultural group was 75%.

The perceived effect that water shortages had on the two industries also became clear when asked if the economic losses were greater than the ecological (Fig. 3a) and if the recurring water shortages would have lasting ecological consequences (Fig. 3b). The difference between the groups with regard to the economic losses was significant (Fig. 3a) (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.002).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The perceived effect of water shortages; (a) Economic losses are greater than ecological losses, (b) There are no severe ecological consequences from recurring water shortages

Full size image

Since water scarcity can severely affect a tourism or agricultural company, many of these company owners may worry about water scarcity. When asked if they worried, the farmers expressed less concern about water scarcity than did tourism companies (Mann-Whitney, p = 0,002).

3.3 Responsibility

3.3.1 Focus groups

The responsibility category contained factors that the groups used as explanations for their own responsibility as well as for why other stakeholders were considered to have responsibilities, namely regulations and laws, as well as how to deal with responsibility and water management based on usage and resources. There was a consensus regarding the need for a more holistic approach and increased collaboration. However, they did not agree on whose responsibility it was to initiate and lead that process.

The municipality representatives were clear about their responsibility. They started by referring to the law, which stated what the municipality was obliged to do. However, they also described how they tried to provide a service to as many people as they could. They stated that by law they were only obliged to provide water to their inhabitants, not to campsites or farming units. The municipality group discussed pricing issues. According to them, the price of consuming water was too low. If the price of water was raised they believed that consumption would fall.

The municipality stakeholder and the public organisations groups acknowledged the formal responsibility they had regarding the securing of water supplies, although they emphasised that the tools at their disposal to take action were limited. They motivated their non-action by pointing out that their hands were tied by regulations, or that other actors should play their part in facilitating actions by others. One respondent said:

The regulations are actually too complex. Establishing a water protection area takes forever and there are too many conflicting interests and stakeholders involved. The economic cost of such a process is extensive.

Another discussion centred on their belief that they actually did more than they were obliged to, in many areas. Two respondents discussed the responsibility of municipalities regarding water assurance for tourism enterprises and industry:

The municipalities are not obliged to grant water supply to campsites and industry...

… it is important that the tourism sector does its share, the municipalities try to provide help as far as possible but it’s easier if there is a collaboration.

Another topic among stakeholder groups was related to responsibility in a more general sense. One thing that was frequently discussed was the general increase in water abstraction rates and the liberal regulations regarding private swimming pools. The public organisations group emphasised the inequalities in regulations for private residents and industry, which resulted in inconsistencies in behaviour. Among other things, prohibition increased the administrative burden of reported violations. The consequences in the form of sanctions for perpetrators were not in proportion to the administrative costs. The public organisations group, along with the tourism industry group, therefore, passed a great deal of responsibility on to the authorities to reform regulations and adapt them to the current and forthcoming situations. All three stakeholder groups expressed a wish for behaviour changes regarding water consumption in general, declaring that managerial tools such as bans on irrigation of lawns and gardens were, in their current form, rather ineffective.

3.3.2 Questionnaire

The respondents were asked to rate the level of responsibility of farmers, tourism companies, golf courses, sports facilities, public sector and private sector (other than farmers, tourism, golf etc.). Both groups transferred the responsibility to the other group and the difference between the farming and tourism companies’ views on each other’s responsibility was significant (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.001 and 0.015 respectively). There was no significant difference in their views considering the other industries.

3.4 Behaviour

3.4.1 Focus groups

According to the municipality stakeholders, there was a psychological factor to take into consideration. They discussed the fact that people tended to trivialise their own water consumption and found it easier to acknowledge the impacts from water abstraction in farming or tourism than the impact personal use of water had on the groundwater.

The experience from restrictions and limitations regarding lawn irrigation or using water to fill garden pools was that they would have a better effect if they were combined with other tools. Prohibitions alone tended to be violated, according to the municipality stakeholders. Instead, restrictions and prohibitions needed to be combined with other tools, such as information campaigns, to give mitigating effects.

The municipality stakeholder group had experienced a reduction in water consumption due to their information campaign during the summer of 2016. Their reflection was that when people realised that there was a water shortage, they tended to save water and act responsibly. The public organisations also stressed the importance of advocacy and information campaigns alongside regulatory tools as key components to promote changes in consumption behaviour. The tourism stakeholders shared these opinions, and discussed challenges regarding water consumption. In their view, the process of behavioural change required both awareness and technical changes.

The municipality group was the only group that discussed their own behaviour. This was expressed in a discussion about the municipality’s irrigation of parks and flowerbeds and how the representatives realised that continuing this behaviour while restricting the water use of residents was counter-productive.

3.4.2 Questionnaire

To measure intended behaviour the respondents were asked how committed they were to working with water resources, water management, sustainable development, local society and the local environment. Water resources and water management were issues that most companies, regardless of industry, were committed to working with. They felt a somewhat smaller commitment towards sustainable development and the local environment, and the least commitment towards local society.

3.5 Actions and mitigation measures

3.5.1 Focus groups

The stakeholder groups were asked about the type of actions and measures they thought were needed to ensure good quality water supply.

All three groups pointed out the need for information campaigns. The public organisations and the tourism group also called for a checklist to facilitate for their respective organisations. The need to learn from good examples and see what had been successful for other organisations was highlighted by the tourism group.

One respondent from the municipality stakeholders discussed technical solutions:

As we see it, we need to find ways to save and store the water we get through rain and minimise loss through excess overland flow. We also intend to merge our water distribution systems to even out distribution and minimise our vulnerability. One example is that we had severe problems in some parts of Öland while the situation in southern Öland was ok, no wells dried out there.

Technical solutions were also discussed in the tourism group. Suggestions such as having a water work of one’s own (companies) and minimising water use by using low-flow shower nozzles and low-flush toilets were made. Proposals such as building new water works, connecting different water networks, using storm water for irrigation, desalination as a means to produce drinking water and working as much with water efficiency as is already the case with energy efficiency were made by the municipality and public organisation groups. These suggestions of technical solutions corresponds well with the mitigation measures identified by Sjöstrand et al. (2019) for the island of Gotland.

The municipality stakeholders said they were continuously developing the water supply system and the grid, but with increasing consumption rates this was perceived as an endless task. Everyone needed to take action, industries, farms and private households alike. The municipality stakeholders estimated that private households and small farms accounted for around 75% of all water use in their municipality. The group feared that as long as water was accessible and relatively cheap, abstraction rates would increase. Measures had been taken to ensure access to water by desalination and by constantly upgrading the water supply grid to make it more efficient and reduce waste and leakage. However, there was much to be done regarding regulations and conflicting goals.

A ban on the filling of pools was the most commonly discussed restriction, along with the need to rectify an injustice in that restrictions only applied to companies and not households. The municipalities pointed out that preventing surface water from leaking into the Baltic s, through for example irrigation ponds and wetland restoration, sometimes required permission, especially for surface water in nature reserves or Natura2000 areas where permits were needed and that this procedure took both time and energy.

Behaviour changes were discussed by the municipality and public organisation groups. Behaviour changes were connected to both information campaigns and to technical solutions such as shorter shower periods on campsites. Interestingly, the tourism group did not echo these measures.

Respondents from the tourism group and the public organisations suggested investment grants for businesses with their own waterworks, as well as the introduction of a “tourist fee” for each overnight stay, similar to that of many other tourism areas. The same groups also discussed market-driven solutions such as selling water, as well as highlighting their clean water when marketing the area.

Preventive measures (new solutions to decrease water use): All three groups gave examples of preventive measures, such as learning to accept dry (yellow) grass on golf courses and lawns, changing crops to species that are more resilient to drought and using purified wastewater for irrigation.

3.5.2 Questionnaire

When asked to rank a set of factors according to the priority given in their own company, there was no significant difference between the farming and tourism companies. Direct and local environmental factors were given higher priority (water resources, water management and locally produced food) while global and more distant environmental factors were given low priority (global environment and environmental certification). Farmers and tourism companies differed in their views of sustainable development, energy and safety where farmers ranked these higher than tourism companies did.

When asked about the most effective mitigation measures and the most effective measures taken by local authorities, the difference between farmers and tourism companies was not significant (see Table 2). There was, nonetheless, a tendency for the two industries to have different discourses, as was made salient by a set of open-ended questions.

Table 2 The most effective mitigation measures
Full size table

In a set of open-ended questions (see Table 3), the farmers reported being impacted through lower harvest yields, water shortages for the animals, a need to lower consumption in general, no possibility to irrigate the fields, changing cleaning procedures of stables etc., dried-up wells, worry, increased costs, greater labour intensity and decreased grazing for the livestock.

Table 3 Tourism and farming companies free text comments on their own mitigation measures
Full size table

The main measures they took were to increase the number/volume of dams, the general saving of water and minimising water usage for cleaning stables. Five respondents commented that there was no water shortage and thus no need for measures.

To mitigate water shortage in the long term, farmers tended to refer to tried and tested methods such as building more irrigation ponds and dams, collecting rainwater, and reducing the washing of stables. A few respondents had suggestions for additional preventive measures, such as damming streams and slowing down water before it reached the sea, or making a water management plan for their own farm. A few respondents intended to change their production or reduce the number of animals.

The tourism companies were equally traditional (see Table 3). Most comments referred to toilets and shower nozzles that used less water, as well as timers on showers and taps. Informing customers, using seawater in pools, using less irrigation and saving water in general were common responses. Only a few comments involved new ways of handling water scarcity, such as using the water twice or investing in a private waterworks.

4 Discussion

In areas where the water resource is limited, both residents and companies must make adjustments. The aim of this study was to assess sectoral adaptation to water shortage among tourism and farming companies by comparing awareness and knowledge, perception of responsibility and mitigation measures.

The four categories represent the perception of the current situation and the flow of events that affect the way different actors handle the situation (see Fig. 2). Moving from awareness to actively trying to solve the problem requires a series of steps. The first pre-requisite is awareness, followed by knowledge of the situation and its consequences.

4.1 Awareness/knowledge

The results showed awareness among stakeholders; the current water situation was generally considered problematic and had affected stakeholders in the region. The level of knowledge was relatively high, especially among representatives of the municipalities and among farmers. There was, to some degree, a mutual understanding of the problem and the effects on other sectors. Results from both focus groups and questionnaires emphasised the importance of being aware of the situation as a general entrance to finding solutions for the problem (see Fig. 2). Previous research has shown the importance of information and awareness in order to increase knowledge about water resources (Lambooy, 2011; Lindqvist et al., 2021). However, awareness of a water shortage can lead to different conclusions. Being aware only requires the expectation of an imminent situation; it does not automatically lead to the acknowledgement of the current situation as a continuous problem or a problem that can be affected by individual actions. Nor does it require knowledge about the cause and effect. These results are in line with previous research and show that increased awareness and knowledge must be followed by a sense of responsibility and agency to act (Hofmann et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2016). All stakeholders expressed an ambivalence regarding the cause of the current situation, as well as the responsibility and agency to act within each sector.

Due to previous experience, farming companies were better prepared and less worried about water shortage. The level of knowledge was relatively even between the two groups, albeit slightly higher among the farmers. Both farmers and tourism companies expressed concern about long and short-term consequences of water shortages and drought. Farming companies were more concerned about economic consequences of severe drought than ecologic consequences. One reason was that they were more inclined to see periods of drought as a recurring phenomenon. This was in contrast to the tourism companies.

4.2 Responsibility

To some degree, the stakeholders implied that this was “out of their hands” and that it was the responsibility of other stakeholders to act. There were significant differences in the view of responsibility for mitigating water shortage. Both industries rated their own responsibility lower than that of the other.

Waiting for others to act or blaming others are ways of avoiding responsibility, and similar patterns can be observed for other delicate issues, such as the ‘political blame games’ of climate change (Jamieson, 2010; Schneider, 2014; Bache et al., 2015).

The focus groups showed there were some differences between the groups. Municipality representatives stated that their responsibility was to secure the water supply for their inhabitants. However, representatives from the tourism sector and the public organisations placed more responsibility on other actors, including politicians, universities, wastewater companies, the meat industry and individual households. There is some truth in this, as authorities and politicians have more room for manoeuvre (Stoddart et al., 2012; Mo Jang, 2013; Bouman et al., 2020). On the other hand, it can lead to a form of denial of responsibility that leads to postponing one’s own actions and waiting for someone else to take the first step.

4.3 Behaviour

The focus groups spoke of the responsibility others have to change their behaviour while their own agency was limited. Whether or not they act to change their behaviour, the focus is on other stakeholders, companies or even households. Behavioural changes in others became a discussion that shifted the focus away from self-responsibility. They also stressed the importance of changing consumer behaviour. A pre-requisite for behavioural change, they said, was to increase consumer awareness. Information campaigns were therefore important. Previous research shows that information campaigns are an important tool to increase awareness and knowledge (Hofmann et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2016). However, simply relying on information campaigns is not enough to enforce behavioural change (Lambooy, 2011; Shi et al., 2016).

Both tourism and farming companies were committed to working with water resources and water management. Questionnaire results showed that tourism companies, to a higher degree than farmers, stated that the current water scarcity had induced changes in their own behaviour. One reason was that farming companies were better prepared while the current situation contributed to changes that were more direct for tourism companies.

4.4 Actions/mitigation measures

There was also, among all stakeholder groups, an urge to see improvements to secure water supply in the future. All stakeholders stated that measures to improve their situation and to mitigate the effects of drought either had been implemented or were planned. The municipalities discussed ways of finding more water sources, desalination plants and connecting water supply networks, as well as the possibility of using storm water for irrigation. Both the public organisations and the tourism representatives emphasised the need for information campaigns. They also stressed the importance of regulations for private swimming pools and the use of double water pipes, which enable the use of storm and wastewater for toilets and irrigation. The tourism and public organisations suggested, to a higher extent than municipalities, measures that required political decision making and, as such, these measures became the responsibility of others rather than the sector they represented. This is true, since governments and authorities have a higher degree of agency to act than single business sectors or individual companies. But at the same time it is a way to escape responsibility, as previous research on climate change actions has shown (Jamieson, 2010; Stoddart et al., 2012; Mo Jang, 2013; Schneider, 2014; Bache et al., 2015; Bouman et al., 2020).

There was a higher level of preparation among farming companies. Irrigation ponds and wells had been developed due to previous experiences of water shortages. The current situation had therefore forced tourism companies to take measures that were more reactive since they were to a higher degree “taken by surprise” by the extreme shortage of water. However, tourism companies were more inclined to think “out of the box” by suggesting, for example, recirculation of water. Farming companies, due to previous experience, stated that they knew how to proceed and how to use water more sparsely. Some respondents among the farming companies were reluctant to acknowledge that the problem was increasing and therefore had no incentive to take action.

Stakeholder groups and tourism and farming companies put forward a number of ideas for how to mitigate impacts from water scarcity. Many of these ideas however, relied on other groups taking the first step towards action. Since both tourism and farming are water-consuming activities it is important that measures are coordinated through cross-sector collaborations in order to avoid a blame game situation (Gössling et al., 2012; Cole, 2014; Bache et al., 2015).

The need for cross-sector collaborations was acknowledged. However, actual efforts to start collaborating were limited. Following the steps of Fig. 2, the stakeholder groups, both in the focus groups and in the survey, were somewhere between Behavioural effects and Actions. The complexity of the problem made the result somewhat diverse. In some respects, stakeholders had already taken action, while in others they were waiting for someone else to take the lead.

4.5 Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study was the difficulty in getting both the tourism and agriculture groups to participate equally. One reason for this was the difficulty in reaching the groups at the same time of year. Both industries are busy during the summer and it was not possible to expect them to participate in focus groups or fill out questionnaires during that season. The tourism companies also closed down their operations and went on holiday outside the regular season, which made it difficult to reach them at any other time of the year. Other limitations were the inability to have representatives from both Öland and Gotland present in the focus groups due to practical reason, the difficulty in determining whether the groups were representative and the extent to which self-selection bias affected the study’s results.

5 Conclusion

The farmers on Öland and Gotland were well aware of water scarcity and also knowledgeable about the origins of water scarcity, as well as its connection to climate change. The farmers had extensive experience of dealing with drought and had some well-established tools such as irrigation ponds. The farmers were not particularly concerned about recurring droughts and felt the setback was economic rather than ecological. The tourism companies were less familiar with water scarcity and less prepared. They were less aware, and their level of knowledge regarding the link between climate change and water scarcity was lower than that of the farmers.

Even if their behaviour reflected an insight into their own responsibility, both farming and tourism companies placed the responsibility for water scarcity on actors other than themselves. They mainly blamed each other, reflecting that agriculture and tourism are indeed the two largest consumers of water on the islands, but they also held golf courses, the public sector (i.e. municipalities), the meat industry and politicians responsible.

In the focus groups it was clear that all respondents were more interested in discussing the behaviour of other groups than of their own. The behaviour of the general public was central, with the filling of garden pools and irrigation of lawns at the top of the list. The natural conclusion to these discussions was the need for information campaigns. The self-stated commitment in the questionnaire to working with water scarcity was high for both farming and tourism companies.

Both sectors have taken measures to mitigate. The farmers, with their previous experiences of drought, were more interested in technical solutions and solutions that secured water. In most cases they referred to more of the same solutions that they already used, such as irrigation ponds. The tourism companies also had some technical solutions, such as low-flow toilets and shower nozzles using less water, but they stressed behaviour changes among their clients as the main mitigation measure. The respondents, from all groups and industries, also had a number of ideas for how to work with water scarcity, showing that they had spent some time considering the issue.

A changing climate will make water more scarce in many places of the world. This paper has shown that different industries have different starting points with different levels of knowledge. Also, prior experiences of water shortage may cause stakeholders to rely on previously used methods and inhibit them from using preventive measures. Aiding them to think outside of the box and presenting them with circular solutions or solutions that prevent water shortage in the first place can be an important step towards sustainability. Such solutions can be to simplify the administrative process for permits to prevent surface water from leaking into the Baltics, through irrigation ponds and wetland restoration, or solutions that prevent water shortage in the first place, i.e. such as using purified waste water for irrigation, can be an important step towards sustainability.