Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 3285–3301 | Cite as

Unravelling Stakeholder Perceptions to Enable Adaptive Water Governance in Dryland Systems

  • Gabriel Lopez Porras
  • Lindsay C. Stringer
  • Claire H. Quinn


Adaptive water governance seeks to increase a social-ecological system’s adaptive capacity in the face of uncertainty and change. This is especially important in non-linear dryland systems that are already exposed to water scarcity and increasing degradation. Conservation of water ecosystem services is key for increasing adaptive capacity in drylands, however, how stakeholders perceive water ecosystem services greatly affects how they are managed, as well as the potential for adaptive water governance. This paper focuses on identifying the system’s potential for enabling adaptive water governance by analysing different stakeholder perceptions on water ecosystem services. It takes the Rio del Carmen watershed as a case study, offering important insights for an increasing number of water-scarce regions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in the watershed in order to unravel their perceptions and understand the governance context. We found disparities in how stakeholders perceive water ecosystem services have led to water overexploitation and several conflicts over water access. Our results indicate that stakeholder perceptions have a major influence on the system’s adaptability, as they shape the acquisition of water ecosystem services. Divergent stakeholder perceptions act as an important barrier to collaboration. Generating and sharing knowledge could facilitate the development of a common vision, allowing all actors to co-create information about water ecosystem services and the system state, engaging them in a participatory process, suitable for their context, and that will better support adaptive water governance.


Social-ecological resilience Water scarcity Agricultural systems Knowledge sharing Conflicts Mexico 



The first author acknowledges financial support from CONACYT-SECRETARIA DE ENERGIA-SUSTENTABILIDAD ENERGETICA Grant No. 439115.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest



  1. Athie K (2016) El Agua, ayer y hoy. Camara de Diputados LXIII Legislatura, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard HR (2011) Research methods in anthropology : qualitative and quantitative approaches, 5th edn. AltaMira, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacherjee A (2012) Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices, Book 3. Textbooks CollectionGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnett V (2015) Mennonite Farmers Prepare to Leave Mexico, and Competition for Water. New York Times A6Google Scholar
  5. Chaffin BC, Garmestani AS, Gosnell H, Craig RK (2016) Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River basin, USA. Environ Sci Pol 57:112–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc 19:56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CONABIO (2014) Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. La biodiversidad en Chihuahua: Estudio de Estado. MexicoGoogle Scholar
  8. CONAGUA (2015) Disponibilidad por Acuíferos: Comision Nacional del Agua. Accessed 11 Sep 2017
  9. Cosens B (2015) Application of the Adaptive Water Governance Project to the management of the Lake Eyre Basin and its connections to the Great Artesian Basin, Report to Flinders University and the Goyder Institution. Adelaide, South AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  10. Cosens BA (2013) Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem management. Ecol Soc 18:3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosens BA, Craig RK, Hirsch SL et al (2017) The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecol Soc 22:30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeCaro DA, Chaffin BC, Schlager E et al (2017) Legal and institutional foundations of adaptive environmental governance. Ecol Soc 22:32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diario Oficial de la Federacion (1957) ACUERDO que establece el Distrito de Riego de El Carmen, en San Buenaventura y Villa Ahumada, Chih., y declara de utilidad pública la construcción de las obras que lo formen y la adquisición de los terrenos necesarios para alojarlas y operarlas. Diario Oficial de la Federacion, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  14. Diario Oficial de la Federacion (2015) ACUERDO por el que se actualiza la disponibilidad media anual de agua subterránea de los 653 acuíferos de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, mismos que forman parte de las regiones hidrológico-administrativas que se indican. In: Dir. Gen. la Com. Nac. del Agua, Órgano Adm. Desconcentrado la Secr. Medio Ambient. y Recur. Nat. Accessed 3 Aug 2017
  15. Diario Oficial de la Federacion (1976) RESOLUCION sobre dotación de aguas, solicitada por vecinos del poblado denominado Benito Juarez, antes Enriquez y Punta de Alamos, Municipio de Buenaventura, Chih. In: El Pres. Const. los Estados Unidos Mex. Accessed 8 Sep 2017
  16. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 40:314–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forouzani M, Karami E, Zamani GH, Moghaddam KR (2013) Agricultural water poverty: using Q-methodology to understand stakeholders’ perceptions. J Arid Environ 97:190–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garmestani A, Benson M (2013) A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18:9. Google Scholar
  21. Gunderson LH, Cosens B, Garmestani AS (2016) Adaptive governance of riverine and wetland ecosystem goods and services. J Environ Manag 183:353–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang J, Yu H, Guan X et al (2015) Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6:1–22. Google Scholar
  23. INEGI (2003) Síntesis de Información geográfica del estado de Chihuahua. Aguascalientes, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohlbacher F (2006) The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum Qual Sozialforsch / Forum Qual Soc Res 7:1–30Google Scholar
  25. Manzanares Rivera JL (2016) Hacer florecer al desierto: Análisis sobre la intensidad de uso de los recursos hídricos subterráneos y superficiales en Chihuahua, México. Cuad Desarro Rural 13:35–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin-Ortega J, Ferrier R, Gordon I, Khan S (2015) Water ecosystem services: A global perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Medema W, Adamowski J, Orr C et al (2017) Building a foundation for knowledge co-creation in collaborative water governance: dimensions of stakeholder networks facilitated through bridging organizations. Water 9:60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mortimore M, Anderson S, Union. I--TWC, et al (2009) Dryland opportunities : a new paradigm for people, ecosystems and development. IUCN, IUCN ; London : IIED ; New York : UNDP, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  29. Murillo-Licea D, Soares-Moraes D (2013) El péndulo de la gobernabilidad y la gobernanza del agua en México. Tecnol y Ciencias del Agua 4:149–163Google Scholar
  30. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Österblom H, Folke C (2013) Emergence of global adaptive governance for stewardship of regional marine resources. Ecol Soc 18:4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pahl-Wostl C, Holtz G, Kastens B, Knieper C (2010) Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the management and transition framework. Environ Sci Pol 13:571–581. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prell C, Reed MS, Racin L, Hubacek K (2010) Competing structure, competing views: the role of formal and informal social structures in sahping stakeholder perceptions. Ecol Soc 15:34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quintana VM (2013) Nuevo orden alimentario y disputa por el agua en el norte de México. Apunt Rev Ciencias Soc 40:175–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Safriel U, Adeel Z, Niemeijer D et al (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlüter M, Baeza A, Dressler G et al (2017) A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems. Ecol Econ 131:21–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SEMARNAT (2017) Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Respuesta a solicitud de informacion 0001600286117Google Scholar
  39. Stringer LC, Reed MS, Fleskens L et al (2017) A new dryland development paradigm grounded in empirical analysis of dryland systems science. L Degrad Dev.
  40. Young OR (2010) Institutional dynamics: resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Glob Environ Chang 20:378–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations